Talk:Transsexual/Archive 3

message: Not even close to NPOV. While it is obvious you have an issue about the decision to go deep stealth...NickGorton
: I do hope, having started on your hormone therapy (trans)'s discussion page, you are not going to pursue me with baseless personal incivilty, changes and reversions statedly intended to drive me away, everywhere I write on Wikipedia. I left that article to you because it was already flagged as dangerous and there are far better resources, and I don't do abuse slanging matches, but there are other people editing here.
:Stealth was just the first section that seemed to deserve assistance. I think I'm avoiding the main one that does.--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
...I do not see the kind of claims of 'dishonesty' and 'betrayal' from the lions share of the trans community heaped on people who choose to do so.NickGorton
:You have misunderstood that the section as I wrote it is not only about your community in San Francisco (which is very different from my community), but honestly trying (and I had another version 90% finished when you changed the one posted) to refer to society as a whole, which is very likely to be an evolving subject. Your saying "I don't really see that..." clearly shows you are writing your own POV, just as your hormone page is your own prescribing policy, for your patients in the gender clinic.
::I'm sorry, but I must have missed the part where you cite your sources for your statements. Accusing Nick (or anybody, for that matter) of POV writing and making unsubstantiated claims yourself does not look too well, I'm affraid. I also agree with Nick on the hardly-existing claims of dishonesty and betrayal - and I am definitely not from San Francisco. [AR] 
:Those particular claims were clearly only part of a spectrum of attitudes being discussed. Perhaps, being out and proud, and in 'Frisco, where, I see it constantly asserted, it is virtually impossible to be simply stealth, since everyone is so clued-up and connected, you are less alert to the very common implications laid against stealth by those without the experience to know. They are probably virtually "common parlance" there. Please realise that the "out" are more motivated and in a far better position to propagandise, whereas those who are stealth very much know that it is an individual thing, and rarely see any need to, or value in advocating it, or defending it. But here, in articles, there has to be NPOV.--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC) 
So this was changed to reflect what most people believe, that neither is better and both have risks.NickGorton
:That would be an over-simplification. What is your evidence on what is the balance of opinion? Sample size, selection of sample, quality of questions, margin of error? Or was that just your POV?
::Where's your proof? [AR]
:If stealth is a matter of personal need, or choice, of what importance, against that, is what you think some undefined community believes? Is that not unjustified pressure to conform, which would, by definition not be NPOV?
:I see I'm also going to have to argue the issue of actually describing a man or woman post-transition, and especially stealth, as transsexual, since you put it straight back in as an adjective at the top when I had assumed that it would be realised that I was using simply "man" and "woman" as NPOV. Well, not neutral as far as those who believe there is no dysphoria, or change, and that we're all just perverts or psychotics are concerned, but I don't see anyone being NPOV for that, here. It is surely obvious in this article that we are referring to people who are, or have been transsexual. Does that need restating constantly, even when discussing post-transition?
::Sorry again - but just using "man" and "woman" is just as POV - after all, it is clear that we are talking about transsexual people here, and not cis* people. And you know, to compare those who have a problem with the POV that after transitioning, we are "just normal women or men", or assume that you can be "have been transsexual" with hatemongerers who call us all perverts or psychotics is not exactly the kind of thing that implies either assuming good faith or anything resembling NPOV on your side, either. [AR]
:Am I going to have to lay out that controversy in the article too? And are you going to deny that exists, too? All the stuff about "is someone TS (or, as another issue, TG) before surgery, or only after, or always, regardless of how they feel or self-define"? About whether anyone can ever emerge to simply being a man, or simply a woman? "Once a trannie always a trannie"? Laying out all the theories and politics and medical questions? Like, in what way, if they don't identify as transsexual still (ie if they are not "out") how are they still transsexual if they are no longer dysphoric and only have the same medical issues as some others of their sex have? To be honest, the only (non-bigot) people I can find objecting to a post-transition stealth person simply being termed as they identify are those really anxious to use them politically, against their will, who obviously try to portray that as being for the greater good. But that doesn't make it NPOV.
::That rant doesn't exactly sound NPOV, either - not to mention the simply false dichotomy here. Those who claim that transsexual people after transitioning are still different from cis-people are not just people who want to use post-transitioned people as political tools or anything. They simply have a more realistic outlook, and probably have run into people for whom this illusion just didn't work. [AR]
:If we agree that transsexuality is a medical condition that, once successfully handled becomes just part of one's medical history (as opposed, say, to a life-long psychosis that gets assuaged by transition but might emerge again at any time), isn't it enough, generally, to, where relevant, say that? Something like "with a transsexual history", instead of constantly applying the label?--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
::Well, I dunno about Nick, but you and I, we don't agree here - not only is the body not quite what it looks like (if everything worked OK), we are missing 10, 20, often 50 years of history of cisgender people, too. Sorry, but you are no more an ex-transsexual then you can be ex-black or an ex-alcoholic. And yes, I met people where deep stealth just didn't work too well - and I still consider going deep stealth a right every transgender person has. They should just know the problems assicoated with it. After that, it is up to them. [AR]
:::Consider the person who was born blind because of, e.g., congenital cataracts.  If that person has vision given them via surgery in adulthood, should we continue to label them as 'blind'?  Their vision is not the same as the vision of someone who has not had to have cataract surgery.  If you say they should be labelled in some way: why?  Who would gain, what would they gain, and do they have a right to such gain at the expense of the labelled person (since, as the late Irving Goffman pointed out, imposed labels rarely benefit the labelee)? [AD]
Also, while you suggested that there was no way to verify that some people are truly deep stealth, there are many examples of people discovered only at death, Billy Tipton being one that is well known.NickGorton
:You completely misread that paragraph before changing it. The inabilty to verify because people are inaccessible referred to the allegation (which was previously stated as a fact and apparently not objected to by yourself) that deep stealth results in anxiety and depression. Those are specific mental problems that are not only claimed to be the most common additional issue in all trans people upon presentation but are also very common in the general population. It is not only unverifiable, without access, that deep stealth people particularly have such issues, post-transition, but also unverifiable that if they were to have them that it would be caused by being deep stealth. Therefore it can only be an allegation, and it is a very typical example of the common, and usually unquestioned smears bandied about, which are actually harmful because they are used to pressure people in important personal life decisions. It is part of the abuse, the lack of respect for boundaries, from various sources, that most trans people are subjected to, to varying degrees. And it stood here unchallenged for months. I din't think, in view of that, it was right to simply delete it as unfounded. But you entirely replaced my discussion of that with a completely different discussion.
:Why would you think that I was suggesting no one is deep stealth'? Thanks to the Net I know (in anonymised terms), and respect, people who are deep stealth. I guess I must have taken NPOV too far... :-)
::Uhm, rants don't make your arguments look too good ... and nobody claimed that all people in deep stealth are unhappy or anything, but "being found out" is certainly an anxiety about all of them suffer from. That's not a "smear" or an "abuse" or anything, just a fact, verified many times. BTW, you shouldn't really try to claim your POV is NPOV, because nobody's is - ranting and howling "NPOV, NPOV!" however are the known hallmarks of people who are nothing but trouble, because they just don't understand what NPOV is in the first place. [AR]
:I didn't cite deceased (regretably) examples because they lived in previous times and the whole page seems phrased in current terms. But Tipton would seem to be an example of mental problems NOT being a result of living deep stealth, unless one interprets his anxiety about going to a doctor as clinical, which, since he died as a result I guess is arguable. Personally I would presume that, with his particular degree of need to be a man that he had no choice, at that time in that location. Is an unmet need a clinical anxiety, or a failure of provision and equal treatment? I guess it depends who has the power and writes the history.
::Sorry, but Billy Tipton died in 1989, that is not exactly that long ago. Also, the same problem still exist, as you ought to know if you really knew that many deep stealth people as you claim. [AR]
:The history you cite does suggest a larger medical problem. Everyone I know who has had such issues has dealt with them by consulting a doctor a distance away, or, in recent years, using the Net for information, and perhaps supplies. Most medical issues were not problematic in any other way than they are for anyone. But before surgery was available, and now with non-op and TG there are more problems being deep stealth, and I'll try to incorporate that, bearing in mind that the article is transsexual, and that it doesn't seem meant to be a "how to", nor an "everything bared", nor "how to spot a stealth trannie"... --Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
I also did a few edits for readability and converted a few run on sentences so several shorter ones.NickGorton
:I'm not yet sure how much tinkering with another person's writing style is considered OK here. There was nothing actually wrong or unreadable about what you changed. But I'll bear in mind your preference for short sentences in the new version that is currently in progress.
::Of course it is OK - everybody can and should edit everybody elses sentences to improve readablity and clarity and facts if needed. That is what Wikipedia is all about. [AR]
:Now, is anyone else wondering why one person's personal site, even if it is called transsexual.org, particularly deserves being linked at the bottom of the article, and twice too?--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
::Personal site? What exactly makes you consider this page a "personal site"? Just because one person maintains it, and says so, instead of a "webmaster" or a group? Just because the author says "I" a lot in some articles does not mean that the page does not contain enough valuable information to be counted as not just a "personal page". But my guess is you just don't like a few of the articles. If I am mistaken here, correct me - and give some arguments, too -- AlexR 9 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
BlueGreen, I am not interspersing my comments because it didn't fit well that way, because some of the same comments are germane to different points.
You make the incorrect assumption that I have only lived in the transgender community in California. Moreover, my comments are also based on discussions with people at transgender and LGBT conferences, both in the US and internationally. With regard to the ability to be out and proud in areas other than the bay, I think I am pretty familiar as I came out and transitioned while working as a physician in a suburban community hospital in Louisiana.
Regarding the decision to refer to people who are post-operative and post therapy as transsexual, it has nothing to do with the idea you suggested that I think transgender people are perverts or psychotic. It is simply that I recognize that successful treatment of a disease does not make it cease to exist. That is, when I take medication that keeps my blood pressure in the normal range, I do not cease to have hypertension, but rather I have treated hypertension. Similarly even though I am successfully treated with hormones and with surgery that does not somehow magically make me an ex-transsexual. That I take testosterone to treat GID and atenolol to treat hypertension makes neither disease actually cease to exist. It just means I am less likely to have negative symptoms or outcomes because of them.
Moreover, from a purely medical perspective, to do so is inappropriate. For example, regardless of how 'stealth' they are, my transsexual women patients over fifty always get a yearly digital rectal exam to check their prostate. Failure to do so and to treat them exactly the same as a cisgender female is neglectful to the point of malpractice.
So describing people as transsexual is not evidence of a biased point of view, but rather simply accepting that it is not possible to completely change an individual's body from male to female or female to male. Ignoring the physical reality of the body an individual has and pretending it is some ideal that one wishes is simply sticking ones head in the sand. 
:One of the limitations of current western medical training is the tendency for its graduates to think in biologially-oriented, tightly-focused, essentialist ways rather than holistically taking social contexts into account.  Some labels stigmatise, and should not be used except for people in the untreated grip of some condition.  A person who gains sight via surgery or hearing via appliances is no longer 'blind' or 'deaf' within the context of daily life, so why should they be forced to wear the label around their neck?  Similarly, why do you need to label some XY person 'transsexual' in order to check an internal organ?  Why wouldn't 'with a history of transsexualism' do the job in the same way 'a family history of breast cancer' triggers extra care in breast examination?  [AD]
However, there is one important difference in your assumptions and mine: I don't assume that being a transsexual or transgender woman makes a person not a woman. That is like saying that a man who has had a penectomy for cancer is no longer a man or that someone who has had bilateral leg amputations is no longer a person (because a man has a penis and a person has two legs.) Whether one is a man or woman is based in my mind in the identity of the person. What makes you a man or woman or even a human is not your body, but what sits between your ears.
But then this also means that I recognize that the homeless transgender man who I see who cannot afford hormones or surgery, but who nontheless has a durable male gender identity, is a man as much as the wealthy transgender male who has had every surgery in the book. Your view however, judges the true or real maleness or femaleness of an individual not by his or her actual inner gender identity, but by the ability to acquire hormonal and surgical treatment.
Regarding the source of my information about the views of the transgender community, that is, as I said, personal experience as well as readings by transgender authors. Of course you know there is no statistical evidence to support either of our statements. However, mine is supported by the transgender popular literature (ex: “Becoming a Visible Man” which discusses this at length.) However, I also did not say that your POV was non-existent, but rather that the majority of transgender people are accepting of an individual's choice in this regard. The majority accepting something implies that a minority does not.
With regard to psychopathology in people who are 'deep stealth' there are individuals that I have treated (now or in the past) who were completely stealth with exception to their interactions with me and possibly a few others. They were uniformly anxious and fearful of detection as well as hypervigilant with regards to maintaining their status. I am acquainted with one other physician who is a transman who is so deep stealth that he wont even bring himself to post on a transgender medical professionals group anonymously. He has told me that I am the only person with which he communicates and sometimes expresses a great deal of fear and anxiety about detection. So yes, its there. Of course one cannot quantify it for the reasons you expressed, but it is most certainly there.
Moreover given the fact that Billy Tipton allowed himself to die of exsanguinating hemorrhage rather than risk detection, I think we can safely say this was a big fear for him. And a life spent in constant fear of discovery is simply not emotionally healthy.
And lastly, with regard to editing for readability, that's one of the best parts about wikipedia! Not every reader has to slog through the same difficult prose if someone along the line makes it flow better. Nick
:If we must go into matters of right and wrong in this article, although they are rather irrelevant given that encyclopedias are supposed to impart information, I shall put up the concept, whether i agree with it or not, that "Any member of society should be allowed to do whatever they wish assuming that by doing so one does no easily avoidable harm unto other members of this society". Now, taking this stance, which in itself would support transexual's choice for change, I must point something out: in a number of forms, stealth has the issue of sometimes not conforming with this ideal. Take first the fact that although by many transexuality is considered perfectly acceptable, by many it is not. Then we look at the fact that any relations a transexual under complete stealth has with any other member of society will be under the pretext that this transexual has never been a member of the other sex, and that they were born into the sex they now have. Although this pretext may not matter to a lot of people, to some it may a lot. Whether or not they SHOULD worry about it is irrelevant. To some, the idea of having relations with a transexual is deeply disturbing. Again, whether or not they should feel this way is irrelevant. The fact is simply that they do, and in many cases may not be able to help it, the same way a transexual may be unnable to help but identify with the opposite of their assigned sex. Just because by some members of the community a transexual is now seen as their desired sex, one must simply accept that by some a transexual will always be considered as the sex as which they originated. I must stress here that i am not advocating either of these views. I simply point out that people have different feelings on the matter. So in this situation, we can see that through the act of stealth, the transexual is highly capable of causing other people serious mental anguish, or even persecution by their social groups. Giving a palpable example: a man of traditional values, with bigot friends, has intercourse with a transexual woman, not knowing the fact that she is a transexual. He subsequently discovers the fact, as do his friends. As a result, he is extrodited from his friends, suffers from anguish as a result of going against his values, and later commits suicide. Obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless an entirely possible situation in certain areas. Getting into personal perspectives now, I know that anyone in a number of my social circles would be ridiculed to the point of humiliation were they to engage in activities with a transexual. Just as one shouldnt be blindly bigoted, neither should one blindly believe that everyone else should believe in our tolerant ideals.
-Anonymous User 8888, post made on the 13 of November, 2005
::That was a very lenghty way to say, "Transsexuals should be upfront about their past to avoid hurting transphobic people's feelings".  You're right though, the whole "right and wrong" thing probably doesn't have much place in an encyclopedia, which is why I'm confused as to why you're bringing it up.  Anyway, I have to disagree with you.  Transsexual people have to go through a lot to get to point where they're comfortable with who they are and how they interact with the world, and I don't think that should be thrown away so that we can avoid making other people uncomfortable.  As far as the extreme example you provided, I think the more likely event would be that a really bigoted man would harm the transsexual woman he slept with. --Cog05 16:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of Deep Stealth and other changes