PDGA survey

[Ess-dog]

Many feared it was, back then. And back then isn't even that long ago.

And as such, they should either be banned from white sports venues, or be allowed to compete among themselves.

Look up Jimmy the Greek, and why he was fired. And then look at the year that happened.
Here's the actual coverage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZWr49UmjAA
And yes, that was 1988.

they were just white splaining presumed advantages. There were poorly thought out claims alluding to biological determinism around then. The media tried to read into the hypothesis and tie it to sex and race issues....people just cant handle randomness and need to explain the unknown in absolutes. That is probably biologically determined.

 

[gingerandhoney]

I'm mildly curious which "science" we're talking about?

This being relatively new ground for me, I did a bit of research and learned "transgender" is categorized by psychiatrists, psychologists, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as gender dysphoria, which is also categorized as a mental disorder.

DSM, short for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is APA's most revered document.

DSM-III introduced gender identity disorder in 1980.
DSM-IV (1994) kept the name and classification.
DSM-5 (the current version, 2013) renamed it gender dysphoria, and as such explicitly declassified it as no longer considered a disorder.
https://www.psychiatry.org/File Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Gender-Dysphoria.pdf

 

[gingerandhoney]

Detransitioners are usually unable to reproduce or have normal sexual functions generally. It's typically one of the prime regrets people have about transitioning.

No.
Just no.
A large portion of the people detransitioning do so because of societal non-acceptance.
As is sadly equally true about transgender people attempting suicide.

And as far as sexual functions go;
A. not all changes are irreversible, and
B. there's a lot of assumption going on in that statement as to which (any and all are options, none are mandatory) set of transition option(s) a person chose.

 

[gingerandhoney]

I'm not making it about her, only offering her status as an example. I don't know if Natalie or Chloe or others have fully transitioned as Nova has, but the point being you say the PDGA

Then this is a non-issue and Nova, et al can proceed to play in F divisions.

FULLY TRANSITIONED?
That is incredibly prescriptive, and not supported by medicine, or psychology.

 

[txmxer]

FULLY TRANSITIONED?
That is incredibly prescriptive, and not supported by medicine, or psychology.

Sorry. Give me the details (or a guide) on how one is supposed to address transitioning and the various stages of transitioning.

It doesn't appear that you read the previous back and forth with Tuna that was the actual point of the post. No worries.

 

[Arisugawa]

Sorry. Give me the details (or a guide) on how one is supposed to address transitioning and the various stages of transitioning.

It doesn't appear that you read the previous back and forth with Tuna that was the actual point of the post. No worries.

From my rather limited understanding of this in the current climate, one is transitioned if they are living full time as their gender.

The older terms, which date back to when this kind of thing was called transsexualism, would be more akin to
Post-op - One who has had gender-affirming surgery
Pre-op - One who intends to have gender affirming surgery
Non-op - One who either cannot or has chosen not to have gender affirming surgery

That may be what you're thinking of, Txmxer.

Gingerandhoney can correct me if am misspeaking.

 

[jenb]

It's like the "Friday night news dump"

Sorry. Give me the details (or a guide) on how one is supposed to address transitioning and the various stages of transitioning.

It doesn't appear that you read the previous back and forth with Tuna that was the actual point of the post. No worries.

The nomenclature changes all the time. It's difficult to keep up with it. Social transitioners (who used to be called "full time cross dressers") and medical transitioners who didn't want bottom surgery (who used to be called "non-op transsexuals") were fighting for legal recognition/rights. Bottom surgery had long been the litmus test for legal recognition of change of gender marker, and thus, legal rights relating to marriage, etc. The ongoing legal battles/legislative efforts motivated those who had or wanted bottom surgery to try to categorically distinguish non ops, hoping that the efforts of non ops to get legal recognition would not muddy the waters and jeopardize the legal recognition of those who had bottom surgery, so they created the "transgender" umbrella term, with all of the transitioners being "transwomen" but only those who had bottom surgery or wanted to have it being "transexuals." Those who wanted bottom surgery were "partially transitioned" and those who had it already were "fully transitioned." It was a common complaint though that "transsexual" creates a false impression that the transition is about sex instead of gender, and connotes some kind of sexual motive or fetish. So that term later fell out of use in favor of all social and medical transitioners just being "trans women." So the exclusionary strategy kind of backfired, and yielded a good result in the end. In my view, the term "fully transitioned" now is just an easier way to say "transwomen who have had bottom surgery," and it was never intended to mean that social transitioners and non ops were not women, just a way to distinguish those who had bottom surgery from those who wanted bottom surgery and didn't have it yet. But given its history and connotation, maybe it should fall out of use.

 

[txmxer]

From my rather limited understanding of this in the current climate, one is transitioned if they are living full time as their gender.

The older terms, which date back to when this kind of thing was called transsexualism, would be more akin to
Post-op - One who has had gender-affirming surgery
Pre-op - One who intends to have gender affirming surgery
Non-op - One who either cannot or has chosen not to have gender affirming surgery

That may be what you're thinking of, Txmxer.

Gingerandhoney can correct me if am misspeaking.

I think there are times when people see something and determine they are offended when they shouldn't be or wouldn't be in the context that it was said.

My post may have been poorly worded, but it was shorthand for noting that all the surface aspects of transitioning are complete to the best of my knowledge (not that anyone's specifics are my business--once again read in context).

The context was the PDGA shouldn't make special rules for outliers (trans women playing in F divisions). My response was that in that case then there is no issue and pointed to Nova as an example of a person that has transitioned in every way that would normally apply to a female signing up for an F division. Although not a requirement, but if they chose to ask for proof of age and gender, Nova had her BC revised to indicate her gender correctly.

Tuna then responded it is not about one person.

My response was that it was an example, but I don't know that Natalie or Chloe or Laura have checked those same boxes that one might normally look at to establish whether a person meets the criteria to participate in a specific protected division in the sport of their choice.

It was not intended to be either medically or psychologically valid, but valid within the context of current or potential PDGA rules.

Don't make special rules for trans participation (per Tuna's suggestion) and then we have no issue. Nova et al can sign up and play F divisions.

 

[jenb]

I think there are times when people see something and determine they are offended when they shouldn't be or wouldn't be in the context that it was said.

My post may have been poorly worded, but it was shorthand for noting that all the surface aspects of transitioning are complete to the best of my knowledge (not that anyone's specifics are my business--once again read in context).

The context was the PDGA shouldn't make special rules for outliers (trans women playing in F divisions). My response was that in that case then there is no issue and pointed to Nova as an example of a person that has transitioned in every way that would normally apply to a female signing up for an F division. Although not a requirement, but if they chose to ask for proof of age and gender, Nova had her BC revised to indicate her gender correctly.

Tuna then responded it is not about one person.

My response was that it was an example, but I don't know that Natalie or Chloe or Laura have checked those same boxes that one might normally look at to establish whether a person meets the criteria to participate in a specific protected division in the sport of their choice.

It was not intended to be either medically or psychologically valid, but valid within the context of current or potential PDGA rules.

Don't make special rules for trans participation (per Tuna's suggestion) and then we have no issue. Nova et al can sign up and play F divisions.

Where to draw these types of lines is always contentious and gets caught up with labels. "Transgender" was created because pre and post op transexuals didn't want non ops and social transitioners calling themselves transexuals, a term that was later discarded. The contention is worth it because progress ultimately results.

And if dmoore can provide evidence of his mythical nontransitioner with a female brain, I have the ability to adjust my opinion about what "transwomen" means. But transition (and yes that includes social transition and/or medical transition) is the only evidence we realistically have that someone has a female brain before a postmortem autopsy.

 

[Arisugawa]

Where to draw these types of lines is always contentious and gets caught up with labels. "Transgender" was created because pre and post op transexuals didn't want non ops and social transitioners calling themselves transexuals, a term that was later discarded. The contention is worth it because progress ultimately results.

And if dmoore can provide evidence of his mythical nontransitioner with a female brain, I have the ability to adjust my opinion about what "transwomen" means. But transition (and yes that includes social transition and/or medical transition) is the only evidence we realistically have that someone has a female brain before a postmortem autopsy.

I suspect this really isn't mythical.

When I was in college back in the 1990s and was part of several LGBT (Q+ wasn't added until later) usenet groups, I was in contact with a male-to-female professor in England who ultimately decided not to transition because the social uproar and and professional backlash would have been too great.

I have no idea what her life was life from that point on, as she somewhat vanished after making that decision, but nonetheless - I suspect some there are many similar people out there even in today's more accepting climate. Sometimes, the repercussions of transitioning are more than someone is willing to bear, the price too high. Especially for someone well into adulthood, who may have family and have been otherwise suppressing their gender for decades.

 

[jenb]

I suspect this really isn't mythical.

When I was in college back in the 1990s and was part of several LGBT (Q+ wasn't added until later) usenet groups, I was in contact with a male-to-female professor in England who ultimately decided not to transition because the social uproar and and professional backlash would have been too great.

I have no idea what her life was life from that point on, as she somewhat vanished after making that decision, but nonetheless - I suspect some there are many similar people out there even in today's more accepting climate. Sometimes, the repercussions of transitioning are more than someone is willing to bear, the price too high. Especially for someone well into adulthood, who may have family and have been otherwise suppressing their gender for decades.

To me, the question arises whether someone with the ability to not transition has a sufficiently feminized brain to be categorized as female. No way to know really, and for someone who doesn't transition and thus, doesn't want a female gender marker, I still think that there is no reason to extend legal recognition of female gender to that individual.

 

[jenb]

I suspect this really isn't mythical.

When I was in college back in the 1990s and was part of several LGBT (Q+ wasn't added until later) usenet groups, I was in contact with a male-to-female professor in England who ultimately decided not to transition because the social uproar and and professional backlash would have been too great.

I have no idea what her life was life from that point on, as she somewhat vanished after making that decision, but nonetheless - I suspect some there are many similar people out there even in today's more accepting climate. Sometimes, the repercussions of transitioning are more than someone is willing to bear, the price too high. Especially for someone well into adulthood, who may have family and have been otherwise suppressing their gender for decades.

Additionally, while state laws tend to be rather specific about what exactly is required for a person to be recognized as female, corporate diversity policies tend to be much less specific. Broadening the definition of "transwomen" to include non transitioners could give rise to men going to HR and saying they are women, and they gave no plans to transition in any way other than using the women's restroom. That sounds exactly like the kind of trap the anti-trans crowd would love to lead others into, and I think that's what dmoore has been trying to do all along.

 

[Arisugawa]

Additionally, while state laws tend to be rather specific about what exactly is required for a person to be recognized as female, corporate diversity policies tend to be much less specific. Broadening the definition of "transwomen" to include non transitioners could give rise to men going to HR and saying they are women, and they gave no plans to transition in any way other than using the women's restroom. That sounds exactly like the kind of trap the anti-trans crowd would love to lead others into, and I think that's what dmoore has been trying to do all along.

I wasn't trying to imply that, so my apologies if spoke erroneously.

 

[txmxer]

Additionally, while state laws tend to be rather specific about what exactly is required for a person to be recognized as female, corporate diversity policies tend to be much less specific. Broadening the definition of "transwomen" to include non transitioners could give rise to men going to HR and saying they are women, and they gave no plans to transition in any way other than using the women's restroom. That sounds exactly like the kind of trap the anti-trans crowd would love to lead others into, and I think that's what dmoore has been trying to do all along.

Bringing this back to disc golf or competitive sports in general, I believe that there are people that would choose to abuse the system if it lacks boundaries (verifications) because some people just like to be jerks.

 

[jenb]

I suspect this really isn't mythical.

When I was in college back in the 1990s and was part of several LGBT (Q+ wasn't added until later) usenet groups, I was in contact with a male-to-female professor in England who ultimately decided not to transition because the social uproar and and professional backlash would have been too great.

I have no idea what her life was life from that point on, as she somewhat vanished after making that decision, but nonetheless - I suspect some there are many similar people out there even in today's more accepting climate. Sometimes, the repercussions of transitioning are more than someone is willing to bear, the price too high. Especially for someone well into adulthood, who may have family and have been otherwise suppressing their gender for decades.

I wasn't trying to imply that, so my apologies if spoke erroneously.

Not at all. Just trying to clarify why I am taking a stance here. To further clarify, dmoore posited a transwoman with a female brain who never even said anything to anyone and didn't want to transition at all. Not the same example you gave. If such a person exists, no one will ever know because they never said anything. Unless of course they start autopsying cis men at random and find female brains, but you'd think any of those would show up in a control group and I've never heard of it happening, but IDK.

 

[gingerandhoney]

From my rather limited understanding of this in the current climate, one is transitioned if they are living full time as their gender.

The older terms, which date back to when this kind of thing was called transsexualism, would be more akin to
Post-op - One who has had gender-affirming surgery
Pre-op - One who intends to have gender affirming surgery
Non-op - One who either cannot or has chosen not to have gender affirming surgery

That may be what you're thinking of, Txmxer.

Gingerandhoney can correct me if am misspeaking.

"full" or "partial" transition is used by cisgender population to try and distinguish between the various options a trangender person could choose; it is seen as rather prescriptive by medics, psychologists, and the transgender people themselves to refer to a full transition only if that person had gender-affirming surgery, and partial transition to anyone who did not.
It is as psychologically damaging as "passing" (ie. cisgender people judging on whether that transgender person fits in the mold that the strictly binary and cisheteronormative society decreed a man or a woman should look like).
With the same measuring stick that is then being used to judge transgender people, cisgender, more cisgender people than you think would not pass that same judgement.

In many states and countries that gender-affirming surgery is financially and/or legally unobtainable, and some people simply can not undergo said surgery because of medical conditions.
Would anyone have the guts to call that person "not fully transitioned"?

Fact is, once the transgender person thinks and feels their social and or medical transition it is done; for wahtever reason, even if these are medical, legal, or financial; their transition is done. And that is "full transition"; regardless of which options were picked and not picked.
One transgender person's "done, I am fully transitioned" is not the other's.

The person transitioning will have a seemingly unlimited number of transition options available to them.

I'll stick to the most common of options typically available to transgender women here:
how to present dress/style themselves
changing name (not legally)
changing pronouns (not legally)
changing given name (legally)
changing birth certificate (legally)
And we still haven't reached any medical steps.

now we can add the medical steps:
hormone replacement therapy (only adding female hormones)
hormone replacement therapy (only suppressing male hormones)
hormone replacement therapy (both adding female and suppressing male hormones)
speech therapy
vocal chord surgery
facial hair removal
facial feminisation surgery
breast augmentation
gonadectomy (without gender-affirming surgery)
gender-affirming surgery (including gonadectomy)

 

[gingerandhoney]

To me, the question arises whether someone with the ability to not transition has a sufficiently feminized brain to be categorized as female. No way to know really, and for someone who doesn't transition and thus, doesn't want a female gender marker, I still think that there is no reason to extend legal recognition of female gender to that individual.

Whether a person has a completely male, predominantly male, sort of 50-50, predominantly female, completely female brain anatomy (were talking mostly about SDN-POA, BSTc, and VIP-SCN has very much to do with how this person actually "knows" or "understands" they are * has little to do with which social and medical transition options they pick.

Legal transition is always an option (unless the person lives in a state/country where any combination of gender-affirming surgery, gonadectomy, and/or sterilisation is mandatory for a gender marker to be changed).
Point in case; in more and more states and countries, changing a gender marker to X is an option. What shoukd a person's genitalia look like in order to be awarded an "X"?


* = I refrain from using "feels", lest "facts not feelings" be used again

 

[jenb]

"full" or "partial" transition is used by cisgender population to try and distinguish between the various options a trangender person could choose; it is seen as rather prescriptive by medics, psychologists, and the transgender people themselves to refer to a full transition only if that person had gender-affirming surgery, and partial transition to anyone who did not.
It is as psychologically damaging as "passing" (ie. cisgender people judging on whether that transgender person fits in the mold that the strictly binary and cisheteronormative society decreed a man or a woman should look like).
With the same measuring stick that is then being used to judge transgender people, cisgender, more cisgender people than you think would not pass that same judgement.

In many states and countries that gender-affirming surgery is financially and/or legally unobtainable, and some people simply can not undergo said surgery because of medical conditions.
Would anyone have the guts to call that person "not fully transitioned"?

Fact is, once the transgender person thinks and feels their social and or medical transition it is done; for wahtever reason, even if these are medical, legal, or financial; their transition is done. And that is "full transition"; regardless of which options were picked and not picked.
One transgender person's "done, I am fully transitioned" is not the other's.

The person transitioning will have a seemingly unlimited number of transition options available to them.

I'll stick to the most common of options typically available to transgender women here:
how to present dress/style themselves
changing name (not legally)
changing pronouns (not legally)
changing given name (legally)
changing birth certificate (legally)
And we still haven't reached any medical steps.

now we can add the medical steps:
hormone replacement therapy (only adding female hormones)
hormone replacement therapy (only suppressing male hormones)
hormone replacement therapy (both adding female and suppressing male hormones)
speech therapy
vocal chord surgery
facial hair removal
facial feminisation surgery
breast augmentation
gonadectomy (without gender-affirming surgery)
gender-affirming surgery (including gonadectomy)

I think "fully transitioned" originally referred to bottom surgery specifically. It was viewed as the "icing in the cake" that should only occur after all other surgeries a medical transitioner wanted were completed. In the states , having the wrong gender marker made it difficult to be employed back then as an ID had to be presented to employers within one month of employment. That led to many having bottom surgery and then having other surgeries later. Eventually, f2ms wanted legal recognition for top surgery because bottom surgery for them cost six figures even decades ago. The statutes were changed to allow recognition for "gender affirming survey" in many states. Then non ops would get legal recognition for top surgery, and social transitioners would get it for any kind of facial surgery or other cosmetic procedure they wanted that could possibly be gender confirming . Eventually, the PTBs just threw up their hands and said, "Eff it! Let's just give 'em all Fs."

If cis peeps are using "fully transitioned" to mean any kind of gender affirming surgery, that's a newer development to me. In the context of today's terminology though, I think it's a confusing term, not very helpful, and potentially hurtful, so I won't be using it.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Societal pressure and non-acceptance withholds many people who actually experience gender dysphoria from taking any coming out and/or any social or medical transition steps. For some the penalty would "only" be thrown out of their parental home; for others it'd go as far as being murdered for it.

It is remarkably similar to the way that many people who are not fully heterosexual do not come out for being any variation of non-heterosexual.

Are we to believe that there are no gay male * association footballers or American footballers? Nope.
They're just too damn scared to come out. Because society would eat them raw, spit them out, and leave them to rot.
* = there's lots and lots of out & proud gay female association footballers as implicit proof it must also be the case with the men.

It - not coming out due to pressure and non-acceptance - applied to me for over 30 years of my life.
I didn't accept myself and my gender dysphoria until I was 41. I had started acting out by the time I was 10 (and felt an ever-increasing amount of guilt for doing so; not being able to simply accept the hand I was dealt), but I have very good indicators that by age 5/6 I had already started experiencing gender dysphoria; but had almost no words or means to express it; other than the world around me noticing I had gone from being a happy and cheerful kid to a dejected and lethargic pile of bones and meat.

 

[jenb]

Whether a person has a completely male, predominantly male, sort of 50-50, predominantly female, completely female brain anatomy (were talking mostly about SDN-POA, BSTc, and VIP-SCN has very much to do with how this person actually "knows" or "understands" they are * has little to do with which social and medical transition options they pick.

If you're saying that transition is a choice, and the degree of gender dysphoria people feel is not relative to the degree of masculinization or feminization of the brain, I respectfully disagree. I don't know why anyone would transition to female if they really had a choice. Dysphoria translates to "unbearable burden," not "bearable burden."