Transgendered discussion (split from HoS)

[Spoonist]

Just a quick question here. If I read that summary of the study right then we suddenly have a way to test for transgenderism? That would be great news. I ask because in the olden days there was a problem with a few people post-op wanting to reverse the op and after being asked why it turns out they where trans for other reasons than gender identification (usually childhood trauma from their own gender, resulting in not wanting to be their own gender instead of wanting to be the other, but also ordinary homosexuals wanting to be more accepted by society). Those cases has made it much harder for transgendered getting in line for an op since the system want to make really sure they do it for the right reasons. But if we have a test then that could ease up the process.
Or is there something I'm missing here?`


Oh and Paula42, I mean one or two spelling errors one could ignore but your posts are full of them, for fucks sake run them through a spellchecker to weed them out.

[Serafina]

Paula, in order to advance your argument that transwomen are different from both men and women and effectively constitute a third gender (and transmen presumably a forth, tough you are still ignoring them so far), you would have to do the following (not that you've taken my last advice):

Show that there are inmutable differences in the brain between cis- and transsexual people and that transsexual people are "in-between".
So far, you have not done that. While the claim that transsexual people start out in between has validity (and is confirmed by studies), other studies have shown that those differences are eliminated by hormone treatments (who actually change brain structure). In addition, there are certain regions which are 100% female/male even before hormone treatment and are not changed by it at all.
You would have to show that there are some features that are not changed by hormone treatment and do not start out female/male. So far, no such feature has been discovered to my knowledge.

Even if you have shown that, this does not constitute proof that transsexual people constitute a third gender. Even if the brain of a transman only ends up, say, 90% male, which is technically in-between, this does not justify the classification as an entirely different third gender. However, without such evidence, there is simply no scientifc basis for your claim at all.
Therefore, you first have to present a definition of gender and then you have to show that being slightly different from other women or men justifies re-classification into anther category (in this case, gender). However, it is likely that any definition which justifes such re-classification would also re-classifiy many non-transsexual or transgendered people into such a third (fourth) gender.


Put simply, you do lack both foundations for any sort of argument, much less for a theory: You lack both evidence and definition.
Compared to that, i have both:

My theory: There are two large gender-categories which we know as male/man and female/woman. Membership in each category is due to certain features of the brain, which include the BSTc and INAH3, but exclude most of the brain. I have presented evidence for this.
If we include the rest of the brain into this definition, then it is legitimate to claim that a transwoman starts out different from a woman and a transman different from a man. However, other studies have shown that they end up more-or-less indistinguishable. Therefore, it is not possible to claim that there is a third gender category to which transsexual people belong. However, if some other people have BSTcs/INAH3s that are actuall in-between those of men and women, their classification as a third gender might be justified - but this is not the subject of this debate.
I have now defined these two super-categories, to which essentially very human being belongs. I have shown how transwomen classify as women and transmen as men. Several sub-categories can be made, such as for sexual orientation or various gender expressions. Transsexual could be one such sub-category. However, the members of these sub-categories still belong to the super-categories male and female.

There, that's my theory. It has scientific backup and has a solid definition for it's (relevant) categories. If i would have to describe myself by it, i would do the following:
Class: Female
Order: Transwoman
Family: Lesbian
Genus: Feminine
Species: Adult (post-puberty, pre-menopause)
or something similar. All of the above are attributes that are relevant to my gender, i sorted them in the order of relevance (more or less)

Edit: I rewrote my own taxonomic classification ( ) to be more similar to something that would be used in biology. Not that the particular order matters.

[Broomstick]

Just a quick question here. If I read that summary of the study right then we suddenly have a way to test for transgenderism? That would be great news. I ask because in the olden days there was a problem with a few people post-op wanting to reverse the op and after being asked why it turns out they where trans for other reasons than gender identification (usually childhood trauma from their own gender, resulting in not wanting to be their own gender instead of wanting to be the other, but also ordinary homosexuals wanting to be more accepted by society). Those cases has made it much harder for transgendered getting in line for an op since the system want to make really sure they do it for the right reasons. But if we have a test then that could ease up the process.
Or is there something I'm missing here?`

This is only testable with an autopsy, so it's not practical to determine the cis/trans status of living human beings.

[Todeswind]

I'm entering this debate late so I apologize in advance if I'm retreading ground that's already been trodden to death but I don't feel his classification of transgendered females as being a "third" sex to be derogatory. In fact there are numerous societies, the most publicized of which being Thailand, that do classify it as such.

Why do they do so? It's simple really, although the physical changes are being done to help the transgendered person reach what they believe is their "ideal" gender their reproductive role remains the same biologically speaking. Until we find some way of surgically reproducing the reproductive roles of women transgender surgery is, for lack of a better word, a cosmetic body modification. A male to female conversion does not have functioning ovaries and a female to male conversion does not have a functioning penis.

Psychologically and cosmetically they have redefined themselves and thus it would be, as you stated, disrespectful not to use to pronouns of choice of the "man" or "woman" in question and if they ever figure out a way to replicate the reproductive organs they so desperately want then more power to them but defining them by their biological limitations isn't disrespectful it's simply honest. However we may define man and woman socially their biological definitions are not so progressive.

[Simon_Jester]

The practical problem with this is that when we pass a law, when we put "male," "female," or if you prefer, "other" on someone's identification papers, we are creating social consequences for them, singling them out for treatment as whatever it says they are on the card.

The "biological definitions" you cite, Todeswind, are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to day to day behavior: someone looking at your driver's license generally doesn't have an urgent need to know anything about your genitals. The only practical consequence of making transsexuals put something down on their paperwork that registers them as "other" is to identify them as transsexuals to the community... and there is no legitimate reason to do that. All it does is expose them to discrimination from people who see them as freaks, with no corresponding benefit.

So while in some sense it may be "honest," there's no reason to impose it and every reason for the people you impose it on not to want to be identified as a 'third sex.' It serves no purpose but to stigmatize them: literally, to mark them with something that makes some fraction of the people they deal with despise them.

We don't expect the average citizen's ID to contain information that says whether or not they have fully functioning genitals- no one expects men to have little markers on their driver's licenses that say "I for Impotent" or the like. So why should such a requirement about the state of the genitalia be a requirement for transsexuals, when it isn't a requirement for anyone else?

[Todeswind]

Socially you're right, it isn't anyone's goddamn business what genitals you have, if you want to be called "him," "her," "it," or "snookie" that's your prerogative.

Social conventions are not always practical when enacted as legal ones. We also don't allow people who have cosmetic surgery to make themselves closer to what they feel is their "true animal" self to list their species as Shark or Cat. It's not very nice to say it I'll grant you but Transgender surgery is at best a cosmetic process. People go in for cosmetic surgery all the time because it allows them to better express who they believe themselves to be but changing your outward appearance does not change your biology no matter how desperately you may wish for it to. If they figure out a way to either artificially create or transplant functioning sexual organs onto someone of a different gender more power to them, I wish them the best of luck.

We do not list their genitalia as Male or Female on a licensee for the purposes of determining their breeding potential. We do it for three reasons none of which have to do with if you're genitals work but that are relevant to the transgendered. Firstly it is done for background checks so that the police can, if they arrest you, find out if you have any priors. Secondly the listing of facts about you is also done for the protection of your identity in the event your licensee is stolen. The last and most important reason they list your age, name, blood-type, and sex is so that if you are in an accident they can provide you with the proper medical care in the event you are unable to provide medical history. People who have undergone transgender surgery are at risk for any number of potential medical complications from the mixing of otherwise harmless or beneficial pharmaceuticals because of the cocktails of hormones they are already taking. I suppose this could be circumvented by the use of some form of medical ID bracelet but tagging the Transgendered in this manner feels more invasive and not less so.

[Broomstick]

The last and most important reason they list your age, name, blood-type, and sex is so that if you are in an accident they can provide you with the proper medical care in the event you are unable to provide medical history.

Are you aware that listing of blood type on ID is by no means universal?

People who have undergone transgender surgery are at risk for any number of potential medical complications from the mixing of otherwise harmless or beneficial pharmaceuticals because of the cocktails of hormones they are already taking.

Oh, please - by that rationale so is every cis-woman taking hormones to prevent pregnancy, or treat various disorders. Every cis-man taking androgen suppressants for prostate problems, or taking testosterone due to testicular injury or insufficiency. I don't know what sort of "cocktail" you think the transgendered are on, but post-surgery it's my understanding that it's about the same "cocktail" a post-hysterectomy cis-woman is likely to be on.

[Todeswind]

The last and most important reason they list your age, name, blood-type, and sex is so that if you are in an accident they can provide you with the proper medical care in the event you are unable to provide medical history.

Are you aware that listing of blood type on ID is by no means universal?

No it isn't, at least on the ID itself, some states being backwards on this. Most licenses do have this, especially if you're an organ donor.

People who have undergone transgender surgery are at risk for any number of potential medical complications from the mixing of otherwise harmless or beneficial pharmaceuticals because of the cocktails of hormones they are already taking.

Oh, please - by that rationale so is every cis-woman taking hormones to prevent pregnancy, or treat various disorders. Every cis-man taking androgen suppressants for prostate problems, or taking testosterone due to testicular injury or insufficiency. I don't know what sort of "cocktail" you think the transgendered are on, but post-surgery it's my understanding that it's about the same "cocktail" a post-hysterectomy cis-woman is likely to be on.

They're also on any number of steroids, hormones, pain killers, and anti-biotics to make sure that there aren't any complications, and a number of other supplements are taken for the rest of their lives. One of the serious dangers faced by the transgendered is complications due to their own hormone treatments which are potentially lethal at the best of times, some 5-10% of transexuals suffer serious side effects just from the hormone treatments (though admittedly fewer of them are lethal). And yes there are chemicals that, although part of normal medical treatments for any number of conditions, will potentially react differently or not react at all when exposed to them. The chemical transition is delicate and adding the wrong substance can cause anything from terrible acne to thromboembolic disease. The transgenered are at a risk of blood clots at the best of times and far too many have died on an operating table because they were given the wrong treatment after an accident.

If you have diabetes, a heart condition, or otherwise you want your doctor to be able to know about it so you can be properly diagnosed. An overabundance or under-abundance of hormones will be noticed in blood tests and potentially grossly misdiagnosed, especially in emergency situations.

[Simon_Jester]

If you have diabetes, a heart condition, or otherwise you want your doctor to be able to know about it so you can be properly diagnosed. An overabundance or under-abundance of hormones will be noticed in blood tests and potentially grossly misdiagnosed, especially in emergency situations.

Do you advocate making it a legal requirement for people with heart conditions and such to carry evidence of this on their ID?

If not, why are transgendered people any different, given that they have far more interest in concealing their status as transgendered than diabetics do in concealing their status as diabetics? And given that what you propose (marking their sex as "other") is far more degrading than is marking someone as "warning: diabetic?"

I can't shake the feeling there's a double standard here.

[Todeswind]

If you have diabetes, a heart condition, or otherwise you want your doctor to be able to know about it so you can be properly diagnosed. An overabundance or under-abundance of hormones will be noticed in blood tests and potentially grossly misdiagnosed, especially in emergency situations.

Do you advocate making it a legal requirement for people with heart conditions and such to carry evidence of this on their ID?

Yes I do. Most serious diabetics already do carry some way of identifying them as such, wristbands pendants etc. but as I stated earlier tagging the transexuals with wristbands feels a bit squicky.

I'm of the opinion that licenses should have a barcode on the back of them with basic medical information about their carrier.

[Simon_Jester]

If you have diabetes, a heart condition, or otherwise you want your doctor to be able to know about it so you can be properly diagnosed. An overabundance or under-abundance of hormones will be noticed in blood tests and potentially grossly misdiagnosed, especially in emergency situations.

Do you advocate making it a legal requirement for people with heart conditions and such to carry evidence of this on their ID?

Yes I do. Most serious diabetics already do carry some way of identifying them as such, wristbands pendants etc. but as I stated earlier tagging the transexuals with wristbands feels a bit squicky.

I'm of the opinion that licenses should have a barcode on the back of them with basic medical information about their carrier.

So you don't get a choice about whether or not to make this information available for your own good?

And you don't get a choice about whether to make it obvious to everyone, even people who have no legitimate interest in knowing your medical condition? I mean, once again, marking someone's sex as "other" in official records is not on par with having a barcode on the back of their driver's license that says "A- type blood, diabetic, allergic to iodine."

It's a much more profound statement about their identity to say "neither a man nor a woman" about someone who considers themself to be a man than it is to say "is a diabetic" in the barcode on their driver's license.

If making sure medical information is available to care providers is all there is to it, why do something so obtrusive and degrading?

EDIT: For that matter, given cases on record of transsexuals being denied medical treatment due to bias, for all I know they'd be better off taking their chances of an adverse medical reaction with someone who doesn't know their condition than risking being turned away by someone who does...

[Todeswind]

]So you don't get a choice about whether or not to make this information available for your own good?

And you don't get a choice about whether to make it obvious to everyone, even people who have no legitimate interest in knowing your medical condition? I mean, once again, marking someone's sex as "other" in official records is not on par with having a barcode on the back of their driver's license that says "A- type blood, diabetic, allergic to iodine."

It's a much more profound statement about their identity to say "neither a man nor a woman" about someone who considers themself to be a man than it is to say "is a diabetic" in the barcode on their driver's license.

It's medically relevant. I'm sorry if there are assholes in the world and I do believe that Transexuals should not be declined for medical care simply because of their transexual status but this is as relevant and pertinent to proper medical care as knowing if someone is or is not allergic to penicillin or what their blood type is. It simply is.

If making sure medical information is available to care providers is all there is to it, why do something so obtrusive and degrading?

EDIT: For that matter, given cases on record of transsexuals being denied medical treatment due to bias, for all I know they'd be better off taking their chances of an adverse medical reaction with someone who doesn't know their condition than risking being turned away by someone who does...

I originally gave three reasons why the sex of a person is listed on the drivers license, Emergency medical care was only one of the three. The other two had to do with the ability for police to do background checks and other evidentiary procedures (excluding suspects and so on) and the protection against identity theft. I'm sorry but you simply aren't entitled to conceal prior aliases from the police if they do a background check. Perhaps listing this as a third sex on licenses is not the way to go but the alternative to me seems like listing the original sex on the licensee.

[Broomstick]

Yes I do. Most serious diabetics already do carry some way of identifying them as such, wristbands pendants etc. but as I stated earlier tagging the transexuals with wristbands feels a bit squicky.

Really? Because I know a lot of diabetics, and maybe 1 or 2 (out of a couple dozen) carry anything on them to indicate that they're diabetic. (In both cases they're insulin users and far more concerned about the police hassling them over having syringes than over potential complications of medical care)

I'm of the opinion that licenses should have a barcode on the back of them with basic medical information about their carrier.

There is a marked difference between a bar code which can only be read by a machine and making a statement such as "Other" under gender that everybody can plainly see.

Transgendered status is and should be confidential medical information accessible only to those who have an actual, legitimate need to know.

[Broomstick]

They're also on any number of steroids, hormones, pain killers, and anti-biotics to make sure that there aren't any complications, and a number of other supplements are taken for the rest of their lives.

First of all "steroid" and "hormone" is probably redundant in regards to what is given to transsexuals.

Second, I demand a cite that that they are on painkillers and antibiotics for life as you imply and not just post-operatively. Seriously, what possible reason would there be for that once they are healed from surgery?

[Todeswind]

They're also on any number of steroids, hormones, pain killers, and anti-biotics to make sure that there aren't any complications, and a number of other supplements are taken for the rest of their lives.

First of all "steroid" and "hormone" is probably redundant in regards to what is given to transsexuals.

Second, I demand a cite that that they are on painkillers and antibiotics for life as you imply and not just post-operatively. Seriously, what possible reason would there be for that once they are healed from surgery?

The sentence was poorly worded.

What I intended to say was. They're also on any number of steroids, hormones, pain killers, and anti-biotics for a long time after the surgery itself to make sure that there aren't any complications. Not to meantion a number of other supplements are taken for the rest of their lives also capable of causing complications.

[Serafina]

I'm entering this debate late so I apologize in advance if I'm retreading ground that's already been trodden to death but I don't feel his classification of transgendered females as being a "third" sex to be derogatory. In fact there are numerous societies, the most publicized of which being Thailand, that do classify it as such.

Why do they do so? It's simple really, although the physical changes are being done to help the transgendered person reach what they believe is their "ideal" gender their reproductive role remains the same biologically speaking. Until we find some way of surgically reproducing the reproductive roles of women transgender surgery is, for lack of a better word, a cosmetic body modification. A male to female conversion does not have functioning ovaries and a female to male conversion does not have a functioning penis.

Psychologically and cosmetically they have redefined themselves and thus it would be, as you stated, disrespectful not to use to pronouns of choice of the "man" or "woman" in question and if they ever figure out a way to replicate the reproductive organs they so desperately want then more power to them but defining them by their biological limitations isn't disrespectful it's simply honest. However we may define man and woman socially their biological definitions are not so progressive.

Why the hell do you boil it down to "reproductive role"? What about an infertile man - is he not a man? What about a woman after her menopause - is she no longer a woman? What about gay and lesbian people - does the form of relationship they seek disqualify them for being man and women, too?

There's simply much more to being male or female than "reproductive role". We don't disqualify cissexual people from these roles if one of these criteria don't apply, why should we disqualify transsexual people?

Also, i think this is remarkably close to a "god of the gaps"-fallacy: You are looking for gaps that allow you to differentiate transwomen from ciswomen (and transmen from cismen). You can typically observe how these gaps get closer and closer. The typical reaction after the reproduction-claim has been debunked would be to go on to genetics. Basically, your argument relies on gaps that are getting smaller and smaller.


There are two reasons why i object to the "third gender claim":
First, there is simply no evidene that there is a clear distinction between "male" "female" and "other". We can draw a clear disctinction between the first two, but not between any of those and the last one. Third gender roles in societies are generally no different from special roles that are taken by male of female individuals - such as exclusively lesbian priestresses, or eunuchs, or chaste priests etc. You can't base a broad claim about an entirely different "base gender" on their existence. You might argue that one of the many sub-categories of gender (male and female being the super-category) is different for them, but even there i have never seen anything even remotely close to solid evidence.
Second, making that third gender official policy is basically an open door for discrimination. Members of that "third gender" would be a severe minority - and a clearly visible one. Not because they are naturally visible, but because your law forced them to be visible. It also creates problems with gender-specific institutions: Men and women are equaly large groups, it's easy to provide equal services to both. Your "third gender" would be a very small group, it would be very hard to provide equal services for them.

Also, the "third gender"-claim is just a covered "you're not a woman!" in about 90% of the cases (and the rest is ambigous), coupled with a demand that i should not live the way i do.

Social conventions are not always practical when enacted as legal ones. We also don't allow people who have cosmetic surgery to make themselves closer to what they feel is their "true animal" self to list their species as Shark or Cat. It's not very nice to say it I'll grant you but Transgender surgery is at best a cosmetic process. People go in for cosmetic surgery all the time because it allows them to better express who they believe themselves to be but changing your outward appearance does not change your biology no matter how desperately you may wish for it to. If they figure out a way to either artificially create or transplant functioning sexual organs onto someone of a different gender more power to them, I wish them the best of luck.

The reason why we don't allow people "to be animals" (wherever THAT came from ) is simple: There is absolutely no evidence that they actually ARE animals. On the other hand, there is a LOT of evidence that transsexual people are actually members of the gender they identify with. Not just the brain-related evidence presented above, but also a lot of psychological evidence.
As for "it's just cosmetic" - sure it is. It's also fully functional (in the case of transwomen at least). I fail to see how "it's only cosmetic" is any sort of argument whatsoever - i think this is just a genetic fallacy (appealing to somethings origins instead of adressing it's curent state).

. People who have undergone transgender surgery are at risk for any number of potential medical complications from the mixing of otherwise harmless or beneficial pharmaceuticals because of the cocktails of hormones they are already taking. I suppose this could be circumvented by the use of some form of medical ID bracelet but tagging the Transgendered in this manner feels more invasive and not less so.

Do you know ANYTHING about hormone therapy? At all?
My hormonan status is not significantly different from that of a ciswoman. In fact, i would be at a greater risk if i was treated as male if my endocrinological system plays any role at all. If i have a condition where it does, doctors would do a blood test on any patient (you have to know the exact hormonal status if you want to treat an endocrinological problem) and find out anyway.
There simply is NO significant medical risk from being "wrongly identified" here - not related to hormones, not related to surgery, not related to any of the differences between male and female physiology. You just made this up.

They're also on any number of steroids, hormones, pain killers, and anti-biotics to make sure that there aren't any complications, and a number of other supplements are taken for the rest of their lives. One of the serious dangers faced by the transgendered is complications due to their own hormone treatments which are potentially lethal at the best of times, some 5-10% of transexuals suffer serious side effects just from the hormone treatments (though admittedly fewer of them are lethal). And yes there are chemicals that, although part of normal medical treatments for any number of conditions, will potentially react differently or not react at all when exposed to them. The chemical transition is delicate and adding the wrong substance can cause anything from terrible acne to thromboembolic disease. The transgenered are at a risk of blood clots at the best of times and far too many have died on an operating table because they were given the wrong treatment after an accident.

Oh, so YOU ARE talking out of your ass.
Right now, i am on exactly TWO hormones: Estrogen and Cyproteron (and anti-androgen). After SRS, i will be on either one (just estrogen) or two (progesterone in addition) hormones. There are NO pain killers (except perhaps shortly after SRS), no anti-biotics (except perhaps shortly after SRS) and no other supplements. It's obvious that you have absoltey no clue what you are talking about, and are just inventing stuff as you go along (alternatively, you are severely misinformed).

Even if your statements weren't made up, carrying a special card for your medical requirements would be the preferable solution - just like diabetics or people on medication do (or not). It does in NO WAY warrant a completely different gender marker on ID-cards.

What I intended to say was. They're also on any number of steroids, hormones, pain killers, and anti-biotics for a long time after the surgery itself to make sure that there aren't any complications. Not to meantion a number of other supplements are taken for the rest of their lives also capable of causing complications.

Again: Todeswind is completely wrong on this issue - there is no "cocktail" beyond hormones that you find in any female/male body.
Painkillers and antibiotics are, if at all, only required shortly AFTER surgery (just like after any other surgery). Steroids and hormones are synominous here, and the hormones transsexual people are taking are not different from those you'll find naturally in cissexual people of the respective gender. There are no "supplements" either - the hormones could be called "supplements", but there is simply nothing beyond hormones that transsexual people are required to take (unless they have other medical conditions).

[Mayabird]

But why would they have to have a big flashing "HEY BIGOTS, EASY TARGET FOR HATING" sign on them to indicate it, even if they had to list what medications they had to take? Why can't they just have a "takes these meds" note and leave out the details that could have them killed? And why oh why do they need a hateful "other" in the gender space? Unless it's something that could really, really stinking obviously be good to know like "is deadly allergic to these common antibiotics" why do they even need to carry information on it? A lot of people take medication for mental and emotional disorders but since there's a huge stigma on that, many of them would not want that information published anywhere that any asshole can get access to it, plus in 99% of all cases or more, it won't freaking matter.

And for that matter, what complications? Are you a doctor? Are you a nurse? Do you actually know anything about biology at all whatsoever, or are you pulling hypotheticals out of your ass? I know that at least two of the bio people on this board (Aly and I) have absolutely no problem at all with transsexuals going by their mental sex and not their "physical" sex (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) and do NOT believe that some stupid chromosome combination must force people into an easy box for the minds of dumb people despite the wishes of the people involved, because biology is messy and difficult like that.

[Broomstick]

What I intended to say was. They're also on any number of steroids, hormones, pain killers, and anti-biotics for a long time after the surgery itself to make sure that there aren't any complications.

But for god's sake WHY would that be true? It's just ordinary surgery, the only thing extraordinary is that it concerns gender issues, which apparently fucks with peoples' minds for some reason.

At most, you'd see antibiotics before surgery, prophylactically, and for maybe a few days/week afterward unless there is an infection which is a risk with ANY surgery. Ditto for painkillers, a few weeks at most. How fucking long do you think it takes to heal from surgery anyway? Did it hurt when you pulled "fact" that out of your ass?

Not to meantion a number of other supplements are taken for the rest of their lives also capable of causing complications.

I want a cite for these so-called "supplements".

And what Serafina said.

[Todeswind]

I confess that you, as someone undergoing the treatment would have significantly more knowledge on the subject and potential side effects of the treatments than I could ever begin to have. I had been lead to believe that the potential long term complications of transgender treatments were more potent than they apparently are. What little knowledge I do have on the subject comes from a close friend of mine who is in medical school whose opinions on the matter seemed plausible enough. And frankly when it comes to first responder situations I get a little edgy.

I paid my way through college by working in private security for the campus meaning that when there were medical issues I was generally the first responder, sometimes even before the EMTs got there. Most of what I ended up dealing with were alcohol or substance related but a couple of near miss suicide attempts that damn near became actual successes because of a lack of proper information about the person in question. This has significantly colored my opinion on what information should be easily accessible to medical professionals in a crisis situation. You'd be surprised how close to getting killed some people are for not thinking to tell someone that they're diabetic, or allergic to penicillin.

I still do believe that there should be some system in place for first responders to get basic medical information from everyone and yes I do think that being a transgendered (male/female/whatever) might be relevant for someone to know before they get you in surgery.

[Simon_Jester]

It's medically relevant. I'm sorry if there are assholes in the world and I do believe that Transexuals should not be declined for medical care simply because of their transexual status but this is as relevant and pertinent to proper medical care as knowing if someone is or is not allergic to penicillin or what their blood type is. It simply is.

Yes, and the average citizen does not have a right to your medical information. I, as an average citizen, don't have a right to know your blood type, even though you can tell me if you like. I don't have a right to know that you're diabetic. I don't have a right to know that you're a post-menopausal woman who takes hormones because her ovaries have quit on her.

So why on Earth would I have a right to know that you're transgender, if I'm not a physician? If I don't have such a right, there is NO sensible reason to mark transgender people with anything publically accessible, such as a line on their personal ID. I could understand the barcode, because of the need for certain authorized people in official settings to be able to find that information. But it should not be available to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street who sees your driver's license (or equivalent ID card elsewhere in the world).

I originally gave three reasons why the sex of a person is listed on the drivers license, Emergency medical care was only one of the three. The other two had to do with the ability for police to do background checks and other evidentiary procedures (excluding suspects and so on) and the protection against identity theft. I'm sorry but you simply aren't entitled to conceal prior aliases from the police if they do a background check. Perhaps listing this as a third sex on licenses is not the way to go but the alternative to me seems like listing the original sex on the licensee.

If we're going to have bar codes, we might as well have a bar-coded number on the card that links to a police file. Or for that matter just log name changes into a database the police can access, so that if they're investigating Janet Smith they can check to see whether the Janet Smith in question was once known as John Smith.

There are legitimate reasons for (maybe!) medical practicioners and (yes) police to have this information. There are not legitimate reasons to make it accessible to the general public, which is what you were calling for earlier.

So the obvious solution is to make the information available to authorized personnel if they specifically request it from a government database that will be kept private. It is NOT to slap a label on everyone so that their information winds up routinely spreading into the hands of those who have no right to know it.

The only reasons I can think of to do it the way you suggest would be:
-Poor planning (someone needs to know this, therefore everyone should know this!)
-Ulterior motives (I am actually looking for a way to slap a label on transgender people that will make their lives harder)

Personally I'm still guessing "poor planning." But that's me.

[Mayabird]

First responders have also been known for letting transsexuals die. I don't have time to pull up articles but I know others can. It's mostly pre-op, when they can see it, and post-op is usually good enough that nobody can tell the difference. This would be giving the same bigots information to out the post-ops as well.

[Todeswind]

It's medically relevant. I'm sorry if there are assholes in the world and I do believe that Transexuals should not be declined for medical care simply because of their transexual status but this is as relevant and pertinent to proper medical care as knowing if someone is or is not allergic to penicillin or what their blood type is. It simply is.

Yes, and the average citizen does not have a right to your medical information. I, as an average citizen, don't have a right to know your blood type, even though you can tell me if you like. I don't have a right to know that you're diabetic. I don't have a right to know that you're a post-menopausal woman who takes hormones because her ovaries have quit on her.

So why on Earth would I have a right to know that you're transgender, if I'm not a physician? If I don't have such a right, there is NO sensible reason to mark transgender people with anything publically accessible, such as a line on their personal ID. I could understand the barcode, because of the need for certain authorized people in official settings to be able to find that information. But it should not be available to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street who sees your driver's license (or equivalent ID card elsewhere in the world).

I wasn't aware I'd suggested otherwise.

Edit: That's not sarcasm, the idea that someone other than the police would have a reason to see your license seriously hadn't occurred to me.

I originally gave three reasons why the sex of a person is listed on the drivers license, Emergency medical care was only one of the three. The other two had to do with the ability for police to do background checks and other evidentiary procedures (excluding suspects and so on) and the protection against identity theft. I'm sorry but you simply aren't entitled to conceal prior aliases from the police if they do a background check. Perhaps listing this as a third sex on licenses is not the way to go but the alternative to me seems like listing the original sex on the licensee.

If we're going to have bar codes, we might as well have a bar-coded number on the card that links to a police file. Or for that matter just log name changes into a database the police can access, so that if they're investigating Janet Smith they can check to see whether the Janet Smith in question was once known as John Smith.

There are legitimate reasons for (maybe!) medical practicioners and (yes) police to have this information. There are not legitimate reasons to make it accessible to the general public, which is what you were calling for earlier.

So the obvious solution is to make the information available to authorized personnel if they specifically request it from a government database that will be kept private. It is NOT to slap a label on everyone so that their information winds up routinely spreading into the hands of those who have no right to know it.

The only reasons I can think of to do it the way you suggest would be:
-Poor planning (someone needs to know this, therefore everyone should know this!)
-Ulterior motives (I am actually looking for a way to slap a label on transgender people that will make their lives harder)

Personally I'm still guessing "poor planning." But that's me.

I agree.... The idea seemed good at the time.

[Serafina]

Okay, just for fun, a dirty little secret:
There is in fact ONE thing transwomen have to do after surgery for a long time (how long depends on the exact surgical procedure):
Regulary stuff something in there.

The reason is that the tissue surrounding the vagina is slowly growing (it has been cut to make room). If left unchecked for a longer time, this will shrink the vagina. The solution is to regulary stretch the vagina. At first, this is generally done with special sex toys potentially NSFW, tough nothing dirty, but after a few months at most normal sex toys or regular sex are enough. Again, how long and how often this has to be done differs.

That's it - that's all that has to be done for any significant amount of time after SRS (and only for transwomen).

[Todeswind]

Social conventions are not always practical when enacted as legal ones. We also don't allow people who have cosmetic surgery to make themselves closer to what they feel is their "true animal" self to list their species as Shark or Cat. It's not very nice to say it I'll grant you but Transgender surgery is at best a cosmetic process. People go in for cosmetic surgery all the time because it allows them to better express who they believe themselves to be but changing your outward appearance does not change your biology no matter how desperately you may wish for it to. If they figure out a way to either artificially create or transplant functioning sexual organs onto someone of a different gender more power to them, I wish them the best of luck.

The reason why we don't allow people "to be animals" (wherever THAT came from ) is simple: There is absolutely no evidence that they actually ARE animals. On the other hand, there is a LOT of evidence that transsexual people are actually members of the gender they identify with. Not just the brain-related evidence presented above, but also a lot of psychological evidence.
As for "it's just cosmetic" - sure it is. It's also fully functional (in the case of transwomen at least). I fail to see how "it's only cosmetic" is any sort of argument whatsoever - i think this is just a genetic fallacy (appealing to somethings origins instead of adressing it's curent state).

I actually know someone who undergoes body modifications to make himself similar to his "spirit animal." He insists that we refer to him as a "humanimal" and that he was truly born to be a cat. No, seriously.... Tokyo has some real... characters living in it.

[Serafina]

I confess that you, as someone undergoing the treatment would have significantly more knowledge on the subject and potential side effects of the treatments than I could ever begin to have. I had been lead to believe that the potential long term complications of transgender treatments were more potent than they apparently are. What little knowledge I do have on the subject comes from a close friend of mine who is in medical school whose opinions on the matter seemed plausible enough. And frankly when it comes to first responder situations I get a little edgy.

I paid my way through college by working in private security for the campus meaning that when there were medical issues I was generally the first responder, sometimes even before the EMTs got there. Most of what I ended up dealing with were alcohol or substance related but a couple of near miss suicide attempts that damn near became actual successes because of a lack of proper information about the person in question. This has significantly colored my opinion on what information should be easily accessible to medical professionals in a crisis situation. You'd be surprised how close to getting killed some people are for not thinking to tell someone that they're diabetic, or allergic to penicillin.

I still do believe that there should be some system in place for first responders to get basic medical information from everyone and yes I do think that being a transgendered (male/female/whatever) might be relevant for someone to know before they get you in surgery.

Let me tell you something:
You are UTTERLY WRONG. Completely, utterly, 100% wrong.

Not only do transsexual people take nothing else but hormones, these hormones are also utterly irrelevant for first responders. If hormones are ever relevant for a medicla condition, a blood test will be done anyway (no matter whether the patient is taking any hormones) because hormone levels can vary quite a lot in cissexual people as well, especially if they have an endocrinological condition.


The medicaly relevant differences between transsexual and cissexual people are very small - they certainly don't warrant any required identification due to being transsexual. And there is NO REASON why this could possibly justify a different gender marker for them - which wouldn't even convey the necessary information to a medical professional(guess what, the exact nature of hormone therapy can differ, too).
To a first responder, the endocrinological status should be utterly irrelevant. Just ask yourself "how often did i have to deal with someones hormones as a first responder"?
The only real medical releveance for transsexual people is long-term - for example, their liver will be under slighly higher stress, because the hormones pass trough it twice instead of once (tough certain compounds circumvent that). Obviously, injuries to the sexual organs might need to be handled diferently. That's pretty much it to my knowledge, unless we are talking about obscure genetic diseases or something like that.

To reiterate:
-There is only a very small medical relevance to transsexuality (relating to treatments for other conditions), so medical professionals rarely need to know about it.
-There is absolutely no relevance for first responders.


Oh, and heres a nice hint: Id you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk about it (or you'll look like an idiot). And you should tell your friend that he gave you completely wrong information.