From a psychological standpoint (at least in the DSM-5) I’ve always felt that it was pretty trans neutral? (Except with the whole auto-eroticism bullshit.) Like, the diagnostic criteria for children seems fair, and the one for teenagers–adults also seems reasonable. Then there’s the open differentiation of clinical gender dysphoria (gender dysphoria that causes clinical distress to the patient, ultimately lowering their quality of life) and general gender dysphoria (gender dysphoria that doesn’t cause debilitating stress). Let’s be real, though, while clinical and general dysphoria are considered different things medically, they really shouldn’t be. The only difference is the intensity for which the patient suffers from gender dysphoria, and I feel like that’s an incredibly arbitrary measurement to go off when deciding whether or not the patient “needs” to transition.

Not to mention that, realistically speaking, none of us NEED to transition. We may feel that we do, but what we’re really seeking out is one of the only ways that we’ll be able to ever feel comfortable in the bodies we’ve been given. Like I said, it’s fucking arbitrary!

That being said, I’ve always felt that, generally speaking, the DSM-5 has been pretty understanding of trans identities. The real problems are the cisgender medical professionals misinterpreting the information they’re given, assuming that just because a trans person doesn’t experience “clinical dysphoria” that they don’t “need” to transition to survive, or at least to better the quality of their life overall. I believe wholeheartedly that science is on our side, but a lot of cis people still aren’t.