The clinic was super clean, professional and friendly. They immediately asked for my preferred name and exclusively used that the entire time. I also think some transwomen are on the staff? Which rules.
The doctor herself was the nicest woman in the world. Very friendly, casual, didn't attempt to gate keep at all. She even said that she was trying to get their paperwork changed so that instead of HRT it would be referred to as Gender Affirmation Therapy.
The lady who took my blood was also a wizard, I didn't feel a thing.
But most importantly
I will be picking up my Spiro and Estradiol tonight and can start immediately.
I am very, very, very, very, very happy right now.
Just came out on Facebook as fully non-binary, and it's tough to handle because it's something people aren't taught to think about
But fuck it. I'm me, I exist, respect it and if you don't we'll have words.
Hell yeah!!!!!
+14
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
This week is Trans Pride in my city. There's a march on Saturday. I am torn on whether to go. Would be a good opportunity to meet people and also I've just never been to one of these things so am curious about it. But also being in a march doesn't really appeal and I'm not exactly proud of being trans. Plus it's November. Who organises something like that in November.
This week is Trans Pride in my city. There's a march on Saturday. I am torn on whether to go. Would be a good opportunity to meet people and also I've just never been to one of these things so am curious about it. But also being in a march doesn't really appeal and I'm not exactly proud of being trans. Plus it's November. Who organises something like that in November.
You should go. I was nervous at my first pride but it ended up being amazing.
Wear a warm coat.
This week is Trans Pride in my city. There's a march on Saturday. I am torn on whether to go. Would be a good opportunity to meet people and also I've just never been to one of these things so am curious about it. But also being in a march doesn't really appeal and I'm not exactly proud of being trans. Plus it's November. Who organises something like that in November.
My suggestion would be maybe go and not directly participate? Just to watch and see what it's like and if it's something you would like to actually participate in in the future, or if there are people you'd feel comfortable meeting
This week is Trans Pride in my city. There's a march on Saturday. I am torn on whether to go. Would be a good opportunity to meet people and also I've just never been to one of these things so am curious about it. But also being in a march doesn't really appeal and I'm not exactly proud of being trans. Plus it's November. Who organises something like that in November.
My suggestion would be maybe go and not directly participate? Just to watch and see what it's like and if it's something you would like to actually participate in in the future, or if there are people you'd feel comfortable meeting
Hm yeah I'd say aim to check it out but make the main aim to stop into an interesting restaurant along the route, so that you aren't freezing outside and have some other goal in mind. Then if you want to go to the parade you can, and if not you looked at it but also fulfilled another goal.
oh also I finally went to the DMV yesterday and changed my license, so once I get it in the mail, I'm going to I suppose start the awful process of changing the name on all of my other important shit like bank accounts and my lease I guess and all of that. The DMV person was very kind and although I did not bring the required proof of address she let me email it to her personal account on the spot. Very accommodating; didn't ask overly invasive questions or anything either. Strangely, a good experience.
what a pain with my other accounts though! I need a secretary/factor/agent to go about my business for me; I have videogames to play!
the rhetoric doesnt give me disillusion, because that shit got out of my system as soon as trump was elected. that said, aside from the misery of that day or decision it sorta completely convinced me that "careerist posturing was and will always be Ploy First and earnest support second" is no longer a cynical statement.
hillary clinton can actually openly laugh at a trevor noah joke about her killing jeffrey esptein. its all a game for these rich sociopaths. (im using it not as an insult not unlike silly goose but in the clinical sense here)
I don't think it's a game, I think it's a reaction to being accused of murder by people for the last 40 years or so.
Like, I take your sentiment, but that specific example doesn't really demonstrate that.
pizzagate is nonsense, i have no dog in that fight. that said overall i do not like this many rich careerists adjacent to a open pedophilia ring (and trump was in that sphere too) laughing as though the idea of the rich and powerful being complicit in malfeasance enshrined by a justice system that never holds these people to account? Is silly somehow? if anything it seems to send the message you can do whatever you want.
she's not richard jewel appearing next to norm mcdonald laughing off unjust shit leveraged upon her, this is a career politician just making goofs about a guy with a pedophilia island and a goddamn ghoulish pyramid where god knows what sort of hell was inflicted on people. all of these millionaires and billionaires can just laugh this shit off, and then go on tv and do insincere posturing about our best interests if we just wait long enough.
the rhetoric doesnt give me disillusion, because that shit got out of my system as soon as trump was elected. that said, aside from the misery of that day or decision it sorta completely convinced me that "careerist posturing was and will always be Ploy First and earnest support second" is no longer a cynical statement.
hillary clinton can actually openly laugh at a trevor noah joke about her killing jeffrey esptein. its all a game for these rich sociopaths. (im using it not as an insult not unlike silly goose but in the clinical sense here)
I don't think it's a game, I think it's a reaction to being accused of murder by people for the last 40 years or so.
Like, I take your sentiment, but that specific example doesn't really demonstrate that.
pizzagate is nonsense, i have no dog in that fight. that said overall i do not like this many rich careerists adjacent to a open pedophilia ring (and trump was in that sphere too) laughing as though the idea of the rich and powerful being complicit in malfeasance enshrined by a justice system that never holds these people to account? Is silly somehow? if anything it seems to send the message you can do whatever you want.
she's not richard jewel appearing next to norm mcdonald laughing off unjust shit leveraged upon her, this is a career politician just making goofs about a guy with a pedophilia island and a goddamn ghoulish pyramid where god knows what sort of hell was inflicted on people. all of these millionaires and billionaires can just laugh this shit off, and then go on tv and do insincere posturing about our best interests if we just wait long enough.
It's not just pizzagate. She has been seriously accused of political murders for literally 35 years or so.
Like the foreign policy stuff shes done (not facetiously shouting BEGHAZI or whatever) has measured effects on the places shes done work. I'm not gonna litigate neoliberalism in full here and my ire isn't solely with Clinton, but I do think her rhetoric as it relates to trans people would be looked at better through the very general lens of politicians having flowery words yet having deeply cynical actions.
Obviously we don't live in an ideal world where we get politicians that do what they say, but when I mention that ghoulish Daily Show scene its just troubling.
Comedy seems toothless, posturing and in line with culture essentially unable to reconcile the dangers of the Trump era and responding in kind, and so it follows that if its permissible to goof around about associations with a mega pedophile of course its the same culture where, yeah, she can say something akin to what UK reactionaries say with regards to trans women under the guise of trumped up concerns of safety. It seems like these people in power are always handled with kids gloves with issues that affect us deeply.
Like the foreign policy stuff shes done (not facetiously shouting BEGHAZI or whatever) has measured effects on the places shes done work. I'm not gonna litigate neoliberalism in full here and my ire isn't solely with Clinton, but I do think her rhetoric as it relates to trans people would be looked at better through the very general lens of politicians having flowery words yet having deeply cynical actions.
Obviously we don't live in an ideal world where we get politicians that do what they say, but when I mention that ghoulish Daily Show scene its just troubling.
Comedy seems toothless, posturing and in line with culture essentially unable to reconcile the dangers of the Trump era and responding in kind, and so it follows that if its permissible to goof around about associations with a mega pedophile of course its the same culture where, yeah, she can say something akin to what UK reactionaries say with regards to trans women under the guise of trumped up concerns of safety. It seems like these people in power are always handled with kids gloves with issues that affect us deeply.
I would absolutely agree the way supposedly progressive people in power (including Hillary) talk about trans issues, generally as an afterthought at best, can be absolutely troubling and upsetting. I am not trying to defend anything she says about trans people at all, I was speaking to a very specific example you gave. The reason she can joke about the murder stuff is because if she couldn't, she would have been destroyed utterly a long time ago. It's a defense mechanism.
It has nothing to do with Epstein specifically, although being who she is and having the position she does, she probably knows a lot of people who were similar or worse. I mean, she probably knows (and met) with several of Epstein's counterparts around the globe. She met with Chinese officials as they began their deliberate genocide campaign. She was a lawyer, and they are trained to compartmentalize to begin with, and I imagine Sec State has to do that even more.
Is it an admirable or positive quality? No, just a necessary one to be good at the jobs she had. This doesn't make her a good person, or a voice for civil rights for trans people or anyone else. My point is purely on the action of making jokes about herself on the Daily Show.
Edit: I want to be clear that the reason I am sticking with this is because I feel I am not communicating well. Your horror and disdain for how our political leaders talk about trans people is absolutely deserved. I am not trying to deny that at all.
oh im not looking for a fight or anything im just trying to kinda earnestly articulate some frustration
If I am making you feel at all uncomfortable or unwelcome, please let me know so I can stop. It's the last thing I would want here (or anywhere, but especially here)
So last week I told the HR Director at work that I'm trans, because fuck it. It went great! We have a plan for starting to filter it down through the company. Honestly I can't wait until everyone knows, because I'm going to get my eyebrows done immediately afterward. It's a pretty silly bit of dysphoria to have, but it's real tho.
Also, today is day 12 since the first laser appointment, and I started to have facial hair fall out this morning! A couple dozen or so showed up after my morning cleansing (at least; obviously no idea how much ran off during the rinse portion). It's working!
I needed that. Dysphoria has been huge lately, because I had to work a lot of extra time in my false shell. Then I had two days packed with a ton of events that I did femme, and they felt so good. And then there was a hard crash right after. Old depersonalization defense strategies started to come back in, but instead of helping, it gave me an anxiety attack and a breakdown.
That's actually good, as much as it sucked in the moment. It ripped me out of that trap and got me back into the present and into myself.
This is a roller coaster, ya'll. It even includes bonus nausea.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
+35
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
I've been contacted out of the blue today by 2 different people from the Before Times wanting to meet up. I'm not out to these people or our many other mutual acquaintances. So now debating whether I want to or if I'm going to fully commit to being an avoidant hermit and just sever all ties with people from my old life.
Also dealing with the SADs and a kicked-wasp-nest of internalised transphobia recently. Feels bad man.
Got a new coworker today who I recognize from some LGBT events that I've attended, but I've never been formally introduced to before today. Trying to figure out a way my deeply antisocial self can approach them to say "Hey, I'm out to exactly no one in this office, and probably going to keep it that way, because Central Fucking Utah LOL. And likewise, if you're flying under the gaydar, you can count on me to take your secret to the grave if necessary. Or if you'd like to be out in this space, I will have your back, but even in such a case I would prefer to keep my personal situation private."
Anyway, not really soliciting advice so much as expressing irritation. I am a deeply private person in the workplace, and don't like it when aspects of my personal life potentially intrude, even if it's harmless stuff that wouldn't potentially have repercussions.
Desert Leviathan on
Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
(because of the board's formatting glitches, I'm posting this without empty lines between paragraphs... if it suddenly gets fixed I'll come back and edit as soon as I notice, if I remember; apologies if you're reading this before I have fixed it and it's become a giant wall of text)
So... I'm having some super complicated feels about something that looks objectively good, inclusive, etc. But there's details that are irking me, and maybe they shouldn't be? I don't know. I'm still working through this, but I'd love some additional perspective.
A group billed as a "women's LGBTQ group" started up recently in my hometown, a chapter of a growing regional thing. I noted the T inclusion but was still wary. That turned out to be unnecessary, as they're super welcoming, and it's been great!
They just announced a change to their description and posted a lengthy explanation of the reasoning. They now state that they are explicitly trans and enby inclusive (yay!), wording it as a group for "queer women, trans, and non-binary folk".
And that's where I wince first. Because it feels as though I've been tugged out of the broader "women" group and into the "trans" separate group. I don't think that's intentional; maybe I'm being overly-sensitive, and the intent is that I'm still in the group of "queer women," but that they're also including straight trans women, trans men, and so forth. I've actually tried to come up with better wording, and so far I've just ended up with stuff equally as awkward.
They state that the intent is to provide a networking space for all queer-umbrella people who are not already served by existing robust communities. That is, the group does not include cis gay men. It does (now) include masc enbies as well as trans men.
For the latter, they are reaching out specifically to include them (some had attended "bring-a-buddy" nights and were otherwise parts of the FB groups as allies / friends).
That also makes me feel strange. Might trans men see this as an invalidation / repudiation of their gender to be welcomed into a group that was previously billed as "women-centric?" Also, is there a risk of the fledgling group losing something that it had of being a queer femme group before? Does that matter, or is it even true - there were after all plenty of queer women that wouldn't generally be described or describe themselves as "femme," naturally.
I don't know. It's all very complicated. I feel it's coming from a beautiful place, and five years ago a group like this might well have openly and bluntly excluded me in the first place. Is this quibbling over irrelevant details? After all, they're going out of their way to explicitly state that I am welcome. It's about as anti-TERF as you can get. I certainly shouldn't be getting upset on behalf of trans men who might feel this or that way about it, and I definitely don't want to fall into any gatekeeper traps. Besides, in the explanation they said that this change was because the group was for all trans people, "not just trans women," which is a pretty direct statement that they consider trans women to be women. So why side-eye a single phrase that can be read multiple ways probably?
I mean, it's probably not even going to really change anything, except a couple more cool people might show up and mingle. I don't expect the group is going to be overrun and taken over by a large number of masc-identifying newly-included folk, changing it into yet another "gay masc (and some other people)" sort of space.
This gets into all sorts of really heavy and deep topics about subdivisions within our communities and the benefits and harms that come from those, but I'm not sure that's really where the things that have been bothering me are coming from.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I wish those groups would just say "everyone but cis men" instead of playing word games
Yeah, I think the problem there is that people want to focus on who they are including rather than excluding and there isn’t a good term to capture it.
That also makes me feel strange. Might trans men see this as an invalidation / repudiation of their gender to be welcomed into a group that was previously billed as "women-centric?"
Just to comment on this, many straight trans men are part of lesbian culture prior to realising their deal fully, so would probably like continuing to hang with queer women. Other trans men wouldn't want to be included but it's not like it's compulsory to join so I wouldn't see a problem as long as nobody assumes a trans guy would want in.
I wish those groups would just say "everyone but cis men" instead of playing word games
As a pan cis dude, this makes me feel bad and excluded!
...but as a straight-presenting, white cis dude, I 100% get it.
Well if it makes you feel any better the only reason the women's lgbtq group lets in trans men and nonbinary people is they consider them to be women with an asterisk
Posts
The clinic was super clean, professional and friendly. They immediately asked for my preferred name and exclusively used that the entire time. I also think some transwomen are on the staff? Which rules.
The doctor herself was the nicest woman in the world. Very friendly, casual, didn't attempt to gate keep at all. She even said that she was trying to get their paperwork changed so that instead of HRT it would be referred to as Gender Affirmation Therapy.
The lady who took my blood was also a wizard, I didn't feel a thing.
But most importantly
I will be picking up my Spiro and Estradiol tonight and can start immediately.
I am very, very, very, very, very happy right now.
I have a mighty need.
Paint the bottom chunk pink, throw some rainbow strings on there.
and it's ONLY $1600 *cries*
I know nothing about guitars, but it's certainly a pretty guitar.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
But fuck it. I'm me, I exist, respect it and if you don't we'll have words.
She was wonderful and this world destroyed her.
Wear a warm coat.
My suggestion would be maybe go and not directly participate? Just to watch and see what it's like and if it's something you would like to actually participate in in the future, or if there are people you'd feel comfortable meeting
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Hm yeah I'd say aim to check it out but make the main aim to stop into an interesting restaurant along the route, so that you aren't freezing outside and have some other goal in mind. Then if you want to go to the parade you can, and if not you looked at it but also fulfilled another goal.
what a pain with my other accounts though! I need a secretary/factor/agent to go about my business for me; I have videogames to play!
pizzagate is nonsense, i have no dog in that fight. that said overall i do not like this many rich careerists adjacent to a open pedophilia ring (and trump was in that sphere too) laughing as though the idea of the rich and powerful being complicit in malfeasance enshrined by a justice system that never holds these people to account? Is silly somehow? if anything it seems to send the message you can do whatever you want.
she's not richard jewel appearing next to norm mcdonald laughing off unjust shit leveraged upon her, this is a career politician just making goofs about a guy with a pedophilia island and a goddamn ghoulish pyramid where god knows what sort of hell was inflicted on people. all of these millionaires and billionaires can just laugh this shit off, and then go on tv and do insincere posturing about our best interests if we just wait long enough.
It's not just pizzagate. She has been seriously accused of political murders for literally 35 years or so.
Obviously we don't live in an ideal world where we get politicians that do what they say, but when I mention that ghoulish Daily Show scene its just troubling.
Comedy seems toothless, posturing and in line with culture essentially unable to reconcile the dangers of the Trump era and responding in kind, and so it follows that if its permissible to goof around about associations with a mega pedophile of course its the same culture where, yeah, she can say something akin to what UK reactionaries say with regards to trans women under the guise of trumped up concerns of safety. It seems like these people in power are always handled with kids gloves with issues that affect us deeply.
I would absolutely agree the way supposedly progressive people in power (including Hillary) talk about trans issues, generally as an afterthought at best, can be absolutely troubling and upsetting. I am not trying to defend anything she says about trans people at all, I was speaking to a very specific example you gave. The reason she can joke about the murder stuff is because if she couldn't, she would have been destroyed utterly a long time ago. It's a defense mechanism.
It has nothing to do with Epstein specifically, although being who she is and having the position she does, she probably knows a lot of people who were similar or worse. I mean, she probably knows (and met) with several of Epstein's counterparts around the globe. She met with Chinese officials as they began their deliberate genocide campaign. She was a lawyer, and they are trained to compartmentalize to begin with, and I imagine Sec State has to do that even more.
Is it an admirable or positive quality? No, just a necessary one to be good at the jobs she had. This doesn't make her a good person, or a voice for civil rights for trans people or anyone else. My point is purely on the action of making jokes about herself on the Daily Show.
Edit: I want to be clear that the reason I am sticking with this is because I feel I am not communicating well. Your horror and disdain for how our political leaders talk about trans people is absolutely deserved. I am not trying to deny that at all.
If I am making you feel at all uncomfortable or unwelcome, please let me know so I can stop. It's the last thing I would want here (or anywhere, but especially here)
Sorry.
I typed that without my brain, and didn't really think about it. I didn't mean to type something so tasteless.
Sorry.
Still a TON of room to improve but I am getting all kinds of make-up tips now so I just gotta practice
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Also, today is day 12 since the first laser appointment, and I started to have facial hair fall out this morning! A couple dozen or so showed up after my morning cleansing (at least; obviously no idea how much ran off during the rinse portion). It's working!
I needed that. Dysphoria has been huge lately, because I had to work a lot of extra time in my false shell. Then I had two days packed with a ton of events that I did femme, and they felt so good. And then there was a hard crash right after. Old depersonalization defense strategies started to come back in, but instead of helping, it gave me an anxiety attack and a breakdown.
That's actually good, as much as it sucked in the moment. It ripped me out of that trap and got me back into the present and into myself.
This is a roller coaster, ya'll. It even includes bonus nausea.
Also dealing with the SADs and a kicked-wasp-nest of internalised transphobia recently. Feels bad man.
Anyway, not really soliciting advice so much as expressing irritation. I am a deeply private person in the workplace, and don't like it when aspects of my personal life potentially intrude, even if it's harmless stuff that wouldn't potentially have repercussions.
So... I'm having some super complicated feels about something that looks objectively good, inclusive, etc. But there's details that are irking me, and maybe they shouldn't be? I don't know. I'm still working through this, but I'd love some additional perspective.
A group billed as a "women's LGBTQ group" started up recently in my hometown, a chapter of a growing regional thing. I noted the T inclusion but was still wary. That turned out to be unnecessary, as they're super welcoming, and it's been great!
They just announced a change to their description and posted a lengthy explanation of the reasoning. They now state that they are explicitly trans and enby inclusive (yay!), wording it as a group for "queer women, trans, and non-binary folk".
And that's where I wince first. Because it feels as though I've been tugged out of the broader "women" group and into the "trans" separate group. I don't think that's intentional; maybe I'm being overly-sensitive, and the intent is that I'm still in the group of "queer women," but that they're also including straight trans women, trans men, and so forth. I've actually tried to come up with better wording, and so far I've just ended up with stuff equally as awkward.
They state that the intent is to provide a networking space for all queer-umbrella people who are not already served by existing robust communities. That is, the group does not include cis gay men. It does (now) include masc enbies as well as trans men.
For the latter, they are reaching out specifically to include them (some had attended "bring-a-buddy" nights and were otherwise parts of the FB groups as allies / friends).
That also makes me feel strange. Might trans men see this as an invalidation / repudiation of their gender to be welcomed into a group that was previously billed as "women-centric?" Also, is there a risk of the fledgling group losing something that it had of being a queer femme group before? Does that matter, or is it even true - there were after all plenty of queer women that wouldn't generally be described or describe themselves as "femme," naturally.
I don't know. It's all very complicated. I feel it's coming from a beautiful place, and five years ago a group like this might well have openly and bluntly excluded me in the first place. Is this quibbling over irrelevant details? After all, they're going out of their way to explicitly state that I am welcome. It's about as anti-TERF as you can get. I certainly shouldn't be getting upset on behalf of trans men who might feel this or that way about it, and I definitely don't want to fall into any gatekeeper traps. Besides, in the explanation they said that this change was because the group was for all trans people, "not just trans women," which is a pretty direct statement that they consider trans women to be women. So why side-eye a single phrase that can be read multiple ways probably?
I mean, it's probably not even going to really change anything, except a couple more cool people might show up and mingle. I don't expect the group is going to be overrun and taken over by a large number of masc-identifying newly-included folk, changing it into yet another "gay masc (and some other people)" sort of space.
This gets into all sorts of really heavy and deep topics about subdivisions within our communities and the benefits and harms that come from those, but I'm not sure that's really where the things that have been bothering me are coming from.
Yeah, I think the problem there is that people want to focus on who they are including rather than excluding and there isn’t a good term to capture it.
"The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I’d beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it." -- Jack Kirby
Just to comment on this, many straight trans men are part of lesbian culture prior to realising their deal fully, so would probably like continuing to hang with queer women. Other trans men wouldn't want to be included but it's not like it's compulsory to join so I wouldn't see a problem as long as nobody assumes a trans guy would want in.
As a pan cis dude, this makes me feel bad and excluded!
...but as a straight-presenting, white cis dude, I 100% get it.
Well if it makes you feel any better the only reason the women's lgbtq group lets in trans men and nonbinary people is they consider them to be women with an asterisk