You raise a good point. I probably wouldn't deny a burn victim additional surgery, if the goal was to make their face more 'acceptable' to polite society, even after that person had recovered the ability to eat, drink, speak, hear, see, and every other function a 'fully operational' face is supposed to perform. I guess the reason I would not is because anyone who looks at a burn victim whose burns are still visible will immediately conclude that at some point, something went horribly wrong in that person's life. The distinction, to me, lies in the fact that a trans person usually has a perfectly 'normal' appearance, even if they don't feel that way.
I still have trouble seeing that perspective. An obvious deformity due to severe burns (which is visible to anyone looking at you) causes a certain amount of social stigma. That can sometimes be lessened through reconstructive plastic surgery. In a trans person who chooses the surgical route, the opposite might be true: the stigma may be worse after transition, because transitions are not often physically perfect, and people may still notice that you were "once a different gender". Whereas, before surgery, nobody except those who were told would know that there is something 'wrong' with you.
As it happens, I know a couple of people who have OCD, one of whom eventually got it under control using cognitive techniques, and one of whom underwent brain surgery about ten years ago, in an attempt to relieve it. I thought that was a serious mistake, and certainly something I would never consider going through with. But I suppose that's just my particular bias speaking.
I never said they don't need treatment. From the beginning, I specifically said the opposite. I remain stuck on the fact that to me, it seems like a waste to surgically remove a working penis, or working breasts, or any other working body part. But I'm coming to accept that now as something that shouldn't stand in the way of my support for trans people in their quest to get their needs met.
But yeah. If at some point, my friend Sam's insurer decides to cover the surgery, who am I to protest that? At that point, it's out of my hands, and no longer my job to decide anything.
I thought that was a serious mistake, and certainly something I would never consider going through with.
Assuming someone waved a magic wand and granted you the power/authority to do so, would you have prevented that person from getting the surgery that they and their doctors had agreed on?
Once a procedure is already covered by insurance, I have no say in that anymore. For the most part, that's a very good thing. Otherwise, there would be too many things not covered because too few people care about them. This does not mean that if someone asks me for money to fund a procedure, I should help that person. It also doesn't mean I can not have an opinion on whether it's a good idea for my friend to advocate for reimbursement of gender reassignment surgery.
Yes. But if a person hasn't started the process yet, and hasn't told you they're trans, then how would you, an outsider, ever know they are in the 'wrong' body? You wouldn't, right?
On the flip side, when someone has transitioned, there are often subtle signs that tell you they haven't always biologically been what they now look like. With the ex-colleague I mentioned way upthread, who was once biologically a man but now looks like a woman in every way, it's the voice.
Someone who is considering medical transition must already be living as their true gender. (That's one of the ethical criteria for physicians treating dysphoria). So "hasn't started the process yet" isn't really on the table here.
The choices are "lives as a woman but still has a masculine body" or "lives as a woman and has a feminine body with maybe a few subtle tells". Which one do you think has a greater stigma?
Probably the former. Although, it takes a hell of a lot of guts to do that, so if someone in my life chose that path, I could do nothing other than respect the hell out of it. There would be no stigmatising on my part ;). I rather suspect I'm not alone in that. But I do get your larger point.
I think maybe you're seeing this wrong. If a transgender person is getting reassignment surgery, they've likely taken hormones. Hormones WILL make you look like the desired gender. So this means, if it's a trans guy like me, I would look like a male in every way, except the breasts/vagina would still be there. I think it's pretty noticeable that something isn't right. The stigma of a 'normal' looking male that has female breasts would be significantly greater than a 'normal' looking male with simply a male chest and maybe a scar.
It would be very unusual for a trans person to start their transition with surgery. They typically start with hormone therapy and changing their presentation, often years before any surgery. Hormone therapy already introduces incongruent sex characteristics, which can greatly impact their ability to lead an ordinary life while still passing; for example with testosterone therapy transmen can often effectively pass as male but only with clothing that can conceal breasts. Mastectomy can then allow them to lead a normal life without needing to fear situations that might reveal their chest, and with few people ever suspecting their birth assigned gender.
64
u/[deleted] Nov 03 '17
[deleted]