Being trans is sufficient for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the DSM, so yes.
The DSM used to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. Are you saying it was until they changed it?
They have published new versions over the years. They're on version 5 by now. Plenty of things have changed.
The argument is that you shouldn't base your position of acceptance on whatever the DSM says because they're demonstrably very fallible, but rather you should use your own arguments instead.
The DSM is fallible. Many of the diagnostic criteria will change in future versions of the DSM. In the future we are going to learn that some aspects of the current manuals are wrong, just as we have for previous ones.
But the people who will find those errors and make those updates will be, and have been, researchers and mental health experts who work in the field and have relevant experience. There's no way that I, as some rando on the internet will have anything insightful to say on the subject. If either of us come to a conclusion that contradicts the DSM, it's far more likely to be we are mistaken in our uninformed opinions.
Regardless, the DSM-5-tr is the manual that is CURRENTLY used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders. My description of the DSM criteria is as accurate as is practical for a single sentence sarcastic comment in response to a meme.
It is possible to accept people, use preferred pronouns and names etc. while also being of the opinion of "technically you're not trans but enby" or something. Some people just have a fetish for precisely defined taxonomies, don't kink-shame.
No. Because they wouldn't be precisely defining anything, since enbys still come under the trans umbrella.
I'm sorry how is clearly delineating a clade (in this case, "trans") not crisp taxonomy.
You might, for example, come across a random dog and say "That's not a Rotweiler that's a dog": It might be another named breed, it might be an incomprehensibly mixed-up street pupper, point is it's not a Rotweiler but still a dog.
Ok, but even if we follow your dehumanising analogy, non-binary people are still trans
So claiming "“technically you’re not trans but enby” is never going to be "precisely defined taxonomy", no matter how much you'd love for transphobes to have their "kink" of deliberately mislabelling people to exclude them from a category they factually belong to.
"all enbies are trans" I mean isn't that like their decision
yeah, i'm NB and i'm not trans...
Transgender = a person who identifies as a different gender to what they were assigned at birth. This includes non binary people, as well as agender, gender non conforming, and so on.
You wanting to exclude yourself from the trans community for whatever reasons (almost certainly a combination of internalised and/or regular old transphobia) doesn't change that.
But hey, don't take my word for it, you could have easily found that out for yourself if you weren't so intent on being "not like other trans people":
Oh wait sorry I assumed the other inclusion direction, that trans folks are enbies -- it's not what you said, but how I would organise the taxonomy if I was the taxonomy Emperor (which I am not). Though just having three categories (cis, trans, enby) without inclusion relation also makes sense.
category they factually belong to
All categories are man-made. Philosophers and Linguists would have a field day with that one.
Let's deescalate a bit. Anecdotal case, please don't ask me for the source, but once upon a time there was someone identifying as a trans man. Got top surgery. After some soul-searching and being thoroughly dissatisfied with the bottom surgery options available, he decided "aw shucks" and decided to henceforth identify as a butch lesbian, saying "The issue wasn't so much having a pussy but having a dick that's not mine in vicinity to it". Goes by she/they.
Cis, enby or trans? Gay or straight? At which point in time? Snowflake? (well, who isn't).
Stuff like that is why it's important to remember to not make categories normative -- both in the "you are X therefore you must do Y" sense, as well as "If it is bipedal and has no feathers then it's a human" kind of sense (which includes plucked chickens, ask Plato). They are descriptive at best, and noone uses the exact same definitions. Some say that's hot tea, other say it's warm. Do we need to wage wars over that while there's people around who deny temperature?
What happened to "That's, you know, your opinion, man"?
Sometimes things change, even institutions.
Ultimately it's none of my business. It's between the trans person and their doctor, as long as they're following best practices and the plan of care is agreed to by the patient and the doctor, I'm good. I don't pretend to know better than someone living that reality. I wish them well and hope their transition goes well and they can find happiness in their body.
...they can find happiness in their body.
See I think that's the most important part and you hit the nail on the head. I transitioned 20 years ago and it was a lot different then. Nowadays everyone has the freedom to just be themselves, and people are getting too hung up on labels and pronouns. If everyone just pursued their own happiness and comfort in their own body, while ignoring the expectations put upon them by social media and society, they'd be a lot happier.
It's like these younger folks feel like there's a check list of things they need to do to "be trans". My brother in Christ just be yourself, and if you wanna call yourself trans in the process then more power to you. There's no rules to happiness beyond not hurting anyone else.
Tl;Dr "An ye harm none, do what ye will."
Thank you... Omg I really needed this comment today 💙
Honestly, I've been feeling this way a lot lately. Especially with the labels and and pronouns part. I'll call anyone what they want, and I'm not gonna beleive they're not that, but some things are getting a bit ridiculous.
Like not to long ago I learned a new term, I don't remember what it is, but it was basically a word to describe somes sexuality when you don't know what their sexuality is. Like someone asks Bob what sexuality Greg is, and they don't know for certain.
But A) The term used an acronym for not/non and put it at the beginning of asexual, so it was not not asexual... or just sexual... I guess.
B) If someone asks, you can just say you don't know. We don't need a word to describe someone's sexuality as "I don't know."
I'm trying not to sound like an old person, and I do get why a lot of terms are uses. But it seems like every few months I hear about a new one, and it just seems like someone made it just to have a new term. I like that people are exploring and we are learning more
Other posts I've seen are things like "Can get guys/lesbians be gay guys/lesbians if they like non-binary people?"... Sure, why not? If someone wants to still use the term gay or lesbian, cool. If they think that puts them more towards bi to an extent, cool.
"Bi is transphobic, and if you would date trans people you're actually pan" Or they just grew up with the term bi, and that's how they identify. It's not an issue.
I'm just waiting for the day when I get called transphobic for being gay, which means I only date men and not trans men, so that I can point out that trans men are men, and we don't need to make it more complicated than just gay.
I agree with nearly all of your post except "being gay, which means I only date men and not trans men". That's completely valid that it is your preference, but many men identify as gay and do date trans men. They don't need to change their label or use another word to express that they are open to transmen.
Oh yeah, I'm not denying those men exist. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if some people start saying that like they do about people identifying as bi.
Oh I understand you now
It’s between the trans person and their doctor
A trans person can shoot dutasteride directly into their eyeball if they want or gurgle horse urine against the specific advice of a physician and it would still be fine.
I think the thrust of their point is it's between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things. The state should not be prescribing what they can/can't do in this domain and getting in the way of their relationship with their doctor. Much like the argument that keeping a pregnancy/aborting is between a pregnant individual and their doctor. It's a shorthand way of putting it we all sort of get. Yes they should be able to do it because it's their body but generally the whole thing involves a doctor one way or another.
I think the thrust of their point is it's between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things.
And my point is it isn't.
Saying, "It's between an individual and their doctor." implies there could be a time when a person wants to ingest something or do something to their body that affects nobody but them (vaccinations I still advocate the administration of at gunpoint) and they shouldn't be allowed to because a doctor said no.
Doctors are their to advise, but not at the level of the individual to consent.
By all means keep antibiotics behind a key, but if a person wants to eat paint chips doctors should be there to monitor their blood for lead and explain why they maybe shouldn't, not to stop them.
When did I say a doctor can override a patient? That’s not remotely the standard of care in the US. Calling that a red herring is generous.
When did I say a doctor can override a patient?
"it's between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things."
It isn't. It's between an individual and their damn self.
Alright I can tell when a conversation isn’t productive anymore. Have a good rest of your weekend.
Alright I can tell when a conversation isn’t productive anymore.
When you stop listening?
I explained very clearly why the implications of the position you took were harmful.
I didn’t stop listening. I read what you wrote. You are not entitled to my attention, to be blunt. And vice versa!
This is a fight now, it’s not a discussion. We both made our cases, we both processed the other’s argument (I hope), and we both still disagree. Let’s just move on.
So much for leaving, huh?
This is a fight now
Only because you're making it one.
You are some petty. Have a good one.
I'm petty? You're the one who's keeping this going.
Not trying to pick fights here.
before i was officially out, the first person i told was my mechanic... and they brought it up. and you know what they did? they asked if i went by a different name and they changed it and called me that with the new pronouns
basically what im saying is that if that complete stranger can do it anyone can so stop being a dick to trans people, transphobes
How were you so intimate with your mechanic? Do you drive a Range Rover?
maybe a volkswagen
Man I wish I had time to worry about shit like this. Like get a fucking hobby if all you can think about is other people living their lives.
Imagine trying to fit the infinite variations of self into only 2 boxes. Be yourself, the world is fake.
The first rule of being trans is to always have fun :)
That's why they call it trans B-)
One time a truscum told me "I can't me Transphobic, I'm trans, you're stupid" she was incorrect, and she was one of the biggest transphobes I ever met (she insulted many trans women claiming they "sound like men" and that they "weren't even trying" what an absolute asshole she was SMH.
sandwich
Tranwich
Is this wrong?
Yes, e.g. if you have transitioned you should ideally feel less yo no dysphoria.
Then again, I have very little life experience on that subject.
I would guess that someone who actively does what they feel like should also feel less since they are not forced into something they do not like. And some base amount of dysphoria in life is "surely" normal.
You don't even have to experience dysphoria before transitioning
In my case, I never felt distress from my agab but have experienced euphoria. For info, I am trans NB, but still relatively early in transition.
Kids sexuality, who they choose to fuck and how they want to look, just isn't anyone else's business, always has been a perfect signal later for broken toxic people, and now right wing bigots won't shut up about it. Grow up. Yes I am telling an entire political party to grow up. It's been an issue too long, if you really can't stop your poisoned voter base and media followers to stop being this cringe, you just have to start over then. Disassociate with them. It's over, this is such an annoying childish issue to be hearing over and over and I don't even live in your country. Please for the love of God stop allowing wounded babies to politicise kids sexuality. It's so tiring that none of you stop the fucking madness and approach normal political discussion when this happens. Just don't engage. Say "no" to the bigot and engage another more grownup in debate instead.
dawg you can be trans for funsies, gender can eat my entire ass. everyone is better off when we aren't gender-policing every goddam thing
But then who will we sell pink hammers to??
Me, I like pink, it's such a strong color it doesn't need to be in the rainbow club
Hello, I would like to buy your entire shipment of pink hammers
Who’s that?
Pink
This, a hundred times over.
Being trans is sufficient for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the DSM, so yes.
The DSM used to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. Are you saying it was until they changed it?
They have published new versions over the years. They're on version 5 by now. Plenty of things have changed.
The argument is that you shouldn't base your position of acceptance on whatever the DSM says because they're demonstrably very fallible, but rather you should use your own arguments instead.
The DSM is fallible. Many of the diagnostic criteria will change in future versions of the DSM. In the future we are going to learn that some aspects of the current manuals are wrong, just as we have for previous ones.
But the people who will find those errors and make those updates will be, and have been, researchers and mental health experts who work in the field and have relevant experience. There's no way that I, as some rando on the internet will have anything insightful to say on the subject. If either of us come to a conclusion that contradicts the DSM, it's far more likely to be we are mistaken in our uninformed opinions.
Regardless, the DSM-5-tr is the manual that is CURRENTLY used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders. My description of the DSM criteria is as accurate as is practical for a single sentence sarcastic comment in response to a meme.
It is possible to accept people, use preferred pronouns and names etc. while also being of the opinion of "technically you're not trans but enby" or something. Some people just have a fetish for precisely defined taxonomies, don't kink-shame.
No. Because they wouldn't be precisely defining anything, since enbys still come under the trans umbrella.
I'm sorry how is clearly delineating a clade (in this case, "trans") not crisp taxonomy.
You might, for example, come across a random dog and say "That's not a Rotweiler that's a dog": It might be another named breed, it might be an incomprehensibly mixed-up street pupper, point is it's not a Rotweiler but still a dog.
Ok, but even if we follow your dehumanising analogy, non-binary people are still trans
So claiming "“technically you’re not trans but enby” is never going to be "precisely defined taxonomy", no matter how much you'd love for transphobes to have their "kink" of deliberately mislabelling people to exclude them from a category they factually belong to.
"all enbies are trans" I mean isn't that like their decision
yeah, i'm NB and i'm not trans...
Transgender = a person who identifies as a different gender to what they were assigned at birth. This includes non binary people, as well as agender, gender non conforming, and so on.
You wanting to exclude yourself from the trans community for whatever reasons (almost certainly a combination of internalised and/or regular old transphobia) doesn't change that.
But hey, don't take my word for it, you could have easily found that out for yourself if you weren't so intent on being "not like other trans people":
https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/frequently-asked-questions-2
https://www.transhub.org.au/101/what-is-trans
https://lgbt.foundation/help/what-it-means-to-be-non-binary/
TL;DR
Oh wait sorry I assumed the other inclusion direction, that trans folks are enbies -- it's not what you said, but how I would organise the taxonomy if I was the taxonomy Emperor (which I am not). Though just having three categories (cis, trans, enby) without inclusion relation also makes sense.
All categories are man-made. Philosophers and Linguists would have a field day with that one.
Let's deescalate a bit. Anecdotal case, please don't ask me for the source, but once upon a time there was someone identifying as a trans man. Got top surgery. After some soul-searching and being thoroughly dissatisfied with the bottom surgery options available, he decided "aw shucks" and decided to henceforth identify as a butch lesbian, saying "The issue wasn't so much having a pussy but having a dick that's not mine in vicinity to it". Goes by she/they.
Cis, enby or trans? Gay or straight? At which point in time? Snowflake? (well, who isn't).
Stuff like that is why it's important to remember to not make categories normative -- both in the "you are X therefore you must do Y" sense, as well as "If it is bipedal and has no feathers then it's a human" kind of sense (which includes plucked chickens, ask Plato). They are descriptive at best, and noone uses the exact same definitions. Some say that's hot tea, other say it's warm. Do we need to wage wars over that while there's people around who deny temperature?
What happened to "That's, you know, your opinion, man"?
Sometimes things change, even institutions.
Ultimately it's none of my business. It's between the trans person and their doctor, as long as they're following best practices and the plan of care is agreed to by the patient and the doctor, I'm good. I don't pretend to know better than someone living that reality. I wish them well and hope their transition goes well and they can find happiness in their body.
See I think that's the most important part and you hit the nail on the head. I transitioned 20 years ago and it was a lot different then. Nowadays everyone has the freedom to just be themselves, and people are getting too hung up on labels and pronouns. If everyone just pursued their own happiness and comfort in their own body, while ignoring the expectations put upon them by social media and society, they'd be a lot happier.
It's like these younger folks feel like there's a check list of things they need to do to "be trans". My brother in Christ just be yourself, and if you wanna call yourself trans in the process then more power to you. There's no rules to happiness beyond not hurting anyone else.
Tl;Dr "An ye harm none, do what ye will."
Thank you... Omg I really needed this comment today 💙
Honestly, I've been feeling this way a lot lately. Especially with the labels and and pronouns part. I'll call anyone what they want, and I'm not gonna beleive they're not that, but some things are getting a bit ridiculous.
Like not to long ago I learned a new term, I don't remember what it is, but it was basically a word to describe somes sexuality when you don't know what their sexuality is. Like someone asks Bob what sexuality Greg is, and they don't know for certain.
But A) The term used an acronym for not/non and put it at the beginning of asexual, so it was not not asexual... or just sexual... I guess.
B) If someone asks, you can just say you don't know. We don't need a word to describe someone's sexuality as "I don't know."
I'm trying not to sound like an old person, and I do get why a lot of terms are uses. But it seems like every few months I hear about a new one, and it just seems like someone made it just to have a new term. I like that people are exploring and we are learning more
Other posts I've seen are things like "Can get guys/lesbians be gay guys/lesbians if they like non-binary people?"... Sure, why not? If someone wants to still use the term gay or lesbian, cool. If they think that puts them more towards bi to an extent, cool.
"Bi is transphobic, and if you would date trans people you're actually pan" Or they just grew up with the term bi, and that's how they identify. It's not an issue.
I'm just waiting for the day when I get called transphobic for being gay, which means I only date men and not trans men, so that I can point out that trans men are men, and we don't need to make it more complicated than just gay.
I agree with nearly all of your post except "being gay, which means I only date men and not trans men". That's completely valid that it is your preference, but many men identify as gay and do date trans men. They don't need to change their label or use another word to express that they are open to transmen.
Oh yeah, I'm not denying those men exist. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if some people start saying that like they do about people identifying as bi.
Oh I understand you now
A trans person can shoot dutasteride directly into their eyeball if they want or gurgle horse urine against the specific advice of a physician and it would still be fine.
I think the thrust of their point is it's between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things. The state should not be prescribing what they can/can't do in this domain and getting in the way of their relationship with their doctor. Much like the argument that keeping a pregnancy/aborting is between a pregnant individual and their doctor. It's a shorthand way of putting it we all sort of get. Yes they should be able to do it because it's their body but generally the whole thing involves a doctor one way or another.
And my point is it isn't.
Saying, "It's between an individual and their doctor." implies there could be a time when a person wants to ingest something or do something to their body that affects nobody but them (vaccinations I still advocate the administration of at gunpoint) and they shouldn't be allowed to because a doctor said no.
Doctors are their to advise, but not at the level of the individual to consent.
By all means keep antibiotics behind a key, but if a person wants to eat paint chips doctors should be there to monitor their blood for lead and explain why they maybe shouldn't, not to stop them.
When did I say a doctor can override a patient? That’s not remotely the standard of care in the US. Calling that a red herring is generous.
It isn't. It's between an individual and their damn self.
Alright I can tell when a conversation isn’t productive anymore. Have a good rest of your weekend.
When you stop listening?
I explained very clearly why the implications of the position you took were harmful.
I didn’t stop listening. I read what you wrote. You are not entitled to my attention, to be blunt. And vice versa!
This is a fight now, it’s not a discussion. We both made our cases, we both processed the other’s argument (I hope), and we both still disagree. Let’s just move on.
So much for leaving, huh?
Only because you're making it one.
You are some petty. Have a good one.
I'm petty? You're the one who's keeping this going.
Not trying to pick fights here.
before i was officially out, the first person i told was my mechanic... and they brought it up. and you know what they did? they asked if i went by a different name and they changed it and called me that with the new pronouns
basically what im saying is that if that complete stranger can do it anyone can so stop being a dick to trans people, transphobes
How were you so intimate with your mechanic? Do you drive a Range Rover?
maybe a volkswagen
Man I wish I had time to worry about shit like this. Like get a fucking hobby if all you can think about is other people living their lives.
Imagine trying to fit the infinite variations of self into only 2 boxes. Be yourself, the world is fake.
The first rule of being trans is to always have fun :)
That's why they call it trans B-)
One time a truscum told me "I can't me Transphobic, I'm trans, you're stupid" she was incorrect, and she was one of the biggest transphobes I ever met (she insulted many trans women claiming they "sound like men" and that they "weren't even trying" what an absolute asshole she was SMH.
sandwich
Tranwich
Is this wrong?
Yes, e.g. if you have transitioned you should ideally feel less yo no dysphoria. Then again, I have very little life experience on that subject. I would guess that someone who actively does what they feel like should also feel less since they are not forced into something they do not like. And some base amount of dysphoria in life is "surely" normal.
You don't even have to experience dysphoria before transitioning
In my case, I never felt distress from my agab but have experienced euphoria. For info, I am trans NB, but still relatively early in transition.
Kids sexuality, who they choose to fuck and how they want to look, just isn't anyone else's business, always has been a perfect signal later for broken toxic people, and now right wing bigots won't shut up about it. Grow up. Yes I am telling an entire political party to grow up. It's been an issue too long, if you really can't stop your poisoned voter base and media followers to stop being this cringe, you just have to start over then. Disassociate with them. It's over, this is such an annoying childish issue to be hearing over and over and I don't even live in your country. Please for the love of God stop allowing wounded babies to politicise kids sexuality. It's so tiring that none of you stop the fucking madness and approach normal political discussion when this happens. Just don't engage. Say "no" to the bigot and engage another more grownup in debate instead.