#78280 breast size / transgender individuals

[Portia]

Let's set aside for the moment that Haleakala refuses, for reasons obscure to me, to address the reality TV contestant by the pronoun he prefers (speaking of speech that is legal but immoral -- the only reason I can think is to make a snide point). The aside in the question about a (putative) reality TV contestant getting a (hypothetical) breast augmentation to an (arbitrarily chosen) 36DD cup has bugged me all through taking a shower. Is it the questioner's flippant analogy with Gender Identity Disorder (do all transgender people meet the criteria for diagnosis? So confusing, and I'm a professional writer!) with a desire to have bigger tits? Is it the assumption that women in my ballpark bra size are either vain or deriving their self-esteem from their boobs or self-promoting? Is it the implication that a busty woman should, like the transgender man, shut up and stay home? So many vaguely disturbing things. Look, I have a pretty big rack (after being flatter-chested, not through surgical means but through late puberty), and if I were going to go on some dumb show (they're acting like it's a production of Hamlet or something) and talk about the struggles I've overcome in life, my cup size would not figure in. And I was teased, pretty acutely, about my figure in middle school. I'd compare the plight of this man (who could be annoying, not all transgender people are saints, he's on reality TV so strike one) to having a faith crisis, or losing a parent, not a freaking boob job. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, natch.)

[bobtheenchantedone]

I logged in so that I could thumbs-up yayful's and Divya's answers. I wished I could do so more than once.

H's answer, on the other hand, made me wish there was a thumbs-down option. Mormons thinking they know what is absolutely morally right and wrong and feeling justified in looking down on or even condemning others hurts thousands of people and has recently hurt me very personally and very deeply. As I stated recently on this forum, any situation where people are hurt for the sake of rules is a negative one and one I cannot feel that God approves of.

(Sorry, I know this is technically kind of off-topic, but I thought it would be silly to start another thread for the same question.)

[Haleakalā]

Let's set aside for the moment that Haleakala refuses, for reasons obscure to me, to address the reality TV contestant by the pronoun he prefers (speaking of speech that is legal but immoral -- the only reason I can think is to make a snide point).

"Making a snide point" wasn't the reason at all. I also didn't think the reasons would be that obscure: I don't believe in or acknowledge the ability of an individual to change their gender. Gender is an essential and eternal characteristic of an individual and does not change by personal feelings or disfigurement of the body. If I didn't make that clear up front, I am sincerely sorry. I guess I thought that - given the very point I was arguing - it would be clear.

When I refuse to refer to this individual by the pronoun she prefers, I don't mean it in a disrespectful way. It's the same reason I would not refer to someone as "stupid," or "dumb," even if they asked me to. That's not to say that being a man is "less" or "more" than being a women. It just means that there is power and honor in someone's actual gender. This women is a daughter of God - with a divine heritage and nature. She has infinite value and worth, and God loves her. (regardless of her feelings about her gender.)

The aside in the question about a (putative) reality TV contestant getting a (hypothetical) breast augmentation to an (arbitrarily chosen) 36DD cup has bugged me all through taking a shower. Is it the questioner's flippant analogy with Gender Identity Disorder (do all transgender people meet the criteria for diagnosis? So confusing, and I'm a professional writer!) with a desire to have bigger tits? Is it the assumption that women in my ballpark bra size are either vain or deriving their self-esteem from their boobs or self-promoting?

I agree that this reader's choice in analogy was poor. I don't believe that people can change their gender, but that doesn't mean that Gender Identity Disorder isn't a serious issue. People that struggle with it don't need shunning, but sympathy and support. This reader's choice of analogy implied that those who struggled with this issue were merely expressing a preference. That's not the case, and this analogy left something to be desired.

That having been said, I think the point that the reader was trying to make was still valid. They were (I think) trying to find an extreme inappropriate-for-family-television example to draw on. I think you could substitute in my analogy about pornography and the general point the reader was trying to make still stands.

Is it the implication that a busty woman should, like the transgender man, shut up and stay home? So many vaguely disturbing things.

That is a blatant mischaracterization of my (and the reader's) statements. No one is suggesting anyone should "shut up and stay home." The point is that there are appropriate and inappropriate times and places to have these types of conversations. I have no issue with anyone participating on this program - including gay people, transgendered individuals, and people with all variety of body types. Nor do I object if these people express their views on these mature topics. My issue is that they were doing both at the same time. There are appropriate and inappropriate times to discuss these difficult, sensitive issues.

Look, I have a pretty big rack (after being flatter-chested, not through surgical means but through late puberty), and if I were going to go on some dumb show (they're acting like it's a production of Hamlet or something) and talk about the struggles I've overcome in life, my cup size would not figure in. And I was teased, pretty acutely, about my figure in middle school. I'd compare the plight of this man (who could be annoying, not all transgender people are saints, he's on reality TV so strike one) to having a faith crisis, or losing a parent, not a freaking boob job. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, natch.)

I agree. As I said previously, this reader's choice of analogy was poor. I completely agree that this individual's experience is much more comparable to to having a faith crises. Comparing this individual's struggles to someone who had cosmetic surgery was dismissive. However, that does not mean that it is okay to discuss these things in all circumstances. To a certain extent, I would pause if I saw someone discussing lightly their own private, deep struggles with faith. I don't mean that we shouldn't discuss them - I only mean that to give these difficult issues the respect they deserve, it isn't appropriate to discuss them in all circumstances.

[bobtheenchantedone]

If gender is essential and eternal then what do we do about babies born with both sets of genitals? With three or more chromosomes? With the genitals of one sex and the chromosomes of the other? I mean, you can say you're more sure of people's gender identities than they are all you want, but in at least these cases there's reason to think it's not so black and white.

[Shrinky Dink]

Haleakala, I agree that gender is an eternal characteristic, however, I don't necessarily think that our "physical" gender is an eternal characteristic.

We know that our bodies are imperfect. People get cancer, others are born with CF, MS, and other debilitating things. People have trials put on them because of their bodies. How do we know that having opposing physical and emotional genders isn't one of those trials? Our bodies are imperfect, but our minds are also imperfect. People have learning disabilities, dyslexia, depression, and a host of other mental illnesses. How do we know that having opposing physical and emotional genders isn't one of those trials?

Now the big profound question:

If our minds are sometimes imperfect and our bodies are sometimes imperfect, who is to say whether trans* or GID is an ailment of the body or of the mind?

Do these people just have a chemical imbalance? If this is the case, then we can't necessarily consider them responsible for their actions . Or do these people have imperfect bodies that don't match their emotional gender? If this is the case, then we can't blame them for 'correcting' their bodies to match because their body was wrong in the first place. We can't judge someone for committing suicide, because that is a failing of the mind (and that judgement is up to Heavenly Father), and if we judge people for trying to fix their bodies, than anyone born missing any limbs wouldn't be able to get a prosthetic.

Since we don't know whether our physical and emotional genders are both eternal or not, then we can't judge these people for doing what they think is best and makes them happy.

PS - I know the suicide/prosthetic analogy falls apart eventually, but I figured it was a good example for the time being. And, I'm pretty sure I just made 'emotional gender' up, but it gets the point across.

[TheBlackSheep]

When I refuse to refer to this individual by the pronoun she prefers, I don't mean it in a disrespectful way. It's the same reason I would not refer to someone as "stupid," or "dumb," even if they asked me to. That's not to say that being a man is "less" or "more" than being a women. It just means that there is power and honor in someone's actual gender. This women is a daughter of God - with a divine heritage and nature. She has infinite value and worth, and God loves her. (regardless of her feelings about her gender.)

H., I'm going to be blunt here. If that translates into rude, I apologize. I'm going through a hard time and I'm trying some things differently, and one of those things is to stop caring about other people so much more than I care about myself all the time. I'm figuring that boundary out still.

Here's the thing. YOU are making that determination for this person. In effect, you are saying, "Because of something I believe that you DON'T believe, I'm going to decide that you are incapable of knowing something central about yourself, and my word choice is going to reflect that, no matter what it does to you." In effect, you are telling this person that they are an idiot and you are not and that you don't respect them. It is incredibly, incredibly, repulsively offensive to choose to use the incorrect gender pronoun when talking to or about a trans* person. And I say "incorrect" because that's what it is. They have decided that they prefer male pronouns and it is very disrespectful to use female pronouns because you think they are wrong. If I belong to a church that teaches classes every so often about how to deal with Mormon missionaries and discusses how Mormonism is a cult, I should not refer to you as a non-Christian or as a cult member, even though you prefer the terms Christian or Mormon or LDS or whatever. It just isn't okay.

In fact, to be a little more personal, I think that this point of view is bigoted. You probably prefer to think of this point of view as courageous, righteous, balanced, or morally correct. I would not call you a bigot, especially if you made it clear that you did not like that term. It assumes FAR too much about you that I don't know. I might not be able to call you courageous, but I could at least meet you halfway and say that you are doing what you think is right. If you can't address this person as "he," then at least call him "this person." Is it clunky? Sure, but at least it's not so heinously disrespectful.

[TheBlackSheep]

(do all transgender people meet the criteria for diagnosis? So confusing, and I'm a professional writer!)

My understanding, after all the trans* conferences and my semester's worth of DSM, is that many diagnostic professionals and trans* folks and allies find the diagnosis to be very offensive. It's like back in the olden days when homosexuality was a diagnosis. Many folks see these problems are purely physical or societal ones, not personal psychological ones. However, in order for insurance to cover expensive treatments such as hormones, there has to be a diagnosis, and GID is the only possible diagnosis. Because of this, many diagnostic professionals are more relaxed about meeting the diagnostic criteria verbatim than they used to be.

Not everyone wants those treatments, though. Many trans* people have no desire to go through any transition, as many trans* people identify as multiple genders or no genders. Others may be physically one sex while being the stereotypically opposite gender but they still don't want any treatment. Therefore, there is no reason to diagnose these people.

One last thing: in the DSM, almost every diagnosis has a requirement that much be met. You have to experience a measure of discomfort or disruption in your life due to the condition. So let's say I meet all the criteria for GID but I'm not distressed. I'm not diagnoseable. Neither are people who participate in S&M and are not distressed or people who are not distressed by their anxiety. So no, not all trans* people meet or need to meet the diagnostic criteria for GID.

[Portia]

Good discussion. I think that avoiding language that hurts lifts the speaker or writer up, while using language to reflect your worldview, come hell or high water, can reflect poorly on you and does nothing to change someone else's viewpoints. You've started the conversation with a metaphorical upper cut which will compromise your ethos: never a good idea in argumentation.

I think trans* issues are difficult for the rest of us to understand in a way not even matched by gay issues. To be frank, I think there is still very much an "ick" factor there and I imagine that could be the case for many cis* folks. Unlike orientation, which can be entirely private, gender identity is, in our society, public. While I am straight, I can imagine some alternative universe where I decided to marry, I don't know, January Jones. I can't imagine an alternate universe where I woke up with male genitalia. Although I certainly DISLIKE many social aspects of being a woman, I am completely comfortable being biologically female.

Trans* folks, to take them at their word, aren't.

I am not the best example of not judging others: in fact, some of my moral viewpoints (and we all have moral viewpoints, even ex-Mormons) are deeply traditional. I've found myself judging overweight people. Sketchy people who ask for spare change on the TRAX. A woman not older than 25 with three pre-school aged children and pregnant. The cross-dresser (that's what he was, as far as I know, he was straight and married to a woman) friend of my grandparents that freaked me out as a kid. But my judgment of them says more about me than them. And I'd like to think that, tactless as I am, I would have the tact to not, you know, call the pregnant woman a "pauper mom" (to use a phrase I think I coined in my meaner youth) or to make cow noises around a fat person. People who aren't like me, who don't share my values, are worthy of my respect. Matt Shepard was born in the city I was, 12 years prior. He's not around to give his perspective on LGBT rights, for that what's they are. And even though I would be genuinely shocked if H was violent towards anyone, I think such language is borderline incendiary.

[Amity]

Haleakala, I agree that gender is an eternal characteristic, however, I don't necessarily think that our "physical" gender is an eternal characteristic.

We know that our bodies are imperfect. People get cancer, others are born with CF, MS, and other debilitating things. People have trials put on them because of their bodies. How do we know that having opposing physical and emotional genders isn't one of those trials? Our bodies are imperfect, but our minds are also imperfect. People have learning disabilities, dyslexia, depression, and a host of other mental illnesses. How do we know that having opposing physical and emotional genders isn't one of those trials?

Really interesting thoughts, Shrinky Dink. It reminds me of a post made by Stego Lily in a thread here 5ever ago with an interpretation that makes a lot of sense to me:

I don't know. I'm a fairly mainstream member of the Church, but I think the way the Proclamation is worded leaves some wiggle room. It states that "gender is an essential characteristic of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." No mention of chromosomes or anatomy in there anywhere. The way I interpret it, your spirit has a gender expression, and that is going to stay the same through eternity. I don't think that necessarily excludes the possibility that in mortality, your body's sex might not match your spirt's gender.

I mean, I know 99% of active church members would probably disagree with me on this, so it still doesn't say a lot for the situation of trans folk in the Church. But I appreciate the fact that there's a loophole there, which may widen in the future. I'm optimistic.

In effect, you are telling this person that they are an idiot and you are not and that you don't respect them. It is incredibly, incredibly, repulsively offensive to choose to use the incorrect gender pronoun when talking to or about a trans* person.

I think everyone, trans* or not, deserves the basic respect of being called by the name/pronoun they prefer. For instance, if your friend Katie told you that from now on she wanted to go by Katherine, you'd oblige, no? Trans* people should be afforded that same courtesy, whether you agree with their lifestyle or not.

[Dead Cat]

In effect, you are telling this person that they are an idiot and you are not and that you don't respect them. It is incredibly, incredibly, repulsively offensive to choose to use the incorrect gender pronoun when talking to or about a trans* person.

I think everyone, trans* or not, deserves the basic respect of being called by the name/pronoun they prefer. For instance, if your friend Katie told you that from now on she wanted to go by Katherine, you'd oblige, no? Trans* people should be afforded that same courtesy, whether you agree with their lifestyle or not.

I'm not sure that a new nickname is the best example for this sort of thing. I think most times when people start using a nickname, they might prefer the new name, but they probably aren't going to get too upset when someone they've known forever just continues to call them what they always have unless they've got a Highly Angsty Reason. (Disclaimer: I have never had a nickname in my life. Unless you count 'nyms.)

The example that came to my mind that still isn't a perfect fit, but I think works better, is what the heck you are supposed to call someone who has dwarfism. Some of them like the term "dwarf," others "midget," still others "short person," and many dislike one or more of these, so what you use (or even whether you use terminology at all) is the preference of the person you're talking to/about, out of respect for them.

[Amity]

It's not a perfect analogy, certainly, but I think names are a similarly essential part of a person's identity and how they present themselves. Maybe a more extreme example would illustrate my point better. While they were in high school, my sister's friend (we'll call her Mary) acquired a cutesy nickname (let's pretend it was Pookie). All her friends called her Pookie, my family referred to her as Pookie, and she even used it as her Facebook name for several years. However, as she got older she decided that she didn't want the entire professional world to know her as Pookie, and she asked people to start calling her Mary again. Given that she expressed her wishes to be known by her given name instead of her nickname, it would have been incredibly disrespectful for us to say, "Haha, nope, you're not Mary, you're Pookie!"

Just like I think people should be afforded the courtesy of being called by the name they think best represents them, trans* people should be addressed using the pronouns they personally identify with best.

[robotfish]

Just like I think people should be afforded the courtesy of being called by the name they think best represents them, trans* people should be addressed using the pronouns they personally identify with best.

And if someone is, for whatever reason, totally opposed to using preferred pronouns, there are ways to talk around that without using disfavored pronouns. In languages like English without gender-specific verb conjugations, it wouldn't even be particularly difficult, and calling someone by a pronoun they don't want to be called by is, like calling someone by a nickname they don't like, rather rude.

[NerdGirl]

1. Totally agree with blacksheep, portia, bob, etc. No matter how much you don't agree with someone or don't understand them, it is just basic courtesy not to refer to them in a way that they don't want to be referred to. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to refer to a trans* person using their preferred pronouns, at least use gender neutral terms.

2. I disagree that a trans* person's existence is something that is inappropriate for a family-friendly network, but I also don't know if I would call the Food Network family-friendly. Gordon Ramsay has all kinds of shows on there, for example, and pretty much every other word he says is the f word. Lots of Food Network shows have content warnings on them. (I spend way too much time watching the Food Network when I'm post-call, that's why I know this.)

[TheBlackSheep]

2. I disagree that a trans* person's existence is something that is inappropriate for a family-friendly network, but I also don't know if I would call the Food Network family-friendly. Gordon Ramsay has all kinds of shows on there, for example, and pretty much every other word he says is the f word. Lots of Food Network shows have content warnings on them. (I spend way too much time watching the Food Network when I'm post-call, that's why I know this.)

Thanks for bringing this up, NerdGirl. I wasn't going to touch it because it fires up my privilege sensors, and well, we know how that ends for a bleeding heart.

It is absolutely laden with cisgender privilege to say that anything regarding the very existence of trans* folks is inappropriate in any setting other than private, adult conversation. Being trans* is not a choice, if you respect trans* people enough to believe them when they describe their experiences. Therefore, by relegating them and their issues to "appropriate" adult settings you are effectively telling them that it offends you that they exist or that they flaunt their existence by doing things that cisgender people are free to do. Not okay. And besides, in these adult conversations, who is representing the trans* people? Trans* people should get to represent themselves. They shouldn't have to rely on allies creeping in the shadows of your relationships maybe being brave enough to speak up. And allies get it wrong. A lot. Especially with trans* issues.

And you know what? The reason us cisgender people don't have to go all cis pride on cooking shows is because we already have everything. We aren't killing ourselves in huge numbers because of the oppression we face as cis people. We don't have to get some psychological diagnosis that we might disagree with so that we can have physical treatment to treat our gender "disorder." We don't have to live every day with the, as Portia put it, "ick factor." That's the definition of privilege. I don't think trans* issues are in our faces nearly enough. A trans* person killed themselves in Utah this past week. That was the case in the news, and I'm sure there were more. Trans* people speak up on cooking shows BECAUSE it makes you uncomfortable, and they need you to pay attention so they can stop facing such incredible discrimination (legal, psychological, sexual, every kind ever) and DYING. Or living in poverty because they can't get employment. Or being disowned by their communities and families. Or being murdered or beaten because society finds them to be uncomfortable. When you stop being uncomfortable, they will stop talking about it, and they can just be what they want to be, a part of our communities with the same rights as the rest of us.

Sorry if this got too righteous. I just feel very strongly about the trans* community and the discrimination that they face.

[vorpal blade]

Now that we have that settled, I'd like to be addressed and referred to as "The Great One." Please, if it is not too much trouble. Thank you.