You heard someone say "it worked where I live" and answered with "it didn't work for me, so it's useless". You mention "the overall lack of tangible progress", does the very tangible progress I saw in my country just not count, for whatever reason?
You heard someone say "it worked where I live" and answered with "it didn't work for me, so it's useless". You mention "the overall lack of tangible progress", does the very tangible progress I saw in my country just not count, for whatever reason?
(not just in my country btw, but I have lived experience here) I think my point stands. The CID change wasn't euphemistic, it did have very concrete effects for at least a whole country. Because it wasn't just words, it was de-pathologizing.
(and yeah, there is something to be said about removing it rather than changing categories, but even if it is the book of diseases saying it, it's still good that what is being said is "transness, not a disease")
Yeah, it doesn't count, fuck your country.
You saw someone say that the obsession with retaining transness as a pathology has had tangible downstream impacts on her country's policies (and frankly, mine and also in nations all over the world) and started whining about how it helped out because you got lucky with locally benevolent officials.
This entire approach to transness is exploitable, subject to the whims of cis gatekeepers and policymakers, and is not a practicaly long-term solution since it doesn't recognize our right to transition as an actual right, and it's going to be rolled back without much fuss. You can recognize that.
Or whine again about how the mean non-Westerner is invalidating you or whatever.