Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Political Correctness Versus Medical Accuracy

A thought occurred to me the other day...

Let's consider two scenarios....  

In the first, someone is berating a transsexual woman for wishing to have SRS and then simply get on with having a normal life as a woman, effectively just blending in and not being out, loud, and proud, as a "trans woman," but simply wishing to be normal.

In the second, someone is pointing out to a person that perhaps they should reconsider their plans after seeing where they have made this comment concerning having an orchidectomy:
Most interestingly, some people have asked whether I’ll get to keep them after they’ve been removed. And some surgeons do let you take them home! I figure we’ll preserve them in a jar, display it on our bookshelves, and use it as a weird prop for videos. (Anyone who knows what chemicals and processes are necessary to do this, hit me up.)
Now, the question is, which of these situations, if either, would you consider to be "transphobic."  Is berating someone for wanting to transition, and simply live as a woman an example of "transphobia."  Is warning someone who is clearly having some rather bizarre fantasy about what they are going to do with their testicles after having them removed that they might be making a mistake ""transphobic?"

Well, it appears that if you asked a lot of transgender extremists they would probably say that the first is not only not transphobic, but that the behavior the person is being berated for is, itself, "transphobic."

On the other hand, trying to warn someone that their planned behavior is indicative of some serious mental health issues would earn you a nice label of being "transphobic."

In addition to the seriously bizarre bit about keeping his testicles in a jar, the person in question, "Zinnia" Jones, has some other very interesting comments on his blog.  For example....
I’m comfortable with the way my genitals currently function, and SRS would alter that significantly, with a potential risk of losing sensation and the ability to orgasm. There are also a number of serious complications that can occur, and revision surgeries are often necessary. If SRS were perfect, I’d be much more willing to have it done. But as is, I personally don’t consider it worth the risk of compromising what I have now. This is just my own evaluation of my options – something that each person has to decide for themselves.
Now, this is clearly a person who is not remotely a transsexual.  During my transition, I considered the possibility of an orchidectomy as an intermediate step, in order to reduce the amount of hormones I was taking, but I learned that it is frowned upon my most SRS surgeons for certain technical reasons.  But I can state, without hesitation, that I was never "comfortable with they way my genitals currently function" prior to SRS.  I wanted that changed significantly, and while I would certainly have been unhappy with a loss of sensation (thankfully not the case) it was a risk I was willing to take.  Then again, my motivations for having SRS were neither sexual nor, more to the point fetishistic.

If we look at another statement on this person's blog, we can see more of what is going on here...
I should emphasize that I personally find the whole-body changes induced by HRT to be much more important than obtaining a vagina. People tend to reduce all of transitioning to being solely about correcting your genitals, as if that’s the entirety of what a “sex change” is. And yes, for many trans women, having a vagina is a priority. But there’s still much more to this than rearranging small pieces of flesh that most people will never even see.
Now, all of this might seem more understandable if it were written by, oh say, a person who had a lifelong history of crossdressing, and was suddenly transitioning at the ago of, say, 50. But the person in question is clearly much younger.

What we see here is clearly autogynephila.  Of that, there is no question.  These are not the words of a transsexual, but, at least originally, the primary determination of whether a person was, or was not, an autogynephile was age at transition.  If a person was below a certain age (never really clear) they were a "homosexual transsexual" and over a certain age, again, not clearly defined, they were an "autogynephile."  

The theory first put forward by Ray Blanchard, and then taken up by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence was intended to basically discredit transsexualism.  We are all supposed to be gay men, who are just too gay to be men, or straight men with a fetish, basically transvestites who are taking it to an extreme.  Interestingly, many in the so-called "transgender community" have somewhat taken up this line of reasoning.  

A person who is "happy with the how their genitalia functions" really should not be allowed to make permanent, and irreversible changes, including orchidectomy.  Granted, this is not as drastic as full SRS, but it is simply not medically justified.  Hopefully, this person will simply not be able to find a therapist willing to approve the surgery, or a surgeon willing to perform it.

This is just one example of the idiocy that results from the current trends in transgender extremism.  There is no concern for what is actually beneficial or harmful, just for pushing an extremist agenda.

Transgender is a essentially meaningless, highly subjective, term that describes an artificial social/political construct.  There is no objective criteria for exactly what makes someone "transgender" other than transgender extremists trying to insist that transsexuals have to identify that way, whether they wish to or not.

This is the approach pushed by extremists such as Mister "Autumn" Sandeen (yes, you got tagged again, because you said something idiotic again) such as he did in a comment on an article on Notes From the T Side.

13 comments:

Anoner55 said...

I'm just gonna leave this here, kthx:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/beginning-gender-change-prison-long-shot-6C10974050

Just Jennifer said...

I kind of wondered who the military handles this. I know, for example, that it is routine in California prisons. I know a doctor who handles such cases. And I was pretty sure that it is available in the Federal system, but I was not sure where Manning would be held.

I do know that the response on the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate website was surprisingly negative. Of course, they get a lot of people posting from other parts of the country, but it was near 100% against him getting treatment.

JS said...

Bradley has mad some terrible decisions in his life. The responsibility for those decisions belong to Bradley. I do not see it as society's responsibility, (in the form of my tax dollars), to coddle this guy or to indemnify him from his bad choices in life.

If you buy that then we should send those three thugs who shot that young Australian to Hawaii for rehab instead of Death Row.

Just Jennifer said...

Things are rarely so simplistic. Prisoners are entitled to necessary medical care. Now if Manning is truly transsexual, he should receive hormones. Since a proper Real Life Test is not possible in prison, surgery is not warranted. At the very least he should be seen and evaluated by a competent therapist.

I a m not familiar with the murder you refer to. I don't, however, have any sympathy for people who murder in cold blood.

Autumn Sandeen said...

"A fool does not delight in understanding,
But only in revealing his own mind."


Proverbs 18:2

I've commented before that you've functionally declared yourself equal to God in how you judge others.

In your current essay you've now puffed yourself up as a smarter and wiser authority on transsexual surgeries for transsexual people than medical, psychological, and psychiatric professions. This is much as you've puffed yourself up as one who is smarter and wiser than the medical, psychological, and psychiatric professions who diagnose transsexual people -- you've puffed yourself up as the final arbiter and judge of who is and who isn't a transsexual.

So, you give us your mind while on an orchiectomy for a particular transsexual, ignoring what the psychiatric and medical experts of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) in version 7 of the Standards of Care say about MTF transsexual surgeries.

And, of course, versions 1 through 6 of those Standards of Care were called the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care -- the criteria and requirements for your own surgery would have been listed in Version 6 of the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care.

The current version of the Standards of Care refer to orchiectomies on pages 27, 43, 57, 60, 63, and 105, outlining that orchiectomies are procedures for MTF's.

In a nutshell, orchiectomies have been identified as appropriate treatment for some with gender dysphoria -- the same diagnosis you would be diagnosed with if you went seeking treatment towards obtaining an SRS today. The standards of care identify standards, criteria, procedures, and post-surgical medication guidelines for those who have that surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria.

But, you've puffed yourself up as someone who knows better than WPATH on how not only all diagnosed transsexuals should be medically treated, but even as to which diagnosed transsexuals should be considered to be transsexuals...as well as which transsexuals should be considered women. You've puffed yourself up as smarter and wiser than the medical, psychological, and psychiatric experts who developed the current standards of care for treating folk like you, me, and Zinnia.

One might call that puffing up of oneself as smarter and wiser than experts to be arrogance.

"They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly;
All who do wickedness vaunt themselves."

Psalm 94:4

Yes, you do vaunt yourself, don't you?

Just Jennifer said...

ROTFL!!! Ii guess I hit a nerve.

I stand by what I wrote.

A competent therapist would see some real issues. Provided, of course that the patient was open and honest. Which is very possibly not the case here.

But thanks for making my point. For the extremist kooks, such as yourself, it is not about the real needs of the patient. It is about pushing your extemist agenda.

You have a penis, which you want to keep. You are not a transsexual, are not a female, and not a woman. You are a fraud who has abused the legal process to perpetuate a lie.

So seriously, do you really think I am going to submit to your "authority?"

Seriously?

Autumn Sandeen said...

And you have set yourself up as the judge of who is and who isn't a competent therapist and competent psychiatrist -- since written statements from one of each are required criteria for an orchiectomy per the WPATH standards of care.

The No True Scotsman fallacy applies in your use of the word "competent" to judge therapists:

Jennifer: Competent therapists would see some real issues [with considering Zinnia a transsexual].

Autumn: But an educated, licensed therapist and an educated, licensed psychiatrist are required to sign of on orchiectomies. In that there are two required mental health professionals implies a level of competence and confidence in the gender dysphoria diagnosis, and the WPATH guidelines indicate an orchiectomy is appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria.

Jennifer: Oh then those two, if they sign of on Zinnia's treatment, aren't competent mental health providers.


See? You have decided who is and who isn't a competent mental health professional in Zinnia's case without even knowing who her mental health professionals are.

If my extremist agenda is having faith in the WPATH standards of care -- when you and I both were treated under a previous version of those Standards of Care by the same organization -- then call me a kooky extremist.

And you, in pure Selective Attention, assume that because I had an orchiectomy I didn't and don't want to have SRS. I have health conditions that preclude the surgery, but you haven't paid attention when I've talked about that online.

And even if that wasn't the case, I received appropriate treatment under the WPATH Standards of Cared for gender dysphoria -- the mental and medical diagnosis for transsexualism. You, in your roll as a puffed up arbiter of what medical treatments are appropriate for transsexuals and what one's are not, set yourself as a superior judge of mental and medical healthcare professionals...the equal to a god of the healthcare communities.

I don't expect you to "submit" to my authority, I expect that you, if you were wise and smart, would defer to mental and medical health professionals.

But you aren't wise and smart, are you?

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
~Proverbs 26:5


The truly smart and wise in this case isn't me, but are the experts who wrote the WPATH Standards of Care. But, of course, you appear to be too wise in your own eyes to accept the wisdom of the true experts.

Autumn Sandeen said...

And, abused the legal system? Really?

Of course you did nothing at all to fight against bills that have become law in California and the regulations that have come into being on the federal level. It's kind of like not voting -- if you don't do anything to stop a law or regulation to come into effect then you have little room to complain about it, do you?

Which is why, of course, I want to keep you busy and ineffectual by focusing on me...by giving in to that need within you to never leave a comment about you, or directed at you, alone. I don't want you to get involved in politics, and keeping you busy helps ensure things stay that way.

Because of that apparent need of yours to respond others, you really are pretty easily manipulated. In that way, you really do submit to me.

JS said...

WPATH SOC's are a blatant example of self-serving TG trans-speak and an unwarranted and unauthorized colonization of Dr. Benjamin's name.

To take your lies and male pomposity, together with your beloved phallus and just get lost.

Just Jennifer said...

Yes, amused it and bragged about doing so. You know full well that your doctor did not intend for you to have used that letter as evidence of having changed sex.

No, you lied in court and knowingly committed a fraud.

I am not an activist, but you are a fraud, and a liar.

Even the guy at Huffington Post had trouble keeping a straight face as you told of the hard time you did in "prison." And you accuse me of puffery?

Fools named and fools faces,,,

Just Jennifer said...

Now if he wants to come here and act the fool, he is welcome to. He really has no grasp on reality.

Autumn Sandeen said...

Be careful, Jennifer. You've now crossed the line into engaging in libel in claiming I've engaged in legal fraud.

And again, need I remind you about what 1 Samuel 16:7b says about how man looks at outward appearances but THE LORD looks at the heart? Are you claiming to be THE LORD when you are stating you know that in my heart... when you say you know I committed fraud?

I don't know how you can claim to be Christian, Jennifer. Much of what you post online isn't Christ-like in tone or character, and often is completely contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Certainly, I can't imagine many folk looking at your online behavior and saying "I want to emulate her and live a loving, Christian faith in the same way she lives her loving, Christian faith."

Just Jennifer said...

So, sue me. That should prove interesting. Of course you won't because it would just expose your fraud.

As to the rest, I answer to God, not a cyberstalking, bullying man who admits to harassment. But, hey, keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.