Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People

[GarrettTheThief]

MJI and others: thank you for the comments and support on my photos.

 

On shaving: if I go clean shaven then doing that every day is very, very bad for my skin and worse when I put foundation - I can feel the spots forming. Shaving every two days is incredibly uncomfortable. Weekly is the best for me and I try to time them so that a shave before my meetings with other transfolk is a comfortable one.

 

I can use Veet for Men all over my body as long as I haven't recently scratched the area (owing to the nasty rash I got on my arms). However, at no point did it cross my mind to use it on my face (and frankly, due to the toughness of the hair, I'd never see it working). I know some guys who learned the hard way that their manhood is sensitive to hair removal cream owing to lots of funny reviews on Amazon (one guy even wrote a poem).

 

How exactly do you feel, if a guy stands up to give you a bus seat, say, or doesn't that happen these days?  Do you think differently according to your dress?

 

My personality doesn't actually change when I present as female, but my mannerisms are a bit more feminine. If a guy offered to help by offering a seat or opening a door, I'd happily take it and read it as nothing more than politeness, but I won't lie - there's a lingering worry he might want something in return. I hate to say this because most men are decent people but it can take a few self-entitled guys (and learning about the experiences of other women, especially my sisters) to ruin things.

 

Though it isn't 100% proven, there's strong evidence to suggest that the main cause of clinical transgenderism is an incongruity between the brain structure and the body/gonads. A fetus will develop gonads first (according to genetic chromosomes) which release small amounts of hormones. This affects how the brain develops, and male and female brains are structurally different. In over 99% of cases, a male fetus (i.e. with male gonads) will develop a male brain and a female fetus a female brain.

 

In under 99% of cases, this process can be disrupted. In this instance, the brain expects your anatomy in one way and needs more of the main hormones, testosterone and estrogen, but is receiving the other. For example, a MtF transperson has a female brain but is starved of estrogen because of male gonads. The brain also expects you to have certain body parts, but you don't. This incongruity is often distressing for transpeople and can range from discomfort/jealousy of members of their preferred gender to a strong desire to tear themselves out of their skin. This is called "gender dysphoria".

 

Thankfully, there's treatment for gender dysphoria: hormone replacement therapy, top/bottom surgery (natural breasts can develop with estrogen but some choose to go for augmentation too, but top surgery is more used by female-to-male transpeople), facial feminisation surgery and going full time (which involves living as your preferred/true gender and getting your name changed among other things). Overall, satisfaction rates are very high (MtF gender reassignment has three times the dissatisfaction rate of hormone replacement therapy and top surgery, but the figure is still 91%. I need to dig out that study). Sadly, society isn't always tolerant of transpeople owing to conversion therapy which has resulted in suicide. Additionally, accessing the healthcare isn't easy either. You can transition on the NHS, but you better wait a long time before you even get hormones.

 

I've never heard of this condition being caused by genetics, but I imagine it's being studied (and I don't see why not). A male person can have XX chromosomes, a woman with XY chomosomes or you can be born intersex (XXY etc.). I know these are outliers, but they also explain why is makes no sense to me to gender someone according to their genetics, something you don't see. How do you gender a guy who socialises as a guy, lives as a guy and is perceived as a guy but has XX or XXY chromosomes?

 

And everything Dave White says is 100%.

 

 

May I just say?

You look very pretty!

I hope that comes across with no sexism of any kind, I'm a man happily married to a woman, I'm not trying a 'come on' or anything like that, just thought it needed saying.

Also, I greatly admire your courage to post the OP, good for you, may you live a long and happy life, free from any kind of persecution.

If only the rest of the world could show such courage without fear of the most heinous retribution.

Cheers,

John E.

 

 

Thank you! And no, complimenting someone on their looks isn't sexist.

 

Seriously, thanks for the kind words!

 

 

It's difficult for Drewry 204hp shunters, too. Some of them adopted skirts.

 

I got a chuckle out of that one! Nicely played 

 

FINAL EDIT: I just want to say thanks to everyone who has provided support and/or other perspectives. It makes me happier to be part of this community!

Edited September 23, 2015 by GarrettTheThief

[Horsetan]

...., complimenting someone on their looks isn't sexist....

....unless you happen to be a particular Counsel, that is....

[GarrettTheThief]

To be fair, there's a time and a place and I'm not one to tell people how they should feel when their physical appearance is brought up, but publicly humiliating him like that was uncalled for and wholly unnecessary. People like her tend to devalue real issues with harassment and sexual objectification.

 

Frankly, they're both fools.

 

EDIT: what saddens me is that people in the comments ARE discussing issues with harassment and sexual objectification, something which happens disproportionately more with women, but those points are being dismissed with either "women do it to men too!" or "misandrist!". Thankfully, my online peers are more sensible than that.

Edited September 23, 2015 by GarrettTheThief

[reevesthecat]

Considering I am too frightened to tell people I am a railway modeller to avoid the social labels every credit to you! Braver than me.

Mark

[rockershovel]

Regarding "coming out" as a railway modeller, my Broadway On30 2-8-0 made a highly successful tour of Baku last year, just the sort of toy engineers like!

[Rumblestripe]

As someone who realises with some shame that I have been guilty of prejudice against others because of their "differentness" I'd just like to let Nick Lowe say it best

 

https://youtu.be/lAqAmLSIGU8

 

And simply wish you strength and positivity.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Rumblestripe

[Spannerman]

Considering I am too frightened to tell people I am a railway modeller to avoid the social labels every credit to you! Braver than me.

 

Mark

Hear hear.

 

Nik

[bbishop]

Garrett,

 

On first sight of your avatar, I assumed you played lock forward for Northampton Rugby Club.

 

How wrong can one get?

 

Bill

[mightbe]

I came out as gay around a year and a half ago. It's wonderful that you've decided you share your experience here with us. Like many it seems, I would've guessed that there were very few LGBTQ folk active in the community, or at least that they were relatively quiet about it. It's comforting to know that we do in fact have a presence, and I hope it won't be as under-felt as it has been in the past.

 

Power to you for taking the brave step to introduce us to the real you.

 

Quentin

[cheesysmith]

I have to say that in this serious discussion we are having here, I do find the subject of which razors/cream etc is best for hair removal amusing.

 

But this from a bloke who has had a goatee and moustash for 20+ years, but still cannot grow and facial hair from his ears to his chin.

[GarrettTheThief]

Garrett,

 

On first sight of your avatar, I assumed you played lock forward for Northampton Rugby Club.

 

How wrong can one get?

 

Bill

 

I've been thinking a lot about getting back into jujitsu and taking up boxing, but that would mean doing intense physical activity after tiring days at work.

[45156]

We've now got over 27k members on here and this thread has highlighted just how varied and diverse they are - probably the only single common thread is the model railway, and reading some of the other posts on here, even that seems to be divisive these days.

 

How refreshing, therefore, it is to read and follow a mature, reasoned, and intelligent argument/discussion which has not set off any trolling or nastiness.

 

Again, thanks to those who have used this thread to debate the issue.  I will continue to follow the thread with considerable interest. 

 

Stewart

[Bernard Lamb]

I have to say that in this serious discussion we are having here, I do find the subject of which razors/cream etc is best for hair removal amusing.

 

 

Amusing?

I find it a very serious and at times a painful business.

That is from a person with a full beard.

I now use a Gillette Venus on the suggestion of a young lady and find the flexible head is far better than any type  of razor that I have previously used.

For those still trying to work it out. I am a racing cyclist and shave my legs.

Bernard

[cheesysmith]

A question. Why do racing cyclists shave their legs? Wouldn't boundary effect make it better to have the hairs to trap air against the body reducing drag?

[DDolfelin]

 

In under 99% of cases, this process can be disrupted.

 

Probably a typo.

[Kickstart]

Hi

 

I always thought that cyclists shaved their legs to reduce dirt build up, which could otherwise increase infections when they crash.

 

All the best

 

K

[rockershovel]

I really don't want to know why racing cyclists shave their legs, although fat middle aged cyclists in dayglo spandex are worse.

 

Statistically speaking about 15% of men report having some sort of homosexual experience at some stage. Quite a lot if this is "situational homosexuality" among boarding school boys, servicemen (especially navy and most if all, submariners) and convicts or ex-convicts. Most of these shrug it off when their situation changes; much if the research seems to indicate that prison homosexuality is primarily about power and dominance relationships, in any

 

I've always regarded the discrimination issue as vastly overstated for political reasons. Frankie Howerd and Larry Grayson were both overtly homosexual, and that was long ago. Danny La Rue was generally believed so, long before he "came out" as was Gareth Edwards. John Inman's "Mr Humphries" character was a generally sympathetic character, as were Jim and Frank in Vicar of Dibley (they were quite unremarkable compared to most of the cast!). Michael Barrymore was also widely regarded as at least bisexual long before it all went tragically wrong for him.

 

There is an obvious policy of being provocative and offensive, in some quarters. I thought the victimisation of a mildly eccentric b&b in the West Country by an activist group was despicable, serving no useful purpose. I'm deeply unimpressed by the whole handling of the "marriage" issue, particularly the distinction drawn that opposite-sex couples have not been allowed the option (very popular in Europe, especially France) of the civil union (PACS, in French terms), on the grounds that it is functionally identical to marriage - which is untrue. To be told, at the same time, that a "marriage" which has no workable legal definitions of infidelity or consummation, and no prospect of natural offspring is equivalent to one which has all these features, seems to be nothing less than dishonest.

 

I'd say that intolerance is far worse now than in the past, and that situation has been deliberately engineered by forcing confrontation.

[Bernard Lamb]

A question. Why do racing cyclists shave their legs? Wouldn't boundary effect make it better to have the hairs to trap air against the body reducing drag?

As Kickstart points out it is mainly a hygiene matter. It does also make massage easier.

Re your second point. In time trials riders are now sticking ridged pieces to their calves or wearing long socks with similar attachments to reduce drag. 

Bernard

[BG John]

We've now got over 27k members on here and this thread has highlighted just how varied and diverse they are - probably the only single common thread is the model railway

It seems to be really difficult to find accurate statistics, so these could be wildly out, but it could be that:

2,500-3,000 members could be LBGT or have had some experience of it at some time in their lives

1,000 are sociopaths

250-300 have Aspergers

6,500-7,000 will have, or have had, some form of mental illness

Many, many will have other physical and neurological disabilities

Plus lots of other things that either temporarily or permanently make them "different"

 

So there's a great need for tolerance and accepting diversity here, and everywhere else in life.

 

If anyone has more accurate statistics it would be interesting to know, as these are just some I've picked up randomly from things I've taken some sort of interest in, and different sources can vary substantially.

[raymw]

and the remaining 15k 'perfect members' model in the wrong scale/era/region...

[Fenman]

... I've always regarded the discrimination issue as vastly overstated for political reasons. ...

 

There is an obvious policy of being provocative and offensive, in some quarters. I thought the victimisation of a mildly eccentric b&b in the West Country by an activist group was despicable, serving no useful purpose. I'm deeply unimpressed by the whole handling of the "marriage" issue, particularly the distinction drawn that opposite-sex couples have not been allowed the option (very popular in Europe, especially France) of the civil union (PACS, in French terms), on the grounds that it is functionally identical to marriage - which is untrue. To be told, at the same time, that a "marriage" which has no workable legal definitions of infidelity or consummation, and no prospect of natural offspring is equivalent to one which has all these features, seems to be nothing less than dishonest.

 

I'd say that intolerance is far worse now than in the past, and that situation has been deliberately engineered by forcing confrontation.

 

A couple of observations on your post:

 

Despite what some US born-again evangelicals may say, equality is like virginity; it's an all-or-nothing deal. You can't have a bit of equality. You either have it or you don't.

 

Arguing that gay couples cannot have "natural offspring" (presumably making some offspring "unnatural"?) and therefore should be denied marriage is clearly ridiculous if you are going to enable post-menopausal women or sterile men to marry. 

 

I would agree with you that civil partnerships should also be open to all - or to no-one. The concept was always a poltical cop-out by people obsessed with the idea that only heterosexual people should be allowed to "marry". Having two different categories is also, of course, profoundly unequal; the concept of "separate but equal" was utterly discredited in the apartheid southern states of the US and in South Africa. I have no idea why anyone would consider it an appropriate concept to introduce into British life.

 

"Victimisation of a mildly eccentric b&b in the west country" strikes me as pretty inaccurate characterisation. The UK Supreme Court heard this case and found there to be no ambiguity whatsoever. The closely argued judgment (beautifully written) is here. I think the Supreme Court's Deputy President summed it all up rather well:

 

52. Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation. As Justice Sachs of the South African Constitutional Court movingly put it ...:

 

“While recognising the unique worth of each person, the Constitution does not presuppose that a holder of rights is an isolated, lonely and abstract figure possessing a disembodied and socially disconnected self. It acknowledges that people live in their bodies, their communities, their cultures, their places and their times. The expression of sexuality requires a partner, real or imagined.”

 

53. Heterosexuals have known this about themselves and been able to fulfil themselves in this way throughout history. Homosexuals have also known this about themselves but were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others. This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised. Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others. But we should not underestimate the continuing legacy of those centuries of discrimination, persecution even, which is still going on in many parts of the world. It is no doubt for that reason that Strasbourg requires “very weighty reasons” to justify discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. It is for that reason that we should be slow to accept that prohibiting hotel keepers from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion. 

 

Either you believe that business people should be allowed to put up notices declining business from black people, women, queers, Irish, transpeople and anyone else they don't like, or you accept that doing business in this country means that you must not unlawfully discriminate - that's the deal when you decide to offer public (sic) services. 

 

Finally, a personal anecdote. Many decades ago, one of the students in my university class on graduation joined the local police service. He proudly recounted how his first week's job consisted of laying in the rafters of a public lavatory watching the urinal stalls where one of his prettiest colleagues would stand waving around an erection. As soon as a gay man responded, he was arrested and subsequently prosecuted, the police service ensuring maximum publicity for the wretch. I don't condone people having sexual relations in public places, but even at that time I did wonder at the amount of public money that was being spent on this activity, and the lives that would be utterly ruined as a result - even then in those much less kind times the whole thing seemed to me to be disproportionate. While a couple of public figures who were caught in similar operations did manage to rehabilitate themselves (John Gielguid, for example), for many the stigma was overwhelming. You may think a few Panto Dames and hyper-camp tv comedians prove that there was no discrimination: I would contrast that with the chemical castration offered to war hero Alan Turing who, on reporting a burglary, found himself under arrest and prosecuted just for being a h.o.m.o.s.e.x.u.a.l. [edit: fascinating that this site considers that word to be offensive!]

 

Of course, that was all about sexual orientation whereas the OP was concerned with gender identification. It's important not to confuse the two concepts.

 

Paul

Edited September 24, 2015 by Fenman

[rockershovel]

Much special pleading and sophistry there, I fear.

 

Let's start, for the sake of starting somewhere, with the late Alan Turing. Turing was a very troubled individual given to at times, highly eccentric behaviour. His particular talents led him to become involved in a work of national importance and of the utmost secrecy. This requires trust, and he was not trusted. He was liable to blackmail (and let's not forget that plenty of individuals were driven from public life over quite heterosexual matters - Profumo, for example. He may well have been somewhere on the autistic scale, by some accounts. This was also, let's remember, a time when radical left-wing politics among academics was perceived as a serious risk; and in the light of subsequent developments (Philby, Burgess et al; Klaus Fuchs, and others besides) well founded.

 

Turing was perceived as a serious risk before he ever set foot at Bletchley Park and efforts were made to prevent his recruitment. His efforts there, and their benefits were controversial and remain so.

 

He was probably treated pretty badly, but this was a time when there was a general perception that many, many good men had been sacrificed for the common good, or no good reason at all. There would have been a general feeling that any injustice done him was not important in the greater scheme of things.

 

The idea that he was a genius of unique degree, a war hero hounded from public life for his sexuality is a gross over-simplification.

 

Regarding marriage, the Church and the traditional concept of the institution have always recognised that impotence or sterility were no barrier. Man and Woman made He them both; that some of those should be faulty in some way (and impotence and sterility are medical conditions) was regretted, but accepted BUT WITH THE MAJOR RESERVATION that it was possible to apply for an annulment on the grounds that this was not known beforehand. Hence, an impotent man could marry a woman, with her agreement; a man could marry a woman known to be barren, and that marriage be legal, including the transmission of property rights to the various heirs and successors, including adopted children.

 

Consummation was not defined in terms of reproduction, and none save the other party could bring such a claim. The marriage could also be annulled on the grounds of infidelity or adultery, whether or not either or both party were capable of reproduction. Neither applies to the specific concept of marriage found unacceptable to this site's moderators, because the legal concepts have proven incapable of definition. If you can explain how something which fails most if the tests historically applied is equivalent to something which passes them, your philosophy is a great deal more subtle than mine.

 

I offer no opinion whether hxxxxl marriage is a good, or bad thing; but I say that it is thoroughly bad law, and in that basis should not exist.

 

Finally, on the basis of bad law, I've seen the descent of South Africa into chaos and violence. I don't regard them as moral paragons, thanks.

Edited September 24, 2015 by rockershovel

[Tony_S]

I think the main reason for gay marriage as opposed to civil union was that in one the state recognises your relationship and in the other you marry each other whether or not the ceremony is civil or religious.

[raymw]

 

It is for that reason that we should be slow to accept that prohibiting hotel keepers from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion.

The problem that I see with this sort of thinking, it sort of becomes a reverse discrimination. If the hotel, for example only serves vegetarian meals, and someone insists in wanting a bacon sandwich must they serve a bacon sandwich, even if they have no bacon? I would expect a seller of any goods or service to be able to decide if they want to provide said goods or service to a particular customer, but it need not be a confrontational situation. Not being privy to the details of the interaction between potential customers/owner, but I would guess it was all a bit 'in your face'. What would been the situation, if either the hotel owner, or the customer was, say, Moslem? The founders of all religions lay down rules as to how you should live your life, and all are basically the same wrt a man lying with another man/his neighbour's wife/animals, children, etc. as needed at the time of birth of the religion. But, people do what people do, and bend the rules to suit themselves, but still in the name of that religion, adding to some concepts and ignoring many others original 'generosity'/all embracing' aspects gets completely corrupted.

 

It is not easy to generate a system of anything, if it has to collect together a number of widely different objects or ideas. Laws and religions attempt to do that, but one size does not fit all - evolution comes into play.

 

The one thing, is if you think of it at a systems level, model railways (whatever that means to you) mirrors much of life itself (whatever that means to you)... I'm not allowing that southern loco on my gwr layout....

 

So, getting back to the op's original topic - we've all got the same wheel-set and engine but your weathering may be different...

[Fenman]

Much special pleading and sophistry there, I fear.

 

...

 

Regarding marriage, the Church and the traditional concept of the institution have always recognised that impotence or sterility were no barrier. ... BUT WITH THE MAJOR RESERVATION that it was possible to apply for an annulment on the grounds that this was not known beforehand. Hence, an impotent man could marry a woman, with her agreement; a man could marry a woman known to be barren, and that marriage be legal, including the transmission of property rights to the various heirs and successors, including adopted children.

 

Consummation was not defined in terms of reproduction, and none save the other party could bring such a claim. The marriage could also be annulled on the grounds of infidelity or adultery, whether or not either or both party were capable of reproduction. Neither applies to the specific concept of marriage found unacceptable to this site's moderators, because the legal concepts have proven incapable of definition. If you can explain how something which fails most if the tests historically applied is equivalent to something which passes them, your philosophy is a great deal more subtle than mine.

 

I offer no opinion whether hxxxxl marriage is a good, or bad thing; but I say that it is thoroughly bad law, and in that basis should not exist.

 

I fear you have got yourself into a logic loop.

 

You appear to object to marriage other than between a man and a woman on the grounds that, er, anything else would not be a marriage between a man and a woman. You then justify this with an assertion that, somehow, historical precedent supports you.

 

Historical precedents are not always helpful. For many centuries we believed that a wife was literally owned by her husband. We also believed for many centuries that a husband was permitted to beat his wife provided he did so with a stick of no more than a certain thickness (the "rule of thumb"). And we also believed that a husband could not, by definition, rape his wife - part of the deal was that she should always be sexually available to him, whether or not she wished to be so.

 

We now, thankfully, believe in none of those historical precedents and we certainly do not follow them. I would suggest our society is a much happier place as a result. Historical precedent is not always a good guide.

 

So I'd suggest you try to forget all that historical precedent and go back to basics. Lady Hale tells us that:

 

... people live in their bodies, their communities, their cultures, their places and their times. The expression of sexuality requires a partner, real or imagined. ... Heterosexuals have known this about themselves and been able to fulfil themselves in this way throughout history. Homosexuals have also known this about themselves but were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others. This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised. Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others.

 

That seems to me to be unarguable. But perhaps you disagree?

 

All of this comes back to basic equality. Do you believe everyone should be treated equally, or do you believe that one group - in this case heterosexual married couples - should be treated better than all other groups. I am struggling to see any rational reason why you would believe that.

 

Paul