Since I have a continuing history of keeping up with IDW-ish podcasters on YouTube (Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, etc.) who occasionally do episodes on trans issues as well as a spotty history of clicking on videos with clips of Jordan Peterson, the algorithm recommends a lot of videos on "transgenderism" and "the trans debate" and so on to me. A noticeable and (to my thinking) really concerning aspect of the whole set of issues is how reliably anyone who expresses interest in debating or even critically discussing trans issues is, um, on one general side of them, and how little debating or critical discussion there seems to be available. I avoid clicking on videos with titles involving "transgenderism" or "transgender ideology" or "the trans debate" and other tribal buzzwords for a bunch of reasons, but I decided to make an exception the other day when I saw a video entitled "DEBATE: does transgender ideology threaten liberal values?" (a terribly-phrased question, like most debate questions are) because it appeared to be... an actual debate! With people on both sides showing up! (Though apparently not among the audience, which by the sound of it was entirely on the anti-trans side.)

So of course, as I should have fully expected, this debate only supported my conviction that the rhetoric of nearly everyone on all sides of this is just terrible. The only nuanced and halfway decent debater here was Peter Tatchell (on the trans rights side), and some of even his arguments were used to catch him in a bind later on (more on that later). The debate as a whole was generally a bit of a -- I can only use the term shitshow here -- with debaters (mainly Freda) interrupting each other, the (seemingly entirely anti-trans) audience heckling the trans-rights debaters, and the somewhat awkward and ineffectual moderator mostly failing to keep everyone in order. Well, what better could I have expected?

Marc Glendening (on the anti-trans-rights side) had less to say than everyone else and was basically just a robot trying to churn out dry legal summaries of the situation and spouting claims about free speech rights being taken away that I find extremely dubious as phrased by him (I don't know too much about what's going on in the UK, but if we took Marc's depictions of the situation at face value, they do not jibe with his teammate Helen's completely lack of inhibition in misgendering Freda in a video-recorded debate!).

Helen Joyce was the only person involved that I was familiar with from before, since many months ago I watched an episode of Coleman Hughes' podcast where he interviewed her, thought she had some reasonable points and liked her overall rational manner of arguing, but lost any sense of her credibility because of her completely unbending and extreme absolutism. YouTube had been recommending me videos with her ever since (I really hate how stubborn the algorithm is), and I had refused up until now to click on anything involving her again. In this debate I saw the same extremist tendencies and genuine TERFiness (up until fairly recently my exposure to TERF ideology was mostly indirect as something people on Tumblr criticized and I was beginning to wonder how much of it was actually out there in force and what it really looks like -- it seems to have plenty of force in the UK and Joyce is probably one of the gentler examples I suppose!) and also saw a rational and dignified approach which I admire but unfortunately didn't lead to actually good arguments. There is plenty of room for rebuttal to Helen's arguments from my perspective, and of course almost none of that material was ever rebutted by the other side, which again doesn't surprise me given how little (in my experience of watching/reading criticisms of, say, JKR's arguments) people on the trans rights side seem to actually directly address certain types of opposing arguments. I can't decide which bothers me more: Helen's repeated comments about how the rest of the debaters went through male puberty and therefore their male voices enabled them to talk over her (easily refuted, mainly in the case of the trans women sitting on the other side, and meanwhile neither of the men ever interrupted or talked over her, but nobody addressed this, and it places Helen across my personal "too borderline-misandristic for me to feel comfortable hanging around her" line), or her claim that those men who do insist on trespassing women-only spaces have proved that they are among the dangerous ones because they don't care about women's boundaries (a very dangerous mentality, and displaying exquisite lack of theory of mind, and again nobody tried to rebut it).

Freda Wallace is... a complete mess, and I think an embarrassment to her cause. She spoke a lot (while delusionally muttering that Helen wouldn't stop talking), and very little of what she had to say comprised actual argumentation but was more of a semi-incoherent jumble of points that often ended in punchlines that seemed to be deliberately phrased into ridiculous and bizarre statements perhaps crafted to be provocative and eliciting scorn from the audience. She frequently interrupted all three of the debaters generally with childish and semi-irrelevant ad hominems, even eventually visibly pissing off her own teammate Peter. Freda appears to be exactly the caricature of aggressive, loud, attention-seeking, obnoxious, shameless, hedonistic, fetishistic trans woman that J. K. Rowling types seem to imagine among trans activists. ("So, when I fuck men, with my female penis, in fetish clubs, it is my choice. It doesn't matter what you think. And those men support Sex Matters, because in public they will, but in private, they'll fuck me [ending in a smug grin]" is... I guess technically a way that someone can talk during a recorded public debate, but maybe shouldn't be recommended? I didn't notice until I read the comments later how a minute or two after that, her teammate Peter repeated tries to get her to stop interrupting, then gently grabs her arm as she lifts her glass of wine again saying, "No more drink.") If the trans-rights organization involved wanted to strengthen transphobia and transmisogyny in particular, they probably could not have chosen a better trans woman to put on their team. There's something to discuss here (although if I tried to develop where I speculatively want to go with this, I might quickly get myself into hot water) about how difficult it seems to be to get a member of the trans community to participate in an event like this, and how it requires the very thickest-skinned type of personality which unfortunately in this case also coincides with the most loud and shameless. (This is a very under-developed and perhaps sloppily-phrased point that I probably shouldn't be leaving in this post!)

As I said earlier, Peter Tatchell, along with many of his arguments, I actually liked; he seems like a pretty cool guy all around. He did get backed into a corner at one point through an audience member's question: he had repeatedly made the argument that excluding male-bodied people from women's shelters because men are more likely to be violent was choosing to treat an entire group based on a generalization and that he was against this on principle (compare to refusing to allow immigration from certain groups because some tiny minority of them is more likely to be dangerous, etc.), and he was asked whether he wasn't generalizing in the exact same way by being in favor of excluding cis men ("all men, as you identify who's a man") from women's spaces. At first Peter seems to misunderstand that the questioner is talking about cis men and be trying to duck the question, but eventually he is backed into acknowledging the question and taking the stance that "people who present as men" should be excluded from women's bathrooms but trans women shouldn't -- a position that sounds quite blatantly transphobic in more than one way by the lights of much of trans activism! Also, Peter's stern coldness in stopping Freda from interrupting him with disagreement during his point about transness showing in people's brains says all we really need to know about his opinion of his own teammate, and I do kind of feel bad for him for having been paired with her, which I imagine was not his choice.

I looked briefly through the comments section to see if there was any discussion of why the video (annoyingly) cuts off abruptly before the end of the event (which wound up mentioned only once that I could see). Never have I seen a sea of comments so 100% skewed in favor of one side of an issue and in one direction: how amazing Helen Joyce is (and with a heap of derogatory and sometimes extremely transmisogynistic comments about Freda Wallace -- they go further than Joyce did by naming her Fred, a few do call her Freda and use feminine pronouns, but in at least one instance someone's use of "her" was "corrected" in a one-word response by another commenter!). It makes me wonder what happens to create a section of hundreds of comments that are literally 100% on one side -- is there a sort of tipping point when one side becomes a strong enough majority that everyone on the other side is just afraid to comment, or gets downvoted to invisibility by the rating system? Either way, this debate strikes me as weak enough on the pro-trans side that trans right activists probably wouldn't want to advertise it on YouTube.

Anyway, very very discouraging for anyone who would like our public discourse on this set of issues to stop being more of a complete mess than the public discourse on pretty much every other contentious social issue has been.

What is gender? Please send help

Content warning: ignorance about transgender issues, discussion of sexism, well-meaning-ally-who-doesn’t-quite-get-it-ism. Callouts welcome and encouraged.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I want to start by saying that despite my profound lack of understanding about what gender is, I don’t want to invalidate anyone. I want so badly to be a supportive ally to trans and nonbinary folks, and at first I did a lot of reading to try to understand, but no matter how much I read, I stayed confused. So eventually, I gave up. After all, I don’t have to have a deep understanding of an identity to know that people are deserving of respect. If calling someone a particular name or using a particular set of pronouns will help them know that I love and respect them, then of course, of course, I will do that. Nothing I am about to say changes that.

The only problem is, not understanding makes it really hard to call out bigotry, because I don’t always see it. This post was triggered by a recent transphobic tweetstorm by JK Rowling, and I think I get why most of those were bad, but with some I’m still more sympathetic than I’m comfortable with. This continues a trend I’ve seen for a while: some of the most helpful pieces of reading material have been posts from radical feminists that I found myself nodding along to, only to find that the point of the post my friend was sharing was the attached comment and call-out. These served as huge wake-up calls, but it still wasn’t enough to explain to me what I wasn’t getting. More than that, even after the call outs, even after knowing that some of the points of the original post were transphobic, I sometimes can’t help feeling that some part of it rang true. Therefore, my problems as an ally come in two parts. One, I deeply lack the understanding to call out bigotry in others and myself, and two, there are some real conflicts between the feminism I subscribe to and certain aspects of trans ideology (ideology is not a good word to use here, but I’m at a loss for what else to call it)(sorry).

I’ll start with the second— it’s the worse one anyhow. The crux of the problem is this: there are distinct consequences to being assigned female at birth. We are treated differently, we are socialized differently, and no matter how progressive your parents are, it’s impossible to completely escape. Put simply, cis women and trans women do not experience 100% the same types of oppression. This is not to say either experiences more or less pain, this is not to say either is more or less deserving of support, this is not to say that we as feminists should not strive to be intersectional (we should). All I am saying is that inclusion cannot come at the expense of erasing or silencing the experiences of people who were assigned female at birth.

I have a few specific concerns on this matter - these are the points that make me sympathetic to radical feminism (even when I see them called terfs, as ashamed as I am to admit it).

One, we need to be allowed to use words about female anatomy without being called terfs. It’s not okay to exclude people and imply that all women have uteri and all people with uteri are women, but it needs to be okay to talk about uteri.This one comes up less often, but when it does come up I find myself extremely indignant. I am sincerely sorry that talking about anatomy triggers dysphoria, but in a world where female anatomy is treated as inherently explicit, and people have been silenced in legislative settings simply for using those anatomical terms, we can’t afford to be silenced within our own communities. 

Two, it’s not okay to shout people down for how they experience attraction. I really shouldn’t have to say this, but too often I’ve seen lesbians pressured or called transphobic for not being interested in being with someone with a penis. It’s not uncommon for lesbians to experience compulsory attraction to men before recognizing their sexuality. That, combined with the prevalence of sexual violence against women and people who are assigned female at birth, makes me extremely skeptical of anyone whose response to rejection is to attempt to shame them into changing their mind. Again, I’m sorry, and it sucks that it causes dysphoria, but no one is entitled to anyone else’s attraction. It is not okay to pressure anyone else into a relationship or sex, regardless of the circumstances. I myself am gray-ace and panromantic - suffice to say I don’t really get how being attracted to genitals works, but if that’s how it works for them, then that’s how it works for them. If we need different words for “hi I’m attracted to the gender of woman” and “hi I’m attracted to female anatomy” then so be it, but honestly people probably shouldn’t have to disclose that much information right out the gates, and both should be allowed to call themselves lesbians. There’s a balance to be struck here, but I’m sick of seeing lesbians alienated for this, and it needs to be addressed.

Three, there need to be spaces for people who were assigned female at birth, without people who were assigned male at birth (unless they are invited as a guest). As mentioned above, sexual and gender based violence against AFAB people is incredibly common. A lot of us have trauma around it. We need spaces where we can talk about those experiences without being shouted down, the same way trans people need spaces to talk about their experiences. This is a bit of a slippery slope - obviously there need to be intersectional spaces as well, and it’s not okay to exclude people, as long as everyone is being respectful. But it’s important to make space for all of us, and understand that our experiences are not uniformly the same.

I’m not sure why this has been such an issue. Some part of me that I hate to acknowledge suggests that part of the problem is that people who are assigned male at birth tend to be more entitled than people who are assigned female at birth, simply because that’s how they were taught and socialized when they were younger, but that brings up a whole slew of other issues, and I’d hate to paint with too broad a brush. Perhaps it’s just that the fight for inclusion needs to be fierce and thorough, and any space where one isn’t included is treated as an attack, even if that isn’t the intent. No matter the reason, we need to understand that we are not all the same, and that’s not a bad thing. 

In a roundabout way, this brings me to my other barrier to being a good ally: I just don’t *get* gender. It’s not that I haven’t tried. As I mentioned early on in this post, when I first realized how much I didn’t understand about gender I did so much reading. I watched videos. I listened to podcasts. I went to a workshop (though truth be told the workshop did more harm than good). And what I got is this: it sounds like there’s a common experience, some strong internal certainty that composes gender identity, that says “I am a woman”, or “I am a man”, or “I am neither”, as the case may be. I have never felt this certainty. There is no emotion that tells me I am a woman, there is no internal compass, there is no sense of “no, that’s not right” when I imagine myself as a man, except a sense of unfamiliarity with the idea. As far as I’m concerned, I’m a woman because that’s what I’ve always been, and that’s how I’ve always been treated. It would be odd to use he/him pronouns for me because no one’s ever done that, and it would cause confusion, but that’s about the end of my issue with it.

This is, of course, directly in conflict with much of the narrative around gender these days. There must be something I’m missing, but I can never seem to pin down what gender actually *is* and every analogy and metaphor seems to confuse me even more.

Gender must not be biological sex, because trans people exist. Nonbinary people exist. Both are valid, and for all that I’m not a very good ally, I know that much.

Gender must not be personality traits, because, that’s personality. There are people on all areas of the gender spectrum with all types of personality traits. Don’t tell me that women can’t be brash, that men can’t be sweet.They are.

Gender must not be how you dress, because hey, we should all be able to dress however we want! How you dress doesn’t change your identity. (This part is gender expression though I think, if I’ve followed the articles correctly) Butch women exist, feminine men exist, androgynous people exist, all are valid.

Gender must not be gender roles, because honestly, fuck that. Gender roles are a tool of patriarchal oppression, and I’m not about to sit here and that be all there is to gender identity. If it helps you feel more at home in your skin then more power to ya, but that can’t be all there is.

So then, what is it? What is left? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I have genuinely tried to find answers to this and I have never been more lost. When I went to the trans allyship workshop mentioned above, I was told by the others at my table that to them being a woman was being nurturing, valuing family, being empathetic, being a caretaker. I was so relieved that we ran out of time before it was my turn. I don’t know what being a woman is to me, it’s just what I’ve always been. The only thing it has ever meant was shame about my body, shame about my period, enduring r*pe jokes and kitchen jokes from my guy friends, always having to be the one to “seduce the guard” when we played d&d, and other, darker things I don’t want to mention. It’s only ever been painful, and fearful, and ashamed. On the one hand, it means I’m inclined to believe trans women when they say that gender isn’t a choice— after all, who would choose this? But on the other, I know there must be more to this, something that I’m missing because my identity is too deeply rooted in oppression. I am ripping those roots out one by one, but they go deep, and I’m scared that without them I won’t have any point of reference left.

I want to understand gender, but even if I never do, I will always respect the identity and pronouns that people claim as their own. It is never my intent to dehumanize, or exclude. I want to be able to call out bigotry, I want to be able to stand up for my trans and nonbinary friends, I want to be sure that I don’t say something to them that causes them harm. 

But at its core: I don’t get it. What is gender? What makes a gender what it is?

Again, this is non-rhetorical. If you have the time and energy, I welcome any information, any resources, any anecdotes, anything at all to help me understand. I’ve looked, hard, but I won’t pretend to have read anywhere near the full lexicon of literature on this subject. If I’ve said something that upset or angered you, please don’t hesitate to call me out. Yell at me, if that’s what this post inspires, and I’ll do my best to learn from it, or at the very least maybe it will serve as a wake-up call for someone else. Or, if you agree, I’d be grateful to know that too. It can get pretty lonely feeling like there’s some manual to gender that everyone else has that somehow I never got.

TL;DR: What is gender? I want to learn but I’m hella lost and struggling to be both a trans ally and a radical feminist, and I was so afraid of offending anyone that I literally made a blog just for this post, which is silly because I don’t even really use my main blog. I just know that if you’re looking for callouts, this is where you go.

Let’s discuss Gender Dysphoria, GID, and criticism of the DSM

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed that the mere fact that the DSM has been criticized by psychologists has become a pretty common truscum talking point lately, though most have been reluctant to engage with those criticisms in a meaningful way. One of them was kind enough to link me a study, so I’d like to take a look at it, as well as a couple of other DSM critiques that focus more specifically on the old “Gender Identity Disorder” diagnosis that was replaced by “Gender Dysphoria” in the DSM-5.

(this is going to get long, sorry mobile followers.)

Raskin, J. D., & Gayle, M. C. (2016). DSM-5: Do psychologists really want an alternative?. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 56(5), 439-456. (sci-hub)(google scholar)

The data for this study was collected in May & June of 2012, from 104 surveys (out of 128 attempted; surveys with less than 75% completion were discarded). While the title itself mentions the DSM-5,  "psychologists’ familiarity with the proposed changes [in the DSM 5] (n = 103, Mdn = 8) did not differ significantly from neutral.” Already, this tells us that between the lack of familiarity and the fact that this data was collected before the fifth edition was even published, this study is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the actual validity of the 5th edition. We can, however, determine what some of the actual concerns are about the DSM-5; for instance, "participants expected the DSM-5 to be significantly worse than the DSM-IV-TR regarding “inappropriate classification of some behaviors as disorders" (other comparative concerns were not statistically significant). Despite these concerns, 94% of respondents declared their intent to use the DSM-5 (compared to only 90% who regularly used the DSM-IV-TR).

As far as the alternatives listed in the title, "psychologists are interested in alternatives not rooted in the medical model common to the DSM and ICD.” This dislike of the medical model of psychology also extended to the stated “disadvantages” of the DSM-IV-TR according to respondents, which included  “places too much emphasis on pathology” (50.96%) and “applies medical labels to psychosocial problems” (43.27%). Respondents also stated that the DSM “obscures individual differences” (60.58%), “places more emphasis on diagnosis than treatment” (51.92%) and that “[diagnostic] labels distort one’s perception of a client” (43.27%) while “ha[ving] little bearing on treatment” (31.73%),  Respondents also tended to agree with the statement that “DSM relies too heavily on medical semantics,” while disagreeing that “mental disorders are a subset of medical disorders.”

Through these results, we can see that there is a trend among psychologists who responded to this survey to move away from medical models of psychological care. 

So, how does this apply to Gender Dysphoria?

Prior to the construction of the current diagnostic label "Gender Dysphoria," trans people seeking medical transition were diagnosed as having "Gender Identity Disorder" (GID). According to two members of the DSM-5 workgroup who constructed the current diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria, the label "dysphoria" was expected to serve the same purpose as Criterion D of the GID criteria, based on the longstanding medical use of that term to refer to profound distress or discomfort (Cohen-Kettenis &  Pfäfflin, 2010). (To be clear, by long-standing, I’m talking over a century of use with almost no change in how it’s used by psychologists). 

This was the diagnostic criteria for GID in use during the time that the survey data above was collected (via behavenet.com):

A. A strong and persistent cross-gender identification (not merely a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex). In children, the disturbance is manifested by four (or more) of the following:

(1) repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex (2) in boys, preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing (3) strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles in make-believe play or persistent fantasies of being the other sex (4) intense desire to participate in the stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex (5) strong preference for playmates of the other sex. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as a stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions of the other sex.

B. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. In children, the disturbance is manifested by any of the following: in boys, assertion that his penis or testes are disgusting or will disappear or assertion that it would be better not to have a penis, or aversion toward rough-and-tumble play and rejection of male stereotypical toys, games, and activities; in girls, rejection of urinating in a sitting position, assertion that she has or will grow a penis, or assertion that she does not want to grow breasts or menstruate, or marked aversion toward normative feminine clothing. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g., request for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.

C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition.

D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Code based on current age:

302.6 Gender Identity Disorder in Children 302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults

Specify if (for sexually mature individuals):

Sexually Attracted to Males Sexually Attracted to Females Sexually Attracted to Both Sexually Attracted to Neither

Yeah, it’s... a lot. It was also the subject of serious criticism before the DSM-5 workgroup began rewriting it. The criteria for GID in children was particularly heavily criticised by researchers, who may have been particularly wary because of the disaster that was the DSM-3 GID in children criteria. These criticisms do not reject the definition of a mental disorder outlined in the the DSM-IV, instead focusing on whether GID fits that definition (bolding mine): 

In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above 

Bartlett, N. H., Vasey, P. L., & Bukowski, W. M. (2000). Is gender identity disorder in children a mental disorder?. Sex Roles, 43(11-12), 753-785. (sci-hub)(google scholar)

In Bartlett, Vasey, and Bukowski’s 2000 paper, the authors ask four specific questions related to the definition of mental disorders: 

“Is GID associated with present distress?”

“Is GID associated with present disability?”

“Is GID associated with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom?", and 

“Does GID represent a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual or is it simply deviant behavior or a conflict between the individual and society?”

When looking at the first question, the authors note that the criteria for GID specifically requires that the distress be caused by the incongruence (”disturbance”) between a person’s assigned sex and gender identity, rather than simply be associated with it. Here, they argue that the present distress criteria of the definition of a mental disorder should be interpreted as requiring direct causation. The last sentence of the DSM-IV definition of mental disorders seems to support this conclusion; in order for distress resulting from the conflict between society and trans individuals to count as “disordered,” identifying outside of one’s assigned sex would itself have to be established as inherently disordered according to the above definition. 

The authors conclude that “there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the notion of distress caused directly by GID as opposed to simply being associated with it,” and that “evidence from published case studies does not appear to support distress caused by ‘gender role disturbances’.” At one point, the authors suggest that “indeed, considering the minimal amount of attention in the literature devoted to the child’s distress in comparison to that devoted to the child’s tendencies to engage in cross-gender behaviors, one might infer that the child’s own feelings of contentment or distress are treated as secondary to the distress felt by others as a result of the child’s cross-gender behaviors. It is possible that this lack of attention to child distress in the literature is reflective of the actual state of affairs, that is, a lack of distress on the part of the child,” before going on to explain some of the other possible explanations for distress in kids with GID that had been previously offered by other researchers. Current research showing the mental health impact of supporting trans kids through social transition would seem to support the idea that at least some of that distress (dysphoria) is a result of social factors, and not an inherent aspect of identifying outside of one’s assigned sex (Olson, Durwood, DeMeules, & Mclaughlin, 2016; Russell, Pollitt, Li, & Grossman, 2018); while this does not disprove the mandatory dysphoria requirement, it does validate those alternative sources of dysphoria mentioned by Bartlett et al.

The examination of the second question raises the same concerns as the first did, with the authors concluding that “taken together, research would suggest that caution must be taken in making definitive statements about the mental health of children with GID.“ 

In response to the third question, that of future risk, the authors describe the risks toward trans people as “such negative outcomes as physical abuse, school drop-out, drug and alcohol addiction, prostitution, AIDS, and poverty,” before noting that “adolescents with GID may be caught in a downward spiral similar to that which is found among other adolescents who have suffered rejection,” which means these risks are more “mere associations” that don’t necessarily indicate that identifying outside one’s assigned gender is disordered.

The authors start answering the fourth question by looking at whether wanting to transition counts as dysfunctional, noting that while “outright repudiation of one’s biological sex certainly seems “dysfunctional,” at least in the folk sense of the word [...] this sort of intuitive “hunch” is clearly an unacceptable foundation upon which to base a clinical diagnosis.” They also note criticisms of the definition of “dysfunctional” used in the DSM-IV, before concluding that “it is simply impossible to say whether disavowal of one’s biological sex is, or is not, a dysfunction.” At this point, the authors start talking about desistance studies; I’ve linked criticism of those studies before so I’m not going to get into them in too much detail here, but the concerns raised by the authors have a lot to do with the DSM-III’s pathologization of gender non-conforming kids & lack of identity requirements, which resulted in GNC kids who identified with their assigned sex being diagnosed with GID alongside actual trans kids who otherwise met the diagnostic criteria. The authors finish by noting that research undertaken using previous diagnostic standards obscured differences between the kids diagnosed with GID under the DSM-III criteria. 

Wilson, I., Griffin, C., & Wren, B. (2002). The validity of the diagnosis of gender identity disorder (child and adolescent criteria). Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(3), 335-351. (sci-hub)(google scholar)

Wilson, Griffin, & Wren (2002) expressed extreme concern about the use of diagnosis based on behavioural criteria and the pathologization of gender-nonconformity. Like Bartlett et al, the authors of this study highlighted the pathologization of social problems, such as those that accompany mistreatment or those which are the result of a problem not inherently linked to gender identity; note that examples of the latter are potentially the result of the intersection of multiple forms of marginalization (btw, you’ve all read Crenshaw’s 1989 paper on intersectionality and multi-axial oppression, right?).  Wilson et al  also focus heavily on Zucker & Bradley’s (1995) attempts to justify treating transgender identities as disordered, concluding that “it is evident from their argument that the distress and disability experienced by those individuals with crossgender behaviour, was the consequence of the perception of the behaviour by others, and not as a result of the behaviour itself.”

Again, as with Bartlett et al, the authors of this paper found no evidence to support the claim that distress (dysphoria) is an inherent part of identifying outside of one’s assigned sex.

Comparing these three critiques of the DSM-IV-TR makes it evident that there's a number of overlaps between criticisms of the GID diagnosis and those of the DSM in general, specifically with regard to concerns about over-pathologization and the conflation of social and medical issues. Bartlett et al (2000) even explicitly called out the "distress criteria" of GID as lacking empirical evidence.

TL;DR:

Criticisms of the DSM in general by psychologists do not support the idea that trans people must experience the symptom known as dysphoria. Research suggests that many psychologists think that the DSM is too focused on labeling experiences as disordered or otherwise medicalizing things that shouldn’t be medicalized. Meanwhile, criticisms of the DSM that focus directly on the diagnosis used to gatekeep people seeking transition explicitly point out the lack of evidence for the type of distress that psychologists and other gatekeepers refer to as “dysphoria” as a problem with the validity of the DSM-IV, which directly contradicts the truscum claim that the necessity of dysphoria is an established scientific fact.

okay this keeps growing so I’m going to call it here for now & give my eyes a break, if anyone notices any bad typos or absent links lmk

The Witches Are Coming by Lindy West - A Review

I’ve been waiting for this book of essays to come out for months and it was so, so worth the the wait. I know it’s asking a lot, but can this woman please just write a book every year? Or every six months? That’d be great, thanks. Favourite parts ahead!

“This moment in history is about more than individual interactions between individual people. Those matter, too - it matters how you made your subordinate feel with that comment, and it matters quite a lot that the woman on the bus went home and sobbed after you groped her - but, as Rebecca Traister wrote in December 2017 on The Cut: “This moment isn’t just about sex. It’s about work.” It’s about who feels at home in the workplace and who feels like an outsider - which, by extension, dictates who gets to thrive and ascend, who gets to hire their replacements, who gets to set their children up for success, who gets credit and glory, and who gets forgotten. It’s about who feels safe in public spaces and who doesn’t. Which is to say, it’s about everything.”

“We gobble up cable news’ insistence that both sides of an argument are equally valid and South Park’s insistence that both sides are equally stupid, because taking a firm stance on anything opens us up to criticism.”

“We kept letting Adam Sandler make more movies after Little Nicky, because white men are allowed to fail spectacularly and keep their jobs.”

There’s literally an entire chapter on Adam Sandler movies that is perfection. You have to read it. Seriously, just pick this up at a bookstore and read that one chapter, if nothing else.

I loved all of her points about how there was endless discussion about The Ted Bundy Tapes when it came out earlier this year and how we debated whether this murdering monster was handsome or not. And how that same type of debate is somehow in the same arena as when people debate whether Elizabeth Warren is “likable” or not.

There’s a part in the Ted Bundy special where the judge sympathizes with Bundy and goes on a ridiculous tangent about how it’s “such a shame” that he turned out that way when he had so much potential, it’s truly disgusting to see a judge commiserate with a rapist and murderer, but it happened and it’s wild to see. “That anecdote is often held up as evidence of Bundy’s charisma - even the judge sentencing him to death was seduced by that smirk, that finger wave. But it is the most blatant, overwhelming evidence we have for the opposite. Men don’t need charisma to succeed. It doesn’t matter if men are likable, because men are people who do things, who don’t have to ask first, whose potential has value even after it is squandered.”

“Chasing likability has been one of women’s biggest setbacks, by design. I don’t know that rejecting likability will get us anywhere, but I know that embracing it has gotten us nowhere.”

Absolutely in love with the fact that she loves the movie Clue as much as I do.

I really liked the chapter that she discussed Gwyneth Paltrow’s GOOP, even if I did wish that she went in on her/the brand harder.

So in love with the chapter where she talks about South Park and its creators. I’ve always hated that show, it’s never been good, and I can’t understand who the hell would be into it. It’s never been funny, edgy, smart. Insane that it’s still on.

Maybe I’m really reading into it, but there’s a tiny part where she mentions that PETA sucks and I can’t stop all my little inside screams - it’s hard to find somewhere who dislikes all the same stuff as you.

“Men think that misogyny is a women’s issue; women’s to endure and women’s to fix. White people think that racism is a pet issue for people of color; not like the pure, economic grievances of the white working class. Rape is a rape victim’s problem: What was she wearing? Where was she walking? Had she had sex before?“

“Whenever talk turned toward solutions, the panel came back to mentorship: women lifting up other women. Assertiveness and leaning in and ironclad portfolios and marching into that interview and taking the space you deserve and changing the ratio and not letting Steve from accounting talk over you in the morning. During the closing question-and-answer period, a young woman stood up. “I’m sorry,” she said, her voice electric with anger, “but all I’ve heard tonight are a bunch of things women can do to fight sexism. Why is that our job? We didn’t build the system. This audience should be full of men.”

“Sexism is a male invention. White supremacy is a white invention. Transphobia is a cisgender invention. So far, men have treated #MeToo like a bumbling dad in a detergent commercial: well intentioned by floundering, as though they are not the experts. You are the experts. Only 2.6 percent of construction workers are female. We did not install that glass ceiling, and it is not our responsibility to demolish it.”

When talking about what men can actually do to help women: ”“Do you ever stick up for me?” sounds childish, but I don’t know that gussying up the sentiment in more sophisticated language would enhance its meaning. It isn’t fun to be the one who speaks up. Our society has engineered robust consequences for squeaky wheels, a verdant pantheon from eye rolls all the way up to physical violence. One of the subtlest and most pervasive is social ostracism: coding empathy as the fun killer, consideration for others as an embarrassing weakness, and dissenting voices as out-of-touch, bleeding-heart dweebs (at best). Coolness is a fierce disciplinarian. A result is that, for the most part, the only people weathering those consequences are the ones who don’t have the luxury of staying quiet. Women, already impeded and imperiled by sexism, also have to carry the social stigma of being feminist buzzkills if they call attention to it. People of color not only have to deal with racism; they also have to deal with white people labeling them “angry” or “hostile” or “difficult” for objecting. What we could use is some loud, unequivocal backup.”

“I know there’s pressure not to be a dorky, try-hard male feminist stereotype; there’s always a looming implication that you could lose your spot in the boys’ club; if you seem too opportunistic or performative in your support, if you suck up too much oxygen and demand praise, women will yell at you for that, too. But I need you to absorb that risk. I need you to get yelled at and made fun of, a lot, and if you get kicked out of the club, I need you to be relieved, and I need you to help build a new one.”

The entire chapter about the complications with Joan Rivers is such a great one.

“You can hate someone and love them at the same time. Maybe that’s a natural side effect of searching for heroes in a world not built for you.”

Okay, so the only thing that we strongly disagree on is her previous love for Adam Carolla. Always hated that man.

““Common sense’” without growth, curiosity, or perspective eventually becomes conservatism and bitterness.”

“There are pieces of pop culture that you outgrow because you get older. Then there are pieces of pop culture that you outgrow because you get better.”

“Art has no obligation to evolve, but it has a powerful incentive to do so. Art that is static, that captures a dead moment, is nothing. It is, at best, nostalgia; at worst, it can be a blight on our sense of who we are, a shame we pack away. Artists who refuse to listen, participate, and change along with the world around them are not being silenced or punished by censorious college sophomores. They are letting obsolescence devour them, voluntarily. Political correctness is just the inexorable turn of the gear. Falling behind is preventable.”

Talking about Ricky Gervais:” “People see something they don’t like, and they expect it to stop,” he said. “The world is getting worse. Don’t get me wrong, I think I lived through the best fifty years of humanity, 1960 through 2015, the peak of civilization for everything. For tolerances, for freedoms, for communication, for medicine! And now it’s going the other way a little bit.” “Dumpster fire” has emerged as the favorite emblem of our present sociopolitical moment, but that Gervais quote feels more apt and more tragic as a metaphor: the Trump/Brexit era is a rich, famous, white, middle-aged man declaring the world to be in decline the moment he stops understanding it.”

“Adam Carolla isn’t angry because he’s being silenced; he’s angry because he’s being challenged. He’s been shown the road map to continued relevance, and it doesn’t lead back to his mansion. He’s angry because he’s being asked to do the basic work of maintaining a shared humanity or else be left behind. He’s choosing the past. Gervais and Carolla are not alone in presenting themselves as noble bulwarks against a wave of supposed leftwing censorship. (A Netflix special, for the record, is not what “silencing” looks like.)”

Talking Louis CK: “Less than a year after his vow to retreat and listen, CK made the laziest and most cowardly choice possible: to turn away from the difficult, necessary work of self-reflection, growth, and reparation, and run into the comforting arms of people who don’t think it’s that big a deal to show your penis to female subordinates. Conservatives adore a disgraced liberal who’s willing to pander to them because he’s too weak to grow. How pathetic to take them up on it.”

“Like every other feminist with a public platform, I am perpetually cast as a disapproving scold. But what’s the alternative? To approve? I do not approve.” - This is probably my most favourite line in the entire book

“Not only are women expected to weather sexual violence, intimate partner violence, workplace discrimination, institutional subordination, the expectation of free domestic labor, invisible cuts that undermine us daily, we are not even allowed to be angry about it.”

“I’d been taught that when ordinary people try to do activism, they look stupid. Of course now I know that there is no effective activism without the passion and commitment of ordinary people and it is a basic duty of the privileged to show up and fight for issues that don’t affect us directly. But maintaining that separation has served the status quo well. It keeps good people always just shy of taking action. It’s tone policing. It’s the white moderate. But it’s changing.”

“Diet culture is a coercive, misogynist pyramid scheme that saps women’s economic and political power.”

Definitely the best thing I’ve read all year. GO BUY!

could you give me a rundown on what being gender critical is? i get the basics i think but if you don’t mind explaining your views?

oh boy anon i’ll sure try!! idk if im the best person to talk about it tbh and ive confused a lot of people trying to explain my views before ahfjkfh but ill try REALLY hard to keep my adhd ass in check lmfao. if theres anything i said thats confusing & you need cleared up feel free to @ me againi dont know how long gender critical has existed as a concept, but i wouldnt be surprised if it was developed as a reaction to a certain VERY vocal part of the trans movement/trans rights activists

(so when you talk to people (trans ppl) about gender i think people usually break it down into several a few categories: gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression. i think most trans people are aware of & separate their sex from their gender identity, the identity being something innately part of every person, the roles generally speaking the bullshit that society expects & should be rejected, and gender expression really just being the traditional “feminine” or “masculine” behaviors/dress you use regardless of your innate identity.in trans circles/lgbt (merch, lol) sites i’ve seen the phrase passed around “gender is a social construct.” i think trans people who do/used to say that meant it kind of like that since gender was created by societies so it doesn’t matter how you identify/why not expand the understanding of gender (ergo, non-binary genders getting popularized). i think this fell out of popularity because it was transppls attempt to validate ourselves and conservatives cant wrap their mind around social constructs are/the distinction between sex and gender and so it wasnt really working out lmfaobut now there’s been some scientific studies getting popularized that have Suggested the existences of male & female brains and that trans ppl have the brain of their identified gender, therefore the disconnect between their brain and their body manifests as gender dysphoria. (i think the transmed community has especially taken to this idea esp because of kalvin garrah discovering these studies & now kind of preaching them as facts & science. with this comes him, his friends, and all the transmed ppl who stan him ryan and london saying that Gender Isnt Socially Constructed)then theres the posts circling around here saying Transwomen Are Women/Real Women + when the women’s march happened in america after trump got elected, i saw quite a few things on facebook where ppl were saying that all the talk of vaginas and shit were transphobic and trans-exclusionary and they should keep in mind that not all women have vaginas, etc etcthen u have what i believe (or at least hope) are outliers in the trans community being dug up (usually transwomen) who say........ The Most ridiculous shit imo. like saying theyre more of a woman than ciswomen (i’ll use cis strictly to mean not-trans in the context of this post), transwomen claiming theyre having a period, and just in general perpetuating “cotton ceiling” stuff like lesbians just needing to get over their transphobia to be with a pre-op transwoman. (again i would like to reiterate i DO NOT believe this is what the majority of transpeople believe, its just a vocal minority thats gotten attention from receipt blogs IMO.))**sorry that this post is already becoming an essay and if its derailing from the question, but this is what i think gender critical stuff is meant to react toso kind of in opposition to mainstream ideas of what gender is, i think radfems/gender critical people dont really break down gender into the different things like identity, roles and expression. from my understanding, gender was socially constructed based on sex stereotypes. i think we can all agree that stereotypes are Bad, so why should we identify with some set stereotypes?

the gender critical beliefs is that there’s not right or wrong way to be male or female (male and female in this post meaning to strictly refer to biological sex). gender is holding us back by continuing to subscribe to sex stereotypes and is counterproductive to building a society where people are free to express themselves however they like. (a lot of gender critical ppl equate gender identity with personality, and while i think this can sometimes be the case w nondysphoric people & mogai genders, it isn’t always and usually isnt, because as i mentioned before, a lot of ppl know enough to say that gender expression is something independent of gender identity.)as for my personal take on it & how it plays a part of my life (apologies that this is going to get super anecdotal):this all is related to my own transition. since questioning being trans, i fluctuated between different non-binary identities. i didnt think i was Trans Enough to call myself a transmale because i didnt want to kill myself over not having a penis (or even trans enough to call myself trans at all lol), so i thought i needed to stay as being nb. then i realized they/them pronouns did...... nothing for me. the whole time i had she/they/he or they/he in a profile i was always secretly hoping someone would just call me he lol.

but i felt like i was an insult to REAL transmen. it took me a while to realize that i didnt care too much about the specifics, i just needed to do what made me happy. that happiness was being read as male & using he/him pronouns.

but even then id still struggle. id have moments of thinking that i was just copying my best friend (who had a similar nb -> binary transmale path as me), or that i didnt even feel like a boy, that i was STILL faking being trans, that i should feel more of x y & z, that id made a mistake with starting testosterone, etc. reading radfem/gender critical stuff used to trigger the fuck out of me lmfao.i think what i eventually realized for myself and the sentiment other gender critical transppl share is that i was setting up an expectation/standard for myself that was impossible to attain. with mainstream gender theory, a cisman and i share our gender identity, our gender is the same (”cis” as its used to “identifying with your biological sex”). the thing is though, in terms of sex/gender, theres nothing i find that i have comparable to a male. i dont act like a “man” because im not one, im a TRANSman. ive lived most of my life so far as female and being socialized that way has been significant to me. i relate a lot to women and its always felt wrong to me how suddenly because im transitioning it felt to me like i was expected to revoke my right to speak on feminism/womens experiences. way before i discovered gender critical things i was pissed off at people trying to be “allies” to transpeople saying shit like “all men are trash transmen are real men so theyre trash too uwu!” like. fuck that. and fuck you for insinuating i would EVER treat a woman the way that men do.

like i know there are transmen (and just transppl in general, for that matter), who try to overcompensate with misogyny/misogynistic ideas because they think itll help them pass better but fuck

anyway. im proud of being a natal female and being socialized that way. being trans isnt exactly a party but im glad i could get the insight i have into the treatment of women and so forth. and the thing is, this isnt a contradiction to me being trans at all. once i let go of whether or not i was “male enough” of “valid” as a boy, i could once again just focus on the very concrete evidence in my life: i was EXTREMELY dysphoric about my chest. i’ve been on hrt for almost two years now and ive had top surgery. my dysphoria is almost non-existent since ive had surgery. i dont mind & even get excited about all the changes coming from being on testosterone. (dont like that i cant sing like i used to and that i’ll probably end up balding at least by my 50s if my dads head is any indication, but cismen have this problem too so whatever)

also ive never felt quite right when i was calling myself gay (exclusively attracted to men). i share some issues that gay men might, i Can be affected by homophobia because i Do pass as male, but its still not 100% the same experience and i think that distinction is importantmy concerns & how being gender critical is important to me:

me coming out as trans was a process over time. using the usual trans rhetoric, i was having difficulties explaining myself to people. specifically im thinking about my mom. when i said i was uncomfortable with being seen as a girl, she said she was uncomfortable too. she liked dressing more like a boy. some other shit she said too that i dont remember, but my basic takeaway: cispeople, particularly ciswomen, arent necessarily enthusiastically identifying with their correlated gender to their sex, because..... no reasonable person likes gender roles.

and i get worried about people like my mom who might be encouraged to identify as nonbinary just because theyre gender non-conforming. the identity itself wouldnt be much of a problem except that it seems to me like its being pretty normalized for nonbinary people to just kind of....... experiment with medical transitioning to try to achieve some Ideal androgynous form that would be.... Very difficult to achieve. i worry about people not thinking medical transitioning is a big deal and just kind of.... disregarding all the potential health consequences, how powerful testosterone is as a hormone, and so on. with the permanent changes that come people THEN end up experiencing dysphoria and life is.... really pretty difficult for detransitioned women from what i can tell, and a lot of people talk about how theres been a spike of people detransitioning lately.

i think part of the problem is 1. transmed/truscum people harassing & bullying nondysphoric trans-identified people, so they feel the need to medically transition to Prove Themselves and 2. just in general the aforementioned idea that everyone has a gender identity. i think itd be very uncommon for people to “identify” as cis, and so you get this whole mess of people thinking they need an androgynous body to match their androgynous identity......... etc.

bonus: my mom crying on her birthday because she said she didnt think shed be able to ever see me as a guy. “nonbinary, maybe, but you dont act like a boy.” problem solved, i dont act like a guy, i act like a transguy!!

also again, need to reiterate that i cant relate to men. i can never Become Male, not with our current technology. i was not socialized as male and thats okay!! its okay because im just doing what i need to in order to be comfortable with my body and myself. i dont need to worry about my dating pool seeing me as a Real Man because they can see me fully as the transman i am and my relationship with being a natal woman and just, shit like that. ive gotten a lot more comfortable with even being called she when it does happen (by accident by family members). its not a swear word to me and ive let go of a lot of expectations i thought i had to meet with being uncomfortable talking about my female organs and my past as living as a woman etc etc. im not trying to Be anything anymore. im just trying to live as myself

some of my issues with the gender critical community just as a disclaimer:

i have a lot honestly and im not going to be able to name them all off the top of my head

makes sense that it would be, but i think the community is rampant with transphobia in the sense of flattening transpeople to the “transcult” stereotype where they just..... dont seem to think of us as individuals. they think we’re all genderists getting triggered by misgendering & demanding our pronouns. they think all of us are “delusional” about our natal sex. they think we’re all gender conforming. they dont take dysphoria seriously in general, ESPECIALLY males experiencing dysphoria (i get that your feminism doesnt have to be concerned with “men” but come on). misgendering is just disrespectful to me (idgaf about rapists, whatever use whatever pronouns you feel the need for those people.)

just in general some people dont get that trans people can still exist in a post-gender world? and you can still be critical of gender while respecting people’s pronouns? by their very nature i think the transmed, radfem, and especially gender critical communities are attractive to bullies so you have those flocking to it, and thats an issue but... yeah.

this answer has gone on long enough and im really sorry anon im sure you didnt sign up to read a 13 page essay. i just got lost in my thoughts and felt like i had a lot of explaining to do. i think my feelings are both simple and complicated so idk if i even really answered your questions, i hope i did..., ;;

Genderfluid and dysphoria (and tips to deal)

I’m genderfluid with lots of physical and social dysphoria (do note i’m seperating the dysphoria like social/physical cause know there’s only people with one and i do aknowledge that there are those without any dysphoria or those that are unsure. this post will be about dysphoria though) for me my days are fully female, fully genderless, or mix of male and female (varying percentages) so 3 points, one moving. but i understand cause of this i am limited but will still try my best (also i live in united states, so some parts can’t help like i don’t have much knowledge for instance of canadas care) social dysphoria: this is pretty straightforward but can be very important. having close friends or family being accepting is very important. random strangers less so (but it still sucks, i know) if something like discord or such can go for switch of name on specific days based off preferred name and pronouns or could go off of telling them in quick message like he/him (for example) today if expect to talk with them for irl can go for sending a text message or doing something like wearing a bracelet or necklace or name tag that has colors for specific name and or pronouns. or could go for dressing a certain way (i personally don’t do this for myself cause my gender expression does not always align with gender identity. however if it does work for you, go ahead) no matter what you do of these, you of course can’t expect random strangers to catch the hint if going for something obvious...and i warn that being too obvious (such as sticker saying he/him one day and another day she/her) can more easily lead to transphobia...please be careful also for something like therapists, doctors and such, you can check to see if they would be accepting and tell them specific gender pronouns or preferred name on that day also as 2 weird inbetweens, i find that lowering my social dysphoria also lowers my physical(and vice versa), not as much but  that is something to keep in mind that might be same for you and could try to do something like wear eyeliner or something that makes you feel good and that can help slightly (i always like to wear eyeliner) if it doesnt, oh well, if it does, that’s one other thing you know will help atleast sometimes a bit :3 physical dysphoria: now i’m going to start this one off weird. if your gender is primarily a certain gender and that gender is not your assigned gender (like me, 85% of the time woman and i’m amab) then you can medically transition (i’m not saying you can’t if don’t have physical dysphoria, however i will state that more likely to be neutral as in you will get nothing out of it but spent money and might make things worse if don’t have physical. but for all i know it might help you, but it might help you, i don’t know. this is complicated to me) now according to wpath (transgender care) you can transition to genderless, half way between the “regular” transition or to opposite side including if nonbinary or genderfluid. now medical transition can be getting top surgery without hormones, can be transition to a more middle ground. can be transition mtf or ftm, can be a specific srs that is more...neutralizing. now sadly a lot of hormone providers don’t know this so you could try to adequately explain things and how cause wpath you’re goals are valid. you could (if primary gender male or female) lie about your genderfluidity and claim to be a transwoman/transman (i think this is riskier if say it’s both primarily for instance because your provider should know when stopping, if going on lower dose then they expect you to go for) an alternative, is an informed consent clinic. this allows you to go on hormones without a year ‘in the preferred gender’ or whatever else. you will of course still get bloodtests to make sure safe, however this option is much more straightforward, less convoluted, and less worry of gatekeeping. google informed consent in your states (some are able to make call appointments and work through email) and i will actually state of this. before hormones i was unsure if i was really genderfluid or not, knew at the very least primarily woman, and very dysphoric. the hormones confirmed to me that i’m genderfluid (as genderless days are much more dysphoric now) and i think that’s actually perfectly fine...to be a bit unsure even at the end, as long as you think, overall it will benefit you on average, even if not all days, but most days. because  15% of the days being more dysphoric is still good when 85% are much less. that was a lot for one point... as far as simpler. (in this i will use phrases like person with breasts for instance and not necessarily afab cause well...i’m amab with breasts) so for people with breasts on days where uncomfortable having them. there are the option of sports bras (always wear fitting size and never more than one) loose fitting shirts/jackets, or binding and loose shirts. now binding will deform breasts in time, so if gender is primarily female or otherwise tend to like your breasts (having some days where don’t, if liking them is minority, view differently) then don’t bind, you should go for other options. for people without breasts on days wish had it. there is fake breasts(never tried) bra that’s like chest size fitting and a-cup (and wearing casual t shirts i find helps) or could go for same way and push up. also you can go for dresses to try to help that way (especially if they have padding) genital dysphoria. so in read more

for wishing had a penis, packers if can afford them as well as a stp. (packing with other things only works so well) do not do the things that, ahem, stick in you, keggel exercises will never be enough and wearing those can actually make you feel worse. for people with penis on days where wish didn’t have that. loose clothes, tucking, and gaff are all options. the tucking can be pressure there which can actually make things more dysphoric and sorry don’t know how to help if have vagina and like a genderless day, i simply don’t know...