-
is *non-op* a valid label?
i found the following article very thought provoking. it essentially suggests that anyone who chooses to not proceed with general reassignment surgery cannot be called a transsexual. the basis of this is that for those that cannot undergo grs because of religious belief, medical conditions, or finances, the choice is a rejection of wanting complete transformation and therefore rejects the full possibilities to be what it is that they are supposedly wanting to be. if you are transsexual, you are either pre-op or post op, nothing in between (no pun intended).
Quote:What About Non-op Transsexuals? A No-op NotionSharon Gaughan
Friday, 18 August 2006 21:00
Can we at all agree and let transsexuals be transsexuals? Human language, while inherently imprecise, does convey rich meanings that frequently become the basis for action, inaction, or dismissal of real needs. Anyone up for a game of oxymoron?
Consider the odd joining of the terms “non-op” and “transsexual” into “non-op transsexual”. And what about pre-op transsexuals? Non-op?
Let’s talk about it.
A Little History
Here is the short form: the original meaning of “non-op” came from “no-op”, a term used in early computer languages. Basically, it referred to an instruction that does nothing (it was sometimes used by assembler-level programmers as filler for data areas).
Managers, of course, took things around a bad turn when they used the term to identify a person who contributes nothing to a project, or has nothing going on upstairs, or both (he or she is “no-op.”
The evolved term, “non-op”, did gain traction in other contexts.
For transsexuals, some now apply the term to a person who, for a variety of reasons, does not proceed with Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). Some are “pre-op” individuals in transition to eventual reassignment.
Others claim no desire to proceed with genital surgery. Virginia Prince originally used the term “transgendered” in the 1970s to clearly distinguish such people as pre-operative transsexuals with no desire to have surgery.
Prince constructed the term to avoid identification as a transsexual. In Prince’s view, a transgender is someone who believes they fall in “between” the genders. Such a person does not identify in part or full as either male or female. A “transgendered” person does not desire surgical intervention to change sex. That may be why transsexuals are sometimes referred to as “extreme” in their pursuit of surgery.
The term transgendered later became a catchword for all sorts of people, such as transvestites, female impersonators, drag queens, and so forth. Whatever the internal emotional makeup, presentation (as distinct from gender or sex) was decisive for the transgendered.
Later still, intersex individuals and others without a specific description came under the term. Transgenderists later evolved the term to a broad abstraction that included people born transsexual.
Medical issues may prevent surgery? Pre-op.
Some may have medical issues that pose surgery risks. The medical reasons may prevent immediate surgery, delay it for a time, or – in extreme cases – foreclose the possibility forever.
Transsexuals often have to cope with life’s little paradoxes. Medical state-of-practice does evolve over time and medical conditions that prevented surgery in the past may not do so today. For instance, certain forms of epilepsy and congenital heart conditions used to be insurmountable obstacles to SRS. That is far less true given today’s clinical practices.
Being placed on hold for SRS merely means that one is pre-op. Sometimes that can mean being pre-op for an extended period, perhaps forever (depending on finances and the medical state-of-practice).
We can only hope that medicine continues to advance and people born transsexual with current medical conditions will not be deterred from surgery in the future.
So, who else claims to be non-op these days?
There are other people that claim to be non-op transsexuals, based on lifestyle choices. They may identify themselves as transsexual, but do not believe surgery would enhance their lives. This can include those who
* Do not plan on using their existing (or future) genitalia for sexual relations,
* Do not plan on being in public situations where nudity is expected, and/or
* Feel their dysphoria is manageable without surgical intervention.
Some of those who state one or more of these reasons are early in transition. They are still working out whether they really are transsexual and committed to realignment of their gender and sex via SRS. Some may conclude they are not born transsexual after all and stop right where they are or even de-transition.
Others, though, say they are transsexual and view SRS as an option to be selected or not as they choose. This view redefines transsexual as a lifestyle choice, rather than a compelling birth condition with a medical solution.
Transgender OxymoronsHowever, saying someone is a non-op transsexual who chooses to be non-op presents us with an oxymoron. That is, a figure of speech that combines two contradictory terms (e.g. “almost pregnant” or “deafening silence”).
So, the non-op oxymoron proclaims people who want to become the other sex yet don’t want to become the other sex.
Worse, it does not define people by what they are, but tags them with a description of what they are not.
What makes the “non-op transsexual” oxymoron so arresting, and so different from a mere contradiction, is the intentional use of rhetoric to force an unnecessary distinction. In this case, a distinction pointed at transsexuals who really are pre-op, even if perpetually.
Gender, Sex, & Presentation
Many anthropologists reserve sex for references to outward biological categories and reserve gender for social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say side effects of a new medication vary with the sex (not gender) of a patient. Gender (not sex), in this view, is less likely have more clear definitions since it is sanctioned by the conventional wisdom of a cultural rule.
I am just one of many people born transsexual who reject the confusion, caused by a rejection of biology. I distinguish between gender, sex, and presentation. For me:
* Gender is innate. It consists of a person’s internal awareness based on neurobiological conditions in the brain and central nervous system. [Since first publication of this column, gender theorists have progressively combined the meanings of “gender” and outward “presentation”, while minimizing the importance of our hormonal environment and genitalia.]
* Sex is anatomical. It involves the determination of female or male on the basis of genitalia, the source of transsexual discomfort. Intersex people can have the physical attributes of both sexes. Typically, the characteristics of one sex can be more pronounced than the other, but there can be a range of physical and/or genetic anomalies. The main point is that intersex people must have the right to express their inner certainty and not be subjected to forcible reassignment from others. [This article does not delve into the genomics and genetics of either transsex or intersex; please look through the rest of the site for more on this subject.]
* Presentation is window dressing. It is the outward expression of one’s inner sensibilities, given one’s anatomical features and social practices.
Non-op? Non-transsexual. Transgendered, maybe.Transsexuals and transgenders often get crossed signals from each other.A person may live full time as, and simulate the presentation of, another gender. If the person has the time, place, health, and money to have SRS but chooses not to do so, they may be transgendered, but they are not transsexual. If an individual wants to have SRS, but lack one of the prerequisites (time, place, health, and/or money), and this lack prevents obtaining SRS, the individual is a pre-op transsexual.
Given the state-of-the-art, FtMs are a special case. If an FtM chooses not to have bottom SRS until such time as the surgical technique can actually provide functioning genitalia, they too are transsexual and, after breast reduction, should be considered a state-of-the-art Man Born Transsexual.
Changing your hair style, installing silicon breast implants, altering mode of dress, and so forth, are surface flash. This has nothing to do with whether you are transsexual. Even taking hormones may not be an indicator of transsexuality if the other steps remain unplanned.
You might just be a person who wants to grow breasts or get a testosterone sexual high.
A Matter Of Concern
Facts are stubborn things and words matter when trying to talk about the facts. We humans sometimes find ourselves gripped by a vocabulary not of our making. Occasionally, this vocabulary leads to destructive ends.
We must have a special concern about the behavior of non-transsexuals who pose as transsexuals and publicize themselves as non-op. A common assertion has it that GRS/SRS is merely an option selected by individuals at one extreme end of a gender spectrum.
Some prefer to base gender on externals, and accept the concept as a comforting socio-political or religious construct. Scientific evidence for the existence of a gender spectrum is wholly lacking because the assertion is non-scientific in the first place. Given that proponents view gender solely as a social construction, assertions about it have no predictive value.
Pseudoscience & Public Policy
Asserting that SRS is an option for a person born transsexual, even when all other factors are favorable, promotes pseudoscientific approaches to public policy. Denying the underlying medical reality of transsexuals has the consequent effect of characterizing SRS as elective surgery that is minimally cosmetic and not reconstructive.
This unscientific denial stymies initiatives to obtain research attention for transsexuals, improve medical practices, secure legal protection, and provide a variety of needed social services.
Let transsexuals be transsexuals.
Transgenders can be themselves and garner respect for their good will if they cease trying to co-opt the space needed by transsexuals to fix their birth condition.
url: http://ts-si.org/looking-glass/1409-what-about-non-op-transsexuals-a-no-op-notion.html
interesting proposition. any thoughts?
-
7 Replies
-
Hi.
Not sure if ill get this right ill try.
,sopposedly , or wonting to, & i dont wish to play on words ,
What i keep hearing is , i wont to be a female , ill add in ( woman ) as this is & can be another issue,
why is it said this way its like they are saying im not a female & i wont to be one.if they are wired female why not just say im a female . ( Woman ). or is there some thing else going on here,
Now im not a transexual or a dresser or transvestic .
yet i can live as a female , woman because i am & from birth i was / am wired both ways. so the terms are intersexted or androgynous ,
now wether i have or had s r s or not does not change who i am . does not change what i am inside both body wise & or Psychologiclly . Mentalally, & Emotionally . this side of the person seems to me to be left out of what is being said ,Heres the differenance some males wont to be female yet they are hard wired male there is nothing about them mentaly or body that is female in any way . or ever will be now they may like to dress as a female they are not female . no problem there,
When you are born with that part of you that is female there is not a problem . not as to what we are talking about here .
so if a transsexual is for real & not doing a act is then female in side then we are on the right road.
Now the differeance is wonting to be , against being , is what im looking at. as to woman you grow in to being a woman not born as one because your body has not grown as one.
Now i know it can all be said in different ways , im just trying to see it in simple terms ,spos ill get wacked no dought. iv tryed,
…noeleena…
-
Just seems like an attempt to categorise again. Truly who cares. I knew SRS was a priority for me. For others I know it isn’t. For others still they would but can’t. It’s still the label stuff…you are this or you are that and I resist it wholeheartedly.
On the history side to connect NOP as a programming instruction to somehow being related in language/ terminology to “No Op” transexuals is such a long bow as to snap the afformentioned bow. In other words I do not belive that programming was the source for the language they are self describing with. Yes, ‘No Operation’ means do nothing in programming but I don’t believe ‘do nothing’ is what they are on about. They are simply not being surgically altered. Literally ‘I am not having an operation’. They are doing plenty of other things on the gender frontier.
-
I agree with Gwendoline, it’s another attempt to categorise. If I read that article properly and then apply it to myself i would be classed as a pre-op transexual person. To be honest though, I don’t really care. If I had all of the money in the world, I would have SRS no problems at all but in reality I’m only 40 years old. I would and do like to believe that I have a long life ahead of me and that means planning for my future financially as well. The law in England to my knowledge lets you change your birth certificate if you pass certain criteria and I remember reading in another of Virginias’ posts/links about some government (?) people recognising the fact that some people in Oz can’t ever afford or medically have SRS and so on.
This is an issue that the writer of the article should be more concerned with, not worry about who is what. There are enough opinions out there already of this nature and then there is the medical terminology as well so aren’t we confused enough as it is? It’s an interesting read for sure but I feel that the writer has just wasted a heap of time.
Sorry about the negativity but I’m speaking my honest feelings.
Peta A. -
Quote:Facts are stubborn things and words matter when trying to talk about the facts. We humans sometimes find ourselves gripped by a vocabulary not of our making. Occasionally, this vocabulary leads to destructive ends.What a sound observation!
I am in the process of summarising a lot of the posts in this forum area and preparing a “position statement” for TR on “labels” – although I acknowledge that such a loose grouping of people is unlikely to adopt a a single position.
My reasoning is that if labels cause conflict and confusion within TR then being able to reference a TR ‘position’ may clear things up.Whilst I have no time for the growing proliferation of labels, there are some threads in the article V posted that resonate with my current thoughts. I’m going to preview them here to see what sort of reaction it provokes!
The article has an underlying theme that “people are calling themselves transexual when they are not”. This from my observation is very true. Gender dysphoria is a clinically identifiable condition, that can manifest in such a degree that adjustment, as far as practical, of anatomical sex is the appropriate “treatment”. It is this group of people to whom the label transexual correctly belongs. And because a post-op transexual is a “woman” or “man” (I hope) – the label transexual is more frequently applied to those who are on a planned journey to reconcile physical sex with gender. As the vast majority of people who associate with the label transexual are not post-op – do we really need the suffix pre-op (and post-op). I think not. They form an unnecessary distinction that creates distress to those who are prevented from completing their journey from medical or other grounds. Our brothers who are transitioning FTM are virtually all pre-op – but that shouldn’t be used to denigrate their gender dysphoria by giving them a ‘second-rate’ transexual label. So lets just stick with Transexual and throw away pre-op and post-op (and therefore non-op).
The second issue the article makes that I agree with, is that transgender has been diluted in popular usage to mean more about presentation than about gender. TR has been, in the past, guilty of doing this in trying to create an inclusive branding for the entire diverse gender community.
The consequent ‘loss’ of respect for the label transgender is, I think, responsible for people adopting the perceived ‘quality’ tag of non-op transexual. Creating new labels to replace ones hijacked by others is a pointless and never-ending task! So once again – I conclude non-op is an unnecessary new label.I think we need to simplify the label space – and stop generating more subtle distinctions that, as the article states, can easily lead to destructive ends.
Let’s go back to basics and start from gender, and define simply what undeniably exists in our community, Give what we observe simple “labels” and get on with our individual lives free from wars over words.
I would propose the following:
[ul]If you have no manifest gender dysphoria, your inner gender sits comfortably your physical sex, then if you dress you are “Crossdressing”.
If you have extreme gender dysphoria and your inner gender is irreconcilable with your physical sex, you are “Transexual”. No pre-, post- or non-op is needed.
And because gender dysphoria is not a binary condition many people in TR will lie somewhere in between being “cross dressers” or “transexual”. These people resent being labeled as “crossdressers” and shouldn’t masquerade as “transexual”. I can only suggest that we take ownership of words and proudly call this group “transgendered”
[/ul]
So there we have it – a proposal for just three labels, based on gender, that I believe is equally applicable no matter what your current physical sex is. -
No to go off topic here and discuss Amandas’ proposals instead of the article that Virginia posted, I like what those three basic ideas at the bottom are. The old keep it simple theory seems to have been used and yes, I believe that it is very sensible.
Peta A.
Moderator
Quote:Hey – it is on topic !!!
The proposal is that we don’t need non-op and all the other prefixes to boot . And the transgender thing is also mentioned in V’s article -
I agree with Amanda & Peta. KIS! Keep It Simple. It’s a bit like Mustard and Chilli – Mild, Medium and Stong. I know there are all number of variations in between but if would be impossible to “label” each one. If one felt that they were between those basic catorgories then they could quote CD/TG or TG/TS. Any further digression would require a face to face meeting with a lengthy detail explanation anyway!
Cheers,
Fay -
Quote:I agree with Amanda & Peta. KIS! Keep It Simple. It’s a bit like Mustard and Chilli – Mild, Medium and Stong. I know there are all number of variations in between but if would be impossible to “label” each one. If one felt that they were between those basic catorgories then they could quote CD/TG or TG/TS. Any further digression would require a face to face meeting with a lengthy detail explanation anyway!
Then there is the view that TG refers to CD/TV/TS/DQ.. then when that gets to the general public who don’t know the difference they see: TG=CD=TV=TS=DQ=man in a skirt (or woman in trousers), which when referring to post-op TS’s is clearly wrong.. problem is labels are needed by people to understand, generalising labels to be ‘all inclusive’ when there are such a diverse set of people, not to mention that the sub-labels (eg CD and TS) are actually mutually exclusive…. well I think I made my point.
To the actual topic. Non-Op why is it different to post-op or pre-op? Well simply it is different but should it define someone as TS or not.. I don’t think so.
If I of sound mind am TS, and I research, collate and analyse the data and risks about having major surgery and decide that the benefits are out-weighed by the risks, how does that change what I am, except that I am obviously an intelligent reasoning person? If I want the Op, have the money, am given the ok by my psych, and then am told in no uncertain terms that I cannot be operated on because of *insert medical reason* why would I not be TS…?
No-Op is a valid term in my book, but like with Pre and Post one should probably avoid it just referring to ‘TS’ unless more detail is required, and where an explanation can be given if necessary.
With reference to the ‘want to be a woman’ != transexual, the Australian medical profession classes people who ‘want to be a woman’ as ‘secondary presentation gender dysphoria’ and note that it is more common and will present later in life in majority of cases (around 40) where as ‘primary presentation gender dysphoria’ presents at an early age through to early 20’s. Primary presentation is often associated with people that will self mutilate their gentials and quite openly hate anything male (or female) about themselves. Secondary is the more common where males (or females) try to live in society as their perceived gender often doing things to affirm it like joining the army and performing in male orientated sports (often dangerous ones).
Take care,
Shells
