![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avia(This is a public post, in case anyone wants to link to it. I thought it needed to be said in a wider space.)
Sorry for another post being grumpy about jarandhel, but I think this is something that needed to be pointed out.
I don't try to look at jarandhel's posts any more, but I do look at the Tumblrs of other therians/otherkin, and sometimes they reblog him. This discussion got my attention, and, particularly this part of it:
You know, I don't know much about how the trans* community started, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't do this because they wanted to play nice and sit around and wait until the Proper Medical Authorities noticed them. They didn't talk about things using the phrase "gender dysphoria" because they didn't have that language available to them. Not because it wasn't "the respectful thing to do".
I'm willing to bet most trans* activists didn't care about being respectful to the mainstream, because, when did it ever respect them? I'm sure those activists would feel sick, if they knew that they were being used as an example now, of how people should just wait politely to be recognized. They knew something was wrong, and they fought to be recognized. Fought.
And if trans* people didn't do some self-diagnosis, then probably they never would have been understood. Does jarandhel really think that the whole acceptance and understanding of trans* people was based on the medical community's work? I'm sure that trans* people actually did most of the work about understanding their selves, and the first time (and probably the 20th time, and the 200th time, and I'm sure it still happens today) that a trans* person went to a doctor or psychologist and explained their feelings, the doctor or psychologist looked at them strangely and said, "I don't know what to do about that". And so they were forced to find their own way, to understand their selves and then go back to the medical communities and say, "Doc. This is how I feel. This is what I need."
And say it again, again, until people listened.
Self-diagnosis is a tool of knowledge and empowerment. Do some people make mistakes in self-diagnosis? Of course, but a lot of doctors make mistakes in diagnosis too. And even if there are some false experiences with self-diagnosis, that's a small price to pay for the ability-- the right-- to educate our selves about our own bodies and our own health and to say, "I am the one who knows best about what is going on in my body." To use doctors and psychiatrists (who often like it when people come in knowing what's wrong with them! It makes their job easier) as assistants to help us get onto a path of wellness (or whatever path we want), not as gods who we are following blindly. To be able to understand our bodies without needing to pay the fees of doctors that many people can't afford. To be able to understand our bodies even before medical science cares about understanding them, which can often take many years after we notice something is wrong.
Look at transgender people for a moment - they didn't come along saying "I believe I have a neurological condition which results in me experiencing gender dysphoria". Because they didn't have those words and that power.
Don't we wish they had? In what world, in what totalitarian nightmare, do we think that it was a good thing that transgender people didn't have the words to describe their bodies and their experiences from the beginning?
And, now, in a world where those words exist, it doesn't seem sensible to start again from scratch.
Imagine a tornado is coming for your house. In days before people understood tornadoes, people might have said, "Huh. That's a big swirly pattern in the sky. I wonder if it means anything." Then, as time goes past, they might think, "It's getting closer. I really hope it isn't dangerous." And finally, while it is destroying their neighborhood, they think, "Okay, when that big swirly pattern happens, it's bad"... but of course, then, it's too late.
But that was before we knew about tornadoes. Now that we know, isn't it better, if we see a tornado, that we can think, "oh, that's probably a tornado, better get my family and run!" Even if we turn out to be wrong? Or, is it better to just stand there and think, "Well, that's a swirly pattern in the sky. I guess it could be something bad, but instead, I'm just going to stand here and wait until the weather service tells me. They know best, after all."
And then watch, as your house gets destroyed?
Sorry for another post being grumpy about jarandhel, but I think this is something that needed to be pointed out.
I don't try to look at jarandhel's posts any more, but I do look at the Tumblrs of other therians/otherkin, and sometimes they reblog him. This discussion got my attention, and, particularly this part of it:
Look at the transgendered for a moment - they didn’t come along saying “I believe I have a neurological condition which results in me experiencing gender dysphoria”. They said they felt trapped in the wrong body. Scientific and medical language was applied to their condition later, after proper study of the subject had been made. Not by trans individuals playing armchair psychologists and diagnosing themselves.
You know, I don't know much about how the trans* community started, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't do this because they wanted to play nice and sit around and wait until the Proper Medical Authorities noticed them. They didn't talk about things using the phrase "gender dysphoria" because they didn't have that language available to them. Not because it wasn't "the respectful thing to do".
I'm willing to bet most trans* activists didn't care about being respectful to the mainstream, because, when did it ever respect them? I'm sure those activists would feel sick, if they knew that they were being used as an example now, of how people should just wait politely to be recognized. They knew something was wrong, and they fought to be recognized. Fought.
And if trans* people didn't do some self-diagnosis, then probably they never would have been understood. Does jarandhel really think that the whole acceptance and understanding of trans* people was based on the medical community's work? I'm sure that trans* people actually did most of the work about understanding their selves, and the first time (and probably the 20th time, and the 200th time, and I'm sure it still happens today) that a trans* person went to a doctor or psychologist and explained their feelings, the doctor or psychologist looked at them strangely and said, "I don't know what to do about that". And so they were forced to find their own way, to understand their selves and then go back to the medical communities and say, "Doc. This is how I feel. This is what I need."
And say it again, again, until people listened.
Self-diagnosis is a tool of knowledge and empowerment. Do some people make mistakes in self-diagnosis? Of course, but a lot of doctors make mistakes in diagnosis too. And even if there are some false experiences with self-diagnosis, that's a small price to pay for the ability-- the right-- to educate our selves about our own bodies and our own health and to say, "I am the one who knows best about what is going on in my body." To use doctors and psychiatrists (who often like it when people come in knowing what's wrong with them! It makes their job easier) as assistants to help us get onto a path of wellness (or whatever path we want), not as gods who we are following blindly. To be able to understand our bodies without needing to pay the fees of doctors that many people can't afford. To be able to understand our bodies even before medical science cares about understanding them, which can often take many years after we notice something is wrong.
Look at transgender people for a moment - they didn't come along saying "I believe I have a neurological condition which results in me experiencing gender dysphoria". Because they didn't have those words and that power.
Don't we wish they had? In what world, in what totalitarian nightmare, do we think that it was a good thing that transgender people didn't have the words to describe their bodies and their experiences from the beginning?
And, now, in a world where those words exist, it doesn't seem sensible to start again from scratch.
Imagine a tornado is coming for your house. In days before people understood tornadoes, people might have said, "Huh. That's a big swirly pattern in the sky. I wonder if it means anything." Then, as time goes past, they might think, "It's getting closer. I really hope it isn't dangerous." And finally, while it is destroying their neighborhood, they think, "Okay, when that big swirly pattern happens, it's bad"... but of course, then, it's too late.
But that was before we knew about tornadoes. Now that we know, isn't it better, if we see a tornado, that we can think, "oh, that's probably a tornado, better get my family and run!" Even if we turn out to be wrong? Or, is it better to just stand there and think, "Well, that's a swirly pattern in the sky. I guess it could be something bad, but instead, I'm just going to stand here and wait until the weather service tells me. They know best, after all."
And then watch, as your house gets destroyed?
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 08:46 am (UTC)Language like "trapped in the wrong body" was popularized for strategic reasons: it was what the medical establishment found the most convincing, and the medical establishment had ended up being the gatekeepers for hormones, surgeries, legal gender reassignment, and so on. Word got around that describing yourself this way to medical professionals would help get results (and, knowing how badly medical professionals react to hearing patients' self-diagnoses, it was a very understandable strategy) even though it reinforces a simplistic trans narrative that has never applied to as many trans people as one is likely to get the impression is the case.
I realize that I'm jumping into an unrelated conversation, but the history of trans people (well, in the US and in the 20th century) has been a subject that's been coming up a lot lately in my circles, and I wanted to share some of what I've learned.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 05:09 pm (UTC)Language like "trapped in the wrong body" was popularized for strategic reasons: it was what the medical establishment found the most convincing, and the medical establishment had ended up being the gatekeepers for hormones, surgeries, legal gender reassignment, and so on.
I thought this probably was the case.
It's the same reason that I would say to a psychologist or doctor, "dysphoria". Because I want the medical profession to understand that I am suffering, and want help. People scoff at it for "trying to be seen as legitimate", but... yes, I want to be seen as legitimate? Is there something wrong with that?
no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 05:03 am (UTC)But a lot of times it's something to use to explain to someone who's not getting it. Or to get the treatment you need.
I guess even the "non-medical" terms can be influenced by the "good Dr.'s" >.<
Also, in general - like you were saying - When trans people in history didn't use medical terms, it generally wasn't because they were respecting the "learned medics" it was because that wasn't part of their life and their vocabulary. And in many places, it *still isn't*. Sometimes the medical terms aren't even super accurate to real life experience.
On the other hand, I've found "dysphoria" to be an incredibly useful term to describe certain moments. And I wouldn't want to not have that. And i didn't get the "right" to use it from some doctor.
(although I've found having the words "dysphoria" *and* "dissonance" to be even more useful)
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 09:46 am (UTC)Also, allowing doctors to be gatekeepers only works if they are honest. Before brain imaging became a thing, doctors generally believed that prosopagnosia (aka face blindness) was only ever the result of brain injury. People who had never been able to recognize faces went to them and said they'd had this problem since birth and doctors assumed they were lying. It was only when they could study the brain functioning of people who had never had a brain injury that they accepted prosopagnosia could happen naturally.
But we've been to doctors who will look at test results and keep repeating their false assumptions about what must be going on with us. If the whole culture's value is "always trust the doctor" then it becomes easy for them as a group to simply dismiss anything that doesn't match up with their beliefs. Same with any highly technical profession.
And not many have access to the resources necessary to do an independent inquiry, with many of these professions including medicine. How many times have people said that it would be great to have some high-quality neurological or psychological studies about Otherkin? Having been a psych research grunt, I can tell you it's hard to even get a population sample that will yield a proper analysis if one doesn't have both training and a research institution (college, pharmaceutical company, government agency, etc.) to back one up. If the medical profession, or some relevant slice of it, decides simply to ignore a minority that's inconvenient to its established ideas or simply not profitable enough...well, that's back to what you said about waiting quietly and obediently.
Also, it's hard for an individual to not just accept, but admit to everyone that ey is wrong. How much harder is it as part of a group that benefits from the appearance of wisdom and authority? Someone could say, "Oh, it's only those isolated, bad doctors; the medical profession will keep most doctors honest." But an entire institution can go bad if it's not scrutinized enough, and how many people understand the capabilities, limitations, and interpretation of brain imaging technologies?
My system doesn't, but mainly because we've never taken the time...and we feel secure in trusting certain experts, like Neuroskeptic, because we've checked them against our educated criteria for which science writers we will trust. We could get up to speed in maybe a day or less if we blew spoons on doing so, because we're working from the foundation of a good science education. Many struggle to even understand the head start we already have on the subject, and on evaluating whether a study is well-designed and says what the researchers conclude it says.
I have a feeling I'm horribly rambly today, but don't have the brainpower to put it together any better. ^^; Apologies if that detracts at all. (But I had to respond, because SCIENCE, and watching the watchmen, and those things are Nautilene bait really.) French fries and thanks for you, for putting this out there.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 05:18 pm (UTC)Also, allowing doctors to be gatekeepers only works if they are honest. Before brain imaging became a thing, doctors generally believed that prosopagnosia (aka face blindness) was only ever the result of brain injury. People who had never been able to recognize faces went to them and said they'd had this problem since birth and doctors assumed they were lying.
Yeah, this exactly.
And it reminds me of people who say "otherkin can't have phantom limbs, because phantom limbs only happen to amputees!" And then they learn about people who have supernumerary phantom limbs, who aren't amputees, and they say "but they only happen to people who are amputees or have strokes!" Or people who say, "you can't have DID unless you have trauma, and people with DID don't know anything about the other people in their head!"
And then other people say "it works differently for me", and instead of saying, huh, let's explore this and do studies, they say "NO YOU ARE WRONG AND APPROPRIATING A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION".
And then later, a lot later, the doctors find out it actually does work like that, and everyone is okay. Except the next generation of people who are not accepted by the doctors yet.
And then, everyone is worshipping the gatekeepers all over again. Including the people who were hurt by them last time.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 04:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 06:41 pm (UTC)Is he saying that therianthropy can't be psychological? And that we're all stupid and should admit it's a spiritually-caused thing? Because that is kind of what it's coming off as, and on that I will call bullshit.
Also, no one (that I have seen) is claiming they know exactly what brain-thing is causing therianthropy. People have guesses, they have theories they like, but... that's about it. And since we have not been able to organize brain scans and medical studies yet, that is actually the best we can do for the moment. There have been experiences described that definitely sound like they might be related to neuro-atypical things to me, as an average person who has no more than a layman's knowledge of psychology. Still, I can observe; I can process information; I can say "Well, this looks a bit like that, doesn't it?" even if I can't prove it, I can speculate and say, "well, maybe that's what it is." It would be wrong for me to say, "That must be it! There it is for sure!" but guesses and theories aren't hurting people when they are phrased as such.
Anyway, it does seem raaaaaaather stupid to be saying, "You need medical validation," because trans* people still have their experiences before they are necessarily diagnosed with them. Those experiences still existed and such before being medically recognized, so what the hell is the point in saying that it doesn't exist until it's diagnosed? Speaking to the "trapped in the wrong body," thing, that isn't true for all trans* individuals. Hell, not all trans* people hate and are depressed by their assigned-gender-body - they just feel like the other would fit them better or the existing one is not quite right. Problems arise when people who only know the tip of the iceberg regarding trans* issues (for example, when people thing that "trapped in the wrong body" is the extend of it) compare otherkin experiences to trans* experiences on the whole, but then, the best thing would be to correct politely with educating, rather than jumping down people's throats anyway.
I'd conclude that in general, arguing about using the word "dysphoria" is unfair to the subtlety and variety of experiences that both therians/'kin and transpeople feel, and arguing about the cause of feeling nonhuman is one of the most foolish and ignorant arguments to have, exactly because of the subtlety and variety of people's experiences. Until some neuroscientist interested in therians/otherkin comes along and does a study, and then many more studies, no one can say there is one cause for all of us.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 09:09 pm (UTC)Jaran tried to make a poll on the Werelist asking how many people had species dysphoria. In an attempt, I have no doubt, to show that it was uncommon.
The current percentage is over 50% once you include headmates.
Oh, and since Jarandhel's shit at science--real science--he missed that body dysphoria covers things like skin tone. Do people who experience body dysphoria over skin tone have the brain of a person with tanner skin? What about weight? Or hair color?
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 10:27 pm (UTC)Also, a study that was done on furries. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.376188-Furries-Not-Entirely-Human Furries are not the same as therians, but the point is, about 25% of a group that you would expect to have a lot less species dysphoria than therians (because furry is just a roleplaying thing for a lot of people), talked about having it.
I actually do know some people who have (or had in the past) real body dysphoria about weight. Not just "society tells me that I should be thin to be attractive", but "I feel like I look right in the mirror when I am at X weight, and wrong when I am at Y weight". It's not anorexia, because an anorexic person never feels like they look right... but, a legitimate feeling that they are happy at a particular weight.
So, do they have the brain of an X weight person?
What also bothers me about Jarandhel's "science" is that it doesn't have any controls. How many people on trans* forums use the words "dysphoria" or "wrong body"? Telling people that the word "dysphoria" was used in X% of posts on a therian forum doesn't mean anything unless we have some others to compare it to... how often is it used on trans* forums, and how often is it used on forums that are not about trans* or therian issues?
Without that, you can't say what those numbers mean at all.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 11:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 03:59 pm (UTC)In point of fact, his "science" reminds me of WolfVanZandt's ramblings which sounded okay, until you dug deeper or had been in the community for more than 2 years. Wonder if they're related?
no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 12:01 am (UTC)I'm in an online support group for partners of FTMs and I have only heard a few instances of "trapped in the wrong body," though "dysphoria" gets mentioned very often as an experience. Granted, most people in that group are between about 18 and 35, so the experiences of older members of the trans community may not be represented... but that's what I've experienced in a group of about 200.
Agreed that Jarandhel's "science" seems mostly to take into account his experience or selective opinion rather than the broader truths concerning a community, as (again) evidenced by the commenter in the link.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 02:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 02:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 02:36 am (UTC)Another example of Jarandhel being shit at science.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 02:40 am (UTC)Also, when I checked, it looks like he is searching only for the words "dysphoria" and "wrong body". But there are a lot of different ways that people could talk about this, that don't use those words. For example, I might not say "wrong body" but "swan in a human body" or "I feel like I should have a different body" or "my body feels wrong", and none of those would appear in that search.
So it's really not scientific. For a very beginning, you would need to search every forum thread and list the discussions that actually talk about dysphoria using any language. Then, compare it with a transgender forum and a forum about completely unrelated topics.
And even then, it doesn't even matter, because what you can't deny is, some people experience it, and, is that not enough? It's like saying "if diabetes is more common than cancer, we should stop caring about cancer or trying to treat it".
Even if only 1% of therians have species dysphoria, it's still worth it to investigate, for those people. And right now, the numbers we are looking at, are a lot more than 1%.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 12:26 am (UTC)The point of the stupid statistics is simple: They look good. Jarandhel doesn't know how to make a real argument or conduct a real debate, he knows how to make propaganda. Marketing. It's actually quite similar to what I've seen in really bad arguments on Debate.Org, and in political campaigns.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-21 11:52 pm (UTC)Obviously also noticed the Werelist poll as well as Felkes' poll on Facebook, each trying to prove that species dysphoria is uncommon or common enough to be criteria for being a therian, respectively. My reaction to both was, "Oh brother." I don't experience species dysphoria myself, but I do believe that it's a real thing and that it's a term that can be used - it bugs me that people assume from tumblr things that all therians must have it, but then, I guess I am always one of those in-between folks on most things.
See comments on dysphoria outside of the trans context in reply to Avia below.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 01:15 am (UTC)(I feel like that would count as genderqueer or non-binary maybe?)
So I think really, we shouldn't assume that any person in the therian or otherkin community does or doesn't have dysphoria, and definitely we shouldn't use it as "criteria for being a therian". But I think we definitely need to acknowledge that it exists in some people in the community.
Whether it's a lot of people or not, shouldn't matter.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 01:51 am (UTC)Whether it's a lot of people or not, shouldn't matter.
Yes, exactly this. *nods*
no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 05:01 pm (UTC)I don't know about Felkes arguing it, but definitely implying:
"How many people experience body dysphoria and/or significant discomfort relating to being a nonhuman animal (or being for the otherkin here) trapped in a human body?
I ask because for all of the people I've known this is true, and my understanding of it has been that this is pretty much a given for any therian, dare I say even a part of the definition itself."
This was from a facebook group topic that she started and made mention of over on tumblr. I did comment, pointing out (politely but maybe a little coldly) that she might want to sample broader groups of people before coming up with generalizations, and that saying one must experience dysphoria to be a therian is drawing some lines in the sand, there, and alienating non-dysphoric therians. She responded about the sample base and clarified that most answers she was getting were that "therians experience more often dysphoria and discomfort with their human bodies than otherkin, and are more inclined to desire to transition, but a minority of those people are actually willing to seek out medical procedures to do it," but totally ignored my cautioning her on the whole "dysphoria is part of the definition" thing.
*shrug* It bothers me that this is getting heavily polarized. In this case both sides are arguing poorly, waving around their confirmation-bias statistics, and saying "you can't" or "you must." Both are making generalizations that alienate those of us who can see both sides of an issue, or reside in an in-between state, or have a complex opinion.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-22 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 12:48 am (UTC)I'm not even going to bother engaging him, but I have seen neurologists and psychiatrists who have used those terms when discussing my experience /even before I've used the term myself/ and it's really only a matter of time before more medical professionals start using those terms for us as we become more widely known anyway. There's an official therianthrope research group being formed now, who are already using that vocabulary, is that not "permission enough" for him? Because at this point my only response to his lopsided logic is "tick-tock bitch."
no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 12:51 am (UTC)I think he is just very stuck in the past, in many ways. The otherkin community is not what it used to be, or not the way he remembers it anyway... these kids these days! Get off my lawn! Etc.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 04:02 am (UTC)It's sad to think about, that he cares about his position as "superior" more than helping people who need it...
no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-23 04:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-16 11:33 am (UTC)On the other hand, though, I find it extremely unlikely that you - and the segment of the kin community that shares your views - are ever going to get the result you want, and no amount of pushing for recognition will change that. Regardless of how much right you have to live in a way that meets your psychological needs, unless the medical community's attitude changes in a drastic and, IMO, DANGEROUS way, there will never be any procedure that will make "species reassignment" possible. First of all, our current understanding of the universe indicates that genetic modification on that scale is impossible. Second, even if it were possible, the ethical issues involved in changing someone's species (possibly changing their mental faculties and ability to give informed consent in the process) would prevent it from ever being put into practice.
I'm just saying, there's what would be ideal (a world where everyone can make their body match how they feel inside, without that science being abused and without risk of harm to those making use of it) and then there's reality.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-17 12:02 am (UTC)Personally I feel that it's difficult to decide what is ethical without knowing what is possible. And it's difficult to decide what is possible without research, and difficult to get research unless people know that there is a need for research.
I also think the ethics of doing it to a person who is willing and even desperate to have this experience, someone who might feel that the alternative is suicide, are complicated. It is possible that someone who is part or all of the way through this procedure might stop being able to give consent, for example. But that's also true of any medical procedure that requires a general anesthetic. You can't just stop in the middle. At this point, it is assumed that giving consent before the procedure is enough. I don't see why this should be different.
Some transgender people have transitioned and change their mind. Is it possible this could happen here? Yes, but that doesn't make transgender surgery unethical and it also doesn't make this unethical. It means there is a responsibility for the person to decide that this is what they really want. We should try to make sure that people won't regret it later by giving them as many details as possible about the truth of the procedure. But ultimately it is a person's own decision what to do with their bodies, and I am uncomfortable with any law or philosophy that suggests anything else.
There is also the possibility of partial transitions, for example. People who are therian or otherkin have grown up in a human life and a human body, and though they might experience dysphoria, a lot of them also don't want to leave their human life and friends. They imagine an "anthro" form like a furry that would be part human and part their species. If it was possible to make some small changes to the human form that still kept the human mind, a lot of people would accept this.
As well, species dysphoria being recognized does not just bring the possibility of physical transition. It also brings the possibility of counseling and support groups that support our needs. If it does turn out that transition is impossible then people will need a lot of social and emotional support to help them to deal with that. That support won't be there if species dysphoria is not understood.