devtesla wrote
I think you're making some wrong assessments of the situation, not in thinking that it's dangerous out there, but thinking that detransitioning is getting you out of it. These fuckers want to come for basically everyone. The only reason they haven't yet is because ICE is unpopular and America is big, getting caught requires legal trouble or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They do go off visual indicators, so maybe being "viably trans" is an issue. Maybe social media is relevant if they get into your phone but so would every single thing you do on it.
If you can leave the country, than that's probably smart. And maybe being stealthy is good in specific situations. But like, everyone is in danger. It is the bad time. And from what I've seen I think people are starting to actually understand that we're in this together.
twovests OP wrote
There's the baseline of transphobia and sexism, for starters. That's a big part of it. I think even at the best point in living memory, not even 50% of people were convinced women are people, y'know? It adds friction and risk to everything, and takes time and energy to be trans.
All the added violence and delegitimization of trans people is too much, basically. It's not just danger, but also the "Trans people are pedos, don't let them near your kids" stuff, and the "No passports for trans people" stuff. Does that count as danger? Maybe not, but we're not even 1/6th of the way through this.
Maybe social media is relevant if they get into your phone but so would every single thing you do on it.
Eh, I disagree; I think it's very relevant, and them getting my phone isn't even concern number 1.
First, surveillance aside, Facebook has just made the world meaningfully worse, and continues to do so. "Facebook gave us Trump" is a true thing. The tea party would still have existed, and the pendulum do be swinging, but I think we might have had something less than abject fascism.
But for surveillance, very little of what people do on Meta platforms live on their phones. It's on their servers. Questions like "Did this user have a trans flag emoji in their bio in the past five years?" are questions that could be delivered in probably a 24 hour period. This is a much more powerful information tool than existed during the time of the nazis.
That, combined with tech companies assuming the most ingratiating posture of surrender imaginable, is not good!
I don't think it will manifest as a "Kristallnacht but for trans people". But what comes next after the passport problem, the restrictions on gender affirming care, the military ban? It's not doomerism to acknowledge that they're probably not done with making life harder for trans people.
Totally achievable goals include banning HRT. By desisting now, I'm able to not be a strain on HRT supplies in the future.
Achievable goals also include mandating social media require users use pronouns matching their AGAB, expanding the infrastructure of forced ID checks.
And, if trans people become an increasingly load-bearing scapegoat, maybe people with a trans history can't use social media also used by children, or drive a car (we're insane, after all), or even have a phone number. Deportations are also achievable.
It's not useful to spend so much time thinking about things the worst things that might happen. But (1) I don't want to be trans the way things are now, and (2) I especially don't want to be trans anticipating things will get worse until they get better. I was already really worried about being trans when I was considering it in the good ol' Obama and Biden years.
Part of the "I won't vote for genocide Joe" was in knowing that Trump would be a lot worse for trans people, and in anticipating that Dems still believe in "compromise" and that trans people are somewhere they could compromise on. But maybe it felt silly to be vocal about a hypothetical trans genocide during an very real ongoing genocide.
Sorry for turning this into another ramble lol
flabberghaster wrote
Totally achievable goals include banning HRT. By desisting now, I'm able to not be a strain on HRT supplies in the future.
I didn't want to comment on the rest of this because you have to make the right choice for yourself, but this in particular, well this is kind of talking like there's a fixed supply of HRT. But HRT is a market and if more people use it more of it will be produced; just like more people doing drugs results not in less drugs going around, but rather more drugs being moved. It's obviously different in important ways, BUT, by using them you're not denying someone else them except on a very short timescale.
So, if your main reasons are you don't want to deal with discrimination that makes total sense and while it bums me out whenever I hear a person I care about talk like that it's legit, you gotta stay safe.
But if you're doing it because you're worried you're gonna use up resources others could use, then I would say no, that's wrong, it's not a zero sum game that way.
twovests OP wrote
Totally fair, and I roughly agree on you. The problem is that all of these points are ones which I have to force myself not to qualify with all the details, lest I make each post a collection of 1000 essays.
This "HRT can be banned and I'd be a strain on the local DIY scene" is a <1% weight worry for me. Even "HRT can be banned" maybe weights for 1% of my concerns.
This is one of the few regards where transfem people have it much easier. Estrogen and progesterone aren't controlled substances like testosterone is, and currently are very easy to source online.
For testosterone, I'm aware of no DIY scene within 200 miles (but I hope that is just good opsec). All the calculus I know about is about prescriptions and stockpiles. The three other people who I know who are desisting or detransitioning are trans guys.
For estrogenizing hormones and antiandrogens, it flows pretty readily. It'll flow as long as horses pee, and I can't even see the worst excesses of a fascist regime also doing a horse genocide. The overseas sources of feminizing HRT dwarf my local DIY scene, and my DIY scene dwarfs the needs of the people taking feminizing hormones inside of it.
So, it's a "maybe 1%" thing, but there are just so many 1% worries alongside the big-ticket worries.
devtesla wrote
anticipating that Dems still believe in "compromise" and that trans people are somewhere they could compromise on
Extremely fair, but they've refused to do that twice now to my massive surprise. I think they know it'll be seen as a first step down a road they don't want to go down. That's my hope at least.
Whatever happens, stay safe.
twovests OP wrote
While I disagree with the common lib narrative that pesky Gaza protest voters were the reason for Trump's victory, I do think it's fair to say (1) Dems are broadly entirely better on trans issues than Republicans, and (2) we broadly rejected Democrats despite that.
I might have owed more nuance to the idea. It's not just Dems who compromised on trans issues. I did too! I came around to the position that 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' thinking gives permission for the US to export death around the world. I thought at least liberalism was built around being able to identify and stop a genocide taking place within its realm. So, for my very small part, I compromised on trans rights in favor of another issue.
I think "massive surprise" is a fair framing to the past 11 months of Dem reactions. We're* only about 1% of the population and I'd assume there are more single-issue voters to gain by compromising on trans rights than there are to lose.
But on the totally other side, we have Gavin Newsom and a few other Democrats (especially during November 2024) pretty openly saying "Maybe we went too far with the whole 'trans rights' thing", especially vis-a-vis girls sports.
I'm putting the bar on the floor here, but if the 2026 midterms roll around and Democrats haven't further regressed on trans rights, I'll be pleasantly surprised. Gavin "trans girls shouldn't play sports but should be allowed to exist otherwise" Newsom 2028 might be better than a JD "the answer to your existential question is 'no sir' lol" Vance 2028.
*Aside: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to say "We". Since desisting I've been put into the 'ally' camp by some people in my community as I've operated in more spaces. It hurts but I can't say it's unfair, given I've also thrown around the verbiage of "something like cis male privilege" for myself to explain where I'm at. "Ally" might just be the best descriptor, and a lot of my identity is built around how I am interpreted. But I am also very transgender and I've had permanent physical changes that I don't intent to try and reverse.
Sorry that this comment makes another essay, I am packed to the brim with thoughts I guess.
devtesla wrote
Haha it's good to talk it out just post.
There's a lot of bullshit democrats are saying for sure, but when it came to the July bill and the most recent shutdown the Republicans were going to make a "if you make it impossible to be trans in this country, we'll not shut down the government" deal and both times that didn't happen. There's clearly a red state blue state divide right now, but the appetite for compromise is much lower than I expected out of the dems. This isn't like Labor in the UK that's full on trans genocide now.
twovests OP wrote
This is well said, I agree.
(I have nothing to add because I completely agree, but I wanted to acknowledge that with more than an upvote)
I_got_killed_one_time wrote (edited )
ive never seen the word " desisting " in a trans context, can i ask what it means ? you seem to be using it separately from " detransing "
twovests OP wrote
Someone told me that what I am doing is known as "desisting", i.e. titrating down from hormones, and not "detransitioning", which is usually associated with considerably more effort (being a whole another transition on its own). I assumed it was regular verbiage but I don't use other internet too much
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments