LGBTAIitp Part 60: Still Going Strong

[BisectedBrioche]

Does "I see the appeal of sexual intercourse but honestly it seems like too much work for not enough pay-off" count as a kind of ace?

TBH, that sounds like my deal, and ace is how I describe myself.

Specifically the label I use is "Sex indifferent asexual" (the alternatives to sex indifferent being "sex repulsed" and "sex positive"; meaning not wanting sex at all, and willing to seek out sexual encounters despite the absence of sexual attraction receptively), meaning I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I don't seem the point of seeking it out (and I don't find people sexually attractive).

And all I have to say to people who're wondering if they're "really asexual" is; you know how allo people act when sex is on the table in sitcoms and dramas? That's not an exaggeration or artistic licence, apparently.

[Lycunadari]

The most common definition of asexuality is usually "experiences little/no sexual attraction", but personally I prefer the more open "experiences sex or sexual attraction in a way that's different from how allosexual people are expected to experience it". So "I don't find people sexually attractive" falls under it, but so does "I just don't care about sex", "I'm only attracted to fictional characters", "I can't tell the difference between sexual attraction and other kinds of attraction" or "trying to figure out if I'm ace or not is just to much work".

[Rater202]

"I am capable of sexual attraction but do not see acting on such as worth it."

[Lycunadari]

"I am capable of sexual attraction but do not see acting on such as worth it."

Yup, counts as ace if you want it to (I always see identity words as opt-in)!

[Domino Quartz]

So, I came out to a family member (my brother) as bisexual earlier today. He was very accepting. He basically said something more or less to the effect that as long as everybody involved in a given situation is a consenting adult, it's fine as far as he's concerned. It made me very happy.

[TaiLiu]

So, I came out to a family member (my brother) as bisexual earlier today. He was very accepting. He basically said something more or less to the effect that as long as everybody involved in a given situation is a consenting adult, it's fine as far as he's concerned. It made me very happy.

That's great!

[Dire Moose]

I remember seeing some of your old posts and in some sense I've followed your trajectory from genderfluid to (relatively binary) trans woman. I'm glad to hear that it's gone so well.

Thank you. I’m happy with where things are going, even if the road has been rough.

[enderlord99]

Sock, Ray, Blue

[theangelJean]

Hiya all, haven't been active in the thread for years. I catch up now and then. Good to see you all "still going strong" like the thread title says.

Virtual hugs to anyone who's not feeling strong, you can find me in the same place emotionally because I've lived here for 40 years, insecurity is a figurative load of **** that we carry on our shoulders, backs and heads until we're exhausted and dump it all over someone. I'm still here anyway, you're still here and we made it this far. That's got to be worth something.

Does "I see the appeal of sexual intercourse but honestly it seems like too much work for not enough pay-off" count as a kind of ace?

This speaks to me so much right now. I don't personally identify as ace but I definitely have a low sex drive. I happen to be cis-het and married so it shouldn't be a big deal, right, it's normal for women, right? Stuff that, there is no normal.

In my case this thread helped me many years ago to figure out that I was demisexual. I will strike up a deep and meaningful conversation with just about anyone, and have recently started wondering if I'm panromantic, but actual arousal quite often feels like too much effort. Not for any lack of intimacy - my husband and I are closer emotionally than ever, kisses are great, and holding hands is my favourite thing which I'm so lucky to get to do every night. And don't get me wrong, it is fun when I do deliberately put myself in to the mindset, relax, let my body do its thing ... It just takes a lot of mental effort to get there and I don't seek it out. I am wondering if part of is how much I have been out of touch with my body and stuck in my head, which is partly inattentive type ADHD and partly flat-out ignoring my body out of habit.
And that's playing on "twenty year established relationship" easy mode - if I weren't partnered, I would be physically attracted to precisely zero people and it would be that much more work to get to the point of even "wanting" sex, much less enjoying it. Add in my husband being definitely allo and my base insecurity, and I go back to my default state of feeling like I am just not enough (but that's another story which is entirely to do with me rather than him, which I'll dump on you all in future posts)

So, err, I don't know exactly what place you are at the moment, Rater202, but you've managed to encapsulate precisely where I am right now, so thank you. And you're not alone. And sure, you could call it a type of ace, if you felt like it. Personally I like being overly specific (see: the above wall of text) so I feel like "demi" describes me better and you might not feel the same. But that feeling of "yes sex exists, cool, but it's so much work" is definitely there.

[Rater202]

So, err, I don't know exactly what place you are at the moment, Rater202.

Well, it started a couple of years ago when Lazodiac commented based on some things I said that sh thought I might be nonbinary...

...And it ended with me thinking that the entire concept of Gender is complete bull**** coupled with the realization that I have never been attracted to someone in a way that wasn't either childish infatuation or base physical attraction and even with physical attraction the idea of actually being with someone sounds like too much work given that even a "casual" relationship requires a lot of upkeep and that human bodies are kind of icky.

I have no idea what labels most accurately apply if any, and honestly, I can't decide if there are too many labels or not enough for any given thing.

I did discover Voidpunk during all of this, which was my "there's a name for it" moment.

[theangelJean]

Thanks for replying, I did actually want to know where you were coming from, even if my post was all about me :p

There are a few different ideas to discuss in your post, but I'm going to resist the urge to go over them point by point - let me know if you want to hear that bit. For now, I'll skip most of them and come back to them later.

What stood out to me was the way you think of your attractions to people: you describe them as

childish infatuation or base physical attraction

Whatever it is that you feel/have felt in terms of emotional or physical attraction - without sticking labels on them - I get the sense that you don't like the way you feel/felt. Am I hearing you right?

(And if I'm right, well fair enough, you don't have to like your feelings. I certainly have plenty I don't like.)

I'm going to tease apart your phrasing a little more:

I have never been attracted to someone in a way that wasn't <snip>

You definitely have a sense that there's something more out there that you haven't experienced. My question now is, are you looking at what you feel and have felt in the past, and already judging it as inadequate, or maybe just "not enough"?

(Story of my life, by the way. I realised recently that every single thought, feeling and even principle I have ever had can be boiled down to the idea of "not enough". )

Because if you're feeling that way, I'll just point out that there's a difference in concept between
- "What I have/had isn't everything" there is more out there
- "What I feel/felt is not the same as other people's feelings" different things for different people
- "What I have/had wasn't enough" you actually want something more
- "What I have/had wasn't good enough" you don't like your past experiences
- "I wasn't good enough" you don't like who you were
- "They weren't good enough" who you were with, wasn't right for you
- "I'm not good enough" you don't like who you are.

Personally I've lived that last one all my life, and I'm struggling to turn it around. It isn't actually a logical conclusion from the first one though. None of them are - they're all different things. So while the first one will always be true, it's important to remember that the rest might not be. Which ones are true for you right now?

[Rater202]

Honestly, I legitimately don't care.

Like... "I've never felt genuine romantic feelings for someone" and "I'm sexually attracted to people but don't think I'll ever actually do anything about it" are just kind of... Observations I've made?

Like, I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other.

[theangelJean]

Honestly, I legitimately don't care.

Like... "I've never felt genuine romantic feelings for someone" and "I'm sexually attracted to people but don't think I'll ever actually do anything about it" are just kind of... Observations I've made?

Like, I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other.

Okay! I was totally projecting my own stuff on what you wrote, then.

Well, if it's not a big deal to you, then I can see why you aren't fussed about labels. You don't need a label to be you. Like I said, language is for communication, and if "I've never felt genuine romantic feelings for someone" and "I'm sexually attracted to people but don't think I'll ever actually do anything about it" work well enough in saying what you want to say, you don't need to boil them down to one word. I can't see anyone demanding "so what does that make you?"

If you want to know whether there are people who feel the same way you do (the answer is always yes, by the way) I am guessing that you could indeed find them in a group of people who label themselves Ace. But that's just my guess.

[Kesnit]

Just a small rant...

I'm a public defender. The annual conference of all PDs in the state was this week. At the conference, there are 1-hour long sessions led by other attorneys (usually other PDs) with an interest in the topic. Although I didn't realize it until I got there Thursday, one of the breakout sessions that afternoon involved how to work with and represent transgender and NB juvenile clients. I had signed up for a different class at that time, but my boss (who knows I'm trans) went. I asked him later what was discussed, and was disgusted with how low level and petty the class was. My boss summed it up as "ask what name and pronouns they use. The word 'tranny' is offensive. Don't ask about their genitalia."

What made this extremely frustrating is that at the end of September, the governor of state released recommended guidelines for public schools that "would require transgender students to use school facilities and programs matching their 'biological sex.' Parents would have to give approval for teachers and other staff members to refer to students by a different name or pronoun at school, and families would have to provide legal documentation to change a student’s name and gender on official school records." (quotes from the Washington Post article about the walkouts.) The policy also requires teachers, guidance counselors, and other school officials to inform parents when a student comes out to the school official. This led to walkouts of students across the state.

This policy and the walkouts would have been PERFECT topics of discussion in the class. Instead, they were barely touched on and not discussed. I am LIVID. Sure, as PDs, we don't get involved in school-related matters unless they involve a crime. But this proposed policy and the consequences if it goes into effect can provide background if and when the consequences rise to the level of the juvenile justice system. (And they will. Bullied students retaliate. Parents charged with child abandonment for kicking out their queer child. Etc.)

[lio45]

"Don't ask about their genitalia."

That basic general advice applies well to all attorneys for all clients at all times!

It's pretty crazy it had to be said out loud

[Kesnit]

That basic general advice applies well to all attorneys for all clients at all times!

It's pretty crazy it had to be said out loud

My boss said the same thing. In 25 years of doing this job, he could not recall a single time the genitals of the client were relevant. (I can only think of 1 circumstance where they would be - if someone alleges a man did something with his penis and that man turns out to be a transman who has not had bottom surgery.)

Oh, and I forgot to mention it above, but there was another relevant topic of discussion. (Well, maybe relevant, since the talk dealt with the juvenile justice system. But it could be expended to juveniles.) A transwoman won a case at the federal circuit (one level below the US Supreme Court) holding that it was a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act to house her with male inmates. She was originally housed with women, then when it was discovered she was in transition, they housed her with men, refused to give her hormones (that she had been on for 15 years), would not give her a bra, and had her strip searched* by male corrections officers.



* As I understand it, strip searching is common in jails and prisons. That she was strip searched was not a violation. That she was strip searched by men rather than women was the violation.

[TaiLiu]

This policy and the walkouts would have been PERFECT topics of discussion in the class. Instead, they were barely touched on and not discussed. I am LIVID. Sure, as PDs, we don't get involved in school-related matters unless they involve a crime. But this proposed policy and the consequences if it goes into effect can provide background if and when the consequences rise to the level of the juvenile justice system. (And they will. Bullied students retaliate. Parents charged with child abandonment for kicking out their queer child. Etc.)

Sorry. That's frustrating.

Oh, and I forgot to mention it above, but there was another relevant topic of discussion. (Well, maybe relevant, since the talk dealt with the juvenile justice system. But it could be expended to juveniles.) A transwoman won a case at the federal circuit (one level below the US Supreme Court) holding that it was a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act to house her with male inmates. She was originally housed with women, then when it was discovered she was in transition, they housed her with men, refused to give her hormones (that she had been on for 15 years), would not give her a bra, and had her strip searched* by male corrections officers.

Do you remember what the ADA had to do with transphobia / transmisogyny? It's certainly a moral violation on many counts, and extraordinarily cruel and violent, but I guess I wouldn't have considered it ableist.

[Anonymouswizard]

That basic general advice applies well to all attorneys for all clients at all times!

I think it applies to pretty much everybody at all times

Which I say as somebody who has broken that rule. Multiple times actually, and only with good friends or partners, but I still shouldn't have asked.

[enderlord99]

Do you remember what the ADA had to do with transphobia / transmisogyny? It's certainly a moral violation on many counts, and extraordinarily cruel and violent, but I guess I wouldn't have considered it ableist.

I wondered the same thing when I first read it, then went "yeah, actually, that makes sense" but I still couldn't tell you why it makes sense.

[BisectedBrioche]

My first guess would be that the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria (which is how some institutions insist in defining being trans) is allowing someone to transition, so blocking someone from treatment for it would be the same as blocking treatment for any other ailment.

[ArlEammon]

I (Trigger Warning For mentions of past traumas)

Spoiler

Show

don’t know what to do. I’m living through the after math of abusive ABA therapy, Conversion therapy, and child grooming. I’m 38 but I feel so guilty about still hurting over this.

shouldn’t I be able to move on after thirty years

[Kesnit]

Do you remember what the ADA had to do with transphobia / transmisogyny? It's certainly a moral violation on many counts, and extraordinarily cruel and violent, but I guess I wouldn't have considered it ableist.

I wondered the same thing when I first read it, then went "yeah, actually, that makes sense" but I still couldn't tell you why it makes sense.

Quotes are from the 4th Cir holding. As it has not yet been "published" (legalese for given an official citation), I cannot include a full cite.

Among its protections, the ADA prohibits public entities from discriminating against, or excluding from participation in the benefits of services, programs, and activities, any qualified individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The ADA defines the term 'disability' broadly to include 'a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.'"

"[T]he Sheriff relies on the ADA’s exclusions. The statute excludes from the broad definition of 'disability' — and thus from the statute’s protections — 'transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, [and] other sexual behavior disorders.' Sheriff Kincaid argues, and the district court held, that the exclusion for 'gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments' applied to Williams’ gender dysphoria and barred her ADA claim."

The Court goes on to say that Congress has directed the Courts to interpret the ADA as broadly as possible, and to limit what falls under exclusions.

The Court goes to the DSM to analyze "gender identity disorder" and "gender dysphoria." Gender Identity Disorder was used in the DSM in 1990, when the latest version of the ADA was passed. The most up-to-date DSM has removed "gender identity disorder" and inserted "gender dysphoria." This is because of new scientific understanding of the issue.

"And the DSM-5 explains that the discomfort or distress caused by gender dysphoria may result in intense anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and even suicide. DSM-5 at 454–55. In short, 'being trans alone cannot sustain a diagnosis of gender dysphoria under the DSM-[5], as it could for a diagnosis of gender identity disorder under [earlier versions of the DSM]'."

"if a transgender person does not experience “clinically significant distress,” she could not be diagnosed as having gender dysphoria under the DSM-5."

"Reflecting this shift in medical understanding, we and other courts have thus explained that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, unlike that of 'gender identity disorder[],' concerns itself primarily with distress and other disabling symptoms, rather than simply being transgender. In Grimm, we further explained that 'left untreated, gender dysphoria can cause, among other things, depression, substance use, self-mutilation, other self-harm, and suicide.' 972 F.3d at 595. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has pointed out that '[f]ailure to follow an appropriate treatment plan [for gender dysphoria] can expose transgender individuals to a serious risk of psychological and physical harm.'” Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 771 (9th Cir. 2019).

"Put simply, while the older DSM pathologized the very existence of transgender people, the recent DSM-5’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria takes as a given that being transgender is not a disability and affirms that a transgender person’s medical needs are just as deserving of treatment and protection as anyone else’s."

"Thus, the ADA excludes from its protection anything falling within the plain meaning of 'gender identity disorders,' as that term was understood “at the time of its enactment.' Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1738. But nothing in the ADA, then or now, compels the conclusion that gender dysphoria constitutes a 'gender identity disorder' excluded from ADA protection. For these reasons, we agree with Williams that, as a matter of statutory construction, gender dysphoria is not a gender identity disorder."

I'm not going to quote this part, but the Court goes on to say the fact that Williams takes hormones is a basis to view her gender dysphoria as having a physical basis.

The Court then points out that a law that excludes transgender people as a class be discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. A previous 4th Circuit holding has already held that laws discriminating against trans people are entitled to review under intermediate scrutiny. (The middle level, between "rational basis," and "strict scrutiny.")

"Thus, such laws will 'fail unless they are substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest.' Grimm, 972 F.3d at 608 (cleaned up). And '[t]o survive intermediate scrutiny, the state must provide an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’” for the law. Id. (quoting United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 534 (1996) (VMI))."

If anyone wants to read the full holding, here is the link.

[TaiLiu]

I (Trigger Warning For mentions of past traumas)

Spoiler

Show

don’t know what to do. I’m living through the after math of abusive ABA therapy, Conversion therapy, and child grooming. I’m 38 but I feel so guilty about still hurting over this.

shouldn’t I be able to move on after thirty years

Spoiler

Show

That's awful. I'm sorry you had to go through all that. Unfortunately, if traumatogenic symptoms don't dissipate soon after a traumatic injury, those symptoms usually linger. Treatment and management are possible, but time itself won't close those wounds. It's not your fault you're not able to move on. I hope you're able to find healing in whatever form (counseling, community, something else) it may take.

Incidentally, as you may know, ABA and conversion therapy are historically tied. It might mean that working on one trauma may help alleviate symptoms from the other. Maybe that's a reason for hope.

I wondered the same thing when I first read it, then went "yeah, actually, that makes sense" but I still couldn't tell you why it makes sense.

Oh, I see. Does the official explanation jive with your original intuitions?

My first guess would be that the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria (which is how some institutions insist in defining being trans) is allowing someone to transition, so blocking someone from treatment for it would be the same as blocking treatment for any other ailment.

Gotcha! Yeah, it seems like that was the official explanation.

Quotes are from the 4th Cir holding. As it has not yet been "published" (legalese for given an official citation), I cannot include a full cite...

If anyone wants to read the full holding, here is the link.

I appreciate the thorough explanation and the link! (And the work that you do as a public defender. ) I guess the short story is that gender dysphoria counts as a disability under the ADA. I wasn't previously aware that was a thing.

Also, god, all those awful people doing awful transphobic things in the holding. I'm glad she's not there anymore.

[enderlord99]

Oh, I see. Does the official explanation jive with your original intuitions?

Not exactly, but kind of. It makes sense, in any case.

[theangelJean]

Interesting.

So, just checking if I understand this correctly...

"Gender identity disorder" is no longer considered to be a category of mental illness, which means that treatments aimed at "changing the mind" are not valid.

Gender dysphoria is considered a medical condition, which justifies the availability of medical treatment such as hormones and surgery.

If you identify as a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth, you can identify as transgender. If this does not actually bother you, in theory you can be transgender without suffering from gender dysphoria?

Maybe in a different society, someday that might be a thing. When gender norms aren't so strongly baked into society, and if your body doesn't match your identity, some people might find that has a noticeable effect on their lives, and others might ... not?

But in the meantime, at least medicalising the condition serves to legitimise the hormone/surgical treatments, to the point where they can be considered treatment for a chronic condition which requires accommodations. Maybe they might even acknowledge that misgendering people and other transphobic behaviours can exacerbate the condition!

I'm trying to see a parallel with the way that disability advocates frame "disability" as a societal problem requiring structural change. But maybe it's exactly the other way around.

[TaiLiu]

Not exactly, but kind of. It makes sense, in any case.

Oh, okay. Cool cool.

I'm trying to see a parallel with the way that disability advocates frame "disability" as a societal problem requiring structural change. But maybe it's exactly the other way around.

Yeah, I think "exactly the other way around" is right. You're referring to the social model of disability, right? The legal argument does seem to be much more medical model–based (whatever that medical model is).

[Dire Moose]

It still kind of amazes me that humans can change genders, even five years after I did it myself.

[theangelJean]

It still kind of amazes me that humans can change genders, even five years after I did it myself.

Agreed that it's amazing. Which aspect do you find most fascinating? (No special reason for asking, I just like hearing what interests people.)

[Dire Moose]

Agreed that it's amazing. Which aspect do you find most fascinating? (No special reason for asking, I just like hearing what interests people.)

I suppose it’s just how perfect some of the changes are; like it’s impossible to tell with a lot of people that they ever been different. I feel like if I z went back and talked to some of my old acquaintances, they would find it nearly impossible to recognize me now.

EDIT: Actually, more to the point, gender is one of those things that everyone has mostly assumed to be a permanent part of all of us, and knowing that it can actually be changed has a certain wow factor to it as a result.

[Dire Moose]

So on November 17, 2017, I took my very first dose of estrogen. One of the best decisions of my life, and five years, a pair of D-cup boobs, and my butt no longer fitting my old boy pants later and I absolutely don’t regret it.

And yet, it doesn’t feel like it’s been that long. Even though I’m usually one of the longest-transitioned in the queer friend groups I’ve been with and looked up to as an inspiration somehow, I still feel like I’ve barely even started and hardly even know what I’m doing.