Trans gatekeeping

[PoetPhilosopher]

When a person advocates for a new and/or different idea, I tend to look at the consistency of a person's statements weighed with their actions and behaviors, as well as past statements, or what I happen to "know" about them.

Some people are against trans people. I find that kind of okay. But more often, I see a lot of the ones strongly "against" things to be doing things like potentially keeping several transgender friends and potentially not setting them on strict rules, while advocating strict rules for newer additions to the trans community. To me, this is gatekeeping. And as the field and understanding of trans care improves, you'll inevitably get trans people who don't act like the trans people of the past, you'll get new trans people following newer models of care and bringing new ideas to the table

The reason why I consider it important not to gatekeep, is well, let's take the medical community for example. Years ago, a "big" question doctors sometimes considered is whether a person wanting to transition was gay, straight or bi. These days, most people will tell you that gender and sexual orientation are two different things. But doctors still used it as a way to gauge in the past whether the person was pursuing a fetish. Things like this simply ended up causing the trans people to lie to doctors to get the care they felt they needed. At the same time, these lies as a result of unnecessary restrictions and repurcussions that could be enforced based on the way they answered, could also harm the person because the doctor then may not end up with the proper data when pursuing additional care for them that doesn't have to do with gatekeeping.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When a person advocates for a new and/or different idea, I tend to look at the consistency of a person's statements weighed with their actions and behaviors, as well as past statements, or what I happen to "know" about them.

Some people are against trans people. I find that kind of okay. But more often, I see a lot of the ones strongly "against" things to be doing things like potentially keeping several transgender friends and potentially not setting them on strict rules, while advocating strict rules for newer additions to the trans community. To me, this is gatekeeping. And as the field and understanding of trans care improves, you'll inevitably get trans people who don't act like the trans people of the past, you'll get new trans people following newer models of care and bringing new ideas to the table

The reason why I consider it important not to gatekeep, is well, let's take the medical community for example. Years ago, a "big" question doctors sometimes considered is whether a person wanting to transition was gay, straight or bi. These days, most people will tell you that gender and sexual orientation are two different things. But doctors still used it as a way to gauge in the past whether the person was pursuing a fetish. Things like this simply ended up causing the trans people to lie to doctors to get the care they felt they needed. At the same time, these lies as a result of unnecessary restrictions and repurcussions that could be enforced based on the way they answered, could also harm the person because the doctor then may not end up with the proper data when pursuing additional care for them that doesn't have to do with gatekeeping.

Interesting topic, but one I can't add too much to, so I'll just read along.
However, this did bring to mind a conversation I had with my father in law on the weekend, about a former AFL football player who is transitioning, and reappeared at the club as a woman quite recently.

He (my father in law) found it bemusing that this former male AFL player could appear as a women, with her girlfriend. I just kept it simple, and said she had transitioned because she felt like a woman, and had a girlfriend because she was attracted to her.

That's basically it, right?

 

[AlexanderG]

One axis that humans use to define their in-group is perceived "purity." You can see this in religions, obviously, but many other groups like vegans, atheists, economic ideologues, and sadly the trans community. I think this is pretty well understood in psychology.

Paradoxically, I think you see this purity metric being weaponized within a group at a higher rate the more marginalized or oppressed that group feels. I suspect this has to do with the group feeling threatened on an existential level, such that they want to assure their safety by strongly vetting the members they let in. Again, a lot of this is conjecture on my part.

I'm vaguely aware of lots of categories and sub-categories that the trans community label each other with, and some in these different groups disparage certain other groups and vice versa. I've seen aspiring trans allies be completely destroyed online for initially fumbling the use of a term, or praising the "wrong" person, or failing to mention certain key concepts or phrases. This helps some in the trans community feel safer in some ways, but it comes at a price.

I'm very much pro-trans rights, but based on what I've seen I would never comment non-anonymously on any trans issue for fear of being irrevocably demonized by the community itself, even if I thought I was being positively supportive of trans rights without reservation. Note that I wouldn't really have this concern with people I know in person or interact with in my real life community. It's mainly certain internet subgroups that seem to be so self-sabotaging, but it still makes me sad. There is gatekeeping, sure, and what it means to be trans is rapidly evolving. Either way, I'm happy to support anyone self-identify as whatever lets them feel fulfilled in life, so long as it doesn't actively harm others. It's not like it affects or harms me, except that I might benefit from living in a more tolerant society. So, power to them.

 

[Estro Felino]

Let us distinguish between society and law.
The society has the obligation to accept all people and they have the obligation to respect their identity. This is in the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

The law is pragmatic and is supposed to change the gender in the ID (male or woman) according to some criteria.

What are the criteria?
If a woman simply identifies as a man, can she just dress like a man? Or act like a man?
The law cannot accept that because there would be too much confusion. Too much chaos.
For example...Cameron Diaz decides to be a man...and she wants the law to acknowledge that in her ID.

The law requires objective criteria.
For example HRT and so on.

I can speak of my own country. My country de jure states that a transgender a person has to undergo bottom surgery because there are cases of FtMs who have heterosexual intercourse with cisgender men and become pregnant. They become mothers.

The Italian law cannot accept that a woman who has become a man (by law, in his ID) is considered a mother. Because "he" delivered a child.

That is why the Italian law requires sterilization, so transgender people whose gender has been changed by law, cannot be fathers or mothers.

It is a matter of pragmatism.

 

[Koldo]

Let us distinguish between society and law.
The society has the obligation to accept all people and they have the obligation to respect their identity. This is in the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

The law is pragmatic and is supposed to change the gender in the ID (male or woman) according to some criteria.

What are the criteria?
If a woman simply identifies as a man, can she just dress like a man? Or act like a man?
The law cannot accept that because there would be too much confusion. Too much chaos.
For example...Cameron Diaz decides to be a man...and she wants the law to acknowledge that in her ID.

The law requires objective criteria.
For example HRT and so on.

I can speak of my own country. My country de jure states that a transgender a person has to undergo bottom surgery because there are cases of FtMs who have heterosexual intercourse with cisgender men and become pregnant. They become mothers.

The Italian law cannot accept that a woman who has become a man (by law, in his ID) is considered a mother. Because "he" delivered a child.

That is why the Italian law requires sterilization, so transgender people whose gender has been changed by law, cannot be fathers or mothers.

It is a matter of pragmatism.

But what if the transition happens after giving birth? Doesn't the same problem happen?

 

[Estro Felino]

But what if the transition happens after giving birth? Doesn't the same problem happen?

Indeed.
I don't think the Courthouse will give the authorization to the anagraphical gender change.
Here it has never happened, I know because a trans woman who had a son in her youth was denied the anagraphical change.

Here you need a Courthouse judgment.
The judge asks you tens of questions about your sex life.
There is a hearing.

 

[Koldo]

Indeed.
I don't think the Courthouse will give the authorization to the anagraphical gender change.
Here it has never happened, I know because a trans woman who had a son in her youth was denied the anagraphical change.

Here you need a Courthouse judgment.
The judge asks you tens of questions about your sex life.
There is a hearing.

Here in Brazil, barring certain exceptions, one can head to the notary's office with their documents and ask their gender, and their first name, to be changed if they wish. They got to pay a given fee and that's it. It might take a bit of a wait though.

 

[Estro Felino]

Here in Brazil, barring certain exceptions, one can head to the notary's office with their documents and ask their gender, and their first name, to be changed if they wish. They got to pay a given fee and that's it. It might take a bit of a wait though.

If there are people who de-transition, will the Federal Republic of Brasil re-change their gender in the ID?

 

[Koldo]

If there are people who de-transition, will the Federal Republic of Brasil re-change their gender in the ID?

Through the judiciary I am pretty certain the answer is: "It is, at the very least, possible.". How likely though? I don't know.
Now, if you are asking if it is possible to do it through the notary's office, I really don't know either. It is a pretty new thing in here.