A frustrating externality of transphobes having as much of a microphone as they do is that it makes having an actual nuanced and balanced discussion of certain trans topics insanely difficult without someone assuming you've already bought into transphobic talking points. Like it drives me crazy that TERFs stuck their flag in "male socialization". It should not be controversial to talk about how children are raised and socially conditioned differently based on their assigned gender at birth (with wide variance within that conditioning based on a wide variety of other factors) and how this impacts trans people after coming out without this being shorthand for the TERF version of this concept which is basically just "once a man always a man". Similarly, anyone who has spent any amount of time hanging out with groups of trans women can tell you that straight trans girls and lesbian trans girls tend to run in different circles with relatively distinct cultures, but broaching that subject summons the ghost of Ray Blanchard to loom over any observation you make
A lot of people treat gender as a real thing by defining behavior as gender itself and not that gender is a prism through which feelings and impulses are projected. This gives us an extremely shitty, shallow understanding of gender.
Probably more medical detail than opsec calls for, but there's practically zero research on nonbinary chemical gender transition â so I'm throwing my trip report into the collective 'net.
I am nearly 29, knew I was trans since 17 and I have been on HRT (estrogen) on and off for the past 18 months with testosterone for the last 6. Currently: 8mg Estradiol Enanthate weekly, plus 25mg testosterone weekly.
The hypothesis: The body auto-converts excess TâE and excess EâT, so it can handle high levels of both without much trouble. Women regularly take testosterone during menopause â this should be doable.
My theory: Take high E to block natural T production, then supplement a tiny bit of T to compensate. Should keep everything contextually balanced.
Six months in, and I just got my labs back. My doctor (not amused by this experiment) is shocked: I'm healthier than I've ever been across every metabolic marker. Dead center on every single metric. Blood pressure normal (first time ever). Weight stable. I have some breast growth starting, but no solidified nodules â so with raloxifene I could revert 90%+ if I wanted (TBD). They are very sensitive, for better or worse.
I have noticed my body becoming more feminine (appreciated), which is saying something since I am naturally broad and muscular. Think of a very masc blacksmith-NPC-character-model kind of build. I have curves now. Skin is overall softer. Body hair is much thinner (previously was bold, black, and gnarly). Face is smoother, jawline more defined, but the face itself is a bit rounder, especially in the cheeks.
Mental state is solid. Making real progress on projects, feeling hopeful, taking more risks and actually being comfortable with it. More open, more outgoing. Before this was quite depressed, anxious, paranoid, unable to make decisions, and just felt worthless, now its the exact opposite - I have tried every anti-depressant around, and had great luck with LSD, but this has been by far the most 'calm', happy, and level-headed I have ever been. That said, on pure estrogen, my mental clarity is certainly sharper. The combo is still clear enough though.
I understand why most queer people hate these kinds of reports and this kind of experimentation, trust me my friends make that very clear. And sure, I'm probably still denying plenty of things to myself. But , from a research perspective, this has always fascinated me, and the literature is so thin that I might as well add a small, informal case study to the mix.
Q: Why do queer people hate these kinds of reports? I'm unfamiliar
I am writing this here because the tumblr reply system is purposefully built for extremely short-form communication and this is a longer answer.
This is a mixed answer, all people have different hangups, some are around natural arguments, some are perversions of inclusivity philosophy, some are residual myopic views on gender, and some are just plain worried about what it means for them, or the time sunk cost falacy that maybe they went down the wrong path. I don't have anything against these people, many of them are very dear friends that I would give my life for, but this is the way I read it and have noticed in discussions (and analyzing my own gender woes and hangups).
This is a bit longer, so stay tuned after the break:
Welcome back! - let's get into it.
Some worry that researching alternative hormone regimens could societaly delegitimize being trans, invalidate their own path, regret through the 'possibility of alternatives', and more.
Even in queer spaces, gender is often still treated as a binary. You can switch sides, but you can't exist outside them. That men are men, women are women, and while you can switch between them, you shouldn't, wouldn't, and couldn't be anything outside of that binary. Some hold this philosophically; others fear that expanding the binary will make society hate us more for complicating the conversation. Why fight the system when you can just work to redefine it from within?
There are quite a few otherwise progressive people who will accept non-binary as a category, but it becomes clear in conversation that they see it as a subset of the primary dualities of 'femme|female|woman|girl' and 'masc|male|men|boy' . You can be nonbinary [masc.nb] or nonbinary [femme.nb] but "nonbinary" itself isn't a category you're allowed to be. The same people who notably and righteously reject gender hierarchies often still treat masc lesbians as closer to men than to women, or trans men as closer to women than men â even if they hold that trans women are women (or the inverse). They may argue that sapphic or gay spaces should only include femme and masc primary archetypes, and ignore anything that goes beyond those labels. But I digress....
There is also a strange, yet marginally understandable, bio-essentialist reframing of "You can't be both. Your body runs on one primary hormone, synthetic or not." It masquerades as natural fact but often traces back to just plain unexamined essentialist thinking.
Now, part of the reason for the natural naturalistic fallacy argument is that non-binary transition paths are radically understudied, even by the scant standards of trans and gender research. We know the 'standard' approach works for transition, and we just build off that through replication of studies and more, but frontier science is nearly nonexistent. So we default to "your body has one primary hormone, don't fuck with nature, god mother nature knows all" and take it at face value.
Another view: any affirmative research into this could be weaponized by anti-trans evangelists to argue that "transition isn't worth it," because it breaks apart the coupled concepts of social transition and chemical transitionâthe idea that if you're perceived as masc or femme, your chemical makeup can't be at odds with that perception. If the social view doesn't have to match, and you can "solve" being trans chemically, then appearance doesn't matter. And that threatens preconceived notions of what is and isn't natural, biological, expected, or scientific.
You can hear echoes of the same argument from others in the community "You can't and shouldn't boymode, even if you genuinely enjoy it, because the real goal is to be yourself, inside and out. Anything else is just fear keeping you in your comfort zone." You should be free to be yourself. I won't argue against it. But some people would be understandably fine being perceived as a jacked masc dude while running on primarily estrogen.
Here's a hypothetical, and uncomfortable thought experiment: If a pill existed that eliminated dysphoria (you don't need dysphoria to be trans!), depression, and all of the mental and physical desires to transition, trans activists would call it "medical conversion therapy" and oppose it; while anti-trans evangelists would celebrate it as medical conversion therapy and demand it become mandatory. Both sides would find common ground, then eat each other's faces.
If non-binary transition or balanced hormone levels proved effective for people like me, it'd be weaponized by both camps, each treating non-binary as a subcategory of the binary, not an expansion of gender itself. And that terrifies people who may not realize they believe society should forever be bound by a dual gender hierarchy, a two-party system. They'll say they understand non-binary people exist, but still see them as part of the binary. As if the name on the tin isn't literally non and binary - to be not of the binary, and not just used as a collective new superior monolithic third category just as no woman is an island, nonbinary is not a monolith.
There's a lot of nuance and straw-manning here, but after countless discussions: with myself, with others, in circles, with people who get it and people who don't, I'm sure I'm still missing some arguments. But, it mostly boils down to these issues.
you love to hear the old "Oh, you're getting an X marker put on your ID? Why would you want the GOVERNMENT to KNOW YOU'RE TRANS???" from people who are getting their own marker changed from M to F (or vice-versa). surely The Government still thinks they're cis, right?
see, I agree with the general point being made here, but it's funny how you never see people say this about M or F markers, it's only X that gets talked about as this frivolous half-measure, a speedbump on the road to actual progress. kind of like how people talk about nonbinary identities in general, haha
But also itâs kind of rude to assign gender roles and sexual preferences to someone just because theyâre masc. just because she wears a snapback that doesnât mean sheâs a top or able to fix your car or whatever.
A question I get asked a lot while working at a public library is "how do you deal with homeless people?"
And the answer is, we don't.
The unhoused people who come here seeking refuge 99% of the time understand that they will be kicked out if they misbehave.
The people you have to watch out for are Jessica, who only came because the kid she didn't want had to visit for a homework assignment and she just *needs* to yell at her child for asking to borrow two books or stay an extra five minutes, or Michael, who came in to look at porn on our computers for whatever fucking reason, or Karen who just wanted to come by to throw a fit that the particular book she wanted was checked out and harrass our staff about our collection being too limited.
99% of the time, the people we need to ban are middle to upper-middle class white people while the homeless and mentally ill/disabled people mind their own damn business and are honestly some of the best patrons we have.
I bring this up because today we had a man come in. He stopped at the desk, pulled up a chair and said "I'm newly homeless and was living in my car. I'm disabled. It was impounded. It's raining. I don't have a phone and I don't know where to go tonight."
And we did what we could to help. He was incredibly kind and patient despite his obvious anxiety and stress, more than most able bodied, housed patrons are to us under much less dire conditions. I liked knowing that we were the first place he came.
We have so many people like this who come in everyday. Many are quiet and keep to themselves, but sometimes they talk to us.
They tell us about how they're taking a few courses on a scholarship they applied for from our library's computer at the local community college to get their diploma. Or ask about a manga or dvd or book we might have to help them pass the time.
One woman, who comes in daily with her tattered walker always says hello to me and likes to work on the new jigsaw puzzle with me when we set one out.
So like, treat unhoused people like people. Treat disabled people like people. I don't want my library to feel like the only safe space in the world, but I'm glad it can be one of them.
I'm so sick of hearing about how "the homeless are ruining everything" when they are some of the kindest, most respectful people here. Sometimes they mutter, might not have had a place to shower, and might need a little extra space for their backpacks but that's FINE. It Doesn't Matter Actually. None of that is a problem or any of my business to care about (unless they request help/services), and I also don't think it's any of yours.
libraries provide vital and lifesaving services and i will die on the hill you have to let people who are mentally ill and disabled and homeless and politically disagreeable to you still access those rescourses. its simply too important to society
one type of closet is intelligible. that's the closet where someone denies their identity and doesn't act in accordance with how they'd like.
but there's another closet. there's the closet where on paper you're out and you're proud and maybe this is even a huge part of your identity--but you fear acting the way you'd like so much that you refuse it. this type of closet is used by the trans person who wants hrt or to wear clothing that would fit their gender or another act of transition, but fears it so much that they never allow themselves to do so. this closet is used by the out LGB person who fears so much being called a fag or a dyke that they refuse to dress how they want or engage in any intimacy--including friendship--with other gays.
this second kind of closet is common now. while straight society has the pretense of acceptance for LGBTQ people, it doesn't have acceptance for living LGBTQ lives. therefore, someone can be out, but never act like it.
if part of the point of pride is to force LGBTQ lives out into the open, then part of it must be practice for living the lives we want to live as LGBTQ people. you can't just wake up one day and decide to act in accordance with what you desire--you have to work at it. pride is a political space designed to allow LGBTQ futures--much like the riot is a space to taste the world to come, one without prisons, pigs, and capitalism.
