Trans

Knowing about the suffering of others is a good thing. If we are open, it helps us empathize. Ignorance leads to fear leads to anger etc... Mayhap I might suggest an admin move the transgender section(so feminism can be continued) to its own thread so others might have a chance to learn more about it? I for one had no idea...

Abhaya Budhil wrote:

Abhaya doesn't like being male.

Not sure where you got that from. I am currently transitioning to be legally male. Perhaps you were just confused about which way I was transitioning and you meant to say "Abhaya doesn't like being female." In that case, I do have to point out that your comments are becoming increasingly transphobic. I understand why some people don't think SRS should be covered by insurance. We might have to agree to disagree on that one. However, things like the comment above and calling sex dysphoria "petty" are just outright transphobia. There is no way around it. I'm not sure if you are transphobic or not, but your comments are definitely transphobic.

It was my understanding you said somewhere on this thread you were/are a man trying to be a woman. As to being afraid of anything like that, no, that's definitely not like me. What's petty is being worried about what's between one's legs or whether the letter "M" or "F" appears on one's passport. Perhaps instead of "petty" I should have said "shallow".

Jedi believe in a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.

Does this not include believing that we should all be treated with respect on an individual level as well? Does this include believing that we should accept, embrace, and celebrate such differences without passing judgement on those who differ from us in these areas? And is gender identity included or not in this? What is the temple's official stance on transgender people? Because I am sensing a definite vibe of transphobia on this thread, whether intended or not. (Those are actual questions that I don't know the answer to and would like clarification on. I am not asking them rhetorically. I am genuinely interested in the answers.)

[/quote]

To me (the guy who rewrote this line), it means that Jedi care nothing for gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity/nationality or other issues people tend to be discriminated against for (physical deformities for instance).

To me, the idea that you absolutely need to have silicone on your chest, your penis removed and skin reverted, or a chunk of meat taken from your arm to be wrapped around an air bag and be attached to your groin area, is, indeed, completely meaningless.

You want time, energy and resources to be spent on cosmetics and paperwork because it makes you feel better... when there's a homeless guy being eaten alive by maggots just down the street?

As I said before, time to get a grip.

I do agree with you Ren. There is little to be gained, other than some shallow satisfaction, from these surgeries. I do not believe these surgeries should be covered due to their nature of simply calming one's mind. If the only way to feel better about yourself is to change some physical aspect of your body then there is something deeper, and psychological, in nature that you must take care of. I can't simply say I need my insurance provider to purchase steroids for me because I am a body builder trapped in a scrawny body. The line does have to be drawn somewhere and resources can be used in far more important areas. However, more could be done to ease the lives of transgender peoples. The law is not especially friendly to such persons and things should change. In short though, I believe that if you truly think you are a man born into a woman's body or a woman born into a man's body then you haven't actually accepted who you are. You must accept that your physical appearance is who you are, though it doesn't define you. It really is what is inside that counts and if getting a surgery to change your genitalia or other sexual features really does make that big of an impact, then it is a shallow thing. Maybe I began to ramble and for that I am sorry but I thought I'd try and make my opinions clear.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

I agree with Ren. (and, that NEVER happens lol)

I have physical problems that would, normally, cause me distress. I have an extremely difficult time relating to other males (though, I identify sexually and physically as a straight male) because of my body structure (private stuff, don't ask).

But, I learned a long time ago from my studies to understand and deal with these issues instead of fixing a problem on the outside, and still having issues on the inside.

It's the reason I refuse to get weight loss surgery, though it would certainly speed up the process. If I cannot change how I feel and act on the outside, then my insides will never change.

For trans people, and as somebody who's had to flirt with the idea, I sort of get it... my faith and belief in the Force is what truly led me to continue with what I had and really find avenues to make it work. And, really, I'm not unhappy. In fact, I'm quite joyful with my life. I didn't have to have therapy or anything. It takes immense strength, patience, and training to get to the place I eventually got to. I think gender reassignment is fine, but I also know that it is not the only avenue. Is it easier? Not always. Is my way harder? No, not necessarily. Everybody's situation is different.

To me, the idea that you absolutely need to have silicone on your chest, your penis removed and skin reverted, or a chunk of meat taken from your arm to be wrapped around an air bag and be attached to your groin area, is, indeed, completely meaningless.

You have such a way with words.

However, more could be done to ease the lives of transgender peoples. The law is not especially friendly to such persons and things should change.

Agreed. the real problem is that the law is sexist. A constitution should not allow for laws to mention gender.

If you look at the way "race" evolved in the US legal system, it eventually came to a point where they just prohbited segregation. This did not happen for gender. there no longer are bathrooms for whites and bathrooms for black. There's no ambiguity where mixed-race people go.
(Although, strangely, people still feel they must identify with a race. Obama is often said to be black, even though he isn't. there are laws regarding race and adoption, which really shouldn't be there.)
Anyway. We segregate on the basis of gender, meaning people who don't really fit in... well, don't fit in.

It wouldn't be a problem for someone equipped with a penis to use the women's changing room on the grounds of being legally female, because there would be no female (or male) changing room. the nudist/naturist community does this well, but consists mostly of older people nowadays. The young ones tend to be libertines more than the older ones, who tend to be the non-discriminatory (gender and body 'shape'), "it's only flesh" type.

Suffering is never shallow. Even if it is a fabrication of the mind, it is still real to the person suffering it. We have taken extremes and we have all wanted to better ourselves and at its base we have all just wanted to be happy. I do not condemn the decision to take on the trials and trans-formative properties of this ritual of self mutilation. It is a powerful thing. I would hazard to say it very well may be sacred to some. Perhaps for some, it would be a shallow decision. We've all done shallow things. But we do our fellows a disservice to dismiss it entirely as such. That is like saying "you are not worth listening too" and that is not true of anyone when concerning things they hold so closely.

In the end, I don't truly understand how one might feel, what abuses they see of their needs nor do I have I experienced so atrocious a thing as having been born in the wrong body(truly a frightening concept). I feel, however, that if the sexist issues ren has mentioned were properly addressed, we would not be privy to so much needless suffering.

It seems that there are several factors which have been overlooked, yet, all things considered, in the present time nothing we debate well or badly in the TotJO is going to change policy.

First of all, we're not talking about the right to have the surgery, we're talking about who has to pay for it. Things always get a bit weird when that is the focus, for we are not really talking about natural or social rights - ethics and morality - but financial liabilities which are almost never thoroughly just. This is a bit like owning one's home : certainly one has the 'right' (both social and natural) to do so IF one can afford it under the current economic circumstances. One could not say that they were being "discriminated" against because they would not be sold something they could not afford, not given a loan they could not repay (although this has recently happened - one could say that the loan WAS the discrimination). This could not bring up accusations of bias based on some communitarian ideology.

So, why should this ?

On the other hand, taking away financial considerations, the question turns from : "How much does it cost and to whom ?" to "Can we do this with the the resources at hand ?" The answer to that question may be "yes". There is still a big but coming though, and not of the sort that ren likes ...

Whereas I agree that this disorder may be very traumatising (what disorder isn't, after all ?), it is unclear to me whether this would be responsible resource allocation. Discrimination is necessary on a daily basis. Not categoric injustices based on a person's particular group, but making distinctions between what is the most effective and wise use of our resources. Granted, some of the things which insurance companies do pay for are not effective nor wise expenditures measured on the balance of resource management. But as we have said, financially governed concerns are rarely just. Conversely, I cannot warrant the homeless person (perhaps homeless after the crisis mentioned above) to be eaten by maggots whereas someone else has the [social] right to a sex-change - and that is what it is, after all, for calling it by another name alters neither its purpose nor outcome.

I'm not a utilitarian, for the record, but there is so much suffering on our planet today that I would remind everyone - including myself - that ethics is not just about what we do, it is also about what we do not do. And this includes how we give, or do not ... I'm sure that these insurance companies are not big donors to charities either.

With regard to the possibility of a happy and fulfilling life resulting from it, there is much margin for doubt here too. One would think that having this surgery would bring happiness. Perhaps for a little while, but lasting happiness is not dictated by one's genitalia. Dan Gilbert's research has even pointed out that those who win the lottery and those who become paraplegic in an accident (or surgery gone awry) are just as happy, the one as the other, within a year's time.

So, here's the conclusion - with it or without it, as a male or a female or something in-between, rich or not, you'll be just as happy next year no matter what. You're not starving, you are not homeless, you do not have a terminal disease. Equality is not the issue ... you've got both the social and natural right to do with your body as you like. And as Albert Camus pointed out : "Not committing suicide is an act of heroism."

Absurdity arises systematically for each individual who has to reconcile her/his "story from the inside" with the "story from the outside" - and that is all of us. Just do a careful reading of the inside story ... it may not be as tragic as it seems.

Can you tell us more about these "happiness" studies?

It does support my point, which isn't really about entitlement in this instance, but about the purpose. When you get surgery the cost isn't only monetary. It takes the time off the person undergoing the surgery. It may cost them their job. I can't imagine it's a simple deal of: day 1 man, have surgery at night, show up at work on day 2 as a woman. The surgeons and other staff are spending time as well. Considering surgeons have a high non-monetary cost (limited ability to work, long education, need to stay up to date with advances, former patients, and simply the fact that no matter how much they study, not everyone can be a surgeon/doctor/nurse). Then there's the medical equipment. It doesn't last for ever. Some of it is highly toxic. Some of it must be discarded once used, etc.

Why prioritize operations of this type when people can just learn to live with themselves? Everyone else has to do it. Whether it's past deeds, the carpet growing on their backs or whatever disease/allergy almost everyone has one of? No-one chose their face, everyone has to live with whatever they've got.

Suffering is never shallow.

I think there is a difference between genuine suffering and ego issues.

Emotion yet peace. (code)
Passion yet serenity. (code)
I shall never seek so much to be consoled as to console (creed)
it is in giving that we receive (creed)
Jedi maintain a clear mind and we work on overcoming our individual issues through training and diligence. (16 teachings)
Jedi are wary of attachments, both material and personal. (16 teachings)
A Jedi seeks to live in harmony with the Force, for that is the reason to be a jedi. To better understand its ways, to better know one's place within it. (21 maxims)


I think it is shallow to undergo surgery that satisfies the ego from a Jedi point of view.

I can see that. I wish I were in a position to make that call. I have no idea if the suffering is genuine or not. Its sticky, not knowing when the right time to tell someone to buck up is instead of giving them a hug and telling them it'll be alright.

Did I miss where you consoled him?