I greatly appreciate your efforts to distinguish transsexualism from gender non-conformity, and to re-engage with medical and biological approaches. As someone who gladly accepts they have a diagnosed medical condition, I sought out a diagnoses rather than insisting my own interpretation was correct and I found the medical process of checks, balances, and interdisciplinary support reassuring.
I would therefore make comments from a place of much respect. I would suggest that targeting an individual no matter how well-known may not be the best approach. I wonder would it not be better to put your main focus on the advantages of the medical model rather than risking being perceived as 'against' other people (I know some of the other articles here do this and I appreciate that, but even more of a focus on this would be great). Emphasising that transsexual people experience something very different from a desire to enact particular gender roles and wear particular clothes is valuable, that does not mean that there is anything wrong with being gender non-conformist or wearing the clothes traditional associated with one sex or the other (I am not suggesting you think there is anything wrong with this but it could be misinterpreted).
I also worry a bit about the language used. Is it really necessary to use terms like 'ideology' and 'agenda'? Whether they are correct or not, we know they have also been used by people very hostile to transsexual people and I wonder if other terms could be more valuable. Some change might also signal patience with those trying to figure out where they fit and may be transsexual but have not really heard much positive about the medical model. Would it also be possible to acknowledge that there were some problems with how the medical model was applied in the past? - e.g. they ways in which sexual orientation could be used to limit access to surgery for those who would otherwise met the required criteria (I am thinking of the example of ftm transsexual Louis Sullivan)
Two other points that I suggest just to be helpful:
When thinking about the medical model it is also important to think about what is medically feasible. For many years female to male genital surgery was much less advanced than male to female surgery. Some opted against it not because they were not transsexual or did not want the surgery but because of their specific medical realities (age, medical contra-indications, fear of very major complications). I say this as someone who has had this surgery and whose life is much better for it.
I wonder does the issue of social perception need a bit of refining here. My life has been made much easier by the physical changes I have undergone and this is by far the most important thing to me. I never insist that people refer to me with particular pronouns and if someone decided they were going to refer to me as a woman, I would put up with it. At the same time, the fact that in practice people always assume I am a man is reassuring to me because it helps to confirm that my body has indeed changed in the way that I wanted it to. I know you have thought about this in much more detail than I have so I may well be missing the point here.
Again I understand it may be frustrating to read these comments given all the thought and work that you have put into your writing, but they are made with the intention of being supportive.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. While I respect the depth of your insight, it's crucial to recognise the urgency and gravity of the situation for transsexuals. We are being overshadowed by a broader, more generalised narrative that erases our unique experiences, diluting our voices, and sacrificing our medical realities for a more palatable, generalised version of 'trans rights'. This is not about dividing or creating conflict but about seeking true representation and acknowledgment.
It's essential to understand that the use of terms like "ideology" and "agenda" isn't meant to echo hostile sentiments or to serve as a dogwhistle but to precisely pinpoint the perpetuation of misleading narratives that do real harm to transsexuals. The need for explicit language arises from a desire to capture the raw and genuine frustration many transsexuals feel. We can't tiptoe around the issue when our very existence and medical reality are at stake.
I appreciate your suggestion to focus on the advantages of the medical model (while also addressing past pitfalls), but when one's experience is continually minimised or invalidated by dominant narratives, there's also a need to address these discrepancies head-on. Being assertive in our stance doesn't negate the complexities. It’s simply a clarion call to ensure our unique voices are not lost in the cacophony.
Lastly, addressing individuals directly, especially those with significant influence, isn't about being adversarial. It's about accountability. When someone wields considerable influence and perpetuates misleading or harmful narratives, direct confrontation becomes a necessary avenue for change, especially when that someone has directly ignored previous attempts to call them in for a conversation.
I genuinely appreciate your perspective, and I assure you, every word and concern has been noted. Let’s continue this conversation to create a space where every transsexual feels seen and heard. As a final note -- if you ever desire to submit a guest article, please don't hesitate to do so.
Thank you for the detailed and respectful comment. Thanks also for the invitation to submit a guest article. Right now I am not quite sure how I want to express myself or even what I think about some things - and because of this I also recognise it is easy for me to criticise those who are trying to express their positions clearly. I very much appreciate that you see that I am trying to engage as constructively as possible! I will continue to follow your work and will certainly be in contact if I ever feel in the position to contribute a guest article.
As a parent I greatly appreciate open dialogue on this subject and thoughtful, respectful comments. My biggest concern is the medical field seems to be on the "affirmation" only path instead of exploring other underlying issues. It is heart-wrenching to me that my child ( who is an adult) believes this path will solve all problems and the medical establishment supports that premise. Activists seem to support self- identification and "educating" younger and younger children. More and more activists seem to have extreme ideas in the name of "human rights" destroying families. Again thank you for this insight and pouring your heart and soul into helping others understand the nuanced difficulties.
I greatly appreciate your efforts to distinguish transsexualism from gender non-conformity, and to re-engage with medical and biological approaches. As someone who gladly accepts they have a diagnosed medical condition, I sought out a diagnoses rather than insisting my own interpretation was correct and I found the medical process of checks, balances, and interdisciplinary support reassuring.
I would therefore make comments from a place of much respect. I would suggest that targeting an individual no matter how well-known may not be the best approach. I wonder would it not be better to put your main focus on the advantages of the medical model rather than risking being perceived as 'against' other people (I know some of the other articles here do this and I appreciate that, but even more of a focus on this would be great). Emphasising that transsexual people experience something very different from a desire to enact particular gender roles and wear particular clothes is valuable, that does not mean that there is anything wrong with being gender non-conformist or wearing the clothes traditional associated with one sex or the other (I am not suggesting you think there is anything wrong with this but it could be misinterpreted).
I also worry a bit about the language used. Is it really necessary to use terms like 'ideology' and 'agenda'? Whether they are correct or not, we know they have also been used by people very hostile to transsexual people and I wonder if other terms could be more valuable. Some change might also signal patience with those trying to figure out where they fit and may be transsexual but have not really heard much positive about the medical model. Would it also be possible to acknowledge that there were some problems with how the medical model was applied in the past? - e.g. they ways in which sexual orientation could be used to limit access to surgery for those who would otherwise met the required criteria (I am thinking of the example of ftm transsexual Louis Sullivan)
Two other points that I suggest just to be helpful:
When thinking about the medical model it is also important to think about what is medically feasible. For many years female to male genital surgery was much less advanced than male to female surgery. Some opted against it not because they were not transsexual or did not want the surgery but because of their specific medical realities (age, medical contra-indications, fear of very major complications). I say this as someone who has had this surgery and whose life is much better for it.
I wonder does the issue of social perception need a bit of refining here. My life has been made much easier by the physical changes I have undergone and this is by far the most important thing to me. I never insist that people refer to me with particular pronouns and if someone decided they were going to refer to me as a woman, I would put up with it. At the same time, the fact that in practice people always assume I am a man is reassuring to me because it helps to confirm that my body has indeed changed in the way that I wanted it to. I know you have thought about this in much more detail than I have so I may well be missing the point here.
Again I understand it may be frustrating to read these comments given all the thought and work that you have put into your writing, but they are made with the intention of being supportive.
Thank you and best wishes
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. While I respect the depth of your insight, it's crucial to recognise the urgency and gravity of the situation for transsexuals. We are being overshadowed by a broader, more generalised narrative that erases our unique experiences, diluting our voices, and sacrificing our medical realities for a more palatable, generalised version of 'trans rights'. This is not about dividing or creating conflict but about seeking true representation and acknowledgment.
It's essential to understand that the use of terms like "ideology" and "agenda" isn't meant to echo hostile sentiments or to serve as a dogwhistle but to precisely pinpoint the perpetuation of misleading narratives that do real harm to transsexuals. The need for explicit language arises from a desire to capture the raw and genuine frustration many transsexuals feel. We can't tiptoe around the issue when our very existence and medical reality are at stake.
I appreciate your suggestion to focus on the advantages of the medical model (while also addressing past pitfalls), but when one's experience is continually minimised or invalidated by dominant narratives, there's also a need to address these discrepancies head-on. Being assertive in our stance doesn't negate the complexities. It’s simply a clarion call to ensure our unique voices are not lost in the cacophony.
Lastly, addressing individuals directly, especially those with significant influence, isn't about being adversarial. It's about accountability. When someone wields considerable influence and perpetuates misleading or harmful narratives, direct confrontation becomes a necessary avenue for change, especially when that someone has directly ignored previous attempts to call them in for a conversation.
I genuinely appreciate your perspective, and I assure you, every word and concern has been noted. Let’s continue this conversation to create a space where every transsexual feels seen and heard. As a final note -- if you ever desire to submit a guest article, please don't hesitate to do so.
Thank you for the detailed and respectful comment. Thanks also for the invitation to submit a guest article. Right now I am not quite sure how I want to express myself or even what I think about some things - and because of this I also recognise it is easy for me to criticise those who are trying to express their positions clearly. I very much appreciate that you see that I am trying to engage as constructively as possible! I will continue to follow your work and will certainly be in contact if I ever feel in the position to contribute a guest article.
As a parent I greatly appreciate open dialogue on this subject and thoughtful, respectful comments. My biggest concern is the medical field seems to be on the "affirmation" only path instead of exploring other underlying issues. It is heart-wrenching to me that my child ( who is an adult) believes this path will solve all problems and the medical establishment supports that premise. Activists seem to support self- identification and "educating" younger and younger children. More and more activists seem to have extreme ideas in the name of "human rights" destroying families. Again thank you for this insight and pouring your heart and soul into helping others understand the nuanced difficulties.