No, the treatment we give is the product of a long history of assessment and trial treatment from psychological and medical professionals. Legal or medical changes typically require approval from doctors and other assessors before a person can go forward. That's a process which evolved after decades of skepticism and evaluation on transgender identities and the effects of social and medical transition processes. While in a place like British Columbia, it is relatively easy to get started on HRT if you go to the doctor now, It's not like Jack just walks in and says "I'd like to be Judy," and the the doctor goes "Well, that''s different. Sure, why not?" The doctor is already versed in the subject matter and what has been tried in the past, and that knowledge can be applied to Jack/ Judy.
The process changes as new evidence emerges. For instance, FtM genital reconstruction was not initially covered under public heath insurance; however, a limited number of surgeries were approved to see whether further steps should be taken. No one said "Well, she says she wants a penis, so let's go for it." What they said was, "this person experiencing gender dysphoria, and he and others like him may see improvements with this procedure, so let's approve on a limited basis and assess the result before moving forward on a larger scale".
Even socially, the growing sense of legitimacy is partially tied to the sense that health professionals and scientists endorse transgender identities as something more than delusions, perversion or falsehood.
We don't measure them on a case by case basis because our current level of knowledge is limited, and we don't have a lot of practical reasons to do so thus far. Some studies have indicated potential neurological difference in pre-treatment MtF transgender people. Further research needs to be done, but it's not the easiest subject matter to study.
http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00325-0/abstract
Even many former male transexuals are no more objectively "female" than this women is objectively black due to the changes in appearances she underwent compared to the childhood photo going around.
There is no basis for that claim. If a transgender person undergoes HrT, then they are objectively more female than they were before. If they start at the onset of puberty, much of their development will be highly female, and certain developments typical of males will not occur. After puberty the results vary, but there is an objective, biological feminizing impact of hormone replacement therapy. Changes do extend beyond the mere cosmetic. I don't know how we are supposed to compare this to the case of transracial identities or why that would be beneficial.
The politically "progressive" stance on transgenders is that no one should blink when a biological man walks into a women's locker room, because they might feel that they are a woman.
It's not. The politically progressive stance is that being transgender is more involved than simply saying "I'm not a dude; I'm a chick" to use the locker room of your choice. Right now any man who wishes to lie could do so already by walking into a women's locker room and saying "I was assigned female at birth, but transitioned to male; I just use this locker room because society places importance on birth gender rather than gender identity."
People that react as though they might not be a woman are attacked as intolerant bigots (see recent story about the woman who lost a gym membership for such a situation).
And? In principle bigotry is bad, but I'm not sure the relevance of this case or particularly interested in who was right or wrong in an individual dispute. Would it have much bearing on transgender or transracial identities if it turns out overzealous social justice crusaders make bad calls in some cases?
If anything biological sex is a more objective, definable, and scientifically validated concept than racial or even ethnic categories. Thus, subjective declarations of racial identity should get even more deference and tolerance than gender declarations.
There are a number of problems with that statement. First, biological sex has a number of objective, exceptional cases (outside of transgender identities) which don't fit typical patters, so objectively, exceptions have to be recognized as much as the norm.
Second, both race and gender have some objective and subjective components, but the the objective components of gender are what makes it easier to study and treat gender dysphoria. We have a long way to go, but things like neurology can be studied, and things like hormones levels can be monitored and regulated. This is NOT a comparison to what may or may not apply to the transracial scenario, but rather an explanation that objective components can be useful in the context of identifying and treating gender dysphoria, even if we have a very long way to go in our understanding of the subject matter.
Third, a transgender person having gone through certain parts of transition won't cleanly fit all of the objective criteria we know of for either gender so at the very least the 'trans' part is objectively validated at that point. I know that's not typically what people transitioning aim for, but in connection with the first and second points, we've come to some objective validation of an exceptional case to biological gender norms. Again, the idea that transition is a suitable treatment option for many gender dysphoric treatment is not something based off of self-identified traits alone, but based off of broader steady and treatment attempts across decades.
Fourth, it isn't a competition. Neither transgender identities nor transracial identities gain or lose legitimacy based on the status of the other or how they compare.
That's fine, so long as we are equally open to transgenderism sometimes being a "bullshit condition".
There is no reason for that. We cannot reverse our current level of understanding on transgender identities in pursuit of some faux-egalitarianism with transracialism about which we seem to know fairly little. People will call both identities bullshit, but there is more to say counter to that at present time where transgender identities are concerned.
Also, as transgenders show, how "exceptional" such cases are is culturally determined by the very issue of acceptance under discussion.
Not really. Even if the known incidence rates quintupled with greater acceptance, the transgender population would go from what? 0.01% of the population or less to 0.05% of the population or less? What's the appreciable difference here for those who claim that transgender identities cause them, their cause, or society harm?
