Is it Trans phobic to say only women get abortions?

[OkToBeTakei]

Just going to throw this in there...

I hate the word 'tolerance' in these discussions. It suggests that there is something to be tolerated, to be put up with, when it comes to gay people or trans people or whoever. How about including people within mainstream society, rather than just 'tolerating' them?

Alrighty.

What word just for ease would you prefer?

I mean so far the meats and bones of this discussion is the fact that language words and labels are making it difficult for people to relate understand and become educated rather than become bogged down and offensive without meaning to.

Now you want to remove a perfectly acceptable word which most people can relate to.

Inclusive? That might mean the thought was they were excluded.

Loved? That may infer they were not loved or even hated previously.

Even mainstream...the word you used. What does that mean..that mainstream is ...normal? Surely not.

There has to be steps and education and words are part of that. Making it harder is certainly not going to help.

On a personal note, I'd like to say that I'm dismayed that freejinger, which is normally so progressive on gay issues and issues of race, is having such difficulty grasping that trans people's identities are valid and that they do not deserve to be marginalized in any way.

Somebody point out to me amongst this discussion/debate where anybody has said that trans people are not valid or deserve to be marginalised?

[OkToBeTakei]

Out of interest are these services available in other countries?

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dys ... tment.aspx

From a guide to Gp's and healthcare staff.

KEY POINTS 1. Refer early and swiftly to a reputable Gender service

2. Support the treatment recommended by the Gender service 3. Get pronouns right; if in doubt,(discreetly) ask 4. Be particularly mindful of medical confidentiality 5. Avoid mis attributing commonplace health problems to gender

There are problems though obviously

Uncertainty about gender is still listed in the psychiatrist’s diagnostic bible - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (pdf) (DSM) - produced by the American Association of Psychiatrists and used globally.

The most recent NHS guidance states that being trans is not a mental illness, but the feeling of a mismatch between biological sex and gender identity, and the discomfort that comes from that.

The 6,000 British people who are trans and who would like help for gender issues must first approach their GP, and then the GP must refer them to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist refers them to a Gender Clinic where the patient can finally receive specific counseling, hormones, or if they wish reassignment surgery.

Interesting reading.

[nelliebelle1197]

Nelliebelle, I completely understand that all men need to acknowledge the patriarchy. However, I would suggest that you consider the unique place of transmen among men. Transmen (and all trans individuals) have had to deal with the terrifying and often difficult process of coming out and transitioning. That transition is something that is often made incredibly complicated by the very same heteropatriarchy that oppresses women. Transmen have to be told they're just "tomboys" and "girls playing at being boys" and they get belittled and denied their dignity in countless ways. I think the average transman understands perfectly well how much patriarchal systems are damaging. You probably haven't intended this, but it sounds as though you seem to believe that transmen have somehow betrayed their biological sex to join the oppressors. That is not the case.

Additionally, many trans individuals undergo certain treatments (be they hormonal or surgical) to help them transition. These treatments often affect the individual's reproductive system. Transmen need to have access to gynaecological care, not just for cancer prevention/potential childbirth but as an important part of their transition. Abortion is primarily a women's issue, but it is also an issue that can affect transmen. Including them in the language of abortion does not water down the issue. In fact, I would argue that it strengthens it against the patriarchy. Saying "only women have abortions and men who do are just oppressing the women who do" is playing right into the heteropatriarchy's hand. Marginalized groups are stronger together than separated. Abortion affects transmen too.

Finally, you make several assumptions about Ofglen. I do not know Ofglen or their gender, nor will I pretend to. However, you assume they are a man. You immediately begin attacking them for "telling you what to say/think". I think that's overblowing it, frankly. Ofglen is not "telling you what to think" or "calling you -phobic because you disagreed with them". They are reminding all of freejinger that trans people exist and have a right to their preferred pronouns. Also, they are advocating on behalf of intersex people and people with hormonal conditions, who are frequently overlooked by the medical community. Also, they raise fair and important points about how the medical community handles trans patients. I'd also like to point out/remind that it is NEVER okay to make comments/conjecture about a trans person's transition. It is not alright to ask about surgery, unless you happen to be that trans person's doctor.

On a personal note, I'd like to say that I'm dismayed that freejinger, which is normally so progressive on gay issues and issues of race, is having such difficulty grasping that trans people's identities are valid and that they do not deserve to be marginalized in any way.

I did make an assumption about the gender issue, but only in the first line. The rest - the points about transmen AS MEN trying to tell women how to discuss our issues was generic, not aimed at OfGlen (which I keep reading as Odafin, so if I call you Odafin, accept my apology now).

However, I don't think it is okay to accuse a whole bunch of people of being transphobic just because they are offended by the co-opting of something like abortion and abortion rights by a very small number of people. The difficulties a group faces do not give them the right to claim and neuter whatever issue they choose. Women face a hellava lot of oppression, too, especially in reproductive rights, and those issues effect tens of millions of women and girls. Someone else's difficulties do not out weigh another's, because we cannot account for every story and quantify every act and how it impacts an individual. The trans community does not get a special dispensation to do whatever they like just because. No man, trans or not, has right to tell me about my experience as a woman and how I should think about or describe my issues. Period.

Also, sockinshoe, you really don't have any business telling me what I can talk about with my trans- friends. I have had very honest conversations with one in particular about everything from hormones to reconstruction and how men might perceive her fancy new vagina to why she would really lay off the matching separates from Chicco's. I am not a stranger to this community, but that does not mean I have to agree with everything a small minority of members and a few academics want to do. And I also do not feel transmen are betraying biology because I do not feel that trans-anything is a choice and likely has a biological component.

By the way, while this little argument was going on, this was posted at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/3 ... se-to-Home

This is an issue. What to call a person having an abortion, not so much.

[jaelh]

Alrighty.

What word just for ease would you prefer?

I mean so far the meats and bones of this discussion is the fact that language words and labels are making it difficult for people to relate understand and become educated rather than become bogged down and offensive without meaning to.

Now you want to remove a perfectly acceptable word which most people can relate to.

Inclusive? That might mean the thought was they were excluded.

Loved? That may infer they were not loved or even hated previously.

Even mainstream...the word you used. What does that mean..that mainstream is ...normal? Surely not.

Acceptance.

That word. We should accept people, not tolerate them.

And clearly (clearly) there has been a lack of acceptance of trans people in the past. So no worries on that count. But acceptance demands a great deal more of us than tolerance, so you know.. I can't see a great deal of enthusiasm for us increasing our obligations to others.

Re mainstream: you know perfectly well what mainstream means; and it's never meant normal. From dictionary.com:

belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.

[DGayle]

If I'm an employer interviewing you - if I called you Mrs instead of Ms -- I can guarantee you that it's because I misheard you. If I call you by the wrong first name - same thing. If I called you by your first name instead of Ms. It would be because that was the office culture and everyone went by their first names.

Frankly if you would reconsider a job offer over something so trivial I don't think I'd want you as an employee as you'd be made of spun sugar and everyone would have to tip toe around you.

I agree. I think someone who'd reconsider any job offers based on what is likely mishearing someone is the type of person who'd probably be a big liability anyway.

A telemarketer? Really? Some poor person, likely in India, who got the name wrong on their list of 10,0000 computer generated calls is " mis gendering" you? No. They are reading off a fucking list.

I worked as a telemarketer many years ago. I finally quit on the spot. It was horrible. What pissed people off more than us just calling at all was if we used their first names instead of Mr/Ms/Mrs, or if we used the wrong Mr/Ms/Mrs. There was literally no way to do it right.

And if you dress in masculine clothes and have a masculine hairstyle - why would you be " beyond furious" if someone assumed you were a man? How the hell can people win? Presumably if you were in the same clothes and trans you'd be upset the Doctor DIDN'T assume you were a man.

I don't understand this either. And there isn't any winning unless all of society decides to treat 100% of people as genderless beings, removing the right for ANYBODY to have any gender identity.

Most people in the world are not going to be waiting for you to explain your identity to them. They don't care. They are going to interact with you to the best of their abilities. Sometimes they will screw up. I don't see why that would be seen as some huge affront.

Sometimes I think some people would rather see everybody walk around with an identification badge. I wish those people would realize that what they're asking if for all people to give up the right to have a gender identity because some people get it wrong some of the time. It's either right 100% of the time because there's some magic that let's us know that someone who dresses and presents as a man actually wants female or neutral pronouns, or everybody gets stripped of the right to have any gender at all.

Honestly, if somebody wants to complain about a person dressing and presenting as a man being referred to in male pronouns, that person complaining needs to suggest a viable alternative that isn't "presume everybody if homogenous and just not use pronouns or anything until someone figures out how to work it into the conversation."

[DGayle]

Oh for Gods sake, this is just a ridiculous amount of convoluted rationalization to avoid ever offending anyone, ever. If a trans- man who hasn't had surgery is pregnant he is still, biologically, a woman. Dealing with the pregnancy is going to be upsetting, I would assume. But expecting the entire world to change the definition of who gets pregnant to avoid a

" trigger" word? ? Just no. And seriously, when the hell did any mention of anything that might upset someone ever have to come with a new word or a " trigger" warning?

Mama Mia, sometimes I think that there actually is a way to win, and that's for everybody to just keep our mouths shut and become an entirely silent society. No matter what we say, somebody's going to be offended. Just doing the best we can, like not calling black people the N-word, or calling Mexicans "beaners," or describing a larger person as "that tub of lard," you know, the things we know are offensive, isn't good enough. There are people who say black is offensive, and some who say African American is. I know Mexicans who are offended being called Latinos because it lumps all Latin cultures in together. One of my good friends is deeply offended being called larger. To her, it's fat, and fat only. But to someone else, it's something else. Even hair color is getting taboo because what if the brunette over there is really dying a head full of silver, or is really a blonde because what's wrong with blonde?

There's a book called Politically Correct Bedtime Stories that tries removing everything offensive to make a point, and even though it was politically correct to the extreme, people bitched that this or that was offensive or belitting. Children became something like miniature adults, but oh my god, that's erasing childhood! But I know people, including some on this board, who think children really are miniature adults and should have all the rights and say of adults.

There really is no winning. Basically living life itself should be considered a trigger warning.

[DGayle]

So why treat someone else's struggle as ridiculous? What does it really cost you to use someone's preferred pronouns? Or to be curious, rather than dismissive, about why someone is asking you for an accommodation?

Nobody is arguing against using pronouns when it's known. The problems are expecting medicine to go by gender instead of biology, getting pissed at people for "misgendering" people they don't know well by going with how someone chooses to present, things like that. I haven't seen anybody here say that anyone presenting as a man should be referred to as a male, like it or not, or that a person presenting as a woman must accept being called a she. All I'm seeing is defense of medicine for dealing with biology, and basically demanding some patience instead of jumping to get pissed that a John Smith is called Mr. if John identifies as a woman. Since it's trendy right now to name girls Wyatt, James, Shane, Kyle, and other typical male names, we're going to need more patience, especially since it's often seen as rude to not call a stranger we aren't expecting to deal with again Mr/Ms/Mrs Last Name until asked to call them something else. Doing the best we can isn't good enough for some people, and that's going to make people get to a point of not bothering to make an effort.

[nelliebelle1197]

Acceptance.

That word. We should accept people, not tolerate them.

And clearly (clearly) there has been a lack of acceptance of trans people in the past. So no worries on that count. But acceptance demands a great deal more of us than tolerance, so you know.. I can't see a great deal of enthusiasm for us increasing our obligations to others.

Re mainstream: you know perfectly well what mainstream means; and it's never meant normal. From dictionary.com:

This conversation is about one issue alone as far as I am concerned - altering the conversation about abortion in way that potentially minimizes the impact of the issue for millions of women and changes the conversation about narrowing access to abortion to something else entirely. To me, this conversation is too important to women and girls to even move it a millimeter away from a women's rights issue.

Just because I don't agree with every single little thing members of a community support does not mean I am not behind them on one million other things. True inclusion and diversity does include diverse opinions and passions, not a fundie, lockstep mindset.

[Antimony]

Nobody is arguing against using pronouns when it's known. The problems are expecting medicine to go by gender instead of biology, getting pissed at people for "misgendering" people they don't know well by going with how someone chooses to present, things like that. I haven't seen anybody here say that anyone presenting as a man should be referred to as a male, like it or not, or that a person presenting as a woman must accept being called a she. All I'm seeing is defense of medicine for dealing with biology, and basically demanding some patience instead of jumping to get pissed that a John Smith is called Mr. if John identifies as a woman. Since it's trendy right now to name girls Wyatt, James, Shane, Kyle, and other typical male names, we're going to need more patience, especially since it's often seen as rude to not call a stranger we aren't expecting to deal with again Mr/Ms/Mrs Last Name until asked to call them something else. Doing the best we can isn't good enough for some people, and that's going to make people get to a point of not bothering to make an effort.

I would like to say something regarding medicine dealing with biology. If a person has chosen to physically transition, for a doctor to treat a transmans body as thay of a cisman in the name of biology would not only be wrong but dangerously so. It would be biologically and mentally a falsehood - hormone replacement therapy brings a whole host of medical needs that a doctor would not consider for a ciswoman. Even without transition, the mental part stands and a Healthcare professional, including any clinics printing informative materials for patients, should also value the mental health of their patients.

This kind of language change is also important for discussing menstrual needs but I expect that would be less controversial.

I don't think off handedly saying that women have abortions is an act of transphobia but many people's reasons for refusing a language switch are transphobic.

I would also ask to those that object to the word cisgender, if they object to the words straight/heterosexual? Cisgender exists as a word to describe what most people never have to question, the default. Straight has a longer history but does the same.

[OkToBeTakei]

Acceptance.

That word. We should accept people, not tolerate them.

And clearly (clearly) there has been a lack of acceptance of trans people in the past. So no worries on that count. But acceptance demands a great deal more of us than tolerance, so you know.. I can't see a great deal of enthusiasm for us increasing our obligations to others.

Re mainstream: you know perfectly well what mainstream means; and it's never meant normal. From dictionary.com:

Acceptance is good. Definitely better than tolerance. I think though my point was clear language or historically clear language and how to change it. If I say racial tolerance which is a common term many people would relate, racial acceptance is far better.

Many times when debating on this site I find it hard to separate real life per se from Internet anonymity. Intent to me is far more important. So whilst somebody's words language may not be politically correct their intent may be. It s far easier to change language than intent and beliefs. You pick your battles. I find when dealing with real people on a face to face basis it is better not to argue every nit picking little detail.

Well I obviously did not know the dictionary meaning of mainstream, I wonder how many others might make that error or assign it a similar queried meaning. Maybe I is unique :)

[DGayle]

First, I appreciate that language changes over time to become more inclusive but I can think of plenty of people who use "woman" to refer to biology in a context like this who simply didn't get the "people with uteruses" memo. Not everyone has the same level of education or background, not everyone speaks English as a first language, not everyone has been exposed to updated terminology, and it's a bit elitist to think that terminology alone reflects actual attitude esp on an individual level.

The problem with "people with uteruses" is that many biological women have had theirs removed. Angelina Jolie is no longer a "person with a uterus," yet she is a woman. Excuse me, a "person with..." Um, what can we insert instead, since "woman" isn't PC to use? There really does get to be a point where it's pretty outrageous, even stupid, to keep dividing people by body parts. Biological sex is a starting point for doctors, and a pretty important point. Even among biological women, there will be difference, but "female" for sex is a place to start. Same for Male. Biologically speaking, the overwhelming majority of males have prostrates and testes and don't have uteruses. Even if transgender didn't exist, there would be differences between people within the same sex. Gender is a social construct. Biological sex is not, which is why "people first" language with an organ listed after is it foolish, short-sighted, and solves nothing and only creates a clusterfuck of new phrases that waste time. Yes, it's a waste of time to break people down by body parts instead of using a couple biologically obvious groups, and addressing deviations from those starting points.

Second, on the level of gender as opposed to biological sex, how many trans men have had abortions? I suppose it is possible esp in cases of rape but the likelihood of someone who actively identifies as a trans man being currently involved in a sexual relationship with a man in a patriarchal context will be low. It isn't just an issue of biology, it is also an issue of seeking to assert control over women and punish "sluts".

This is very true.

[DGayle]

My body type is irrelevant. I won't bother getting into the specifics of my non-binary identity, but I am certainly not a man like some people assumed.

When you go to the doctor, your body type is ALL that is relevant. If identifying as a neutral woman-man makes you a neutral in EVERY sense of the word, do you shun medical care for your female-sexed body parts because, dammit, you're not a woman-woman, and therefore your body is sexless? Your medical needs DO NOT CHANGE just because you gender-identify as something other than a woman-woman.

My god, I have friends who identify as boy man and woman, and friends who identify as no sex, and all they've ever asked is for discretion in a doctor's office, and for their preferred pronouns to be used. You are the FIRST trans or non-binary person I've EVER encountered who expects medicine to stop using biological sex and to start pretending that gender identity changes the physical body. I just send screen-caps of all of what you've said here to a trans-activitst friend of mine (this friend has been invited to meet the president because of the level of zir's activism), and ze said that you sound like a "sick, satirical parody" because you really expect medical science to ignore biology in favor of gender identity.

I don't know why you can't understand that biology and gender are separate things, and that in a medical setting, gender is entirely irrelevant when a doctor's purpose is to keep your body alive and healthy. A doctor can't do that is they're supposed to treat a biological-woman as if that person has a male body because of gender identity. That's literally asking for a doctor to commit malpractice.

[DGayle]

Just going to throw this in there...

I hate the word 'tolerance' in these discussions. It suggests that there is something to be tolerated, to be put up with, when it comes to gay people or trans people or whoever. How about including people within mainstream society, rather than just 'tolerating' them?

All people who accept a difference also tolerate it. Not everyone who tolerates a difference accepts it. Tolerance encompasses both groups. Acceptance is only 1.

[DGayle]

Somebody point out to me amongst this discussion/debate where anybody has said that trans people are not valid or deserve to be marginalised?

The only things I can see where that can even be twisted is defending unintentionally using the wrong Mr/Ms/Mrs, and defending biology using male/female instead of treating people based on gender identity. Nobody, absolutely body, has said that trans gender identity doesn't exist or never matters.

[Mama Mia]

Just because I don't agree with every single little thing members of a community support does not mean I am not behind them on one million other things. True inclusion and diversity does include diverse opinions and passions, not a fundie, lockstep mindset.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Exactly. Abortion is actually the topic where I usually most diverge from the majority opinion here. But I don't think that means that I'm " disappointed" others don't share my views. I doubt I could find a forum community where everyone agreed on every issue. And seriously, it would be some mindless Borg if it existed.

On the specific issue of trans people and medical forms - I am surprised that there isn't a simple check box on intake forms for this. There has been for some government forms I used to use for at least 10-15 years.

[nelliebelle1197]

It is ridiculous doctors can't include those boxes. Though if I had a gender identity that differed from the male/female paradigm, I think I'd avoid doctors who didn't at least try to get that info from the start. Replacement hormones, surgeries and other such treatments can cause their own set of problems and if there is any chance even a single transitioning/ed person might choose a practice, then gender should just be a fill in the blank.

[Mama Mia]

It is ridiculous doctors can't include those boxes. Though if I had a gender identity that differed from the male/female paradigm, I think I'd avoid doctors who didn't at least try to get that info from the start. Replacement hormones, surgeries and other such treatments can cause their own set of problems and if there is any chance even a single transitioning/ed person might choose a practice, then gender should just be a fill in the blank.

Now I'm trying to remember if the forms I used were federal, state or local. Local or state are probably more likely.

Yeah, one simple added check- box, or a place for " other- please describe" would be very simple and do a world of good, I would think. Especially in the emergency room. And then maybe a follow up form if needed that asked specifics regarding hormones, surgery or whatever might be pertinent.

I would think, but don't know, that generally a person who is trans would need to have a primary care doctor who was very knowledgable about the hormone, medication etc issues.

Actually, now that I think of it -- maybe most hospitals/ Doctor offices do include this now?

[Terrie]

Mama Mia, sometimes I think that there actually is a way to win, and that's for everybody to just keep our mouths shut and become an entirely silent society. No matter what we say, somebody's going to be offended. Just doing the best we can, like not calling black people the N-word, or calling Mexicans "beaners," or describing a larger person as "that tub of lard," you know, the things we know are offensive, isn't good enough. There are people who say black is offensive, and some who say African American is. I know Mexicans who are offended being called Latinos because it lumps all Latin cultures in together. One of my good friends is deeply offended being called larger. To her, it's fat, and fat only. But to someone else, it's something else. Even hair color is getting taboo because what if the brunette over there is really dying a head full of silver, or is really a blonde because what's wrong with blonde?

There's a book called Politically Correct Bedtime Stories that tries removing everything offensive to make a point, and even though it was politically correct to the extreme, people bitched that this or that was offensive or belitting. Children became something like miniature adults, but oh my god, that's erasing childhood! But I know people, including some on this board, who think children really are miniature adults and should have all the rights and say of adults.

There really is no winning. Basically living life itself should be considered a trigger warning.

One moment that really made me realize there is no way to win -- on either side -- was in a discussion on the Washington football team. After discussions with various activists and considering that I have cousins who are Native American, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if it's the name of a sports teams, it's a nasty racial slur, and I'm going to treat it as such. So, if I am forced to reference the team name, I type is out "Redsk*ins"since that one common method for handling other slurs. I had someone complain about how "overly sensitive" people like me were ruining everything, by forcing people to adopt stupid PC measures like that. Mind you, other people had used the unobscured name and I hadn't said anything. Apparently, simply choosing how to personally deal with something I felt was offensive was "ruining" things for other people.

For me, at the end of the day, I think everyone has a responsibility to consider how their words and actions affect other people. It is then up to that person how they want to handle it. Other people may chose to do things that I think makes them an asshole, but people have the right to be assholes. WHY you would want to be an asshole is a whole other issue.

[RachelB]

It is ridiculous doctors can't include those boxes. Though if I had a gender identity that differed from the male/female paradigm, I think I'd avoid doctors who didn't at least try to get that info from the start. Replacement hormones, surgeries and other such treatments can cause their own set of problems and if there is any chance even a single transitioning/ed person might choose a practice, then gender should just be a fill in the blank.

I agree with you that gender should be fill-in-the-blank on medical forms, rather than a check box, nelliebelle1197. That would solve so many problems.

[Ofglen]

When you go to the doctor, your body type is ALL that is relevant. If identifying as a neutral woman-man makes you a neutral in EVERY sense of the word, do you shun medical care for your female-sexed body parts because, dammit, you're not a woman-woman, and therefore your body is sexless? Your medical needs DO NOT CHANGE just because you gender-identify as something other than a woman-woman.

My god, I have friends who identify as boy man and woman, and friends who identify as no sex, and all they've ever asked is for discretion in a doctor's office, and for their preferred pronouns to be used. You are the FIRST trans or non-binary person I've EVER encountered who expects medicine to stop using biological sex and to start pretending that gender identity changes the physical body. I just send screen-caps of all of what you've said here to a trans-activitst friend of mine (this friend has been invited to meet the president because of the level of zir's activism), and ze said that you sound like a "sick, satirical parody" because you really expect medical science to ignore biology in favor of gender identity.

I don't know why you can't understand that biology and gender are separate things, and that in a medical setting, gender is entirely irrelevant when a doctor's purpose is to keep your body alive and healthy. A doctor can't do that is they're supposed to treat a biological-woman as if that person has a male body because of gender identity. That's literally asking for a doctor to commit malpractice.

I was saying that, for the purposes of FJ, none of you need to know what my body looks like... :roll:

I'm not saying that genitals and chromosomes don't exist and matter. Biological characteristics obviously exist. Penises, vaginas, ambiguous external genetalia, ovaries, breasts, testes, etc., etc., etc... Obviously they do. I'm saying that sex is a social construct. The categorization of biological characteristics which exist on a continuum is a social construction. Read this. It's kind of wordy but if you can get through it I think it will be very helpful for understanding what I am talking about.

http://anti-imperialism.com/2014/02/24/ ... ex-part-1/

And, I guess good for your friend for being invited to meet the president? I don't really know why I'm supposed to care what another trans person who I don't know said about this. There are a lot of us, and there's a lot of misinformation about the history of the social construction of sex even in the trans community. We don't all believe exactly the same thing all the time, and I don't know of any community that does.

When you go to the doctor, your body type is ALL that is relevant. If identifying as a neutral woman-man makes you a neutral in EVERY sense of the word, do you shun medical care for your female-sexed body parts because, dammit, you're not a woman-woman, and therefore your body is sexless? Your medical needs DO NOT CHANGE just because you gender-identify as something other than a woman-woman.

I don't know why everyone keeps deciding what body parts I have? Of course my doctors know all information that is important and relevant. And yes, doctors do need to know more than your designated sex at birth. Knowing if you're trans is important, relevant information as well.

And please don't call ever call me a "neutral woman-man".

[Antimony]

Now I'm trying to remember if the forms I used were federal, state or local. Local or state are probably more likely.

Yeah, one simple added check- box, or a place for " other- please describe" would be very simple and do a world of good, I would think. Especially in the emergency room. And then maybe a follow up form if needed that asked specifics regarding hormones, surgery or whatever might be pertinent.

I would think, but don't know, that generally a person who is trans would need to have a primary care doctor who was very knowledgable about the hormone, medication etc issues.

Actually, now that I think of it -- maybe most hospitals/ Doctor offices do include this now?

It's starting to be a thing, the check boxes changing which is good.

However, having a knowledgeable general practioner or primary doctor still varies a lot by geographical location, economics, etc. My friends have had some trouble in the past finding a doctor that knew enough to oversee care or sometimes, one that would even agree to do it. Awareness is also helping that though.

[OkToBeTakei]

I would like to say something regarding medicine dealing with biology. If a person has chosen to physically transition, for a doctor to treat a transmans body as thay of a cisman in the name of biology would not only be wrong but dangerously so. It would be biologically and mentally a falsehood - hormone replacement therapy brings a whole host of medical needs that a doctor would not consider for a ciswoman. Even without transition, the mental part stands and a Healthcare professional, including any clinics printing informative materials for patients, should also value the mental health of their patients.

This kind of language change is also important for discussing menstrual needs but I expect that would be less controversial.

I don't think off handedly saying that women have abortions is an act of transphobia but many people's reasons for refusing a language switch are transphobic.

I would also ask to those that object to the word cisgender, if they object to the words straight/heterosexual? Cisgender exists as a word to describe what most people never have to question, the default. Straight has a longer history but does the same.

Quite simply, clarity.

Over time I'm sure it will or may be in common usage. On this thread alone one person asked what cis was. It appears through what she wrote ( assuming gender) that not knowing the term was not in any way preventing her from supporting and loving their sibling.

The article that Nellie linked about the teenager was very sad. One thing that struck me was the language was clear. It was not confusing or laden with politically correct labels.

So for me personally the word is not useful. For others it is. Personal choice I suppose.

[Antimony]

Quite simply, clarity.

Over time I'm sure it will or may be in common usage. On this thread alone one person asked what cis was. It appears through what she wrote ( assuming gender) that not knowing the term was not in any way preventing her from supporting and loving their sibling.

The article that Nellie linked about the teenager was very sad. One thing that struck me was the language was clear. It was not confusing or laden with politically correct labels.

So for me personally the word is not useful. For others it is. Personal choice I suppose.

Maybe. But I think it is a useful word to have and is really skyrocketing as far as common usage. Then again, my education is chemical so I heard it and was like,"oh, so not transgender. Makes sense" and found it super accessible.

Not knowing the term certainly doesn't prevent support but it does fill in the otherwuse wordy lexical gap and sort of prevent people from defaulting to something like 'normal'.

[nelliebelle1197]

It's starting to be a thing, the check boxes changing which is good.

However, having a knowledgeable general practioner or primary doctor still varies a lot by geographical location, economics, etc. My friends have had some trouble in the past finding a doctor that knew enough to oversee care or sometimes, one that would even agree to do it. Awareness is also helping that though.

It is sick to me that people with MD after his/her name have the audacity to let someone's personal life determine whether they offer care - like that ass of pediatrician who refused the baby with two mommies. "Doctors" like that should not be able to accept Medicaid or Medicare

[Mama Mia]

One moment that really made me realize there is no way to win -- on either side -- was in a discussion on the Washington football team. After discussions with various activists and considering that I have cousins who are Native American, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if it's the name of a sports teams, it's a nasty racial slur, and I'm going to treat it as such. So, if I am forced to reference the team name, I type is out "Redsk*ins"since that one common method for handling other slurs. I had someone complain about how "overly sensitive" people like me were ruining everything, by forcing people to adopt stupid PC measures like that. Mind you, other people had used the unobscured name and I hadn't said anything. Apparently, simply choosing how to personally deal with something I felt was offensive was "ruining" things for other people.

For me, at the end of the day, I think everyone has a responsibility to consider how their words and actions affect other people. It is then up to that person how they want to handle it. Other people may chose to do things that I think makes them an asshole, but people have the right to be assholes. WHY you would want to be an asshole is a whole other issue.

But this isn't an equivilant conversation. At all.

There is no one on this thread, so far, who is saying that trans people shouldn't be identified however they prefer. Frankly, I think adding the " trans" or " cis" in front of everything- unless the conversation specifically relates to the trans aspect" defetes the entire point - but that's just my perception. If you're a trans man in everyday social situations - wouldn't you just identify as a man? Wouldn't adding trans negate that? Wouldn't your friends adding " cis" as descriptir highlight the differences? I don't get that part. But no one is saying that trans people shouldn't be called whatever they prefer. Obviously very few people are going to choose to be called a slur. No one here is advocating using slurs.

What people are objecting to is changing the entire language not to describe the handful of trans men who become pregnant -- but to describe the vast, vast majority of pregnant people - women who identify as women. It's saying that because this handful of people don't prefer this term - even though it is absolutely medically accurate - the entire rest of the world who share this medical / biological status - need to change their definitions of themselves.