Over the course of this week, I re-read this entire thread, and found it to be insightful, passionate--a shining example of barbelith's value and excellence as a genuine discussion board, not just a message board. I have two comments I'd like to add. The first is a suggestion, the second is an exploration of the medical "illness" debate.
1) As id entity pointed out on the first page of this thread and also in the trans 101 thread in Convo, the thread title is really annoying and off-putting.
My concern is both for the transgender people here, especially those who have already expressed concern about the title and whose concerns have, seemingly, been ignored, and a more self-interested one. That is, because of a situation in my own life, I may have reason to want to refer some non-barb, family members to this thread, in which case the thread title would not just be irritating, but, in my view, has the potential to make some already difficult discussions we need to have, harder, because of the first, misleading impression it creates. "Going transsexual" is particularly grating.
In response to id entity's initial assertion that the thread title was problematic, pointless & uncalled for, who started the thread, said: As for the title, I'm glad in a way that it bothers you. I was particularly wary of titling a thread with either a) repetition of the article title or b) relative terminology that might disuade less associated persons from either contributing or reading (I myself have been daunted by some headshop titles). If I ruffle a few feathers in the mean time then fucking brilliant, in my experience of the lith feathers ruffled in the right direction mean a nice long informative thread.
I have several responses to this defense, but I won't go into much detail unless other members would like me to. Here's the gist: Not only am I unconvinced that this defense of the title goes very far, in the first place, but, second, even if it is convincing to some of us here, it surely has served this "sparking debate" purpose already. The thread grew to 7 pages because (or--to me--despite) the problematic title.
I guess I'm also claiming that, although pointless began the thread, ze doesn't seem, at least from my very outsider position, to have that much at stake in this debate. The admittedly circumstancial evidence for this assertion being: hir lack of overt participation in the thread after page one and the, to me, rather dismissive tone--perhaps unintentionally dismissive--of pointless's response to at least one genuine claim of distress at the title. (E.g., by using the term "ruffled feathers" to describe this distress it would seem to trivialize that distress, in the same way that "going transsexual" implies that gender identity is a kind of style-move.)
I accept that my reading of pointless's relation to the debate may be wrong and I am willing to be corrected on this matter. Indeed, sincerely, I do not intend the above as primarily a critique of pointless (who doesn't seem so much mean-spirited as rather blithely unconcerned). I intend it as evidence for my claim that those who have, at least to me, a demonstrably greater stake in this debate have a right to request--over pointless's head if necessary--that a more accurate, clear, title should be given to this thread.
I realize that since I am suggesting moderators change the title, I should suggest a possible choice. I am loathe to do so, because I still feel very wobbly on my feet in this territory. I will suggest one, however, since I have recently re-read the whole thread, but will not feel wounded if others feel there's a better choice than this. So, borrowing from the thread summary could we try "Concerns about the lack of long-term outcome studies of Gender Reassignment treatments"?
My own initial reaction to my suggestion is that it's clunky but more precise. Also, that then the summary should be revised, and perhaps fleshed out a little to include some of the topics covered.
2nd comment) Here I'd like to briefly respond to the earlier debate in this thread about mental illness as the model for gender reassignment therapy/treatment, and the degree to which the psychiatric community is still shaped by that model.
I was struck by the fact that Ganesh pretty consistently used the word "condition" to describe the situation of transpeople and gender variant individuals in general. It's a small--obvious?--thing, maybe, but the word "condition" as opposed to "disorder" indicates that this is a situation that some persons face--like pregnancy, for instance--that is part of a "normal" human existence, but which generally (although not 100% always) calls for some relationship with/involvement with the medical establishment.
Note: I woudn't want to push that analogy too much further, as there are many glaring differences between pregnancy and transgender identity concerns, at every level. But I find it helpful to sort out some of the issues in my own mind. Again, I'm still wobbly on my feet in this territory, so I'm ready to be called out if anything I say really is misleading or inaccurate.
The key similarities, to me: both pregnancy and transgender issues are deeply (but differently) entwined with gender and sexuality, and both often are/have been problematically treated as an "illness" or "disorder" (in my workplace, for instance, leave for new parents was conflated with "sick leave" until recently,...so it pretty much only applied to the one giving birth...) And, in both, the issue of "choice" is fraught and complex and nuanced (although, again, in quite different ways).
(US) Medical policies cover prenatal care and birth as a medical expense (although most policies still do not cover birth control pills or other contraceptive devices): most women want that medical coverage for both pregnancy and reproduction, but, reasonably, do not want pregnancy categorized as a disease (nor, for that matter, their sexual behavior/potential reproductive ability categorized as a kind of illness).
We realize that complications--physical, emotional, financial, etc.--may arise as a result of or in relation to a pregnant condition, but those complications--even if some of them are diseases--should still not mark pregnancy as an illness itself. Some of us may even find that we have to terminate the pregnancy due to other complications, but that doesn't mean the experience was an "illness." It was an unwanted condition.
I don't know how this understanding should affect the NHS funding--which presumeably does fund care for all pregnancies? I suspect, however, that I'm slipping up here and oversimplifying somehow, and am definitely out-of-my-depth. |
) if we wish to understand them and try to develope a wider critique/ plan of action whice isn't tied to single ocurances or interactions (if that makes sence?) 
touché