This is the story of an incredibly brave individual who had an amazing impact in very difficult circumstances.
Maryam Molkara was a woman trapped in a man's body. She was also living under Islamic law in the Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini. Yet, as Robert Tait reports, her determination to confront the hallowed leader has made Tehran the unlikely sex-change capital of the world
I don’t agree that this is an empowering story but I am aware of it, thanks.
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 51152
Offline
Anonymous wrote:I mean, this is a dumb as sh*t argument. I think DeSantis is terrible but the fact that in a weird historic quirk the Ayatollah Komeini allowed an MTF SRS in the 70s is completely stupid and yes, sounds like apologia for Iran.
FTM SRS is also allowed. If you think this argument is dumb, please find another thread. I think this so-called "quirk" is interesting. The Iranian government has a lot of horrible policies. It is especially horrible when it comes to gay people. But, largely through the efforts of a single individual, it is fairly tolerant of transgender rights. I don't think there is anything wrong with noting that fact.
Anonymous wrote:This is they weirdest thread ever and I don’t believe it was started as a good faith enquiry
I started it and, indeed, am so confused about Jeff’s reasoning. We obviously don’t agree, but I appreciate his arguments. I find it impossible to separate Iran’s homophobia from their trans stance, but I certainly don’t know everything.
Anonymous wrote:I mean, this is a dumb as sh*t argument. I think DeSantis is terrible but the fact that in a weird historic quirk the Ayatollah Komeini allowed an MTF SRS in the 70s is completely stupid and yes, sounds like apologia for Iran.
FTM SRS is also allowed. If you think this argument is dumb, please find another thread. I think this so-called "quirk" is interesting. The Iranian government has a lot of horrible policies. It is especially horrible when it comes to gay people. But, largely through the efforts of a single individual, it is fairly tolerant of transgender rights. I don't think there is anything wrong with noting that fact.
It is an interesting bit of history. I don’t think it’s indicative in of any benevolent intent on the part of Iran, but it is interesting.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 51152
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
I think this is the crux of it. I believe that many gay people in Iran are forced to have this surgery in order to be in (what would be) a homosexual relationship. So I guess I don’t think that Iran is in any way progressive because I don’t believe many of these people would have necessarily been trans without this undue pressure.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
I have been thinking about this. It's fascinating, and seems highly progressive. Then it occurred to me, there's no mention of women who want to transition into men. So the people transitioning are men, men who already are overwhelmingly favored by this society, including when they want to transition into women.
That is more of a short-coming of the Wikipedia article than anything. Female to male transition is also available in Iran. See this article:
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 51152
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Really this is a very simple question. Does Iran support trans rights only because of homophobia? There is clear evidence that is not the case. Historically there is no connection and no evidence that trans rights exist because of homophobia today.
Iran has deplorable policies regarding gay people. If one policy is forced sex changes, that is of course unpardonable. But you seem to believe that Iran's horrendous policies towards homosexuals discredits the government's support for trans rights. We will have to agree to disagree about this.
Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, sorry to bother and delete this is it’s inappropriate or anything.
I was wondering whether you were serious when you expressed your belief that Iran is “more progressive than many Republicans leaders” regarding LBGTQ+ community?
Surely you don’t believe that ALL gay people are trans, right? So forcing them to get surgery and live as the opposite sex in order to love who they love is an even more extreme ‘treatment’ which causes many physical health problems than Conversion Therapy.
If I’m misreading you, my bad! But if I’m not, you might want to examine your knee-jerk reaction which led you to praise Iran of all places for their civil rights.
I didn't say that Iran is more progressive regarding the LBGTQ+ community, but regarding transgender people specifically. Obviously, Iran has very backward policies regarding gay people. But, on the specific issue of transgender individuals, Iranian leaders have been much more supportive than most people would realize. As the Wikipedia article to which I link says, "Surgery for intersex conditions have been practiced in Iran since the 1930s." In 1963, Ayatollah Khomeini supported such surgery. In 1987, Khomeini issued a fatwa and, as a result, "transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the Ayatollah Khomeini was more tolerant of trans people than is the current governor of Florida.
NP. I don’t know, Jeff. If the Ayatollah is more tolerant of trans people because he executes gay people, that seems like at least leaving off major facts when comparing the Ayatollah to the current governor of Florida.
I guess if you believe that you cannot discuss trans issues in isolation you are correct. But the entire discussion in which I brought this up was about trans people, not gay individuals. Generally when discussing one issue it is not required to also discuss additional issues. Should we also evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and teaching about Black history in schools?
Come on, Jeff.
In Iran, there is government support for limited trans rights precisely because of extreme homophobia. Transition is offered as an option to men — women being largely irrelevant — as an alternative to execution. That is a foundational fact that has to be mentioned in literally any favorable (!) discussion of the Ayatollah’s policy on transgender people. It’s genuinely shocking to me that you think it’s an irrelevant fact not worth mentioning, or at least not any different than any other political stance. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of Iran's tolerance of transgender individuals. Those policies were developed completely independently of policies regarding homosexuals. You are arguing for the existence of a linkage that has no basis in history. As the expression goes, two things can be true. The Ayatollah Khomeini can be more progressive regarding trans rights than the current governor of Florida and Iran can be absolutely terrible when it comes to gay rights. I've been discussing the first of these. The second had not really been relevant in either of the discussions in which I've been involved.
That article does not make the point you are claiming that it is making.
But it does. “ Becoming a new version of yourself that is loved by the person and is considered a rebirth, liberation from the physical prison that does not belong to him, access to basic rights, the possibility of changing the name, obtaining a birth certificate and a driving license certificate based on the new gender, choosing clothes and finally eliminating the charge of homosexuality and the risk of execution (punishment for sodomy) is only part of the benefits of accompanying religious rule for transgender people. In Iran, the Imam Committee provides interest-free loans to some people eligible for gender reassignment surgery, which is in line with the recommendations of the WHO”.
Okay then. I must be really slow. Explain to me using small words what point you are making and how this article supports it. Because I don't see the connection at all.
The way to get out of being executed for being gay is to get SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). That’s all.
That's true today. It's not why the transgender policies were developed and it is not why those policies exist now. It has nothing to do with why trans people choose to have such surgery. This is a terrible aspect of Irans anti-gay policies. But, it is not part of their trans policies.
I know about Maryam Khatoon Molkara and how she showed her breasts to the son of the Ayatollah and he brought Maryam to see his dad and they declared a fatwa because she was so impressive and womanly. And now Sex corrective surgery for the purpose of bringing out one’s true gender is not only unproblematic for Islam, but wajib (mandatory).
So, if you’re a man in love with another man, you must get SRS. Homophobia is the reason Iran is “progressive” wrt trans rights.
Neither of these sentences is true. The Wikipedia article about Transgender rights and Iran has a section about this which I will quote in its entirety:
Forced surgery for homosexual people
It has been widely reported that homosexual individuals are pressured to undergo medical reassignment as part of the Iranian state's oppression of homosexuality.[9] A 2016 study analyzes European and American literature about the topic as characterizing legalized transgender surgery at least partly motivated by a desire to enforce a heteronormative binary conception of gender, including 'forced' surgery for some gay people, and critiques that view as an oversimplification.[8]: 250 Two studies, however, have contested the belief that cisgender homosexuals have actually undergone sex change due to social pressure.[40][41]
Obviously Wikipedia is not necessarily the most authoritative source, but the Pinknews article linked above relied in the Sun tabloid so that, if anything, is worse.
To the extent that homosexuals are forced to transition, if they are at all, that is part of Iran's abhorrent policies towards gay people. The policies regarding transgender people were not developed as a solution to homosexuality, but rather for entirely different reasons.
The Iranian gender reassignment surgeon in the article you linked does not seem to agree with your analysis.
Here is the paragraph in question:
"In Iran, homosexuality is treated as a crime carrying the death penalty," he says. "In Europe and north America, it is accepted. Transsexuals aren't homosexuals. Unlike homosexuals, they suffer from a separation of body and soul where they believe their own body doesn't belong to them. But in Europe they can have a free life. They aren't under the same pressure to change their sex. In Iran, transsexuals suffer from a lack of awareness, within their own family and in wider society. That increases the psychological pressure and contributes to the higher number of operations here."
This is somewhat confusing and unclear. I believe what he is saying that that transgender people are pressured to get sex reassignment surgery whereas in other countries many transgender individuals don't medically transition. I, of course, don't agree with such pressure. Nobody should be forced to have an unwanted operation.
The surgeon — one of Iran’s preeminent gender reassignment surgeons — started that entire discussion with a discussion of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals. I simply do not understand how you can read that quote and have your takeaway remain that Iran’s approach to transgender rights is wholly independent of its extreme homophobia. It genuinely confounds me. I suspect if you asked the surgeon himself whether the two are inextricably linked, he would say that of course they are. Why else would he bring the death penalty up in that context? Why do you think he mentioned it at all? If they are unrelated, there would be no need to say anything about the death penalty.
Really this is a very simple question. Does Iran support trans rights only because of homophobia? There is clear evidence that is not the case. Historically there is no connection and no evidence that trans rights exist because of homophobia today.
Iran has deplorable policies regarding gay people. If one policy is forced sex changes, that is of course unpardonable. But you seem to believe that Iran's horrendous policies towards homosexuals discredits the government's support for trans rights. We will have to agree to disagree about this.
I’m going to rely on the words of the surgeon, who is well-respected, and Iranian gay rights activists. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}