Question to anyone... But mainly to female transgenders

[SomeRandom]

Agreed, I've known more than just a few. The quality of care, how much they can or are willing to go, and just winning or losing the Nature lottery, so to speak, in having features that transition well or don't, are all variables that contribute to the person's journey

Hmm. You know I just realised.
As someone from a country with universal healthcare, I just took it for granted that everyone is able to get gender affirming care and not worry about their budget.
Granted a lot of our gender affirming treatments are still done under our private sector, meaning it’s at personal cost.
(I’d wager it’s still cheaper than the US though. No offence.)
Though still with at least some of the costs covered automatically by our system, regardless.

And I disagree with that, obviously. I think it should all be covered, imo.

I guess it didn’t occur to me that a person’s ability to truly transition, as it were, is also tied to how much they can pay for it.
That’s kind of sad

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, it's a realistic look. But you look at it however you want as I have zero interest in changing anyone's mind, things speak for themselves. You're not talking to anyone who's not well acquainted with the LGBTQ+ community.

I didn't say that trans issues popped up overnight, rather I indicated the current climate.

The current climate being a direct result of empowered evangelical Christianity as a pendulum swing from Obama's presidency is a much more realistic look than 'That trans nonbinary person made everyone hate us.'

Or that inclusion of trans nonbinary will lead to more detransitioners which is just hilarious because if anything was going to lead to more detransitioners it's people saying that the only way to be a valid trans is to transition and pass, as that will put a lot of pressure on people to hurry into transition so they can be a part of the community they think they belong in.

Realistically though, most detransitioners are people who lost access to gender affirming care due to finances or health crisis, and still identify as trans even though they stopped or reversed transition. And those tiny minority of detransitioners who do not anylonger identify as trans say things the 'extremes' largely agree with. Accessible screening and mental healthcare availability for all trans including trans youth.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hmm. You know I just realised.
As someone from a country with universal healthcare, I just took it for granted that everyone is able to get gender affirming care and not worry about their budget.
Granted a lot of our gender affirming treatments are still done under our private sector, meaning it’s at personal cost.
(I’d wager it’s still cheaper than the US though. No offence.)
Though still with at least some of the costs covered automatically by our system, regardless.

And I disagree with that, obviously. I think it should all be covered, imo.

I guess it didn’t occur to me that a person’s ability to truly transition, as it were, is also tied to how much they can pay for it.
That’s kind of sad

Medicaid (the government health insurance for the low income) pays for hormones and surgery in most states, AFAIK. I don't pay for testosterone or any of my healthcare or prescriptions because I'm on Medicaid. My plan covers surgeries, too. That's part of why I'm against turning this issue into some ideology, fad or political issue. It's a medical issue. If it's not a medical condition that requires treatment, why should insurance cover it? Insurance isn't going to cover body modification or cosmetic surgery - only medically necessary treatments.

 

[SomeRandom]

Medicaid (the government health insurance for the low income) pays for hormones and surgery in most states, AFAIK. I don't pay for testosterone or any of my healthcare or prescriptions because I'm on Medicaid. My plan covers surgeries, too. That's part of why I'm against turning this issue into some ideology, fad or political issue. It's a medical issue. If it's not a medical condition that requires treatment, why should insurance cover it? Insurance isn't going to cover body modification or cosmetic surgery - only medically necessary treatments.

Informative frubal.

I would absolutely agree with you that this is strictly a medical issue
IMHO, politicians should stay the hell out of the way

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Informative frubal.

I would absolutely agree with you that this is strictly a medical issue
IMHO, politicians should stay the hell out of the way

Just to add, that doesn't mean it's necessarily really easy for me to get treatment. Often, my doctor has to write letters and get on my insurance to show that it's necessary. But my insurance provider has issues. It varies, based on plans and where you live.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just to add, that doesn't mean it's necessarily really easy for me to get treatment. Often, my doctor has to write letters and get on my insurance to show that it's necessary. But my insurance provider has issues. It varies, based on plans and where you live.

My insurance isn't contracted with any providers for several things.

 

[SomeRandom]

Just to add, that doesn't mean it's necessarily really easy for me to get treatment. Often, my doctor has to write letters and get on my insurance to show that it's necessary. But my insurance provider has issues. It varies, based on plans and where you live.

Interesting
I won’t pretend that my country’s Medicare is without fault. It absolutely has issues. It could be improved and should be

But it saddens me to hear of folks under the US system unable to access medicine due to red tape or legal issues or more often than not, money issues.
Just seems kind of well awful for such a powerful and wealthy country.
Not trying to judge, America is an awesome county.
Just saying from an outside perspective

 

[Callisto]

Its possible I'm somewhere on an extreme side because I'm looking at this from a long term perspective?

I don't know how you're defining long-term or what that's to imply.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know how you're defining long-term or what that's to imply.

A perspective that sees the violence and prejudice as things that have existed for a long time now. It's not anything new, it's certainly nit the fault of trans people. It's the fault of Evangelical Christians who hate those not like them.

 

[Callisto]

The current climate being a direct result of empowered evangelical Christianity as a pendulum swing from Obama's presidency is a much more realistic look than 'That trans nonbinary person made everyone hate us.'

Seeing it as one side being entirely wrong and the other entirely right is what in large part causes the current climate.

Or that inclusion of trans nonbinary will lead to more detransitioners which is just hilarious because if anything was going to lead to more detransitioners it's people saying that the only way to be a valid trans is to transition and pass, as that will put a lot of pressure on people to hurry into transition so they can be a part of the community they think they belong in.

Never said anything about including nonbinary = more detransitioners.

Detransitioners weren't an issue prior to the radical activism of the past few years. People are being gaslighted into thinking they must be trans when, in reality, they're often going through very natural stages of development or may have other mental health issues. And it's after having medical procedures that they come to realize something else was the source of their pain, not how much they successfully pass.

Realistically though, most detransitioners are people who lost access to gender affirming care due to finances or health crisis, and still identify as trans even though they stopped or reversed transition. And those tiny minority of detransitioners who do not anylonger identify as trans say things the 'extremes' largely agree with. Accessible screening and mental healthcare availability for all trans including trans youth.

There are plenty of detransitioners who go public, their reasons haven't been about lack of finances or care. Quite the opposite. The common problem is that they were affirmed with lightning speed by so-called gender-affirming therapists and doctors and received approval straight away instead of any in-depth examinations. This is radically different from the medical advice trans persons received in the past when one had to go to therapy for an extended time and actually have other causes properly ruled out before hormones or surgery were approved. Ruling out other factors before landing on "yep, you're trans" reduces the risk of someone being wrongly diagnosed and having to detransition.

Whether the percentage of detransitioners is less than 1% or as high as 10% is irrelevant, any amount is one too many and shows there is a problem not being addressed. I find it ironic when people point out that detransitioners are a tiny minority, as to imply they shouldn't really be factored in. Yet if anyone were to note that trans persons as a whole are also a tiny percent of the population and expressed a similar disregard for the community, that causes outrage and is seen as belittling.

 

[Callisto]

You called it extremism being met with extremism. That's not only an inaccurate reflection of the situation, it is blaming the victim by saying it's their fault it's like this.

It's highly accurate. And no, it's not blaming the victims as those who will suffer the most from the fallout don't tend to be extremists, they're simply trying to live their lives. There is no single monolithic stance among the trans community. Not everyone is an activist, much less an extremist, and don't share many of those views. But of course, when they do decide to say so publicly, then they're demonized as sell-outs and, ironically, transphobic.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Seeing it as one side being entirely wrong and the other entirely right is what in large part causes the current climate.

Never said anything about including nonbinary = more detransitioners.

Detransitioners weren't an issue prior to the radical activism of the past few years. People are being gaslighted into thinking they must be trans when, in reality, they're often going through very natural stages of development or may have other mental health issues. And it's after having medical procedures that they come to realize something else was the source of their pain, not how much they successfully pass.


There are plenty of detransitioners who go public, their reasons haven't been about lack of finances or care. Quite the opposite. The common problem is that they were affirmed with lightning speed by so-called gender-affirming therapists and doctors and received approval straight away instead of any in-depth examinations. This is radically different from the medical advice trans persons received in the past when one had to go to therapy for an extended time and actually have other causes properly ruled out before hormones or surgery were approved. Ruling out other factors before landing on "yep, you're trans" reduces the risk of someone being wrongly diagnosed and having to detransition.

Whether the percentage of detransitioners is less than 1% or as high as 10% is irrelevant, any amount is one too many and shows there is a problem not being addressed. I find it ironic when people point out that detransitioners are a tiny minority, as to imply they shouldn't really be factored in. Yet if anyone were to note that trans persons as a whole are also a tiny percent of the population and expressed a similar disregard for the community, that causes outrage and is seen as belittling.

Detransitioners have never been an 'issue,' and trying to frame them as an issue is a scare tactic utilized by people who claim access to gender affirming care as is, is 'extreme.' Even though the numbers absolutely do not hold that out. With transition care literally having a higher satisfaction rate than any other major surgery, including any and all joint replacements. Literally you're employing a reduction to the extreme here. The vast majority of trans people do go through months or years of gender affirming care before beginning transitioning and the vast majority of detransitioners did not detransition because they weren't trans.

And as I said, I and detransitioners who did have problems overwhelmingly advocate for more, not less, accessibility to more robust care options, removing barriers to living as your chosen identity politically without transition, paying attention to gender euphoria rather than just gender dysphoria, and expansion of gender nonbinary within trans studies. (Check out Dr Mackinnon, who has published tons on detrans studies and who has prolific amount of public access with social media and free studies available.)

 

[We Never Know]

As was made clear by context that's not the first time we've went round.
Keep me company again tonight? It was just so good last night I want you to pleasure me again. You kept me up aalll niight looong. LMAO.

Lol. You will have to pleasure yourself tonight

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whether the percentage of detransitioners is less than 1% or as high as 10% is irrelevant, any amount is one too many and shows there is a problem not being addressed. I find it ironic when people point out that detransitioners are a tiny minority, as to imply they shouldn't really be factored in. Yet if anyone were to note that trans persons as a whole are also a tiny percent of the population and expressed a similar disregard for the community, that causes outrage and is seen as belittling.

Do you kniw how high it was in the past? Do you realize that concerns for failes transitions and detransitions is how it got to be so low, right?

 

[Koldo]

Sometimes trans people have been visible and sometimes that may have led to discrimination. You're talking about a very tiny, tiny percentage of the population. Prior to the recent scene, trans persons were rarely known by the overwhelming majority of the population, with little visibility within society. And even then, they often passed just fine and/or deliberately chose a lifestyle that allowed them to live comfortably and with minimal hassle.

I am not going to comment on the USA, but I can comment when it comes down to Brazil. Transwomen have historically been sex workers. There is a estimate floating around with a number as high as 90% of all transwomen being sex workers, but I think that might be an exaggeration. However, it wouldn't be far-fetched to say at least the majority are indeed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am not going to comment on the USA, but I can comment when it comes down to Brazil. Transwomen have historically been sex workers. There is a estimate floating around with a number as high as 90% of all transwomen being sex workers, but I think that might be an exaggeration. However, it wouldn't be far-fetched to say at least the majority are indeed.

It was pretty common here as well. I don't know about today, but long before today's political climate I read something frim a transwoman warning that many transwomen are forced into prostitution just to survive due to the discrimination and employment issues.

 

[Callisto]

Detransitioners have never been an 'issue,' and trying to frame them as an issue is a scare tactic utilized by people who claim access to gender affirming care as is, is 'extreme.' Even though the numbers absolutely do not hold that out. With transition care literally having a higher satisfaction rate than any other major surgery, including any and all joint replacements. Literally you're employing a reduction to the extreme here. The vast majority of trans people do go through months or years of gender affirming care before beginning transitioning and the vast majority of detransitioners did not detransition because they weren't trans.

Untrue. You're the one being a reductionist, detransitioners are regularly marginalized and even ostracized by others in the trans community. If the rate was so successful with transitioning there wouldn't be detransitioners, much less their numbers continuing. Detransitioners are routinely written off as a non-issue. They are an inconvenient truth to the propaganda and ideology that has tainted the issue of transgenderism and trans care. They can struggle to get the additional health care they need because they're "no longer trans" and insurance won't cover treatment and procedures as they do for persons who still identify as trans.

No amount of dismissiveness will make their numbers less or make them disappear nor cease to reflect that there are serious issues being ignored.

And as I said, I and detransitioners who did have problems overwhelmingly advocate for more, not less, accessibility to more robust care options, removing barriers to living as your chosen identity politically without transition, paying attention to gender euphoria rather than just gender dysphoria, and expansion of gender nonbinary within trans studies. (Check out Dr Mackinnon, who has published tons on detrans studies and who has prolific amount of public access with social media and free studies available.)

Assistance should start within the very community where people treat them as pariahs. The same outspoken activism in the community and medical community turn their backs on them, so how are they to get better care?

You don't have to agree with me, it doesn't matter and I don't care. I'm telling you what detransitioners express for themselves, those are the people you're accusing of using scare tactics, I'm just conveying what comes from the people personally affected.

 

[Callisto]

Do you kniw how high it was in the past? Do you realize that concerns for failes transitions and detransitions is how it got to be so low, right?

Why don't you present the hard data then? When were there rampant cases of detransitioners? 50 years ago? 30? 15?

As I said, "any amount is one too many and shows there is a problem not being addressed."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

detransitioners are regularly marginalized and even ostracized by others in the trans community.

Nobody should be marginalized and ostracized for being detrans, but that's due to the propaganda and ideology of bad faith right wingers pretending that detransitioners are more numerous than they are, and against trans healthcare which they aren't.

If the rate was so successful with transitioning there wouldn't be detransitioners, much less their numbers continuing.

About as stupid as saying that 'if x surgery with overwhelmingly successful results were so successful, there'd be no regrets.' That's not how life or medicine works. Yes, small numbers do matter, but not in the way you're trying to make it. Small numbers of regrets prove the success of the system, not its detriment. Does that mean there is no room for improvement? No, but it's incredibly cringe and eyeroll worthy to pretend this has anything to do with 'radical ideology'.

Detransitioners are routinely written off as a non-issue.

You're writing off the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of detrans STILL IDENTIFY AS TRANS, and pause, stop or reverse transition for reasons that have nothing to do with being 'misdiagnosed' or 'rushed treatment.' Because of your propaganda and ideology.

They can struggle to get the additional health care they need because they're "no longer trans" and insurance won't cover treatment and procedures as they do for persons who still identify as trans.

I am, in general, not a fan of insurance as a concept. And would rather push against transmedicalism and for universal healthcare, where even cosmetic surgeries are still covered in many circumstances.
I, like most 'trans activists' are for expanded coverage for gender affirming care, including for trans and cis.

No amount of dismissiveness will make their numbers less or make them disappear nor cease to reflect that there are serious issues being ignored.

Assistance should start within the very community where people treat them as pariahs. The same outspoken activism in the community and medical community turn their backs on them, so how are they to get better care?

You could start by climbing off someone else's cross to pretend you're a concerned ally.

those are the people you're accusing of using scare tactics,

No, the people I'm accusing of using scare tactics are bad faith actors on the right (or US centrists which are still actually on the right) trying to use detrans as leverage against gender affirming care access, as if that would help.

 

[Callisto]

Nobody should be marginalized and ostracized for being detrans, but that's due to the propaganda and ideology of bad faith right wingers pretending that detransitioners are more numerous than they are, and against trans healthcare which they aren't.

No true. Not everything is coming from the conservative right. Detransitioners are marginalized by the same community that once embraced when they thought they were trans. Now they're an inconvenient truth that not all is ok with the approach to trans care. That doesn't have a damn thing to do with rightwing politics, that comes from within.

About as stupid as saying that 'if x surgery with overwhelmingly successful results were so successful, there'd be no regrets.' That's not how life or medicine works. Yes, small numbers do matter, but not in the way you're trying to make it. Small numbers of regrets prove the success of the system, not its detriment. Does that mean there is no room for improvement? No, but it's incredibly cringe and eyeroll worthy to pretend this has anything to do with 'radical ideology'.

I like how you continue to dismiss them as a "small number". There is a small number of the population that is trans so perhaps there shouldn't be such a push to change spaces and compel speech given trans people are a tiny percent of the population?

The issue here is that much of recent science isn't improved and hasn't been around enough to be touted as uncontestable. But it has created an entire subsection within the trans community that was wrongly diagnosed.

You're writing off the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of detrans STILL IDENTIFY AS TRANS, and pause, stop or reverse transition for reasons that have nothing to do with being 'misdiagnosed' or 'rushed treatment.' Because of your propaganda and ideology.

It's rich you're accusing someone else of spewing ideology. Wow, project much? The vast majority of people who have transitioned are barely 5 years into their transition. The reality is there is not enough data nor enough history among this increase number to declare a f'n thing as uncontestable fact. When the vast majority is 15, 30 years out then you can talk about what is vast but right now, you're just pulling on the propaganda that supports your beliefs. The fact you call my referencing what actual detransitioners have conveyed as "propaganda" speaks volumes.

I am, in general, not a fan of insurance as a concept. And would rather push against transmedicalism and for universal healthcare, where even cosmetic surgeries are still covered in many circumstances.
I, like most 'trans activists' are for expanded coverage for gender affirming care, including for trans and cis.

You could start by climbing off someone else's cross to pretend you're a concerned ally.

Firstly, I'm not an ally for this or any other group. I find it telling that you're trying to dismiss what I say because it blows holes the oh-so-perfect-never-wrong narrative you're adhering to. I'll point out again, I'm referencing first-hand accounts of what people in the trans community have personally endured. The fact that you think it's wrong, propaganda and should be written off because it counters what you're spewing tells all that needs to be told.

No, the people I'm accusing of using scare tactics are bad faith actors on the right (or US centrists which are still actually on the right) trying to use detrans as leverage against gender affirming care access, as if that would help.

Though that has no bearing on what I stated, does it? I didn't reference any rightwing, non-trans sources.