>

Non-binary people are by definition, transgender. And plenty of NB folks don’t have gender dysphoria and just simply don’t like to be put into a box. But regardless, sex and gender are different things, wanting to change ones own gender doesn’t necessarily mean you are uncomfortable with your physiology. It just means you’d like to change how you’re perceived by others in a purely social sense. While there’s a lot of overlap, they’re not necessarily the same thing
/u/valkeryl (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Stripped to the studs you seem to be saying that being trans means running away from your old gender, and that— in terms of identity signifier— running to the new gender can be seen as incidental: a byproduct of running from the birth gender.  
The seems odd to me.  Whether someone's transitioning because they're running from something that feels wrong or towards something that feels more correct seems like it shouldn't much matter.    
It seems to me that you're not taking people seriously.  You dismiss people who say they experience euphoria and not dysphoria, claiming they're just lying to themselves, or repressed.  That might be true, but doesn't it seem more likely to you that people simply have a different internal emotional experience than you?  How often do you see people online dismissing the experience of others because they find it illegible based on their experience: {"Why don't you just choose to stop being depressed?"}.  How often do cis people tell you that your trans identity isn't real because they had a phase as a tomboy.  It's good practice to take people at their word {within reason}, and to understand that people's experiences can vary quite a lot from our own.    
RE: knowing euphoria without dysphoria.  This again, seems odd to me.  Surely, you'd know what loving touch felt like even if you'd never been beat. You can find yourself suddenly happy without having first been miserable.  You can discover a new flavor you like more than anything without suddenly realizing that all your gustatory experiences before that were rank torture.  I have a hard time addressing this point because I find the notion fairly confusing, but it feels important to address it, because this seems to be near the heart of things for you.      

It is also medically proven that those who are transgender and experience dysphoria have brain waves that align with the gender they identify as rather than their gender at birth.

Also, just as a point of interest, this actually isn't true in any meaningful way.  Source: phd in neuroscience and keenly interested in that kind of thing.  The science behind such studies is very shoddy, or have lots of qualifiers that mean it doesn't say what people think it does. >

(To your last point) Really? I never knew that. When I did research on it, it was backed up by various studies and proclaimed to be true by experts in that field.
And yes, I do admit in my post that it could be due to my lack of outside experience. Because I experience dysphoria, I cannot understand someone who doesn't. I could very well be trying to rationalize it in a way that makes sense to me and I recognize that, which is why I am here.
I guess the core point no one has explained to me is this: why would someone begin the transition process, should they not experience dysphoria? Does it just seem appealing? I truly do not understand it, and I am trying my best to. >

Seems like central here is what it means to be trans.  What is the transition process?  When does it begin?  Is it social transition?  HRT?  Exploring gender non-conformity?  What counts and what doesnt?  It's a tough question to answer because I don't think the term is well-defined.  
But someone might, say, engage in some gender non-conformity, realize something about it feels fulfilling or authentic, and gradually feel into that sense of authenticity or beauty only to realize they're some degree or another of trans.  Basically, fuck around and find out.   
I also know some nonbinary people who started down that path only to realize that HRT disagreed with them in some way or another, so they desisted and expressed their queerness in less medical ways. >

Someone can be GNC without being transgender. In the same sense, someone can be transgender without medically transitioning, though I believe that would help alleviate the long-term dysphoria. The transition process typically starts social for experimentation (pronouns, sometimes social expression for personal reasons which is where I will say I definitely agree with the points in your second to last paragraph) and usually becomes medical (HRT and surgery), though, as mentioned, not everyone does it in this order or does it at all given specific sets of circumstances.
Trans-ness is really hard to define, but that's why I define it as someone who experiences a disconnect between physical sex and their mind. Transitioning is a choice that may help that dysphoria go away, but it is not the "forced" choice.
This is how I define it, atleast. Or in my mind, that is how it works and typically how it goes for trans folk. My question centers around medically transitioning more than social to start with — why would someone begin the medical transition process if they did not feel dysphoria in the first place? Or, going deeper, why would they question their gender if they had no reason to in the first place? >

Hi, trans person here. I do experience dysphoria, but sincerely disagree with the concept that it is necessary to experience dysphoria to be trans. I did not start experience dysphoria until several years into identifying as trans. The reason i discovered that i am trans was because of experiencing gender euphoria. Even without feeling wrong in my pre-transition body/identity/self, i had a deep-seated sense of feeling right when experiencing things that align with my current identity. Without having ever, to that point, had an issue with the gender i had identified with and had been assigned at birth, when i began doing things that are affiliated with my true identity, i knew immediately that they were more true to myself than i had experienced previously. This is what led to my identifying as trans. And while it is entirely possible to be gender non-conforming without being trans and to enjoy presentation, gender roles, or actions associated with a gender other than the one you identify with, if someone takes enjoying those things to mean 'i may align more with this gender than the one i previously assumed myself to be,' it comes across as very strange to me to be dismissive of that. >

The issue with dysphoria as an approach is that it tends towards a weird kinda medical/psychological approach. It's often defined in a narrow fashion that exclusively refers to body dysphoria, and the structure as a whole lends itself to gatekeeping. Just think about the way the term is positioned, through the lens of diagnosis and such. Whatever our imagined ideal for the term, this is the way the term often operates. Your approach to the term even includes this, talking about medical professionals. 
You can excise these issues, sure, but the outcome is invariably that your claim, that dysphoria is a prerequisite to being trans, becomes circular. Say we remove the medical aspect. No need for a gatekeeper. We expand past body dysphoria to include any sort of feeling that preferences one set of gendered stuff over another. We include euphoria as well, because the state pre-euphoria can be defined as dysphoria in contrast to that state. Moreover, we recognize that an understanding of "dysphoria" is individual to the person. What are we left with?
Well, at the end of the day, not all that much. Tell me, what does our definition of "dysphoria" mean besides, "Any set of mental states or characteristics that incline one towards being trans,"? At which point, yeah, if you have nothing to incline you towards being trans, then you're probably not trans. But that doesn't actually say much. It's literally just saying, "Behavior has causes." Or, "Identity has causes." Y'know, depending on how you're approaching it. You could equally say you need ice cream dysphoria to want ice cream. Or that you need religion dysphoria to be Christian. Or, hell, that you need gender dysphoria to be cisgender. After all, they need some cause to not be trans.
You can take it all back the other direction, try to add caveats to what counts or does not count as dysphoria, but at that point I become skeptical of your core claim, that gender dysphoria is a requirement to be trans. Broadly, either the term is meaningless, and the claim about it is true, or it has some real meaning, and I do not think the claim about it is true. >

I don’t know how to do Reddit quotes but in here one of your chief issues seems to be that “dysphoria [as a] prerequisite for being trans becomes circular.” If I’m understanding, you’re saying that the idea of having dysphoria makes you trans and being trans means you have dysphoria is circular reasoning?
That’s just necessary conditions. If you’re a square you have four equal sides and corners and if you have four equal sides and corners you’re a square. There’s nothing circular about a definition. It’s only circular logic if one of the two prerequisites is not necessarily true, like if I said a square is a shape with four sides, so that shape with four sides is a square. OP is essentially arguing that trans-ness be redefined, so their logic is sound. >

I think the better way to say it is that it's a tautology, rather than circular. If you define a square as a shape with four sides, and then you're like, "Gotta have four sides to be a square. Prove me wrong," then yeah, you're right, but it's kinda vacuously true. Similarly, my feeling is that dysphoria is being defined as the set of preconditions that lend one towards being trans, and then dysphoria is being argued to be a precondition to being trans. Which is true, but also who cares? The claims can be said to technically be accurate, but they also tell us nothing about trans people. It's not as if "ice cream dysphoria" is a fundamentally illegitimate way to characterize as essential to the desire of ice cream. It just seems silly and unnecessary. >

Having a little trouble following but I hope this clarifies. The reason why it would potentially matter to have GD as a necessary precondition for being trans is because being trans should be a necessary precondition for receiving gender affirming care. Signs of GD -> successful diagnosis -> Gender affirming care. That’s a clear and obvious path to medical assistance that is easy to legislate and legally protect which means things like insurance companies not being able to weasel out of covering it. If you don’t need a diagnosis and can just declare yourself a protected class without seeking some sort of medical help, then it ties our hands in terms of protecting it. 
Maybe it’s not the case that gender dysphoria is a necessary precondition to being trans, it sure seems like the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests that it is, but maybe there’s some other brain chemistry stuff. Like say a gendered brain that doesn’t care about expression but needs the hormones to feel right, that would change the diagnostic criteria, and I’d be fully in support of changing that. But self ID is like poison for the trans rights movement. >

Okay yeah you're just describing transmedicalism. It's bad. An approach wherein doctors determine if you're "trans enough" to deserve access to transitional care is rather borked on its face and leads to a bunch of problems. Folks can broadly tell if they're trans, and the idea that an external gatekeeper is particularly useful, let alone necessary makes little sense. Therapy can be obviously valuable, as can doctors, but rendering them the arbiters is bad. I assume by "self ID" you are here referring to the informed consent model, and no, that is really not poison. 
As for the idea that this confers protection to transitional care, not really. Transitional care has already proved itself time and time again to have positive effects for trans people. Wild variety of studies. There's no particular need to have some extra bonus word to convey this reality. If transphobes take over the state and start removing access to transitional care, a thing that's already happening in a variety of places, then they will not need the pretense of how the DSM is structured to do so. >

Transmedicalism is bad because the people who have gathered around that movement are basically holier than thou bullies who basically discourage possible eggs from trying to seek help unless they want to kill themselves. That doesn’t mean the idea of external gate keeping is inherently detrimental to the community. 
Also, not to be testy, but no, obviously informed consent is not what the heck I’m talking about when I say Self ID. I’m referring to the popular (specifically online) notion that you’re trans the moment you say (or believe) you are. I completely agree that most trans folks can probably figure out that they’re trans on their own, but it’s unbelievably important to bounce those ideas and feelings off of a qualified professional before seeking medical transitioning. If it were true that self ID is all you need, no one would detransition. 
In regards to your apprehension about legislation and the state; I totally understand this, and I sympathize with any lefty who’s nervous about the prospect of putting these extremely personal things into the hands of institutions which can change with the countries mood. To that I can only offer that it’s the best of a few bad options. I mean the other alternative is anarchist home brew hormones or a system that green lights anyone and everyone into transitioning, which could lead to a lot more detransitioners and irreversible social or medical damage for no benefit. >

Self-ID is kinda a meaningless term. Like, it has a specific legal meaning that does not map to what you're describing, and then it has a super broad set of meanings that tend to vary from person to person. If you think the informed consent model is good, then it seems pretty clear cut that some narrow diagnosis is unnecessary. It's obviously valuable to have people to talk to, but the gatekeeping is the problem, and that's what this dysphoria approach generally represents. 
As for detransition, this claim you make is borked in a few ways. First, because basically no one does detransition. Most numbers I see put the detransition rate around one percent, if not substantially below that. The same goes for regret rate for transitional care. Second, because not everyone detransitions due to not being trans. The stats I've seen indicate that most who detransition do so due to social pressure of some kind. And third, because self assessment being the best assessment does not make it perfect. Yeah, people might get it wrong sometimes. Or they might change. But doctors don't fix that. They just add a new layer of interpretation. We're gonna see detransitioners no matter what. People change. Their needs change. No mode of assessment is perfect. Their existence does not indicate the need for external review.
Finally, while I do have a more generalized tendency towards lefty anarchism, this is not the central cause of my anxiety. Instead it's, y'know, things that are actually happening and have happened in the world. Particularly in places with a deep emphasis on medical gatekeeping. The structures they observably put in place around these ideas are bad. Horrific questions, bizarre bureaucracies, crazy requirements, and, naturally, people being forced to act and respond in particular ways that don't match their reality in order to access care. I don't think the best solution is either medicalized gatekeeping or systemless homebrew. I will note though that the latter is not precisely an alternative to the former, but rather a response to it. No, the solution is what I already said. Informed consent. Access through the medical system, but not gatekept by medical practitioners. >

Apologies again, I can never seem to get the fancy little quote indents to work on mobile so I’ll respond to each paragraph in order.
I reject the idea that Self ID is a meaningless term because it’s pretty commonly used to describe the same concept of being something because you say (believe) you are, and even still it’s useful here because I defined it for the purposes of this convo. I’ll get back to informed consent in a sec.
I acknowledge and completely agree to the statistics you’re paraphrasing in paragraph two. What you’re saying broadly represents the numbers I’ve seen as well! I think it’s a really good case for the effectiveness of gender affirming care and the existence of something we can quantify as “trans-ness”. That being said I would argue that the very low rate of de-transitioning could very well be due to the current system and the hurdles it puts in front of people. It seems like you agree that keeping those numbers low is good, so I’d make the case to you that a non-intervention method would be worse than the flawed system we already have. 
As a final point, I would argue that the process of informed consent is a form of medical intervention in that in most cases from what I’m to understand it still requires a chat with a medical professional. If your (general, not your specifically) doctor doesn’t think it’ll kill you, I don’t see any super compelling reason why I should be involved in that discussion. I still think it will probably make it harder to provide legal protections for, but I think informed consent is the bare minimum for good practice.
My question for you would be, in a world where that’s the standard, and healthcare is affordable and accessible what do we say to the person who claims a trans identity but isn’t making any effort to transition? Does it not seem like on some base level we should expect people to treat being trans with some sense of gravitas? >

The most common thing self-ID is used to mean besides its actual meaning is related to space access. Like bathrooms and such. I don't see it all that much for transitional care. I guess it could extend there in some metaphorical sense? But the whole thing is a bit of a mess. I mean, the actual meaning of the term is like birth certificates and such.
Regarding detransition, no, actually, I do not think the low numbers right now are a good thing. Like, it's good that people getting transitional care don't regret it, but those numbers are ridiculously low. Like, depending on what treatments and numbers you're looking at, they are sometimes one or more orders of magnitude less regretted than those other treatments. There are two possible conclusions far as I can tell. 
The first is that transitional care is a miracle treatment that is beloved by all, and that trans people have a near preternatural sense as to what would improve their lives. The second is that gatekeeping is so absurd in the places being studied (these numbers typically come out of England, and that place is wild) that only people who are like 1000% sure can access care. I'm inclined to think the latter is the case, and this would produce a very low false positive rate, but also a very high false negative rate. So, y'know, we should probably have less gatekeeping such that that number becomes more normal. The first option would also imply that less gatekeeping is good, cause it'd make higher detransition rates kinda impossible.
I'm actually a bit confused what you imagine the difference is between "self-ID" and informed consent. It sounds like you agree that medical gatekeeping is bad, which would mean that telling a doctor you're trans would be near about the only barrier to access. This sounds pretty much the same as "self-ID".
Anyways, to your last question, a good rule of thumb in this and all circumstances is that all cops are bad. And that includes gender cops. What the hell do I get out of deciding who is really trans and who isn't? As long as someone isn't acting in near explicit bad faith, the big problem with me just taking people at their word is, what, that I'll think they're trans when they secretly aren't? Being cis doesn't entail any gravitas, so why should I expect such a thing for being trans? 
Bear in mind also that this is a bit of a contradiction in terms. To claim a trans identity is a big part of social transition. Doubly so if they're using new pronouns and/or a new name. They are transitioning, just not necessarily in the way you'd expect. >

After reading this I can agree I’ve probably been using the term self ID in a way that’s maybe not as common as I thought it was, so instead let me stick to the long form of “being broadly (read:legally) considered trans as long as you say so”. I can understand how it could seem like I’m being contradictory but for me the key is I guess honesty? Maybe consideration is a better word. I don’t think having a trans identity is trivial, it’s a huge part of a trans-person’s life and we’ve seen that dysphoria can be potentially deadly. That’s not something to tuck around with, so I think it should be given the most respect and gravitas possible under our systems. That means protected minority status, it means providing medical treatments, etc etc etc. While I don’t believe that you should have to jump through hoops to receive necessary medical care, it’s because I believe the care is necessary. If you don’t have some form of dysphoria, (or at least overwhelming euphoria in the other direction), I struggle to understand what about a person is trans, and therefore worth society providing exception for. 
I’m happy to accept that in the less dire circumstances of everyday life, identities like gender-fluid and non-binary (without dysphoria) are perfectly valid, people should be able to express themselves however they want! But when it comes to affording the aforementioned exceptional treatment, I firmly believe it should be need based, and therefore gatekept by at least some amount of medical intervention- even if that just means a conversation with your doctor where they prescribe you medication. 
Also you make a really interesting point about those detransition numbers that I hadn’t considered, but I still think numbers that low are the ideal. Medical transition can do permanent damage (or maybe change is a better word) to a person’s body. Even puberty blockers aren’t perfectly reversible. In extremely rare cases, altering your hormones significantly can result in permanent infertility, bone density problems, etc. I think these treatments, puberty blockers in particular, should be available because of the amount of good they do compared to the risk, but minimizing that risk should always be a secondary priority. >

I hear you, OP. Thanks for posting, it's important to have these discussions and it's also good to know I'm not alone in this thought - neither are you. >

Why does it matter what someone's reasons are for their gender? If we want gender to be something each person can create, divine, or choose for themselves, why would we need to police their reasons? Why do we insist the choice to transition be rooted in some medicalized, pathologized lack, instead of a positive affirmation of a person's deepest self?
For some people, of course, the misery caused by gender dysphoria is very real and may drive them to transition. But for others, the reasons might be totally different.
I feel a similar way about sexuality. The narrative that was pushed to make homosexuality palatable to straight people was that we're "born this way". And many queer people do feel they were born gay and knew at a very early age. But as a queer woman, I personally don't care if I was born this way or if I chose it - because there is nothing wrong or inferior about being queer! I don't need the "excuse" that I was born this way to make my life valid and acceptable - "Oh I wish I could be straight but I can't be because I was born gay so I guess I will have to choose this suboptimal life of being queer." No thank you.
Now I understand that trans experience is different than sexual orientation because transitioning does come with a lot of financial, emotional, and physical costs. There are certainly trans people who would choose to be born in a different body if they could and never have to go through the ordeal of transitioning. But this is not the case for everyone and there are many different paths, none of which are right or wrong. >

Because most people believe there needs to be some kind of observable truth or fact of the matter that we can base these genders/identities on, which is fair. If everything is nebulous and we rely predominantly on self identification, we're just going to have hundreds of meaningless terms. >


A lot of modern day "mainstream" beliefs argue that you don't need gender dysphoria to be trans because of the concept of gender euphoria [...] I believe this is a pretty good claim, however I disagree with it because of this philosophical belief: in order to know that something is good, you must recognize when something is bad. [...] I believe that trans people who feel neutral at first in their AGAB are hiding under layers of internal transphobia, and only are able to celebrate gender euphoria because they now realize that what they felt before was gender dysphoria

So, correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems like you're arguing that if someone really is much happier after transitioning, that implies that they were experiencing gender dysphoria before they transitioned; they just for whatever reason failed to recognize that fact at the time.
I think that misses the point of what people mean when they talk about trans people who don't experience gender dysphoria. If you define gender dysphoria as "not being as happy as you could be because of incongruence between your gender identity and AGAB", then by definition every trans person experiences gender dysphoria. But that's not what people usually mean when they talk about gender dysphoria.
Usually, gender dysphoria refers to feeling distress and a sense of "wrongness" about the aspects of your body and behavior that align with a gender you do not identify with. If someone is merely passively dissatisfied with those aspects of themself, that does not rise to the level of what most people would call gender dysphoria. I'm a trans woman myself and while I have experienced plenty of dysphoria, there are certain things that are common dysphoria triggers for other trans women that don't bother me.
For example, I don't experience genital dysphoria. I sometimes feel it might be nicer if I had a vagina, but I never feel distress about having a penis, nor do I ever feel like my penis shouldn't be part of my body. I accept it as part of me and could even say it's a feature I like about my body. And what's particularly interesting is, I used to feel genital dysphoria, used to want bottom surgery, but after a year or so on HRT and being out to everyone in my life, it just stopped and I decided not to pursue bottom surgery. I don't think that can be explained by internalized transphobia--it's just that this stuff is kind of weird and messy and personal, and not everyone's experience will map on to a linear 1:1:1 between identity, dysphoria, and desire to transition.
My point being, I find it easy to imagine someone who knows they'd be happier if they were to transition, but doesn't feel any actual gender dysphoria, not because they're in denial or repressing it, but just because enough else is going right in their life that their gender situation doesn't cause them distress. No different from how a single person might have a happy enough life that they don't feel a strong need to seek a partner out of loneliness, but still recognize they'd be happier with a partner.
It's also worth pointing out that even if literally no trans people like that existed, it would still be a useful fiction to say that they did. I'm a counselor who works primarily with trans people early on in their transition, and you might be surprised how extremely common it is for people to invalidate themselves and delay transitioning because of insecurity about a lack of dysphoria. It's not even that these people don't have dysphoria, but that they're telling themselves "My dysphoria doesn't make me constantly miserable, so I'm not really trans". Very often, it ends up becoming a downright toxic belief, where their misery over not allowing themselves to identify as trans becomes something they can finally identify as gender dysphoria, but now they feel they must constantly stay that miserable to be allowed to identify as trans, so there is no relief from the revelation and they may even unconsciously sabotage their own happiness to exacerbate the dysphoria.
If we make it known and agreed upon that dysphoria is not required to be trans, then this behavior that causes so many people so much agony would simply disappear. They would not have the belief that being trans requires being miserable, and thus they could transition a lot sooner and with a lot less pain. Even if every single trans person in the world still felt some dysphoria anyway, it seems really harmful for literally no benefit to go around saying that that dysphoria is what makes them trans and they wouldn't be trans without it. >

Thanks for sharing! That's an interesting viewpoint, especially given that you have lived experience. >

I can understand the possibility, but wouldn't that classify more as a fetish than a legitimate reason to transition? I mean, if you are transitioning to fulfill a sexual fantasy, I believe that would fall under "fetishistic transvestism". Unless I am wrong? >

Is homosexuality a fetish then because it revolves around same-sex attraction? Heterosexuality?
Why can't a trans person not experience dysphoria at the same time they prefer to have sex with a body that meets their self-image? >

Children know that they are straight or gay from a very early age, some as young as 3 or 4.
Fetishes are sexual so they arise in adolescence when a person is starting to sexually mature and experience erotic feelings.
So it's not the same thing. Like, for example, no man is born with a foot fetish or is born getting turned on from shitting in a diaper. >

The scientists who publish on autogynephilia don't consider it a fetish, so the discussion of fetishism is not relevant. >

Okay but the point is, if it's as you describe then it's something erotic that can by its very nature only start happening during sexual maturation, rather than an innate feeling from early childhood, like real trans people have, or gay people have. >

And now you're describing dysphoria >


I believe that you need gender dysphoria to be transgender because of the lack of reason to transition otherwise.

I agree here. Gender dysmorphia is a pre-requisite for gender affirming treatment. But I think it's a bit more confusing, at least it is to me.
Gender identity is an autonomous evaluation. I feel like a man, or I feel like a woman. I think your question is aiming more towards: if I want to feel like something else, I need to feel uncomfortable with what I am first. That, I do not agree with. I think there are plenty of valid reasons one may choose to identify as a different gender than their sex that don't rely on the exclusivity of necessarily feeling uncomfortable to start. 
However, with that said, I also think that collectively we jumped the shark on gender. I think gender transition inherently ignores the idea that the subject simply can't know what they are transitioning to. We like to call it female to male, or male to female, etc., but is it? I was born a male, and live as a man. I've never identified myself as one because I've never had to. But I know what collectively we all determined to be a 'man' because... I check all those boxes. I have a penis, I was raised as a person with a penis - meaning I was raised as a boy. I partook in the events and activities of boys. I experienced puberty as a boy. I felt heterosexual feelings as a boy.
Those are all experiences that tie directly to that societal construct of 'man.' And me living this lifetime of experiences has brought me to one basic truth: I have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a woman. I could act like I do - but I don't. I don't have that biology. I wasn't raised as a girl. I didn't go through the lifetime of events that girls do that shape their worlds just as mine was shaped for me.
So if I didn't feel like a man - how can I say I feel like a woman when... I don't even know what that is? 
This is not an attempt to downplay dysmorphia, the trans population, or identity in any way. I think it's very healthy to have open and rational conversations about these topics. Because for someone like me, I have no desire for anyone to have anything but the best for them. I just don't understand this - and if I don't understand, I'm afraid of finding myself like OP, worried that my thinking is discriminatory. >

Going further along your train of thought... you have no idea what it feels like to be a woman, and you also have no idea what it feels like to be another man, even one who checks all those same boxes for societal markers. I mean, those will give you some commonalities, but you won't have that other man's brain, and there's really no way I know of to know for sure if you're both processing your experiences as men the same way or feeling the same way about them, even if they outwardly look the same. For all we know, every single one of us experiences our gender in a way that's unique to us.
Which is why, as a cis person who is not a doctor, scientist, researcher, or any kind of expert on anything, my default position is to just believe people when they tell me who they are and not overthink it. Because I can't possibly know how it feels to be them, and I sure can't know better than them how it feels to be them. >


Going further along your train of thought... you have no idea what it feels like to be a woman, and you also have no idea what it feels like to be another man, even one who checks all those same boxes for societal markers. I mean, those will give you some commonalities, but you won't have that other man's brain, and there's really no way I know of to know for sure if you're both processing your experiences as men the same way or feeling the same way about them, even if they outwardly look the same. For all we know, every single one of us experiences our gender in a way that's unique to us.

I agree with this.

Which is why, as a cis person who is not a doctor, scientist, researcher, or any kind of expert on anything, my default position is to just believe people when they tell me who they are and not overthink it. Because I can't possibly know how it feels to be them, and I sure can't know better than them how it feels to be them.

You seem to abandon your previous conclusion in favour of blind faith in other people.
Do you think other people have this ability to know the experiences of other people or other groups that you do not?
What scientific research is there that some men can know what it means to feel like a woman or vice versa? >

I know that I don't know everything. I don't have any particular blind faith that how another person feels inside is even a knowable thing; I just don't want to rule out the possibilities of future breakthroughs and people smarter than I am. For my purposes, it's enough to let people tell me who they are. That doesn't mean there's no value in trying to understand how different people experience the same thing, how those compare, and what that means. It's just not my role. >

Of course there is always the possibility of future discovery supporting any theory and it would be foolish not to recognize that possibility. Usually we find it best to simply discount such theories until such a time that they are supported by evidence. Most people don't accept that psychics or fortune tellers are performing the feats that they claim, even though they tell us they are, and there is always the chance of a future discovery supporting their claims.
As far as I'm aware no compelling mechanism has been put forward, regardless of credentials or intelligence, for men to know what it feels like a woman or vice versa.
I understand if you personally don't find the subject particularly compelling to spend much time on though, we all have different interests. >

It's not even that I don't find it interesting, it's that I literally don't know everything that is known or may be possible to know about the gender experience in individuals or how it can be understood by other individuals. Basically, I'm saying experts exist and may have, now or in the future, ideas on the subject that I'm not aware of. I'm uncomfortable closing the door on the possibility that men will ever understand what it feels like to be a woman or vice versa, or that cis people will ever understand what being trans feels like.
I just don't think that's my role. I also don't think it's the role of a whole lot of random people who read whatever clickbait on the internet and call that "doing the research." I think the default should be for us to believe what people tell us about their gender. I mean, that includes scientists, researchers, doctors, any legitimate experts in the field. But for people who are actual experts, who both do and understand real research and study and happen to have a focus on this area, I think it makes sense that it's part of their job to think about the experience of gender and how it varies between different people and what that means and how it might be relevant to advances in various areas of life. I'm just pointing out that that's not for me to do. I'm not really sure why that's a problem. >

I tried talking about this stuff with people irl and got threatened to be thrown down a set of stairs >

That's kind of the thing I'm wondering. How someone can be trans without experiencing dysphoria. >

As a trans guy, I 100% agree 👍 >

I strongly believe that If you don’t have gender dysphoria then why transition, all the health issues that come from transitioning are no worth the poor quality of live >

Would love to see how this went down in the other subs you mentioned >

I know you're not responding anymore OP, but I just wanted to mention that people who are nonbinary may also fall under the trans umbrella, so their gender expression can be gender neutral, or sway to one side of the gender binary, but that doesn't make them less NB. So they may not experience gender disphoria, they absolutely can, but the simple act of living as a nonbinary person can give them gender euphoria, even though their physical bodies may not cause disphoria. I know many NB people who love their bodies, but recognize that their bodies do not equate to their gender as they do not identify with a gender within the binary. Just wanted to point that out too! :)
Edit: changed my first sentence to be more inclusive of Intersex individuals who identify as nonbinary, as they may consider themselves trans or cis >

Here's a question. If a person is diagnosed with gender dysphoria, then gets some form of treatment, be it surgical, hormonal, therapeutic, whatever their doctors suggest, and it works and their distress is alleviated, how would you describe that person? Do they still suffer from gender dysphoria? Are they still trans? It seems to me like most people would consider a trans person who has undergone successful treatment could be a trans person without dysphoria. Would you disagree with that?
Edit: A few others are commenting with similar things, so I'll skip ahead to the part 2 of this. My guess is you're response might be along the lines of "sure, but that's obviously not what I meant". But if you acknowledge that this state is possible, and you acknowledge that there is a diversity of trans people for whom different types of treatment makes sense, including some treatment that is not surgical or medication based, it would make sense that some trans folks just naturally find themselves in positive / supportive environments that essentially preemptively alleviate any dysphoria without needing explicit treatment, and for this reason may never be diagnosable with dysphoria at all, but the reason for that may because they're just naturally exposed to the sorts of environments that alleviate any distress. These people then may or may not decide that further transitions or treatments may make them even happier still, but they're likely never going to get any kind of formal diagnosis, because they are not feeling sensations of distress. >

Hi! I replied to this in another comment just now actually. I think I will do a quick edit to my post to address it. >

First, here was my edit in case you missed it:

Edit: A few others are commenting with similar things, so I'll skip ahead to the part 2 of this. My guess is you're response might be along the lines of "sure, but that's obviously not what I meant". But if you acknowledge that this state is possible, and you acknowledge that there is a diversity of trans people for whom different types of treatment makes sense, including some treatment that is not surgical or medication based, it would make sense that some trans folks just naturally find themselves in positive / supportive environments that essentially preemptively alleviate any dysphoria without needing explicit treatment, and for this reason may never be diagnosable with dysphoria at all, but the reason for that may because they're just naturally exposed to the sorts of environments that alleviate any distress. These people then may or may not decide that further transitions or treatments may make them even happier still, but they're likely never going to get any kind of formal diagnosis, because they are not feeling sensations of distress.

Regarding your edit, I get what you're saying, but I think this is kind of just talking past what the people you're arguing with are actually saying, and I think os also at odds with how dysphoria is actually diagnosed, to the point where I'm not really sure I understand the point you're trying to make is. I don't think most trans people or medical professionals would consider these people to be suffering from dysphoria. If you want to make up a new concept about "dysphoria in remission", that's something that conceivably could make sense, but I don't think this is how the word is typically used, nor do I think that usage adds a ton of value. It's basically saying "you might experience distress if circumstances were different", which is kind of true of literally everything. And it becomes further muddled by the fact that as I mentioned in my edit, not all "treatment" for dysphoria is surgical or even medical, so to take someone who is not and possibly never had experienced distress because of being in a really good environment, and merely observe that in different circumstances they might be experiencing distress seems like kind of an empty assertion. >

Sorry, I guess I did miss your edit! I've been trying to read as many responses as possible so I definitely missed that. I actually really like your stance, and I guess I never thought about it that way. Yes, I do think social situations can alleviate side effects of being trans that do come with it, but I do not consider that as dysphoria if that makes sense. As defined, it is "a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity." What you are describing is a social situation that can help a person feel less beat down socially, but does not cure the dysphoria in the physical sense as it is defined. I do recognize that gender dysphoria is different for everyone, but I don't believe that a social setting can influence one's dysphoria towards their own body without them changing it.
If it's okay that I ask, how am I really talking over the points? I thought I was hitting them exactly, but I think I could be wrong about that. My point was that someone who fully transitions no longer experiences that dysphoria because they are getting treated for it, the same way a sick person would get treated for an illness. Tying it back to your argument on dysphoria in social situations, as I said previously, it will alleviate the pain that comes with being transgender (the social malice) but not the dysphoria itself.
In the opposite manner to your argument, let's say a transgender person goes through the "complete process" (putting it in quotations since I do understand not everyone goes through it) but still is in a situation of complete misgendering and lack of acknowledgement. They will no longer feel the physical dysphoria, but feel beaten down socially which can lead to psychological strain with their own mind and cause other stressors or pains.
If I'm getting your argument wrong / not hitting your points again, feel free to correct me. I could easily be accidentally missing what you're trying to say, and I do apologize for that if I am. >

The issue is that you claim to take issue with the statement, which is often made by trans people that "you can be trans without having dysphoria".
But then you say things like:

Yes, I do think social situations can alleviate side effects of being trans that do come with it, but I do not consider that as dysphoria if that makes sense.

If you want to dispute a statement made by someone else, it makes sense to use their definitions, not yours, otherwise it's a purely semantic debate. The definition you gave was "a sense of unease". But if you try to just boil a medical diagnosis to a lay person's sentence, it's going to be ambiguous. But if you ask an untreated trans person who is perfectly happy for whatever reason if they're experience "unease", they may or may not agree with that. And if you ask medical professionals, they're going to have a much more specific criteria for diagnosis, that again, some trans people for various reasons won't meet in a clinical sense.
So imagine we have a trans person who doesn't self identify as feeling "unease" and don't meet criteria of the DSM that would get them a diagnosis. Based on what you're saying here, you're not even disputing that they're trans, but seem to be instead arguing that actually they do have a latent undiagnosable dysphoria that is basically a condition of your own invention and doesn't align with the terminology used by the trans or medical communities. >

Okay, let me clarify some things — I think that people who don't experience dysphoria but claim to be transgender are not transgender. I do not say this outright simply because I do not want to gatekeep or be transphobic. I dislike people who shove personal beliefs down others' throats, and I am trying to refrain from doing that while also explaining my stance fluidly. 
Furthermore, I believe that those who are "neutral" to their AGAB but experience gender dysphoria, however, are transgender and experienced that physical dysphoria in a different way (i.e pushing it down due to societal normals, trauma, etc. The same way someone's brain can push down physical pain as a coping mechanism, or completely forget traumatic experiences). It is typically found in trans women, but there are also cases of it happening with trans men.
I have discussed with medical doctors on the principles of dysphoria, as I (and Google) gave. It seems to be a mixed bag of responses, whereas some believe that dysphoria is required (which is why some people need extensive therapy & a diagnosis to begin treatment), while others believe anyone can be allowed to transition should they understand the consequences (informed consent).
Going back to my stance on social situations, it is the case of any negative/positive situation: when people attack you, you will feel hurt, and when someone affirms you, you will feel good. It is pure psychological nature to be hurt by those who misgender you intentionally and feel good when someone affirms your gender and validates you. This is not equivalent to dysphoria though, because it does not correlate with your personal biological sex / gender, but instead correlates with a social situation that can affect you emotionally.
I don't understand how my definition and principles do not align with that of the proper definition of dysphoria. How are they different? /gen >

I guess I'm confused. I think the root of my confusion comes back to the following sentence.

Yes, I do think social situations can alleviate side effects of being trans that do come with it, but I do not consider that as dysphoria if that makes sense.

If you agree that trans people exist, and you think certain situations can alleviate the "side effects of being trans", then it seems like you are agreeing that there are people who because of this alleviation will claim that they do not feel "unease" and may not be diagnosable based on the DSM criteria of dysphoria. But I feel like you're waffling back and forth between arguing that "actually, this person is not trans" vs "actually, this person does have dysphoria".
Something is being obscured by terminology here, and again it goes back to the initial prompt that was the subject of your edit. If someone is treated for dysphoria, they will no longer feel unease and would no longer meet the DSM criteria. But here you very explicitly argued that they still do have dysphoria (using your illness analogy). But then in this post you now say, also quite clearly:

I think that people who don't experience dysphoria but claim to be transgender are not transgender. 

I read the remaining three paragraphs of the above post twice, and I don't see how it resolves this. If you agree that it is possible for a trans person can have their dysphoria treated to the point where they would not self identify with unease or meet DSM criteria, and if you agree that not all treatments require surgery or specialized medicine, then it pretty much necessarily follows that a real trans person can essentially benefit from social / environmental "treatment" and not experience the symptom of dysphoria or having ever been diagnosed with anything.
Maybe to your actual point, it is also possible that some people who claim to be trans are wrong about their condition. But this is very different from arguing that everyone who makes that claim is wrong about their condition. >

!delta Forgot to do this before (really sorry!), but thank you for the many in-depth articles and references. It has been interesting diving into this, and it helped reshape some things that I thought certain in terms of GD's definite link with transgenderism. I find it fascinating how the psychological identity isn't as connected with the medical field as I expected or even previously researched. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/takethetimetoask (2∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The easiest rebuttal to your view is that it's simply not your place or my place to gatekeep other peoples' feelings about their own gender. People have a right to self-determination, and that right needs to be respected. Neither of us are qualified as medical doctors or psychiatrists to say what the appropriate standards of diagnosis and care should be. >

How far does the right to self-determination go? We know that I can't state that I'm a doctor if my medical license expires. 
 OP is simply suggesting that certain people are not transgender, even if they claim to be. Transgender has two meanings. A transgender person is someone with the mental illness gender dysphoria as diagnosed using the DSM-5. And/or, a transgender person is a person who says they're transgender. >

Let's imagine we have two trans boys.
The first boy we just say "ok, do you want to choose a new name? Kye! Great. Ok Kye, let's get you some clothes that you like and speak to your school."
The second, we say "No. You're a girl. Your name is Tabitha, and you'll stop this sillyness right this instant. If I find out that you've asked your school to change your names I'm cutting off your internet access and sending you to a Christian camp" 
One of these will likely experience much more distress. Probably diagnosable distress! Are either of them more trans than the other? >

One of them is more Gender Dysphoric than the other. I don't think someone can be more transgender than someone else. Much like graduating from an Ivy League school, you either did or you didn't. It's a threshold you cross. But your example doesn't really take into account the DSM-5 Criteria, which is what is used to diagnose the mental illness known as Gender Dysphoria. >

Let's take it into account then!
DSM-5 wants two of the following:

Noticeable incongruence between the gender that the patient sees themselves are, and what their classified gender assignment

Both check.

An intense need to do away with his or her primary or secondary sex features (or, in the case of young teenagers, to avert the maturity of the likely secondary features)

No.

An intense desire to have the primary or secondary sex features of the other gender

Both yes.

A deep desire to transform into another gender

Both check

A profound need for society to treat them as another gender

Sure

A powerful assurance of having the characteristic feelings and responses of the other gender

Why not

The second necessity is that the condition should be connected with clinically important distress, or affects the individual significantly socially, at work, and in other import areas of life.

This is the spicy part though isn't it. The first child may not ever experience this, but the second one almost certainly will. And it's required for a diagnosis.
Gatekeeping using this criteria necessitates inflicting suffering on trans people before giving them treatment they desire. >


A powerful assurance of having the characteristic feelings and responses of the other gender

What does this even mean? It seems to suggest that sex stereotypes and gender essentialism is "real", which is obviously untrue. A woman isn't a man just because she has interests which are traditionally masculine - otherwise all female MMA fighters would be trans, and they aren't 
A lot of this seems to be very gender essentialist in its thinking. Maybe activities and hobbies and colors and clothes and empathy levels aren't gendered at all. You aren't trans just because you're a boy who likes pink or because you're a girl who prefers pants over skirts - and those interests of yours aren't even an indication of being trans. We're all allowed to like whatever we want. Gender nonconformity isn't a sign of mental illness, it's a sign of critical thought and independence >

You're getting it backwards. It doesn't mean "I like girls toys, so I am a girl" it means "these toys are girls toys because they are my toys and I am a girl".
My behaviours are girls behaviours because I, a girl, am doing them. >

By that logic any toy a girl owns is a girl's toy. 
Which may be true in that there is no such thing as a gendered toy (or anything else) in the first place. But I don't see how it relates to being trans 
It's the same logic as the meme of "I'm straight, so if it gets my dick hard it isn't gay." Which is funny, but idk how logically sound it is >


By that logic any toy a girl owns is a girl's toy. 

Yes.

But I don't see how it relates to being trans 

You don't see how a person describing themselves and the things they do as of the opposite gender to their birth gender has anything to do with being trans?
We might struggle to have a productive conversation if that's the case. >


You don't see how a person describing themselves and the things they do as the opposite gender to their birth gender has anything to do with being trans?

Not based on what you're saying. If no thing and no activity is inherently gendered then how can it be the opposite gender? >

I agree. Unless you have an “instinctual” or “abnormal” affinity to be the other gender, a mindset that cannot be rationalised, taught of or explainable in any other way then being described as a disease of the mind or an abnormal way of creating thoughts, realities and ideas, you most probably are not transgender, but insecure, annoying and exploitative. People who are trans without being also gender disphoric are only trans for the benefits of being the other gender and being trans or for the need to be special and get some attention. From my personal experience they are also the most inyourface people that i have seen: that tell everyone they are trans or want you to consider them women but they have a beard and wear their penis in short tight pants proudly. That make a big deal out of everything and portray women as being weak, stupid, afraid of everything and only an appearance. The most annoying and popular one being Dylan, who is a joke for the trans community as well for the women, a satire in disguise. I haven’t yet met any man as misogynistic as this guy is. And i still expect him to come out in 300 days and say this was all a joke and an experiment and wanted to show people how stupid they are. 
On the other hand, from my personal experience those that do suffer gender dysphoria are realistic and just normal people, who struggle with who they are and look for ways to improve it, the same way people with body imagine issues are. >

Suppose that a trans person transitions, and after transition they are able to pass, and they no longer experience any gender dysphoria. Is this person no longer trans? If they are still trans, then this is an instance of a trans person without gender dysphoria. >

What? They don’t have dysphoria associated with the gender they now align with, which is different from their AGAB. Were they to be misgendered or made to think about being their AGAB they would have dysphoria still.
? >

I think a good take on this whole thing is Contrapoints Transtrender. I don't really have much to say that isn't being touched upon in that one. 
It might be worth pondering why you care so much about what some other people are doing with their own bodies. To me, it comes off a bit petty. >

Thank you. I will watch that video when my iPad charges.
Also, it's less of "caring so much about others" and more "why do people believe ____?" I am genuinely just curious on why someone would transition without dysphoria. >

Personally, I love horror movies. Getting scared is the best thing ever. But I simply cannot handle embarassing scenes.
This is something that always baffled me, that some people enjoy being scared, or enjoy second-hand embarassment, while it for others are flat-out unpleasant.
With this perspective, it wouldn't surprise me if some people simply didn't get any gender dysphoria, despite being ever so much trans. Maybe some brains are just wired to handle the mismatch differently, maybe they're have a different way of seeing themselves. Something. >

What about gender fluid? I don't completely understand it, but if a person feels like their gender is different at different times, as opposed to feeling "neither" or "between" genders, it seems to me that it's possible that they don't feel distressed at their assigned gender (at least some of the time.)
This view seems to amount to saying people can't or I guess shouldn't be able to change their gender without experiencing dysphoria. 
Other than making sure people are not making harmful choices, I don't really see what that accomplishes. You can't really stop someone from choosing to identify as a different gender, for whatever reason. All you can do is deny their gender preference, or interrogate them to try to find out if they have a good reason. I don't think that will lead to a positive outcome. >

I think gender dysphoria is different for everyone. I believe someone can identify with nonbinary, given that they feel some semblance of dysphoria. I admit, I also do not understand gender fluidity, as I don't quite get how this feeling can be fluid.
And yes, I completely agree with that last bit. I've said this before, but I'm not using this post as a way of harassing or disregarding others who identify as trans/choose to transition without dysphoria. I'm just trying to see if there are any major flaws in this belief, and also answer my questions on why someone would start this transition process without it. >

See so many dudes walking around my suburb in dresses now who clearly aren’t trans and totally just doing it to get attention >

Oh let the kids make pretend, it’s just a phase anyway. >

Not a direct disagreement to “you need gender dysphoria to be transgender” but rather, do you not think that people who have dysphoria should have cisgender affirming care first? If a boy thinks he’s a girl, and goes to the doctor and the doctor says “you have dysphoria” then maybe he actually just has low testosterone, would it not be in the child’s best interest to get a hormone panel, see if he’s low, take some extra testosterone, before literally causing irreparable harm to his body with puberty blockers? Or waiting till puberty to discuss anything to do with transitioning? Ofc you don’t “feel like a boy” bro your balls haven’t dropped yet >

Sorry, u/brocheckitoutwtf – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: 

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.  

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.  
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. >

Gender dysphoria is a sensation rather than an aspect of identity. Someone who isn't trans could also feel gender dysphoria. Furthermore, trans people aren't in a constant state of gender dysphoria. Are you saying that having gender dysphoria at least once is a prerequisite to forming a trans identity?
Why do you associate the two so closely? I'm not sure I understand how you're thinking about it. >

Could you explain a bit more on the fact that non-trans folk experience GD? I believe there is a difference between body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria, and am curious if you've possibly linked the two, or maybe even have outside reasoning for why a non-trans person would feel that way.
I associate the two so closely, mostly for the beginning of the transition process; how could someone know they need to transition into the other body if they do not feel as though they don't fit into this one? Once someone transitions medically, yes, the symptoms of being transgender (which I previously defined as gender dysphoria, although you say otherwise and I am curious to know more on) slowly get treated & therefore are no longer at the forefront of the person.
Once someone transitions, they will no longer feel dysphoria because their body matches their mind. But the problem is specifically in the beginning of the process, where they experience no dysphoria in the beginning at all but still claim to be transgender. How would they know they were trans at first, or know to transition since they don't feel the things transgender folks feel? >

The issue with those earlier studies is that many parents had their kids diagnosed with gender identity disorder not because their kid had dysphoria but because they displayed “gender role inappropriate behavior.” So if Timmy is secretly playing dress up and using his mothers make up he could be sent to the clinic by his parents. For boys gender identity disorder could from desiring certain sex traits OR “cross gender role” behaviors, as stated in the DSM-3. So boys could be diagnosed without having any dysphoria around their anatomy which makes those studies relatively inaccurate.