. It means that one day we may be able to treat the root cause and let them be happy in their natural bodies. With physical disorders, that's not an option.

Playing devil's advocate, there are studies showing trans people are physically and biologically different than their typically gendered peers. What if being trans stems from hormonal development in the womb? Or a gene misfire? Or neurological development? It's premature to say being trans is "all in their head" (by which I mean that it's a psychological issue) when it may very well turn out to be a physical issue.

. I just can't get my head completely wrapped around it. Based on my (perhaps willful) ignorance, I don't know that I want to pay for you to be transgendered. I'm not for it, and I'm not opposed to it: I frankly haven't put any thought into the concept until just now.

I respect someone who can say "I haven't thought much about this, so I don't have a huge opinion." Let me try to lay out where I'm coming from.

First, being trans (or gender identity disorder, GID) is listed in the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). While I have some issues with GID's listing, I'd rather go with the APA's view of what should and shouldn't be treatable than the general public's. That's why we have doctors, and don't make medical decisions based on democratic vote.

But I know appealing to authority - "The doctors say it's real!" - isn't going to convince anyone it's real. So lets talk about what it means to be trans, and why it's different from " a girl who feels she's grossly inadequate because of her bustline."

I The largest difference, I would say, is the pervasiveness. Very often, trans people (myself included) were aware of their gender incongruity long before puberty. Being trans isn't a 'sex' thing, it's an identity thing. Similarly, I - and most trans people I know - would continue on hormones and presenting as I identify, even if I were the last person on earth. Because it's about me, not solely about how others perceive me.

Likewise, transitioning works. For myself and for lots of other people. Where ex-gay therapies and the like fail, time and time again, a caring and appropriate medical team to help with a transition (or, for gay folks, a caring and appropriate therapist to help with coming out and feeling accepted) have better results than 'fixing the problem.

As for worrying about people doing something just for kicks, that's an issue right now with certain painkillers. But rather than saying "No one can have opiates," we regulate them and have medical providers help determine what's medically necessary. But I really think that's an unrealistic worry. (As a side note, I think we should be moving toward a more informed consent model for helping trans people, but that's a different conversation.)

If you're interested in more information as to why this is an important issue, check out Injustice at Every Turn, a report on trans Americans' experiences. Some 'fun' statistics: 90% of trans people have been harassed or discriminated against at a job, and 26% (including me!) have been fired because their trans. 28% have been harassed by a medical provider, and 19% have been refused service outright. And 41% have attempted suicide, versus 1.6% of the general population.

-Rebecca

I'm taking estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone blockers as part of hormone replacement therapy, along with anti-anxiety meds due to longstanding anxiety issues.

Going slightly off topic, one of the things that frustrated me during the debates about healthcare in the '08 election was how folks (I particularly remember McCain) would talk about the free market. If insurance companies won't insure you (due to preexisting conditions) the free market kinda fails for that consumer, doesn't it? Whether or not a business should be required to take a customer - which is what banning preexisting condition refusals would mean - is a different question, but don't pretend the 'free market' can automatically solve everything for everyone.

More broadly speaking, the healthcare debate following Obama's election once again frustrated me due to its language. Lets be honest: I and others like me who have preexisting, chronic conditions don't need insurance, to insure us against catastrophe, we need assurance, assurance we'll have help paying for medication and treatment we can't always afford. Because yeah, from an insurance company's point of view, I'm a shitty costumer. They know they're gonna have to pay out, $X, monthly, for the rest of my life. If I were running an insurance company, I sure wouldn't want trans clients (or clients with cancer, or diabetes, or any other chronic condition). Where's the money in that?

What I would have liked to see the debate be about instead was what type of medical care, as a society, do we want to provide to people who can't afford it? What do we do with them? Who - at the end of the day - pays for their treatment? That would at least be an honest discussion about values, instead of a veiled discussion about false rhetoric.

-Rebecca

Awesome use of scare quotes, but repealing DADT still leaves trans people in the dust. Ignoring the fact that (as someone mentioned below) trans people and gay people aren't the same thing (it's a Venn diagram with some overlap, just like straight and trans have some overlap) the US military will still be discriminating against trans people. Don't worry.

(How preventing a trans person like myself, with a tech background and a desire to serve her country, from entering military service helps keep our country safe is a whole different issue.),

PS - Is anyone else having trouble with the comment box? I wasn't able to paste properly,

As someone who is a fan of the Enthusiastic Consent model, I think you're misrepresenting its goals. Specifically...

So this [idea of Enthusiastic Conset] has morphed into an "anything can be considered rape" model, where even getting an affirmative "yes" to each of these questions is not enough. The "yes" has to be truly enthusiastic to count. So telling a girl that you love her and want to have sex with her is rape - because you are exploiting your relationship. Have a couple of drinks together? Rape. Tell her "it's Ok, everybody does it?" Rape. Know somebody who lives in a society that is OK with casual sexual encounters? Ooops, that might be social conditioning - better not try to hook up. 'Cause that's rape.

The idea of Enthusiastic Consent is not to rewrite rape legislation out of whole cloth. Rather, it's to create a social movement where the healthy expectation is that sex should only occur between two people who enthusiastically consent to the activity. To use your example, saying "It's OK, everybody does it" isn't and shouldn't be rape. But I'd sure say it's an ethically questionable way to get someone in bed with you. Likewise for exploiting a relationship status, likewise for using somebodies social expectations of casual sexual encounters to pressure them into sex. Again, none of those situations are rape but they're all situations in which the consent of one party was not given enthusiastically.

And as a woman who really enjoys having sex, surrounded by friends - male and female - who also enjoy having sex, why would I want any of us to be having sex that wasn't consented to with enthusiasm!? Why would you ever want that for yourself, or your friends, or your children? There are enough things in my life that I'm only blase about, sex shouldn't be one of them. And so no, Enthusiastic Consent does not mean that the situations you list somehow are transformed into rape. It does mean that they're indicative of a society which sees little wrong with unenthusiastic sexual encounters, and argues that that's a problem.

As a final note, you scoff at the idea of asking "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You don't get to decide what level of consent your partner has offered. And if you don't ask, you can't know for sure.

Of course, in many cases of rape, it is easy to define, which doesn't at all help understanding the cases where it is not as they are often all placed under the banner "rapists cause rape". Emotionally sensitive subjects like this are often easily decided before vigilance for the truth can be heard.

You raise a good point, and one I neglected to address: Claiming to be a victim does not, in fact, always mean you're actually a victim. Someone else on this thread gave the example of a woman drinking, giving explicit consent for sex, and then (when sober) rescinding that consent and calling it rape. In that, case, I'd agree that it's not, in fact, rape. (Whether or not the law would support my point of view.)

Now, I would suspect that the times where there isn't explicit consent vastly outweigh the times where there is rescinded consent, which is probably why the laws are weighted like that; in the favor of the one who is more likely to be the victim. But, unfortunately, I don't have any numbers to back that suspicion up, and statistical likelihood of rape is poor comfort to someone found guilty of a crime they (in my opinion) didn't commit.

Complicated issues, indeed...

Men are victimized by all violent crimes (except possibly rape, where men report lower rates by a factor of up to ten, but want to bet the reporting bias is huge?) at rates up to several times greater than women. A large part of the difference can be accounted for by differences in crime-avoidant behaviors. Women are taught a lot about how to avoid being a victim of violent crime. Men are not. And no one much cares.

I was skeptical of that claim, but it looks like you're mostly correct. For the lazy, women were 20 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, but men were more than twice as likely to be victims of armed robbery, 2.5 times more likely for aggravated assault, and 1.2 times more likely for simple assault. I'd argue about the wording of "several times greater" but that seems like nitpicking when the general point is sound.

What I don't know that I agree with is the role crime-avoidant behavior plays in those numerical differences. I can't find any studies on the subject, but I'd love to see one. I agree, in general, that victim-avoidant behavior and the overwhelming likelihood the violent crime offender is male account for those differences, but I'm really not sure by how much.

And I don't think any of that changes my original point, that victim-blaming is a bad thing. (radtea, I don't think you were saying this, I just want to make myself clear.)

The question that lurks in all this, and will for centuries to come is, at what point and how, do we hold victims accountable for NOT taking those precautions and what consequences are acceptable. It's the hot stove scenario, at what point is the manufacturing responsible for someone touching a hot burner (safety measures) and at what point is the victim (circumvents said measures). Do they share responsibility? One or the other?

Well-said. I've started (and deleted) a number of counter-arguments to other points in your post, but it seems like you're willing to concede my general premise: the one ultimately responsible for wrongdoing is the one committing the wrong act, even if the victim did not take steps to lessen their desirability as a target. It does sound like we would argue to what extent those steps (or lack thereof) should be taken into account when thinking about or analyzing the victim, but that's a different discussion than what I felt Runnaway1956 was saying, which seemed to drift into victim-blaming. (I'd also say it's a more fruitful discussion, even though the difference between victim-blaming and judging someone for poor behavior is usually a matter of perspective.)

-Trillian

PS - Probably won't forget the difference between lessen and lesson anytime soon... ;)

Here is the problem. The law (in the U.S.) does not work that way. Case in point. In the State of Nevada, if a woman has had anything to drink at all (notice the law does not cover men, but that is a different story), has sex with someone, she can file rape charges up to 48 hours (can not remember, might be 24 hours) after and it is assumed that it is by definition rape because she is intoxicated and could not make an informed CHOICE even if she verbally and physically consented.

US law doesn't always work that way

First, I would argue that rape and sex offender laws throughout the country are - from my limited knowledge and exposure to them - pretty ridiculous and inconsistent. You provide a good example, where someone could - in completely good faith - done everything in their power to be assured of consent, but nevertheless be charged with rape for factors out of their control. That's pretty stupid, and I hope a judge would have the cool-headedness to allow that information to play a part in any verdict.

However, I don't think your example counters my original point: the ultimate responsibility for wrong-doing lies with the one who committed the wrong act. And I can provide an example where the law does work that way, as a law in Florida says that the clothing of the victim cannot be admitted as evidence in a rape trial. More to the point, clothing can't be shown as justification for rape.

And that's my point: making potentially poor choices (for example, wearing revealing clothing in a dangerous neighborhood) does not excuse rape. Making poor social choices at school does not excuse bullying.

-Trillian

It doesn't matter what the law is, and it doesn't matter whose fault it is when you are dead because the asshole in the stationwagon wasn't paying attention when she changes into the lane that you on the motorcycle were rightfully occupying.

Spot on, and I'm sorry if my post came off a little strong. If I'm beaten to death because I'm trans - something that has a higher chance of happening than I like to think about - it doesn't do me much good to posthumously be declared 'not at fault' for my death. At the same time, I think there is a difference between the individual level and the societal level of responsibility. That is, on an individual level, yes - most people can do things to reduce their chance of victimization in $SITUATION. But, on the level of social and cultural expectations, there's a danger of that attitude drifting toward victim-blaming, which is what I think Runnaway1956 was doing.

There is, in my opinion, a fine line between advocacy or individual empowerment on the one hand, and blaming people who are victims on the other.

::grin:: No argument here. I just wanted to note that I fit the demographics who might be expected to completely dismiss Runnaway1956's point. I hope I didn't come across as doing so, as taking steps to reduce one's victimization is something any sane individual should do. But I feel very strongly that there's a difference between promoting safer, stronger behavior in potential victims and blaming victims for their misfortune.

If you do nothing [to lessen the chance of being a victim], though, you are relying on people who have chosen evil to instead do good, a very risky proposition.

I totally agree, and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post. I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to Runnaway1956's post, which I felt like was drifting toward victim-blaming.

-Trillian

I'm undoing moderation to post this, but I think your post is worth replying to.

Of course, suggesting that people in general, and women in particular, choose to ignore hints, cues, and clues that they are in danger isn't going to win any friends or respect. Especially among the women's rights activists.

Here's the thing: you're right, people who are the subject of violence can often (although certainly not always) do things to avoid being placed in a situation where violence is the end result. Pick up on the social cues bullies give off. Avoid dangerous streets or walking home alone. Don't wear such provocative clothing. And I say all that as a liberal, feminist, lesbian, intellectual, liberal arts major. That list could go on, but suffice it to say I am exactly the demographic who might be expected to dismiss or disagree with you, point blank. (And, indeed, I'm about to disagree with you. But I wanted to note that I don't totally disagree with you.)

Because you're also right that saying so won't win you points among many women's rights circles. And here's why: the ultimate responsibility for wrongdoing lies with the one committing the immoral act.

Bullies are responsible for bullying. Thieves are responsible for theft. Rapists are responsible for rape. Murderers are responsible for murder.

The point the grandparent was making was that there is a fine line between acknowledging ways to reduce one's risk and crossing over into victim-blaming. Likewise, it's really easy to leap from "kids can take specific actions to lesson the chance of being bullied" to "any child who was being bullied must have not taken proper action to avoid it!" And I believe that your argument is drifting in that direction

Had you stuck with saying that "people in general sometimes make poor decisions, which in turn can contribute to their being the victims of others" I wouldn't disagree for a second. But in your phrasing, you imply that "people in general, and women in particular" are all making these choices that result in bad things happening to them. Because, apparently, no child has ever been bullied, even though he did everything 'right.' No one has ever been walking home with a group of friends, in a well-lit area, not late at night, and still been mugged. No woman has had the poor misfortune of being assaulted or raped simply because of bad luck.

But even if that weren't the case - even if people were only bullied or raped after exhibiting clear, identifiable, preventable behavior - it still wouldn't excuse bullying, rape, or victim-blaming!

Again, I agree that people can often take steps to lesson their chances of being victims.

But ultimately, bullies cause bullying. Rapists cause rape.

-Trillian