Am I alone in wondering where the WOMEN wanting to trans are?

[loveyouradvice]

They feel so invisible....

Everywhere I look there are men who have or are transitioning to be transwomen - on magazine covers, on all women shortlists, in the media....

But where are the natal born women who are/have transitioned?

The only two I've come across are:

• one who detransitioned and wrote movingly about it, after ten years as a transman
• the american high school wrestler who is fighting to be allowed to fight in men's categories

Completely anecdotally, I know five ftm adolescent girls in our very small community, and no mtf teens. I know a shit ton of middle aged mtf transitioners.
Completely unscientifically, this could be because being a teenage girl is utterly utterly shit, and because middle aged men get off on the fetish and drama, having reached a point where they have been forced to be sensible Bob with a job and mortgage and kids and responsibilities and a beer gut. Or a lonely creeper that still hasn't found anyone they want to get boring with. What's sexier and more fuckable than a single woman with a high sex drive? I wanna be dat. Fuck the norms, I'm bored of responsibility. Or it could just be that's the people I know.
Disclaimer - that rather jaded viewpoint sadly matches the research I did ten/ fifteen years ago, but that could be confirmation bias too...

@RatRolyPoly

"I agree Rumpled, our bodies are used to keep us in check, undeniably. But they're not why"

What is it then? What is the one thing almost every single natal woman on the planet has if it is not our reproductive system/capacity; or for those with reproductive 'challenges' (speaking as someone who had assisted reproductive treatment) our perceived reproductive system/capacity?

Ifnot, - I agree that the social normalisation and wide open discussion of being trans has made it more likely that some who just feel like they 'don't fit' with a narrow band of gender norms will seek to self identify or transition socially to try to find a role that suits.

However, the idea that all trans cases are not inherent like being gay surely is something that you are born with, I find harder to agree.

I am pretty sure from my own experience and that of others I know whose experiences are like mine that there is something else going on outside today's fluidity of gender norms.

That appears almost to be a new awakening of self expression taking advantage of the modern world and possibilities of social change and medical adaptability.

I suspect that this new phenomenon was born of the times and is almost by accident swelling the visibility of transgender people.

By which I mean we ARE all transgender in a fundamental way - quitter obviously - but not necessarily all for the same reason.

I think there are likely multiple causes here.

One obvious difference is that today's generation are often fluidly transgender. Whereas the trans people I am and know are avtually quite traditionally normal in gender perception.

As in there are 2 - not 102 - male and female.

Indeed that word transgender has replaced the outlawed transsexual terminology used in the past because of that divergence and focus on gender identity as opposed to sex.

We old school trans people are driven by a belief that our body is somehow just wrong and we need to 'change its sex structure' not find a different concept of gender to express ourselves through.

We DO know the physical reality and that you actually cannot change sex. We had to agree that we understood that when having surgery. But that need to change as far as physically possible is there and it more or less compels you into transition as early as possible.

So you are not driven into finding a way to live work and play in a more appropriate gender defined way. You literally believe that your body is wrong and it does not match up to your mind.

This is, of course, why it was long assumed that transsexualism was a mental disorder. As it self evidently seems to be one. I totally get that. Though that rang alarm bells when psychiatrists had patients telling them they knew they must have a mental illness because of this belief as they are used to those who they consider deluded being - well deluded. Not clear sighted and just saying - we don't know why this is happening but it is. So please just figure it out and resolve it.

So most of the emphasis went into long assessment and even efforts to cure it like aversion therapy and electro convulsive therapy. On the premise it was a delusion.

It is only very recently that it has started to be declassified as a mental illness because no explanation or cure was found.

So they are leaving the options open until they do know. Or even if they find that there are multiple causes manifesting in slightly different ways.

But the bottom line is that most of today's much larger trans community are fluid and not seeking a body/mind reunion to the maximum (but never quite enough) degree that science will allow.

They are trans GENDER - as gender identity in an increasingly bewildering number of shades (baffling me every bit as much as you all I suspect) is the essence of their problem.

But the much smaller group of what used to be called Transsexuals view this more bluntly - it is about modifying our sex as much as possible to match what our mind tells us it ought to be.

So for us there only ever are two - Male and Female - and the trans part is about transiting from one to the other to the most degree that modern science allows.

I am not arguing here that there are real and non real trans people. All of us are trans and valid and deserve support - but we are approaching this seemingly in a variety of ways.

And the sex/gender thing appears a pretty fundamental difference that needs pointing out.

dodo, I agree completely about the risk of transition regret escalating.

I have made clear in a number of posts that I disagree with the removal of medical assessment from the GRA in the planned changes because I think this is a necessary check and balance that slows down irreversible transition and gives time for proper assessment. And also eliminates the risk of 'try it and see' self medicated transition via social media and internet bought medication and 'advice'.

The past system has been very successful for a reason. It transitioned fully only those who were 100% sure and with whom multiple doctors agreed that this was a survival necessity and the best route to overcome the huge problem being trans can be.

It has worked because so many have been happy and successful totally under the radar over the past 40 years with the world hardly ever talking about the subject or noticing we were there and a regret rate so low it is amongst the best 'success percentage' of any major surgery. Around 95 - 97% I believe.

So any knocking out of the support struts is dangerously risky.

These supports have created such a successful outcome from what is, of course, a fudge of a cure because everyone - doctors and patients included - know that this process is a compromise and physical transition can never be 100% under present science. As a result of which acceptance post surgery will always vary depending on things like - how early in life you transition physically, how skilled is the surgery and how embracing are all of those around you to acceptance of who you feel you now are versus the reality they perceive of what you are.

So I feel the changes to the GRA as proposed are putting at risk real people who may be left to flounder as a result of wanting to give greater freedoms and not upset those agitating for no checks and balances and total self determination.

In my view that is a nice ideal to aspire towards, but with a problem such as being trans is one you cannot afford to have without taking into account its complex and (to me at least) some self evidently obvious degree of medical relevance that should not just be ignored in order to protect those involved.

We do not allow people to self declare whether they have cancer or not for good reason. Whilst in a way a rather silly analogy it makes my point.

That all made me feel very much like I and my sex group were being erased, although at the time I could not have expressed it as such, simply that that was not true.

I don't get this, I don't get the idea of a single female experience existing to be erased. I know what it is to be me but I don't know what it is to be everywoman. I think that I probably feel more kinship, for want of a better word, with a man from the same social group than a woman from a culture on the other side of the world. I think that there are aspects of my experience that have more in common with a gay man than a straight women.

... an attractive, articulate person on the internet says 'Hey, i am just like you, I was mixed up and did not fit in and now I know I am trans.

Of the horrors that unsupervised children can be exposed to on the Internet, this doesn't rank very highly for me. In part because I know how arduous a medical transition is, how long waiting lists are and that medical professionals stand in the way.

Your friends had a tough time, and I am sorry for that. But you seem to be suggesting because something was not easy that must make it true.

No, I was trying to suggest that, as in the example you gave above, where a vunerable person is told that there might be somewhere that they 'belong', that it's unlikely that they would go through a long, isolating process. There are many easier ways to find a tribe.

"All three have happier, less chaotic lives now" Is that because being a lesbian is not really accepted, still in society? Just a question.

I don't know, it's really hard to speculate on how something would be in a hypothetical situation. I know that one of them told me that he would still want to transition, if he lived alone on an island without human contact. He was very upfront about his post surgery body only bring an approximation of who he felt he should be.

I was talking specifically about teenage girls too young to legally transition. I am sorry if that was not clear. My concerns are for young women and girls.

I've said in a previous post, that I can't see how these low level 'social transitions' are damaging in the long term. If the young person decided that they were wrong, they've done nothing they can't come back from.

When I was at school, there was at least one girl in each year group with an eating disorder. At the time, it was assumed that this was a result of fashion magazines or academic pressure but maybe those girls were trying to delay or rid themselves of the signs of puberty? I don't imagine any of them were trans but perhaps there might be a level of cross over between what my peers were doing then and what these teenagers are doing now?

I don't think as a society we should ever put children through transition. I'm also opposed to self ID and think transition should involve Psychiatric assessment. For adults only, not children - who should not start the process under 18.

But I do find it bizarre and patronising that there is still this idea that even in adults it must be a result of confusion or not conforming to gender stereotypes or not wanting to be gay or lesbian when we are at a point in history where homosexuality is accepted more than ever, much more than being trans is.

The idea that adult people (in the West) are going through life changing treatment just because they don't want to be seen as gay is laughable. As a PP say, a lot of FTM trans people already are out lesbians, so why the need to trans?

And it IS reminiscent of what people have said in the past about gay people referring to stereotypes or it being confusion or a phase. 'You're not a gay man you just like musicals and Barbra Streisand' 'you're not a lesbian, you just don't want to wear make up and heels' when the answer actually is, no I'm a man who wants to have sex with men or a woman who wants to have sex women and my hobbies, clothes, interests etc aren't why I know I'm gay.

@Jayceedove it is brilliant you are on this debate. I am aware of your superior knowledge and experience in some aspects of all this.

"Understanding the reasons for this is important and, as those involved in treating these cases have noticed it and commented, then I am sure that research will be occurring."

I hope you are right. I seriously fear you are not. I doubt there us funding for research in these cash strapped times. I also fear that such research would be framed as transphobic and shut down.

Just like the research one person was attempting to do on detranission.

What I am giving is my opinion based on what I have heard and read.

@Stillscreaming Nancy or Sid , our fictitious trans boy at school, which sex ed talk do they go to? Which changing room do they use? Which sports hall shower? Which form on overnight trips?

I am not saying these questions are insurmountable but it is more than a name.

dorm room.

I agree with you Jaycee on the difference between old school transsexuals and what is now known as transgender.
And yes, under the current definition we ARE all transgender, in which case it's all rather meaningless. Who doesnt like to express themselves accross gender norms? The endless labelling of behaviour and clothing as male or female seems so archaic and far from liberal.
I absolutely do not doubt the existence of people who are born feeling wrong in their bodies, and for whom the only way they can reconcile this is to medically change from one to the other as far as they possibly can.
I have known 2 people like this, and I would want them to be able to access actual medical help.
I have also known butch young lesbians who rocked the boy look ( thinking 15 or so years ago) and who would now probably be expected to "identify" as male, and several transvestites one of whom in middle age is calling himself transgender.
The latter group are people who like to play with gender norms (and make up) and don't seem to have a great deal in common with the former.

rumple tell me. Is female genital mutilation a problem of biology or not?

Should we be able to talk and campaign openly about it?

What does forced FGM have to do with being trans?

"I agree Rumpled, our bodies are used to keep us in check, undeniably. But they're not why"

What is it then? What is the one thing almost every single natal woman on the planet has if it is not our reproductive system/capacity; or for those with reproductive 'challenges' (speaking as someone who had assisted reproductive treatment) our perceived reproductive system/capacity?

Italian you'll have to forgive what will no doubt be a "shooting from the hip" response, I'm between toddler tea time and toddler bath time! I only started looking into that exact question quite recently after a post by a poster called MrsMcGarry. She said that women were not oppressed because they were female but because they were not men. It got me thinking about what that meant, and why women are in a subordinate position in contemporary society...

Where I've come to is that it's to do with the society we've evolved into and how we got here. Just like in your link the root is social, political and economic, and as in that link I think "the patriarchy" really took off when civilisations were discovering each other, trading with each other, and importantly conquering each other. A certain kind of human being became successful in this era, a person who would not have been a "success" in a more community-based culture, a culture where women had likely been far more equally valued. That person would be a despot; a merciless, conquering, assimilating, dominating, aggressive MAN; necessarily a man because they were the ones who were away from the farms and the children. There would, over the centuries of ever-widening reach of empire, become a template for the dominant human being - the vision of the top of our species based on our history of conquering and oppression of the vanquished - that would become the thing around which all of our hierarchical structures are based.

I guess we'd know that template of the ideal human globally as male, white, heterosexual, capitalist, sexually forward, strong, aggressive assertive, youthful, confident, affluent, educated and on and on... if you look into subcultures I guess you'd find variations, but that's the prevailing global, capitalist, Western-dominated pinnacle probably. And my opinion is that the further you deviate from that the greater your oppression within the patriarchal structures built around that pinnacle's dominance.

So yeah, women, we're not men. And within the patriarchy if you're not the oppressor you're oppressed. Women can get a little bit ahead by acting like the alpha male, men can get a little bit behind by not being "manly" enough, and lesbian women of colour brought up in poverty is so not supported for success it's untrue.

Like I say, shooting from the hip, probably bored the hind leg off you! Sorry about that.

Nannyoggs I think we are arguing semantics here. It’s not a problem that biology has created. Biology is innate, chemical, scientific, as it were. It’s what drives our whole existence on the most base level. Humans don’t have some innate drive to do FGM do they? It’s a problem that only affects humans with a vagina, so I know how they use using the idea of biology, but it’s not caused by biology. Had we eveloved into a matriarchy, male and female bodies still would be the same but women would not be repressed.

You are typically no yourself in knots trying to argue around the inate biological nature of the this oppression.

FGM is about denying women and girls sexual pleasure to try to take away their sex drives and leave them as breeding machine.

The fact that your mother is always your mother but men, before dna testing, could never be sure they were the father is what has driven the oppression of women. Women as chattels, bought and sold for male pleasure and to produce heirs. Throughout history this has been the case.

Why is it that being sexual promiscuous as a man is seen as a sign of virility and power but the same behaviour in a woman is shameful and a sign of weak character? This is very much a patriarchal idea. Designed to lead women to believe that their virtue is their self worth.

Men are socialised to believe that their sexual potency is important and makes them masterful. Women are socialised to fear their own bodies and their sexuality. That is changing but it’s too ingrained to disappear over night.

Make no mistake. The entire of the patriarchy is predicated on guarding women’s bodies and their reproductive power, stopping women for choosing for themselves. What the duck do you think the anti-abortion movement is about?

www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/04/13/a-feminist-biologist-discusses-gender-differences-in-the-animal-kingdom/

Oh interesting Fallen, thanks!

Lord above I’m not arguing with anything. I was being really pedantic. I don’t like the scentence that ‘women are repressed because of biology’, that’s all. When arguing that innate biological characteristics matter it could be seen as saying that there’s a valid biological reason women were always more likely to be the repressed sex. Women are repressed because of the way society wishes to control their biology would have been fine.

Thanks that’s a really interesting article!

I thought I'd get flamed for posting that article!

Fascinating isn't it? Glad you like it xx

We're not the ones who'd flame you Fallen, I suspect they're all having their tea

I found it interesting too. Not sure where you thought the flaming was going to come from.

Healthy debate and all that.

I have a student that I adore who is transitioning, name now legally changed and full journey done by university he hopes. They are out there. For what it's worth I was a bit of a trans-denier until I met this student in September, I was very ignorant.

Great article, Fallen, thanks.

I have an F > M colleague, who transsed about 8 years ago. Work handled it incredibly well in supporting him and briefing and informing staff. No one who has started since had any idea unless that colleague chooses to tell them.

@

"When I was at school, there was at least one girl in each year group with an eating disorder. At the time, it was assumed that this was a result of fashion magazines or academic pressure but maybe those girls were trying to delay or rid themselves of the signs of puberty? I don't imagine any of them were trans but perhaps there might be a level of cross over between what my peers were doing then and what these teenagers are doing now?"

Do you mean you think there is some relationship between some female teenagers with eating disorders and some trans boys?

@RatRolyPoly "shooting from the hip" go for it.

So is being oppressed because you are not white the same as being oppressed because you are black? I don;t know. But I think being oppressed because you are not male is exactly the same as being oppressed because you are female. Except males have failed males in their not male category, of course!

And those men who were going out conquering, where were the women? At home looking after the kids? Looks like the males conquered the home before conquering abroad to me.