Are transgender/transsexual people accepted in your religion?

[Liu]

Please explain. The DSM does not state this.

I'm not really familiar with the DSM, but in what way does it disagree with this?

1. Sets aside suicide rate as not as important.
2. Meta analysis. Notoriously prone to some fairly obvious bias.
3. 12 of the 34 (33) studies employ populations that won't produce a statistically significant result in MtF, FtM, or both groups. You can't simply add all these populations together, or take an average. That's sloppy science.
---
4. "Summary" conclusions noted only state some improvement in quality-of-life, with failure to set any kind of baseline mental health.
5. Detailed Results include unsourced criticism of data that doesn't agree with findings, indicating yet more confirmation bias.

The bottom line is, meta analysis is extremely dodgy at best, and scientifically invalid at worst. The author, Greta Una is not a scientist or even skilled researcher, and exhibits many hallmarks of confirmation bias. I wouldn't necessarily say that a transsexual person doing the search is invalidated, but given the other prejudices exhibited, it may be indicated here.

Now that's finally some actual scientific thinking on your part, instead of just throwing unrelated studies and misinterpretations at me

As I said, I haven't read all the studies yet. Just, even if some of them are actually invalid, there are 26 of 33 (or 34) indicating significant positive effects of treatment, so it's more likely that their general result is true than not.
I would have to evaluate all these studies myself to check whether they seem valid to me, and then even that might be unreliable as I neither am a sociologist, doctor or similar (I'm a scholar but in another field) nor can I actually make sure that the data provided is without mistakes.
So, I'm not claiming to know that treatment actually helps - it just seems much more likely to me than that it doesn't.

About her downplaying the importance of a change in the suicide rate after treatment - not sure whether I should agree with her on this point, but there seem to be very few studies that cover this topic, so for her method it's necessary to also include other aspects of "quality of life".

You don't like actual scientific explanation, fine. But I wish you'd say so, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

Then point me to where in these articles you linked there is an actual scientific explanation that would claim that treatment increases the suicide rate. The articles are on completely different topics.

 

[Grumpuss]

I'm not really familiar with the DSM, but in what way does it disagree with this?

Mutilating body parts isn't a psychiatric treatment.

Now that's finally some actual scientific thinking on your part, instead of just throwing unrelated studies and misinterpretations at me

As I said, I haven't read all the studies yet. Just, even if some of them are actually invalid, there are 26 of 33 (or 34) indicating significant positive effects of treatment, so it's more likely that their general result is true than not.
I would have to evaluate all these studies myself to check whether they seem valid to me, and then even that might be unreliable as I neither am a sociologist, doctor or similar (I'm a scholar but in another field) nor can I actually make sure that the data provided is without mistakes.
So, I'm not claiming to know that treatment actually helps - it just seems much more likely to me than that it doesn't.

About her downplaying the importance of a change in the suicide rate after treatment - not sure whether I should agree with her on this point, but there seem to be very few studies that cover this topic, so for her method it's necessary to also include other aspects of "quality of life".

You're falling into the same trap the author did. Meta analysis isn't science. It's surfing through a non-uniform group of scientific studies and looking for a preferred result.

Consider the suicide aspect. Most observers would consider a significantly high suicide rate to be a major indicator of poor health, perhaps mental illness. This woman, who isn't a scientist or skilled researcher just throws out suicide as a consideration and instead concentrates on other vague quality-of-life metrics. When you take into account her other prejudices evidenced in the meta analysis, it's cause for concern.

Then point me to where in these articles you linked there is an actual scientific explanation that would claim that treatment increases the suicide rate. The articles are on completely different topics.

I never said "treatment increases the suicide rate". If anything, I said that the studies indicated there was still a very high suicide rate among transsexuals, even after hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People who have no exposure to religion, but who are so miserable that, unable to cope with their identity, even after full transition, attempt suicide at an alarming rate.

I was born/raised Christian. I do have much exposure to religion. Religion is what left me miserable, unable to cope with my identity, and had me wanting to die. Without religion, I'm doing much, much better.

How about "depression" or "suicidal tendency"?

Depression is considered a disorder, but suicidal thoughts, tendencies, and thoughts you'd be better off dead, those are symptoms, not a disorder in themselves. You probably want to stop trying to bring up the DSM since you are having to take guesses at what is or isn't in their.

That's awesome, and I'm happy for you. You do recognize that your own experience doesn't necessarily mirror 100% of the transsexual population, don't you?

Yes, but my experiences are going along with general trends.

Only if all psychiatrists are Christians:

You seem to have the reading comprehension issue, or are in very strong denial over the fact there are some truly nasty hooligans running around who are Christian. These types take it upon themselves to judge the world without knowing it, to put themselves on a illusionary moral high ground, and to be patronizing towards nearly everyone. They even sometimes get very lewd, hateful, and violent. They insist it is their right to discriminate, to not have to work with certain people, and to deny services to an entire group of people based on absolutely nothing more than what ancient shepherds wrote.

You have a reading comprehension issue. Features and characteristics at BIRTH cannot be assigned by society. Perhaps through science, we'll one day get there. Anyone surgically altering testicles, breasts, clitorises, etc. is merely making cosmetic changes afterward to a model already infused by Nature's DNA.

If a boy is castrated at birth, it going to do a lot more than just remove the testicles. His body hair wont be as thick, his beard won't be as thick (if it comes in at all), his muscles won't be as large, his sex drive wont be as strong. And plenty of societies have deemed that he is not a man.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As I said, I haven't read all the studies yet. Just, even if some of them are actually invalid, there are 26 of 33 (or 34) indicating significant positive effects of treatment, so it's more likely that their general result is true than not.

Have you read the WPATH Standards of Care? A very wonderful "secondary function" of it is that it does have cited numerous studies concerning various areas of transsexual care and treatment, including things like suicide rates going down post-transition. (and the online pdf format is free to download0.

 

[Liu]

Mutilating body parts isn't a psychiatric treatment.

Why not?

You're falling into the same trap the author did. Meta analysis isn't science. It's surfing through a non-uniform group of scientific studies and looking for a preferred result.

In this case that method is necessary since different studies got different results.

I never said "treatment increases the suicide rate". If anything, I said that the studies indicated there was still a very high suicide rate among transsexuals, even after hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery.

The studies you posted however (except for the one already mentioned in the summary) had no data that compared the suicide rates between before and after hormones and surgeries (or if they have, I didn't find it).

Have you read the WPATH Standards of Care? A very wonderful "secondary function" of it is that it does have cited numerous studies concerning various areas of transsexual care and treatment, including things like suicide rates going down post-transition. (and the online pdf format is free to download0.

I read something similar in German a while ago to find out which things will get paid by my health insurance (which are much more strict than what these Standards of Care demand). But that one I hadn't read yet, thanks.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it is an abnegation of God's will. I do believe in fixing things that are unhealthy. For me it is the attitude of the transgender person that is unhealthy not the gender.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I read something similar in German a while ago to find out which things will get paid by my health insurance (which are much more strict than what these Standards of Care demand). But that one I hadn't read yet, thanks.

It may seem like a big beefy read at first, but it's written for a broader and more general audience than just those who are clinicians and/or transgender, and overall it really doesn't take that long to read from cover-to-cover.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/amo_hub_co.../Standards of Care V7 - 2011 WPATH (2)(1).pdf

 

[Grumpuss]

I was born/raised Christian. I do have much exposure to religion. Religion is what left me miserable, unable to cope with my identity, and had me wanting to die. Without religion, I'm doing much, much better.

That's awesome. Were any mind-altering drugs involved, or did you simply drop religion cold turkey one day to make the change?

Depression is considered a disorder, but suicidal thoughts, tendencies, and thoughts you'd be better off dead, those are symptoms, not a disorder in themselves. You probably want to stop trying to bring up the DSM since you are having to take guesses at what is or isn't in their.

Why are you offended by what's in the DSM? Depression is in there. Gender dysphoria is in there.

You seem to have the reading comprehension issue, or are in very strong denial over the fact there are some truly nasty hooligans running around who are Christian. These types take it upon themselves to judge the world without knowing it, to put themselves on a illusionary moral high ground, and to be patronizing towards nearly everyone. They even sometimes get very lewd, hateful, and violent. They insist it is their right to discriminate, to not have to work with certain people, and to deny services to an entire group of people based on absolutely nothing more than what ancient shepherds wrote.

Some religious people, yes. But you sound very angry towards a very large and diverse group of people.

If a boy is castrated at birth, it going to do a lot more than just remove the testicles. His body hair wont be as thick, his beard won't be as thick (if it comes in at all), his muscles won't be as large, his sex drive wont be as strong. And plenty of societies have deemed that he is not a man.

Possibly true, but still moot. Society, however small or influential, is not capable of interpreting what someone "should be" at birth. You can't chop off a clitoris simply because it's the judgment of the shaman/chief that girls and women are not meant to feel sexual pleasure. Similarly, you can't mandate that an infant born with a penis is secretly a girl, DNA be damned. Once logic and reason kick in after adolescence, then proper, educated choices can be made. Not before.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe it is an abnegation of God's will.

That is why Conservative churches are not a friendly or suitable environment for anyone who is transgender (as well as many other types of people, such as those dreadful left-handed people who had to be made right-handed). It is a belief, true, but nevertheless it is a belief that causes real harm and suffering for people.

 

[Grumpuss]

Why not?

You'd have to ask a psychiatrist. Typically, it's not done. I've heard of lobotomies and other limited brain surgeries, but that's typically done to correct a physiological defect/injury causing pain and distress.

In this case that method is necessary since different studies got different results.

Are you justifying meta analysis?

The studies you posted however (except for the one already mentioned in the summary) had no data that compared the suicide rates between before and after hormones and surgeries (or if they have, I didn't find it).

Really? I found 40%, >40%, etc. Do you consider 40% following "treatment" to be a low rate, compared to baseline in society?

 

[Liu]

You'd have to ask a psychiatrist. Typically, it's not done. I've heard of lobotomies and other limited brain surgeries, but that's typically done to correct a physiological defect/injury causing pain and distress.

In the case of transsexuality, sexual re-assignment surgeries are typically done, as long as the individual in question wishes them.

Are you justifying meta analysis?

I never heard before that there would be something wrong per se with meta analysis.
It's not completely reliable, but neither are the individual studies.

Really? I found 40%, >40%, etc. Do you consider 40% following "treatment" to be a low rate, compared to baseline in society?

I already told you that these 40% in the articles you linked are not the suicide rate after treatment, but the rate of suicide attempts during the course of the whole lives.

 

[Grumpuss]

In the case of transsexuality, sexual re-assignment surgeries are typically done, as long as the individual in question wishes them.

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's a fairly low percentage of the overall transsexual population, though the populations of transsexuals, while overlapping, don't exactly mirror those with gender dysphoria. It's also a very long process to transition, culminating in the surgery, I understand.

I never heard before that there would be something wrong per se with meta analysis.
It's not completely reliable, but neither are the individual studies.

Meta-analysis - Wikipedia
Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints

Your statement is exactly wrong. An individual study is more clearly defined and focused, touching upon only its variables, as they apply to the questions being asked. Folding in multiple, semi-related studies for higher statistical value is fraught with issues. The practice is generally discouraged in scientific discourse, and the the tool is mainly used to get a general overview or by biased observers looking to confirm a suspicion.

I already told you that these 40% in the articles you linked are not the suicide rate after treatment, but the rate of suicide attempts during the course of the whole lives.

Yes. Before, during and after. Do you have some figure somewhere that says that after treatment, the 40% number more closely mirrors what is seen in the non-transgender populations (~10-16%).

What's more, there are indications that treatment does little to alleviate whatever the causes of suicidal behavior in transsexuals are:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885&type=printable

 

[Liu]

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's a fairly low percentage of the overall transsexual population, though the populations of transsexuals, while overlapping, don't exactly mirror those with gender dysphoria. It's also a very long process to transition, culminating in the surgery, I understand.

I said only those who do want these surgeries normally get them. I didn't claim those would be all.

Meta-analysis - Wikipedia
Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints

Your statement is exactly wrong. An individual study is more clearly defined and focused, touching upon only its variables, as they apply to the questions being asked. Folding in multiple, semi-related studies for higher statistical value is fraught with issues. The practice is generally discouraged in scientific discourse, and the the tool is mainly used to get a general overview or by biased observers looking to confirm a suspicion.

That doesn't mean looking at one or a few individual studies needs to be any more reliable.
Of course it would be better to have one sound study with 1000 participants instead of 10 different studies with 100 participants each, but we don't have that.

Yes. Before, during and after. Do you have some figure somewhere that says that after treatment, the 40% number more closely mirrors what is seen in the non-transgender populations (~10-16%).

The studies I find that mention numbers all have rather few participants (far below 100).

What's more, there are indications that treatment does little to alleviate whatever the causes of suicidal behavior in transsexuals are:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885&type=printable

Where is this supposed to show the differences between before and after treatment? It's a comparison of after treatment to general population.
Sure, the treatment doesn't solve all problems for everyone.

 

[Grumpuss]

I said only those who do want these surgeries normally get them. I didn't claim those would be all.

Oh, my mistake then. I thought you said "typically". Sorry.

That doesn't mean looking at one or a few individual studies needs to be any more reliable.
Of course it would be better to have one sound study with 1000 participants instead of 10 different studies with 100 participants each, but we don't have that.

Meta analysis isn't the answer, for the reasons I've given. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling snake oil.

The studies I find that mention numbers all have rather few participants (far below 100).

Yes, I was asking for percentages, not actually 100 study subjects. Generally speaking, groups being tested in a study need to have ~30 individuals each to have statistical significance, based on variables tested and observed. You could have as few as perhaps 8, if you were doing some kind of a proof-of-concept or safety study for an experimental drug, or as many as thousands, if you really wanted to measure smaller effects or note trends in a populuation.

Where is this supposed to show the differences between before and after treatment? It's a comparison of after treatment to general population.

Umm... yes. You have to compare the final suicide rates and other quality-of-life metrics back to the general population. Otherwise, there's no definition of what a normal or baseline suicide rate is. You wouldn't really be able to call 40% "high", since you're not comparing it to anything.

Sure, the treatment doesn't solve all problems for everyone.

That would lend itself to an argument where someone claims that it's not worthwhile.

 

[Liu]

Oh, my mistake then. I thought you said "typically". Sorry.

Meta analysis isn't the answer, for the reasons I've given. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling snake oil.

Yes, I was asking for percentages, not actually 100 study subjects. Generally speaking, groups being tested in a study need to have ~30 individuals each to have statistical significance, based on variables tested and observed. You could have as few as perhaps 8, if you were doing some kind of a proof-of-concept or safety study for an experimental drug, or as many as thousands, if you really wanted to measure smaller effects or note trends in a populuation.

I have to retract because I now took a closer look and found no actual percentage numbers, at least none that are available for free (I had found some studies whose abstracts sound like they might include these numbers but the articles themselves all are behind pay-walls).
In regards to the amount of participants - a bunch of years ago, in the course of my studies, I also visited a seminar on market analysis, and there it was said that studies with less than 1000 participants are worthless. I reduced that number to 100 in my last post since the population of transsexuals is much smaller than the general one, but still... My therapist alone has consulted over 150 transpeople so far, so if you only look at 50 or so (and some studies even only have participants from one clinic or similar), it can happen easily that your results are skewed either due to the participants all being consulted or treated by the same (very competent or very incompetent) therapist or doctor, or simply due to random chance.

Umm... yes. You have to compare the final suicide rates and other quality-of-life metrics back to the general population. Otherwise, there's no definition of what a normal or baseline suicide rate is. You wouldn't really be able to call 40% "high", since you're not comparing it to anything.
That would lend itself to an argument where someone claims that it's not worthwhile.

What I do know is that I'm certain I will be much more happier once I get a mastectomy (for which I will however still have to wait half a year or a full year, depending on how lax or strict my health insurance is in regards to keeping to its guidelines).

 

[Grumpuss]

I have to retract because I now took a closer look and found no actual percentage numbers, at least none that are available for free (I had found some studies whose abstracts sound like they might include these numbers but the articles themselves all are behind pay-walls).
In regards to the amount of participants - a bunch of years ago, in the course of my studies, I also visited a seminar on market analysis, and there it was said that studies with less than 1000 participants are worthless. I reduced that number to 100 in my last post since the population of transsexuals is much smaller than the general one, but still... My therapist alone has consulted over 150 transpeople so far, so if you only look at 50 or so (and some studies even only have participants from one clinic or similar), it can happen easily that your results are skewed either due to the participants all being consulted or treated by the same (very competent or very incompetent) therapist or doctor, or simply due to random chance.

Again, it depends on the number of variables and to what degree of confidence you want to derive from your results. 1,000 subjects is a lot. A study can be "powered" sufficiently with less than a hundred. Psychiatric studies may be difficult, since the patients themselves may be confused and a wide degree of subjectivity goes into the analysis.

What you can't do, however, is to glue studies together, using different authors, variable sets and methods, just to get to a large number of patients' results. Meta analysis isn't pseudo science exactly, but it is a more dubious tool.

What I do know is that I'm certain I will be much more happier once I get a mastectomy (for which I will however still have to wait half a year or a full year, depending on how lax or strict my health insurance is in regards to keeping to its guidelines).

I hope so. But that's a loaded statement for you to make at this point. Best to manage your expectations and not plan on it being a miracle cure. That way, any happiness you get post-op will be bonus.

And good luck with the health insurance. Those companies can be the embodiment of evil.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

so if you only look at 50 or so (and some studies even only have participants from one clinic or similar), it can happen easily that your results are skewed either due to the participants all being consulted or treated by the same (very competent or very incompetent) therapist or doctor, or simply due to random chance.

That actually did happen in one book I read from a clinician, who evaluated her own clients, and based on this non-random sample, concluded transsexuals have a higher than average IQ. Or, at least I am assuming that is what happened, as that is--years later--still the only source I have ever seen this claim, and there is obviously a huge gaping hole in her methodology.

What I do know is that I'm certain I will be much more happier once I get a mastectomy (for which I will however still have to wait half a year or a full year, depending on how lax or strict my health insurance is in regards to keeping to its guidelines).

I hope this gets moving for you. Going the opposite way, I've not had breasts for a year yet, and though I'm already sick of them for getting in the way and for hurting and being sore seemingly all the time, but moving along this path (finally) they are hardly anything more than minor annoyance. Though, I have to say, that hasn't done as much to ameliorate my dysphoria as getting on estrogen, losing enough muscle mass that I look deflated in old my old shirts and jackets, and I'm not "zoo escapee" hairy anymore. If I had to guess, having breasts isn't "upping" treatment results mentally because they're supposed to be there, whereas the body hair and huge shoulders aren't. And, good thing for me, wearing bras isn't the "fully assimilated cloud of doom" wave of anxiety and depression that some of the more manly clothing is prone to doing. I'm not too sure how to explain it, other than suits and ties feel just so horribly wrong, but yet a dress my mind doesn't think much of, except how the dress looks and how it looks on me.

 

[Liu]

I hope so. But that's a loaded statement for you to make at this point. Best to manage your expectations and not plan on it being a miracle cure. That way, any happiness you get post-op will be bonus.

That's some sound advice.
You know, in depression any kind of hope is nothing one wants to get relativated, but it's certainly better to have not too high hopes and then get surprised positively than the other way round.

And good luck with the health insurance. Those companies can be the embodiment of evil.

Thank you. It's actually not the health insurance itself which gets to decide it but a central comittee of all health insurances here, so I can't even change to another insurance in hopes of it being more lax.

I hope this gets moving for you. Going the opposite way, I've not had breasts for a year yet, and though I'm already sick of them for getting in the way and for hurting and being sore seemingly all the time, but moving along this path (finally) they are hardly anything more than minor annoyance. Though, I have to say, that hasn't done as much to ameliorate my dysphoria as getting on estrogen, losing enough muscle mass that I look deflated in old my old shirts and jackets, and I'm not "zoo escapee" hairy anymore. If I had to guess, having breasts isn't "upping" treatment results mentally because they're supposed to be there, whereas the body hair and huge shoulders aren't. And, good thing for me, wearing bras isn't the "fully assimilated cloud of doom" wave of anxiety and depression that some of the more manly clothing is prone to doing. I'm not too sure how to explain it, other than suits and ties feel just so horribly wrong, but yet a dress my mind doesn't think much of, except how the dress looks and how it looks on me.

Thanks.
Same here in that what is there that shouldn't be is much more bothersome than what is missing.
I only started testosteron very recently, so hardly any visible changes yet, but I'm certainly looking forward to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I only started testosteron very recently, so hardly any visible changes yet, but I'm certainly looking forward to them.

Give it a few months. Soon you'll be sprouting a beard, bulking up, and developing a sex (over) drive.
For me, the mental/psychological changes brought on by estrogen treatments has been astounding, and has built me up to new heights that I never knew existed. And it's not just me saying I feel better, it's everyone around me being able to tell for themselves that I am indeed feeling and doing much, much better, more than they've ever seen out of me before. Emotionally, it's been like a floodgate is being opened, and I've become way more expressive. I even feel great that my sex drive isn't what it used to be, that it feels more controlled, that it's on my terms, and I've even my orgasms have become a million times better (and with a much stronger desire to cuddle up and snuggle with someone).
And it's such a shame that so many insist we are screwed up in the head or delusional. Clearly, we're not doing too bad considering our burden. And the horrible thing is, the majority of that burden is other people. Some women are sterile, it happens. Some women have a Y chromosome that no one may ever know of, it happens. Every excuse the anti-trans crowd can give, there is an adequate counter. But what the anti-trans crowd doesn't realize, is they are a very real problem themselves. They drive the suicide rates, they drive the unemployment and homeless rates, they drive alcohol and drug abuse rates, and they make life hell, if they don't take it. Leave me alone, and you'll not even notice I'm around because I don't really like drawing attention to myself. Thus, it's up to these ******** to make a scene out of something that was previously peaceful and calm and everyone else minding their own business, like proper and civilized people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then why call her a "she"? Seems silly that the merging of femininity and masculinity would have a pronoun preference.



I'm afraid I don't understand, can you elaborate?? Your Goddess accepts all gender identities and is in fact the unity of masculinity and femininity, but demands femininity specifically of her servants?? Why/how is that consistent??



Well traditionally Satan is androgynous, but then again I get the feeling I shouldn't expect anything but heterodoxy out of a self-described Catholic Shakta Satanist.

After doing some thinking, it does make sense to me that the Supreme Being is more feminine, at least from human eyes. Sure, the Supreme Being would be genderless and beyond all attributes but I think we need to put a face on it in order to be able to approach Her in a devotional fashion.

Females bring life into the world, females can take life out of it (abortion and miscarriages), females motivate the male sex drive, mammals start off as more female and only take on male characteristics with the introduction of androgens later on, etc. To me, I'm just more comfortable and it makes more sense to me to visualize the Supreme Being as female. Kali is the ultimate representation of the Supreme Being to me.

As for males having to embrace their femininity, it is because the Feminine has been subjugated by males for millennia and a balance needs to be returned. It also has an element of breaking social taboos about gender variance which, imo, need to be broken. For a man to express his feminine side is still seen as a wrong thing in most of the world. This needs to be addressed. As the children of the Goddess and with the Goddess as the Ultimate Reality, we reflect that in ourselves. When I meditate upon Kali, there is a merging. You can't merge with a being without accepting them as yourself.