Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's the technical term at present but the whole thing is compounded by the whole medical transition and social transition are two separate things. Medical temporary detransition often just means suspending the use of horomone medications to achieve a temporary aim like pregnancy. It doesn't really take into consideration that in social matters the person in these circumstances does not socially detransition.

The trouble here assumes that the goal is the same for everyone which isn't the case. People look at the risks of every single given surgery independently. Top surgery is pretty common because it's low risk and goes a long way to changing the way one looks through their clothes everyday. Bottom surgery can be scary. It requires one to take months off work to heal and it has a higher chance of not working out and some people keep their pre-existing kit for other reasons. You could be discouraged by the choices of surgery available, you might have a partner you value more who quite frankly didn't sign on when you got together for that big a change or it might just seem unnecessary to your individual needs.

Sterilization by removal of gonads is more often an elective by trans women because it cuts down on required daily medications to block testosterone production and less so on the docket for trans men because removal of both ovaries tends to have life shortening effects. Between the two horomones estrogen is the most nessisary for systainable long term health so if you aren't already planning on taking estrogen medication it's a bad idea to remove the organs that produce that horomone.

Also temporary detransition to have kids is a thing for trans men. Some folk don't want to give up the option of having their own kids even if the pregnancy might be mental hell.

The important thing to realize is that transition is often an incredibly logical process where one's individual values come into play and get weighed against the neurological programming beyond one's control that effect one's wellbeing. People generally don't take medicine with side effects unless the problem to be solved is worse than the medicine.

The way transness interacts with Japanese culture is just different, not better. The level of individualism in the country that is considered socially tolerable is pretty low. Binary trans folk can find arguably way more tolerance but it demands that what that looks like is as full on adoption of the complete social role of the gender you transition to accompanied by a cookie cutter transition regime.

The precept of preservation of social harmony comes way before personal happiness or comfort. The nail who sticks up is hammered down. If you want a different box then you may have a different box but you cannot personalize the box.

Consequently being non-binary trans in Japan is really difficult as you are sort of labeled as a troublemaker.

Nope, everybody has gonads. Removing overies can have some nasty life shortening effects, not doing so also keeps the option of temporary detransition to have kids later so trans men often elect to keep them.

I wish people realized what they were actually signing on to when they have their kids go to a public school. Essentially it's an experimental education devised by a bunch of people who spend their entire lives devising the science of how to try and raise good citizens. The techniques you were educated with were essentially defunct the minute you graduated and in the process of refinement. It's free to the public because the buy in is that you agree to become a part of the ongoing experiment. This individualist entitlement of "They should teach my child only what I WANT THEM TO KNOW!" is fine for private schools and homeschool - options made available in theory to everyone - but literal beggars can't be choosers.

When they rolled out the initiative in my area it was an extremely Christian area. Parents were basically given three nights to come in to see the presentation beforehand along with an explanation of the reasons and objectives behind syllabus. If you didn't show up to the presentation and sign the forms at the very end your kids were opted into the program. Of the parents who showed up only an extreme minority pulled their children from the program.

Maybe if they saw what that sort of lesson plan looks like maybe they would realize it's hardly as lude as people make it seem. Basically the key points are

• Anal / Oral sex exists
• These forms of sex comes with unique disease transmission risks.
• There are specific condoms that offer greater protection for anal sex
• Safe preparation before hand involves a cleaning stage and the use of lubricant
• If you are female you have a much higher risk of injury

That's really it. It's hardly sitting kids down and getting them to watch porn, heck you don't even need graphics. Honestly if we mustered up a national program to put adults through actually decent sex ed so they wouldn't freak out so bloody much we wouldn't be having this problem. Where I am when I was a kid they piloted a number of university lecturers to hold age appropriate sex ed starting at grade one which covered basic anatomy and consent. They realized that just giving girls particularly exact words meant way greater protection for them as when a little girl comes to you an goes "My uncle touched my cookie." doesn't immediately ring alarm bells.

I would hazard that if they put it to a vote actually attending programs like these should be mandatory for actually getting a say. Letting the ignorant and uninformed decide the quality of an education system can only lead to it being subpar.

The treatment sex ed as being risk assessment and harm reduction strategy is incomplete without some key points that also protect people having sex for recreational purposes specifically ones that LGBTQIA people tend to use as their primary forms of sexual engagement. Like if you don't have a segment on anal sex with information about how it makes some STIs more transmissible, how anal sex with female partners is more likely to cause injury, and yes some basic pointers on techniques for making it safer for the people who rely on it as their primary form of being sexually intimate then you do leave people open to :

• Higher physical risk of injury when experimenting with sex.
• being potentially pressured into something with unique models and techniques needed for truly effective STI reduction.
• people believing that it's ultimately less of a big deal or life course altering because "you can't get pregnant" so treating those behaviours as less risky

Removing or omitting sex ed that does not mention other risky forms of sexual intimacy other than heterosexual reproductive sex means you are creating blindspots of safety for everyone as many forms of sex like anal have become culturally prized even in heterosexual relationships. The prudish idea of "we can't teach them techniques !" often stands of the way of fully comprehensive safety instruction leaving some demographics out in the cold as privileged people continue to treat those forms of sex as taboo and stigmatized.

In many ways queer culture is sort of a radically inclusive space informed by decades of response and radical fighting against the forces of trauma. Drag Queen's have lineages of Mothers and Daughters, Drag Kings tend to form packs to perform. Queer events hold barbeques and brunches, create taverns and diners where queer culture is passed between generations as a way to keep old lessons alive and give people safe places to go to ask whatever they need. It is a community of outcasts who decided that the world needed less outcasts.

Here in Vancouver the last time I went to a drag event the Queens were advising everyone to keep more cash on them because homeless people often could not access free places to cool down to keep them safe in extreme heat events. Radical inclusion and the willingness to see flawed people as humans is one of the queer community's strengths. It's often paired with a lot of black humour and silliness but the core of the thing sometimes make me think that but for the lack of emphasis on spiritual belief there's a lot of underlying philosophy that Jesus probably wouldn't be too upset about.

I personally hope Christians use the blowback as a way to reconnect to the core principles of their faith and reflect on the precepts of radical kindness at the core of Jesus's teachings. I feel very fortunate that my family drifted wide from religion back in my Grandparents day. I grew up an outcast in my wider community but there was never any question we were loved.

A lot of people who joined our open family did so with a lot of baggage. Families that figured them as failures for not living up to expectations or who had some kind of isolating pain their religion told them they basically deserved. It made me feel rich in a way so many were poor just being cherished by my family for being unreservedly me. It becomes an armour that makes me very resilient.

Being queer I see a lot of the people I know deal with this broken part of them, this rejection that who they are is not loved by the people for whom our society posits their natural attachments should entitle them love... and am able to be there for them. A lot of those who flee from religion do so as true refugees. They have to build from nothing. The reason queer communities are tight knit is because they realize that people can't exist without some kind of family and if you don't have one you make one from scratch.

A lot of the people in this position don't nessisarily hate the religion but they intimately know what it has taken from them. When your neighbours love you more than your family your neighbours become your family.

So prefacing this with specifying I am Trans masc, former tech support person. Now in another male dominated career. I was read unambiguously as a woman during my time in the field and the number of times I picked up a phone and had someone ask me to put them through to a male tech was astounding. It doesn't really matter if your employer is willing to hire you if you are treated like a second class citizen by the average person in the job. I lasted about three years before I left and trashed all hopes of ever applying for anything in the field ever again. The number of women folk who dip their toes into the entry-level and then decide that they can't deal with the added mental health issues of being treated like a child or an idiot by default for the rest of their working life keeps a lot of women out of a lot of fields. Even if you are passionate about the thing the additional wear on your psyche will burn you out faster.

My new field has a different issue. It's very nepotistic so people tend to hire their friends first. Being incredibly competent only earns you the fourth or fifth spot on a crew of about six or seven people. If you are a male crew boss and your friend base is overwhelmingly male and you hire the people you feel most comfortable around then unthinkingly about 50 percent of the most secure jobs go to your male friends. Women, incredibly competent ones, tend to bounce around our industry, a lot get stuck as temp labor. Female leads are rare as are those who get the secure crew spots despite the total numbers at the hall telling us 40 percent of the hall roll is female. It doesn't matter if the bosses aren't actively trying to discriminate against women because they are just hiring people they like to work with, in the end none of that matters if you are a woman because regardless of the intent in the hearts of the crew bosses you are still stuck having to be incredibly competent just to fight for the leftover scraps.

Oftentimes what these events actually are for is more about solidarity than recruitment. One of the issues with male dominated fields is that oftentimes they are exhausting to participate in when you are treated as an outsider. Having a community space where people can get together and talk shop, ask frank questions about culture from recruiters and gather strength from visibly seeing other people doing the same thing you do can give a sense of not being so alone.

That and a lot of women require a lot more data on how they compare before they feel like they are actually a viable candidate. They are sort of trained into an almost crippling idea of modesty and more social anxiety in general so a lot of them will only apply if they solidly fit the listed requirements. When they utilize a dialogue based recruitment space they can gain confidence that small missing bits of listed experience desired on their resume don't fully discount them from being a candidate for a job and gets more of them to apply. Women lean on pack tactics more than men do so these sort of events actually fufill a lot of secondary objectives than just on the day hiring.

My experience mostly comes from moderating queer friendly communities with a low amount of anonymity. If you have a community with a high instance of trauma surrounding being cast out of your family, abused directly or placed in the abusive situation of conversion therapy then let someone use that space to proselytize Christianity positivly it tends to make that place unsafe because you can actually cause flashbacks in the standing community and eventually in the interest of protecting the right of one person to say whatever they the rest of the community stops being able to speak freely without having to explain themselves and have to tiptoe around the one person who makes any instance of them venting their reasonble frustrations with their situation about how "not every Christian... ". People sometimes need places to let off steam.

Often people in threatened minorities need protected spaces where they don't need to follow the rules that are more universally applied where they don't feel they have to appease the sensibilities that are enforced on them the minute they step outside. Very few spaces are actually welcome to everyone and the ones that use an anything goes moderation policy usually find themselves hosting some damn near criminal elements who drive off others and rot the place.

Since conservative spaces tend to be somewhat hegemonic people from those spaces often hold feelings that if they are not welcome to say whatever they want anywhere they choose that any request to modify their behaviour with respect to the needs of others in the space is intolerable oppression. Every space has to chose on a sliding scale how much they are willing to put up with if one participant starts causing everyone to enjoy the space less though the decision in my experience is often a matter of long debate per individual about how willing to learn and accept that the value lies with the more vulnerable audience who have fewer venues to not have to deal with being spammed with rhetoric that paints them as deviant, dangerous, mentally ill or inferior.

Halfway spaces in our forums are made available for people who cannot be trusted to play by the stricter ruleset of conscientious behaviour where one can expect to be more rough and tumble but a lot of the time that becomes a space to debunk a lot of the bullshit and places the burden on our queer membership to be educators as oftentimes people who can't be trusted use the dedicated spaces to whine and complain about how they should have the all access pass and when they inferred everyone in the space was a pedophile they didn't actually know what they were doing so it wasn't like they were trying to hurt everyone etc etc etc...

Lemmy is kind of unapologetically leftist and there is a lot of dissatisfaction by a number of groups that all coelece around the use of religion or "traditional values" a euphemism for Christian, more specifically the Pauline chapters, norms that reject LGBTQIA identities and a flattening of the rights of women to be autonomous. When you look at the "bigotry" you'll find "Christianity" does not always often mean the same thing when people use it from poster to poster. In many ways it closer to a shorthand for the Evengelical movements which are growing more like consolidated political parties. If someone claims to be Christian the belief in Christ itself is not always the cause for the vitriol (not saying the angry atheists do not prowl). Rather it is how they weild it against other communities.

Moderation is never truly neutral. To some extent all places are tailored to be safer to someone. Leftist spaces are often tailored to be more sympathetic with people to whom conservative values trend on the whole to be hostile towards. Importantanly however it is important to look at how that frustration is being utilized. On the whole people here's main gripe is an overreach of control at the expense of safety and health of other people. The desired outcome is not a banishment from society but a ceasefire.

Oooh yeah. My parents gently raised me and a shout from one of them was immediately understood not as them being angry but them being scared. By contrast we had some friends who were just incessantly yelled at in anger all the time. The difference was stark in how willing to accept advice, correction and trust in the experience of adults was. When you are essentially just told to obey and then yelled at you don't really grasp the underlying principles that advantage you later because at any point that anger could just be you hitting a parent's pet peeve. It's also really hard to respect someone who doesn't respect you back.

We grew up pretty damn straightlaced. By contrast our yelled at peers ended up by and large going completely off the rails once nobody was in a position to force them to obey and about half of them went really far astray.

If you keep advocating in this fashion you are going to start feeling very backed up against a wall very quickly. When people are routinely hurt by an institution the unambiguous defense of the people within institution as a whole claiming a similar victimhood plays on a part of human nature. What people want of you is to accept that the numbers of people claiming Christiandom to then go on to harm someone means that as someone who claims to be Christian that you should be the first voice to start criticizing your own.

Instead because you cannot separate yourself from your Christian label or other people's frustration and pain caused by other people who do so under the flag of being "Proud Christians" your advocacy appears shallow and self serving. You and all the good Christians you defend become literary "the good man who does nothing" If facing people in your audience who have experienced trauma at the hands of your group what they want to see is that you accept that people like you harmed them and that you are different than them by being able to recognize their pain and shelve your agenda and listen unambiguously. What they are asking is for you to show you care about them and are strong enough to weather and differentiate the criticism they aren't directing at you.

It's a similar effect to how a lot of systemic issues around racism get held up on the feelings of the people in institutions about being implied to be racist. Oftentimes the issues never get dealt with because the conversation has to stop become all about the feelings of the person and how they aren't a bad person. While they may not intend it that person's feelings become the obstacle that throws up the roadblocks on people who are fighting desperately to have less roadblocks. Once this happens often enough people start to figure that that person's feelings DO make them a bad person because regardless of their personal merits they are still in the way and having to sway every individual roadblock by taking them offside and coddling them telling them, it's okay we know YOU aren't a bad person becomes way too much. Thus people start getting more frustrated with the people who demand this treatment and take up their energy and they start getting more strident.

When you place yourself in that spot it's easy to see people's frustration as hate but it is different. They want you to be better.

Depends. I have had a bunch of specialist appointments for cardiologists, endocrinologists, reproductive health specialists and pulmonologists. The average wait for an appointment is about three months.

We are very fond of calling the Canadian system slow but my understanding is it's decently comparable to a lot of the States and is actually pretty impressive considering how spread out and small our population is.

I think they project it anywhere other than themselves to be honest. I lurked their hideouts for a bit out of curiosity and they seem to place a lot of their hate onto other men too. The whole vibe of the places is to whinge about the success of others (who are doing it wrong by not treating women like shit like they deserve because women having standards at all is wrong somehow) while also reinforcing amongst themselves that whatever is wrong with them cannot be changed, improved, repaired or fixed and any attempt to do so is to be attacked for trying to become one of those men who are doing it "wrong and tgus deserve scorn.

Successful relationships or even short term sexual liasons with women do not give them value in their micro societies. It causes them to lose status. They want a very particular kind of completely unchallengable dominance based on their intrinsic entitlement and any compromise on that can mean exile from the places they go for comfort... It's a death cult. Flat out they want people to abandon hope forever and wallow in their worst qualities and misery until they no longer feel any point in living.

Yeah... I wish I could have that ignorance but trust me. These people exist out in the world and while they are more prevalent in some places than others they use that policing of language and the sort of "normalcy privilege" as a weapon. Take my hometown, right now there is a concerted effort by these people to influence the school board and town council decorum insisting the labels cis/hetero/allosexual and allistic should be treated as slurs and make their usage an offence for which one can be ejected from chambers or have their jobs threatened.

I know a lot of people in my community who have been challenged, even yelled at in public, in person by these people because they were overhead them using cis / het to describe either themselves or others in a private conversation that these people picked up on.

What these movements do is enforce a double standard on queer communities. There is a concerted effort to rob us of the language to refer to other states of being other than ours in ways that are judgement neutral. This often causes queer friendly scholarship to have to mince through ridiculous hoops making it much more difficult to sussinctly explain concepts which otherwise become much more arcane without the ability to use adjectives.

Trying to talk to these "cis is a slur" people it becomes very clear that they do not think there should be a word for them. Their existence is assumed correct, unremarkable and beyond the ability to comment on. Our existence however is controversial and thus deserves a derivative label.

Often the " bragging about how normal they are" isn't the way that shakes out. I am thinking more specifically about people who throw tantrums about being called "cis" or "hetero" or "allistic" or even "allosexual" . To a lot of these people they refuse to have any label applied because they figure they should just be assumed the normal and the default and no word should exist that describes their state. To them any descriptive labels are just for "deviations" and being treated on the same footing as a deviation even a little is a threat to the supremacy of normalcy. Often one gets the impression that they want communities of queer or neurotypic people to internally refer to them as "regular people" not so much "normies" as they would probably find that derogatory as well.

Neurodivergence used as an excuse not to improve is just shitty behaviour. For a lot of us knowing our type of Neurodivergence can open doors to figuring out learning styles or work arounds when the something that should work but doesn't. On the other hand sometimes someone will try to force something that provably has never worked for you and not have a lot of empathy when you try and warn them that what they are trying to do has a history of not shaking out for you like they expect it will. It's a two way street. Knowledge of your personal weaknesses and workarounds can be frustrating for other people who see it feom the outside as you not doing what they want because of lack of gumption and willingness to "try" when really you are just very tired trying to do this something for other people have recommended over and over and have developed a boundary to explain that for you it's a fool's errand to try again. To the other person they have never seen all the attempts you have made before doing it their way so to them it just looks like lazy.

Maybe the experiment that is "normal" was a fad. We didn't even have a word for it until the 1600's as physical and mental impairments were much more common and it wasn't until mass manufacturing and early sciences became a thing that our cultural obsession with uniformity cropped up.

As we built up science changed models. It stopped trying to find easy universal constants and started looking at the just how naturally variable everything is. Like how cancer is actually not a singular diagnosis but a very large family of vaguely related conditions that all operate and respond in very different ways. Curing the entire disease family is fighting a hydra.

We could very easily revert to a pre "normal" society model but instead of that being informed by ignorance it could be through compassionate study.

Though we got a ways to go. A lot of people are very... passionate about holding onto the label of normal and the "right" for others to only be referred to as deviation.