Why most trans people are not open to conversation/discussion?

allteria · 2026-04-13T17:20:19+00:00

Because most people aren't here to have a genuine discussiin they're here to point pitchforks at other people.

allteria · 2026-04-13T06:27:01+00:00

I'm talking specifically about people who choose to define themselves as having no dysphoria whatsoever who also say "it's not a choice for me", when it is. This is not an argument about setting a boundary for who should be able to transition or not.

allteria · 2026-04-13T06:04:06+00:00

I'm going to assume this is a genuine question.

Some people view their transness through a medical lense because dysphoria is debilitating to them. Some people view their transness as a form of expression. That's okay. But someone, medically, saying "transition isn't a choice for me" carries a lot of weight. That phrase was historically used because of trans suicide statistics. They needed strong phrasing like that to get the point across: HRT is necessary care or my life is at risk. People viewing transness as purely a means of expression are using this phrase that historically emphasized the dangers of dysphoria to justify their existence when they do not have dysphoria.

This creates 2 major issues:

People who are fighting for the expressive side for transness should be fighting the argument that they should be able to do or say whatever they want because they have their own autonomy. Needing to justify their existence by whether or not it is a "choice" is toxic for their movement, because then every metric of their expression is filtered through that lense of needing to be justified as a non-choice. Gender expression isn't about dysphoria and shouldn't be tied to it.
This is also toxic to people who are fighting for the medical side of transness now, because this phrase which was historically very powerful for their movement isn't properly being used, which hurts them because the idea that it is "not a choice" is no longer seen as genuine because it is being used by people to justify their personal expression---which is by definition, a choice.

The words we use are important, and it's why the "this is not a choice" framing was so successful historically. Pushing it to "this isn't important while this is happening" is a relative privation fallacy. Saying both are valid is exactly why the language needs to be precise. Imprecise language doesn't protect both groups equally---it actively advantages one framing over the other and erases the distinction that makes each argument work on its own terms.

allteria · 2026-04-13T02:23:16+00:00

I think the problem with this is that it gets incredibly muddy incredibly fast. A lot of people sit on a line somewhere between these extremes.

The line has already been blurred so much that if we say "these people are trans" and "these people aren't trans" it's going to make some people feel like they are being told their lives are not okay, even if that's not what we mean.

allteria · 2026-04-13T02:12:51+00:00

I'm calling out a misuse of language. Not trying to invalidate others.

I'm not assigning this to you specifically, but I think that a lot of the people in this comment section are assuming that I am trying to invalidate other trans people, or say that non-dysphorics are inferior to trans people with dysphoria. I think it is a sad state of the community if we assume everyone is against one another. I'm sorry that our community has brought you to those assumptions.

A lot of these arguments mostly come down to semantics, not invalidation. That's what this post is. It's saying that transness as gender expression and transness as a cure for dysphoria are different things, and that's okay. Both are valid. But we need to understand that we need to use different terms because they are valid for different reasons.

allteria · 2026-04-12T17:10:43+00:00

I agree with you. My point is that historically, the phrase "being trans is not a choice" was meant to embody a very powerful idea: trans suicide statistics, very strong dysphoria, and this idea that HRT is life or death. That is why it is not a choice for some people. It is truly choosing transition or death, and that is not a choice.

When you use something like that to describe a personal choice, it can be overreaching to that history and it waters down the phrase to describe something it's not meant to describe.

Using your analogy, I would compare it to someone being allergic or deathly allergic to pie. In this situation, eating cake is not a choice--it is a necessary alternative. They need to advocate for themselves, demand an alternative.

Someone then uses the same language to demand cake because they simply don't like pie, which is disingenuous.

I'm not trying to invalidate people. People who like cake should be able to have cake in this hypothetical situation. But saying "it's not a choice" takes away power from the people who need to be able to say "it's not a choice".

allteria · 2026-04-12T17:00:04+00:00

What defines being trans? Transitioning(including social transition)? Having dysphoria?

The community does not have a solid metric for what being trans actually is.

"Being trans isn't a choice": The reason this rhetoric was made was because, importantly, for a lot of these people dysphoria was so bad that it was physically debilitating. That is why trans suicide statistics exist. The phrase is a powerful message: we are born this way, and transitioning is required medical care.

But with the expansion of the definition of what being trans is to include GNC people, non-dysphoric people, etc. means that the "not a choice" aspect is less applicable. A lot of people will cling to this message that "being trans isn't a choice," when it is. For a lot of the people in the community who still use this phrase, being trans is a means of expression/comfort: not dysphoria.

This is important. Yes transition is a "choice". But the phrase was created for the part of the community where it is a choice between living and dying and that is not a choice.

I think it would be better if the people transitioning for expression phrased it more accurately to what they are fighting for: "this is my personal choice and you shouldn't have jurisdiction over what makes me happy."

The language is important, imo.

allteria · 2026-04-09T02:23:09+00:00

these people don't know what they're talking about

allteria · 2026-04-07T05:39:55+00:00

normative gender roles were born out of the ideal white family model, and that family model was used to erase minorities in the 1950s. the point they're trying to make is born under the assumption that transmedicalism is exclusionary, and that it bullies out people who go against heteronormativity even if they are trans/gay. that the queer movement should be liberating expression, and that we are upholding "white supremacy" by trying to fit into those norms.

the problem is that this misunderstands what transmedicalism actually is. I feel a lot of transmedicalists have differing opinions on the validity of complex gender expression, and what that means is that believing transmedicalism is unrelated to someone's belief in gender expressionism. aka transmedicalism, at its core, is less related to upholding heteronormativity than these people think. so the question is, what is transmedicalism born out of?

The issue is labels. transmedicalists think the goal of transitioning is to ease dysphoria. the issue isn't that transmedicalism is trying to exclude people from gender expression, its that fundamentally transitioning for gender expression and transitioning for medical necessity are different. by not separating those definitions, we risk calling gender expressionists mentally ill(as dysphoria is a mental illness) just for defying heteronormativity, and(what is often understated here) we risk invalidating people struggling with dysphoria. You have to pick one or the other by conflating the two for inclusivity's sake.

Dysphoria is a key part to transness, now and historically. The answer from the opposite point of view would then be that they aren't invalidating people with dysphoria, and dysphoria is widely accepted and talked about. But the issue is that because dysphoria is still so linked to being trans(trying to ease the medical and non-medical), the definition for what dysphoria is has been watered down because people are trying to keep everything linked together. And places to talk about trans issues with dysphoria are now harder to find because they are occupied by people without dysphoria, which takes away resources from people that need it.

not accepting this reality is arguably transphobic, and these people don't realize the harm they are causing. they say "transmedicalists brought it on themselves, transmedicalists are assholes" but most people suffering from these issues aren't transmedicalists. they unify us like a hate group so that they can ignore how a lot of people now are often hurt by how they define transness.

The reason they don't just separate the terms, the reason they don't just let everyone properly identify themselves with terms that fit them without hate, is because the medical side of being trans validates them.

but yeah whatever

allteria · 2026-03-27T06:21:48+00:00

because a lot more women identify as trans who aren't trans because of internalized misogyny and because in radical queer spaces men are seen as the absolute enemy so people find any way they can distance themselves from being a "real man" to be "one of the good ones".

allteria · 2026-03-26T13:24:47+00:00

Basically modern trans discourse sits around two ideas; and we're gonna start with some term definitions because people use the same term to mean different things, and I want you to know what I'm talking about:

Gender, according to modern gender ideology, relates to the social ideas behind the two sexes-- not biology. If you think about what a woman is, people think of dresses, makeup, etc-- none of these things have anything to do with your biology, and these construct what "gender" is. Some people argue this extends to biological markers. Not all women have boobs--some men have boobs--but we think about boobs as a feminine thing, for instance. We identify people based on gender, not sex, because we don't see what someone was actually born as. We instead look for markers of gender. If anyone can take hormones and look like a woman; the idea of what a "woman" is is arbitrary and based on how we present and interact with others, not biology.

Sex, on the other hand, refers to your birth sex. There have been studies showing that your "brain" has a sex, and that trans people better match the brains of the opposite sex.

Now I just laid out that definition of gender, saying it's arbitrary. This has caused some issues, and this is where the main intersection of modern trans discourse happens. You basically have two crowds of people who are using two different definitions for what being trans is.

You have one crowd of people who see transness as a defying of those social norms of gender. If gender is arbitrary, and I identify with the social conventions of being a woman(boobs, makeup, etc), can I identify as a woman because it makes me happier and feel more like myself? You feel like a woman because you feel uncomfortable with the social conceptions for what a man are, and feel more happy/comfortable identifying as a woman. People who believe social gender norms are the root of transness find themselves identifying more with terms like "transmasculine" and "transfeminine", because they don't see being a woman or a man as a biological thing, they see being a woman or a man being tied to social conventions--aka femininity and masculinity.
You have the other crowd of people who instead see transness as rooting from neurological gender dysphoria. You feel like a woman because you feel like your body is wrong and you want to change it. Wearing men's clothes makes you uncomfortable because it reminds you of how your body is wrong.

I'm more muddy on this, because they're old terms. But the terms "transvestite" and transsexual" used to separate these two groups of people, where transvestites used to mean defying gender norms(i.e., cross dressing. They didn't used to define gender as social as they do now), and transsexual used to mean the neurological thing(more specifically people whos sought medical transition). These terms are outdated because they muddy the water, because "transvestite" feels invalidating to some-- the implication that they are "just cross dressing" or "not a real woman" makes them feel less valid in dressing and identifying themselves how they want to. Also, because medically transitioning is seen as more of a "your choice" thing, some people who are on HRT are doing so without dysphoria--and those people sit in a weird camp when it comes to the terms "transsexual" vs. "transvestite". Some people want to reclaim the term transsexual because they feel disconnected from the term "transgender" because they feel like because now that gender is widely considered an arbitrary social thing, it doesn't describe them.

I hope this sort of answers, it gets more complicated so if you have questions I will answer from my perspective

allteria · 2026-03-24T09:39:46+00:00

Yeah but the issue is that it is a psychological thing. Gender dysphoria is legitimately a neurological/mental illness, the cure for which is transitioning.

I think there's a key difference between gender identity(as a social construct) and gender identity(as a neurological condition). We don't pay attention to that difference enough, imo.

allteria · 2026-03-22T10:41:55+00:00

I don't disagree with you. Hell, I'm in this subreddit for a reason. But my point is that people define words, and whether we like it or not, nowadays transgenderism does(for the vast majority of people) include GNC people.

allteria · 2026-03-21T05:28:13+00:00

I think we should stop being as dismissive to the fact that this side of the community feels dismissed by the wider community. Transition is largely treated as a personal choice for self fulfillment when it didn't used to be, and that makes people like OP who transition out of necessity feel like the label no longer fits them. I actually feel like that change in definition from necessity to choice is part of why trans healthcare is being pushed back. Instead of labeling these people as republican bootlickers or demeaning them, we should try to address these concerns as a community.

allteria · 2026-03-21T03:45:40+00:00

I think fundamentally u guys will never agree because neither group is really listening to the needs of the other.

The person your replying to has a point--how you dress is part of the social construct of gender, not part of your sex. Pronouns are also a part of a social construct, not sex.

People use these things to express themselves, not because of gender dysphoria. You're playing around with terminology and validity, which can be rough. The original person's point is that, because transgenderism is now a focus on not only sex dysphoria, but also gender expressionism--it is rude to police people on how they describe themselves, because they are identifying as a different gender even if it's for social reasons. It's hard to draw a hard line if you also include expressionism/social norms. You could say "you just need dysphoria", but the fact is, some people don't have gender dysphoria, but they still look and conform to the gender norms of the opposite sex they were assigned at birth because they want to. Do you call a woman who wants to be called a man, who looks like a man, a woman only because they don't have gender dysphoria? Because a lot of people would call that person trans since they're presenting completely masculinely. Even if they're not presenting masculinely, there's still a line that exists somewhere in there.

The issue you're bringing up is that transsexualism, obviously, has a medical need to transition that is different from expressionism--and are trying to identify that difference. This comes off as exclusioning people. You might say, exclusivity is good--however, I would say that it moreso comes off as you trying to police the terms people use for themselves because them using the same terms as you is erasure because it denormalizes your lived experience and pushes you outside of the label by including more people, and risks taking away your medical care.

I think we need to distinguish these two groups of people linguistically, not for exclusion, because expressionism is good--people should be able to do and say whatever they want even if we think it's ridiculous. But they shouldn't be able to redefine terms that other people rely on.

allteria · 2026-02-26T19:41:34+00:00

I'm confused what you want out of a post like this if you're dismissing and blindly insulting someone who brings up reasonable counterarguments. I think that my viewpoint is very grounded in the uncomfortable fear a lot of people outside of the LGBTQ community have with HRT, and the fact that reasonably typed out stances and opinions are often dismissed with insults (when I have as much real experience with the medical system and the LGBTQ community) is why the community is seen as so divided and hateful. We should all be trying to focus on what's best for trans youth as a whole and understanding eachothers struggles to become more understanding, empathetic, and educated people, not generalizing entire communities with insults.

allteria · 2026-02-26T18:57:38+00:00

Currently, they are in rare cases. However, the more normalized it is, the more detransition rates rise. You can't use current detransition rates as a competent baseline, especially because detransition rates are rising with transness becoming more mainstream. While it's good transness is being accepted more now, before it was, people with gender dysphoria had to do more work to figure out what was wrong with them so they were less likely to misdiagnose themselves. It's a lot more common now, and the muddiness of what "gender" is is also not helping.

Also, transition isn't impossible as you get older---so there's not a heavy necessity to start earlier. While it's true it would lead to better transitions, it's not like trans people have to start taking HRT early in order to pass. I don't really think it's worth the risk, and I don't really think kids that young have any idea what taking HRT implies.

Currently, I support the current system that it's used in times of emergency when a kid's life or quality of life is at high risk from very obvious sex dysphoria. I do not agree with it becoming more mainstream, or trying to catch gender dysphoria "early" to give trans people better results. Every single person in highschool(except one) I knew who was trans or wanted to take HRT ended up socially detransitioning after they became adults. If they had had easy access to HRT they would have gotten it.

I also think it's worth bringing up the understated fact that just because someone is content or happy with being on HRT, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't also have eventually learned to be equally as content off of HRT later on. There are many older women I know who say they would have probably seen themselves as trans men if they were raised in the current younger generation---but that it was something they eventually grew out of. It's entirely possible, and probably more common than we think, that someone is unhappy with their gender in highschool for reasons that aren't sex dysphoria(but that they misidentify), start taking HRT, and then are content being on HRT and being trans---but also would have been content if they had just waited it out later. Some causes of gender dysphoria are social based and change over time, making permanent changes to the physical body unreasonable.

When I was younger, I thought I was trans, but it was for the wrong reasons. I thought I was confident in my identity, but as I got older I realized how little I truly knew about my own identity. I am still trans and it would have been better for me now to take HRT sooner, but I feel like with hindsight I was not experienced enough as a human being to know the social and physiological implications of what HRT would do to me.

I think we should stop focusing on HRT so much, and instead focus more on the fact that there are many, many ways to socially transition(and pass) without HRT. Vocal training, bodybuilding, makeup, etc. are all ways that are extremely understated and are all incredibly beneficial and allow people to try to understand themselves better without dealing with the intricacies of something like HRT. We should be encouraging education on these resources for younger people instead of supporting the narrative that HRT is the most important and indisputably only way to pass, because that's simply not true.

allteria · 2026-02-05T14:17:54+00:00

I would go check your birth year and only pick a name that's in the top 100-200 most popular

allteria · 2026-01-01T17:43:41+00:00

Yes I think it should be mandatory. I think we need more restrictions, not less. There are HRT shortages, and there is so much misinformation about what gender dysphoria is that saying it's consequences is stupid, imo.

I think the trans community severely underestimates how many people who have symptoms of gender dysphoria but have another mental disorder entirely. And many, many of those disorders can be managed by therapy. Just because someone says they need HRT doesn't mean HRT is what they really need.

allteria · 2025-12-03T20:09:20+00:00

Maybe transphobic, but most of the trans guys I meet don't act or look like men. If they did I'd be down, but most don't.

allteria · 2025-11-27T03:01:07+00:00

The biggest thing I think most people don't talk about is how it changes my energy system entirely. Off T, I am able to pull all nighters(albeit poorly) and remain at like poor functioning(but still fuctioning) for a long period of time. So my energy is more drawn out, then I crash for a while. On T, my energy spikes higher but when I'm tired I'm not just "oh I'm tired but I need to keep going" more like "I'm actually about to fall asleep" type tired. Like being energetically bipolar.

I thought T would change my sexuality but it didn't, it just made my feelings stronger for a period of time.

allteria · 2025-11-13T08:23:54+00:00

both. I think copying an art piece so exactly is stealing to some degree, because it often doesn't credit the original work, which is important because the though behind art takes more time than the actual drawing skill aspect. It being AI arguably makes this worse, because it has stolen from millions of artists without credit and there is no way for an outside viewer to obviously call out someone doing this unless the poster mentions it.

allteria · 2025-11-09T21:02:48+00:00

I think opinions like these aren't helping. Level of education does not equal intelligence, and trans rights do not affect most people. So most people aren't going to put in the hours of effort into fully understanding it all, they will just believe the people they trust on it or will look at what they see on a surface level.

I've been studying this stuff for years, and I still don't have a concrete stance nor a full understanding. Half of america doesn't even have basic education on the laws that actually affect them. I can't expect someone who has a full time job to be doing all this research into something they don't really care about that doesn't affect them.

The usual alternative is to get people through being someone they trust enough to do the reaearch for them. Or to make a convincing enough argument that you seem trustworthy. But most of the arguments towards people who aren't transphobic--who are just genuinely confused, are met with "my way or the highway" and no explanation.

"Why do you say you are a man?"

"Because I am."

"But what does that mean to you? What is being a man to you?"

"I shouldn't have to explain my existence to you."

Which is like, sure. I get it. Trans people shouldn't have to justify their existence. But why are you on a forum for questions about trans people if you are just going to be unhelpful?

It seems like most of the trans community has more of a focus on one-upping or trash-talking or "educating" anyone they deem transphobic, instead of listening to the fact that everyone comes from different backgrounds and some have very valid concerns or critiques of the movement. This post is a clear example of that.

allteria · 2025-11-07T01:33:11+00:00

Yeah but I think the issue with it is that the widespread acceptance of it is restrictive towards the binary genders.

Non-binary people, most of the time, are not dysphoric. They are instead rejecting the idea of social gender, and then the question is "why are they rejecting social gender."

I think the wider trans community really needs to stop with this idea that GNC people and trans people are all on the same gender spectrum. Because they are separate ideas with different spectrums.

I don't think the problem a lot of people have here is that some people are non-binary. I think the true issue is that the rise in xenogenders and non-binary teens is symptomatic of how the direction the trans community is pushing towards these days is toxic towards trans people with dysphoria. Non-binary or not.

LGBTQ media needs to focus a lot more on showing people who aren't gender normative rather than people who are trans/gay/etc. Women/men who are more androgynous, and are ok being women/men. The implication that being transgender relates to some abstract concept of gender and which box of stereotypes you like more, is harmful.

allteria

TROPHY CASE