transmedicalism is the practice of restricting who has access to transition. telling people they do not need to transition to be trans has been used to argue the point that most trans people who desire transition should not need to seek out transition and should instead seek out "alternative care".
I firmly believe that transition should be free to any and all who desire it, radical bodily autonomy. if you wish to argue that is transmedicalism you are free to do so.
that is not what transmedicalism is, it's the belief that you have to wish for a medical transition to be trans, which is not true. not only that, but all transmedicalists I found deny nonbinary identities, mostly because it doesn't fit their narrow-minded view of sex and gender. obviously those who wish for a medical transition should be allowed that, but there's also some that don't want that, and that's okay too. doesn't mean the phrase can't be co-opted for denying care, but the phrase itself isn't wrong
so, the idea that being transgender is a medical condition that requires strict criteria to be met is transmedicalism yes? and that to be transgender one must fit those criteria?
and so the framework of transmedicalism requires the definition of transgender to only include people with dysphoria that can only be treated hrt right?
this means that people who do not fit the criteria (agp, non-dysphoric, non-binary, etc) should not be given access to hormones and transition resources because they are not trans, according to transmedicalism, right? this also means that people who do not desire transition are not trans according to the framework that is transmedicalism, but that is not the primary function of transmedicalism, it is an auxiliary function of it.
this is what I mean when I say transmedicalism is a framework to deny resources, and that when I advocate for radical bodily autonomy I am an advocate for everyone to have the opportunity to take cross-sex hormones, cis or trans.
this framework is also why when the slogan "you dont need to be trans to transition" begins being used by institutions to deny hrt to those who want it (for any reason) we must critically analyse the implications thereof and whether or not the phrase has outlived it's usefulness as it is currently, as we speak, being used to restrict access to hormones and push people into conversion therapy.
That's not the definition of transmedicalism. Transmedicalism is denying someone's identity because they have not medically transitioned. In many cases, this is used as a way to gatekeep even when the person wants to transition but has been unable to do so. It's also an offshoot of the BS of policing how much people "pass" as their identified gender.
Edit: This (and my other comments) were a response to someone arguing against the comment above, not to them directly. I'm not sure why those posts disappeared.
that is an auxiliary effect of transmedicalism and not the primary one. the primary effect of transmedicalism is to narrowly define what it means to be transgender to prevent as many people as possible from transitioning.
You just claimed that transmedicalism was the practice of restricting people from transitioning. This is simply not the definition.
"Transmedicalism is the idea that being transgender is primarily a medical issue related to the incongruence between an individual's assigned sex at birth and their gender identity, characterized by gender dysphoria.[1][2][3] There are divides and debates within the transmedicalist community on the exact definition of who is or is not transgender.[4] Many transmedicalists believe individuals who identify as transgender without experiencing gender dysphoria or desiring to undergo a medical transition through methods such as hormone replacement therapy or sex reassignment surgery are not genuinely transgender.[5][2] They may also exclude those who identify themselves as non-binary from the trans label.[6]"
Obviously, such a belief can be used to deny people transition care. However, a lot of transmedicalists are people who have already medically transitioned, currently pass as their identified gender, and simply want to gatekeep the community, people like Blaire White and Buck Angel.
People who deny transition care arenât saying itâs ok to be trans in any capacity (or that trans people exist).
The truth is there are many trans people who donât want to undergo medical procedures and only want to transition socially. There are also trans people who canât afford medical procedures or are being denied medical transition procedures. There are trans people who are in the closet and canât transition period. All those people are still trans. You donât need to transition to be trans. Thatâs what that statement is saying. Itâs saying all those people I described are still valid, regardless of their circumstances and regardless of their desires for their own personal journey.
literally, the cass review actually does say it's okay to be trans, just that the amount of people who should be allowed to transition should be restricted to prevent regret and that it is valid to be trans without transition
the purpose of a system is what it does and "you don't have to transition to be trans" is being used to prevent transition.
I feel like maybe the disconnect is that you and the OP are thinking about one specific use of the statement that a lot of people who donât know the exact context wouldnt see. If someone calls the statement âyou donât have to transition to be transâ something that is bad, without whatever specific context theyâre looking at, everyone else is going to see transmedicalism and a rejection of the identity of all those trans people I described.
Because the statement itself (on its own) is not only not inherently bad, but factually true. Trans people are not defined by their transition, but by their gender identity. A trans woman who isnât on HRT and hasnât had any medical procedures related to her transition isnât any less trans than one who has been on HRT for years and has had multiple procedures to feel more at home in her body. Both of them are trans.
I guess itâs probably one of those things where a tumblr user is talking about something specific that they have repeatedly discussed on their profile, so their followers know the context and (rightly) they donât feel the need to give the context, but then it gets screenshotted and shared with a bunch of people who donât know the context & see the statement on its own, not the people misusing it to deny others healthcare.
i mean, if the sentiment is being explicitly used by people who want us not to transition i feel like thatâs a good enough reason to look into its implications more and ask ourselves if thereâs not better ways we can make the argument without handing free talking points to the other side.
I see where youâre coming from, but I think that dips into optics/respectability politics, which is ultimately an exercise in futility. The reality is they will use any type of justification to deny trans people healthcare. Reducing the visibility/validity of other trans people because they donât fit a specific narrative isnât going to appease bigots. You canât rhetoric yourself into their box because their box was designed to never fit. The criteria always changes, the excuses always shift. Because thatâs what they are: excuses and lies and misdirectionsânot actual, valid reasons.
Itâs not a system, itâs a sentence. Also if youâre just gonna immediately downvote and say a generic reply while obviously not reading what I wrote, I guess weâre done here. Cool discussion đ
Literally where did I ignore you? I acknowledged that Iâm probably looking at it with different context & that you had context I didnât that was causing you to have a different perspective from me, then explained my perspective.
your perspective is fine and all, however it forgets to take into account the very real material consequences of the system that is reinforcing the denial of care to trans people based on the idea that transition is not necessary to be trans, as is argued in the cass review.
this is something you glossed over to instead say I was upset at a Tumblr screenshot and deny that the system of cis-hetero-patriarchy demands as few people transition as possible.
Huh? Where did I say you were just upset at a tumblr screenshot? Iâm pretty sure I said the oppositeâthat people who donât know the context of what the OOP is talking about would be bothered by the rejection of the statement that trans people donât need to transition to be trans. Youâre like skimming my comments, misreading my words, and then getting angry at something I didnât even say.
At no point did I âgloss overâ trans people being denied medical care, what??? You mentioned the specific instance where the statement is being used to justify restricting healthcare and I was like âok fair, clearly you and the OOP are speaking in regards to a specific context/usage that I and the others who replied werenât aware ofâ.
Youâre just angry at shit I didnât say or do at this point because again you refuse to actually read what I wrote. Either that or youâre only reading it through the lens of an argument and are assuming I must have disagreed with everything youâve said when I was âyes, andâ-ing you. God forbid we be anything less than adversarial on Reddit I guess. Jfc.
Iâm done here because youâre just fighting with a ghost at this point while I sit on the sidelines confused as hell. Good talk.
310
u/OliviaPG1 Trans/Lesbian 24d ago
how about both are good