Iran and Trans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Straight transgender women are not gay men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Straight transgender women are not gay men.

That’s exactly the point I’m making! There are no gay men in Iran who aren’t risking the death penalty. But they have a lot of transgender women. Doesn’t anyone else find that odd?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?

[Anonymous]

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Np. This is the paragraph right before the one quoted.

“Dr Mir-Jalali, 66, a Paris-trained surgeon, has performed 320 gender operations in the past 12 years. Around 250 have involved the complex and physically painful process of transforming men into women by creating female genitals through a skin graft from the intestines. In a European country, he says, he would have carried out fewer than 40 such procedures over the same period. The reason for the discrepancy, he says, is Iran's strict ban on homosexuality, as required by the Qur'an.”

I don’t see how is confusing or unclear. Especially the bolded.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?

Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.

There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?

Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.

There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?

Why would I think that in Iran, a famously repressive and homophobic state, that SRS is somehow hermetically sealed from any homophobia or threat of repression for gender nonconformity?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?

Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.

There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?

Why would I think that in Iran, a famously repressive and homophobic state, that SRS is somehow hermetically sealed from any homophobia or threat of repression for gender nonconformity?

Is there a reason that you can’t answer any of the questions I posed?

[Anonymous]

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Np. This is the paragraph right before the one quoted.

“Dr Mir-Jalali, 66, a Paris-trained surgeon, has performed 320 gender operations in the past 12 years. Around 250 have involved the complex and physically painful process of transforming men into women by creating female genitals through a skin graft from the intestines. In a European country, he says, he would have carried out fewer than 40 such procedures over the same period. The reason for the discrepancy, he says, is Iran's strict ban on homosexuality, as required by the Qur'an.”

I don’t see how is confusing or unclear. Especially the bolded.

And the article went on to say that Maryam only recently got her SRS and not liking what was available in Iran, got it done in Thailand.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Np. This is the paragraph right before the one quoted.

“Dr Mir-Jalali, 66, a Paris-trained surgeon, has performed 320 gender operations in the past 12 years. Around 250 have involved the complex and physically painful process of transforming men into women by creating female genitals through a skin graft from the intestines. In a European country, he says, he would have carried out fewer than 40 such procedures over the same period. The reason for the discrepancy, he says, is Iran's strict ban on homosexuality, as required by the Qur'an.”

I don’t see how is confusing or unclear. Especially the bolded.

And the article went on to say that Maryam only recently got her SRS and not liking what was available in Iran, got it done in Thailand.

That’s not quite accurate. The article was written in 2005 and it says she had the operation 4 years before that. So 22 years ago.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?

Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.

There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?

I am not the PP but I am the one you agreed to disagree with earlier, who referenced Dr. Mir-Jalali and his explicit statements connecting support for SRS surgery in Iran with homophobia. I have not posted since then.

My answers to your questions:

But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

I believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in places where homosexuality is accepted. In other words, if you were making the point that homophobia can exist entirely independently of support for SRS in a place like the US or Europe, I would agree with you.

I do not believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in a place where homophobia means literal execution. In that environment, the stakes are entirely too high to separate the two.

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill?

No, of course not. In fact, I am firmly against the care bans going into place in some states, though I also believe that the science behind much medicalized transgender care for both youths and adults is appallingly weak, and that much more rigorous research and data is needed. But I think the care bans are cruel.

Fundamentally, I do not believe that you can separate homophobia for support for SRS in a society where gay men know they will be executed if they come out of the closet. I believe that separation to be impossible, and it certainly seems to be confirmed by the direct quotes from Dr. Mir-Jalali.

In the end, I think if one finds oneself arguing that the Ayatollah has the better moral position on whatever position you are taking, perhaps it is time to examine the position more closely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?

Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.

There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?

I am not the PP but I am the one you agreed to disagree with earlier, who referenced Dr. Mir-Jalali and his explicit statements connecting support for SRS surgery in Iran with homophobia. I have not posted since then.

My answers to your questions:

But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

I believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in places where homosexuality is accepted. In other words, if you were making the point that homophobia can exist entirely independently of support for SRS in a place like the US or Europe, I would agree with you.

I do not believe that support for SRS can exist without homophobia in a place where homophobia means literal execution. In that environment, the stakes are entirely too high to separate the two.

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill?

No, of course not. In fact, I am firmly against the care bans going into place in some states, though I also believe that the science behind much medicalized transgender care for both youths and adults is appallingly weak, and that much more rigorous research and data is needed. But I think the care bans are cruel.

Fundamentally, I do not believe that you can separate homophobia for support for SRS in a society where gay men know they will be executed if they come out of the closet. I believe that separation to be impossible, and it certainly seems to be confirmed by the direct quotes from Dr. Mir-Jalali.

In the end, I think if one finds oneself arguing that the Ayatollah has the better moral position on whatever position you are taking, perhaps it is time to examine the position more closely.

+many

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Straight transgender women are not gay men.

That’s exactly the point I’m making! There are no gay men in Iran who aren’t risking the death penalty. But they have a lot of transgender women. Doesn’t anyone else find that odd?

They allow trans women to transition without fear or out of pocket expense. I don't think it's weird that many would do so. Do you have an article you can point to that says that gay men are being forced to be women?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

do you honestly not see the connection between homophobia and pushing SRS?

Yes, of course I see that connection. But do you honestly not see that support for SRS can exist without homophobia?

Are you one of those people who think transgenderism is fake and that trans people are simply mentally ill? If that’s the case, then I can understand why you think every trans person in Iran is actually a gay person who was forced to transition.

There are trans Iranians who are getting the support they desire and it has nothing to do with gay people. Is it impossible for you to accept that?

Why would I think that in Iran, a famously repressive and homophobic state, that SRS is somehow hermetically sealed from any homophobia or threat of repression for gender nonconformity?

Is there a reason that you can’t answer any of the questions I posed?

+1

Sometimes I just think they're desperate for some kind of drama in their boring lives and who better to talk about than transgender people? THOSE PEOPLE are so weird, am I right? They're the group that's okay to hate (sorry I mean disagree with) right now. Once trans men and trans women are no longer the acceptable target group, I'm sure nonbinary people will be next. That will probably be later in the decade or the 2030's. I say this because while cis people (currently) have a difficult time understanding why someone would want to transition, I think that it will eventually make sense to them and since most people are binary cisgender people, going from one side of the binary to the other still makes a sort of sense.

A man might be like, okay so this person was a woman but always felt like a man. So he's like me and I'm sure I'd feel uncomfortable if everyone treated me like I was a woman and I had breasts and femme features. A woman might be like, this person was a man but always felt like she should have been a woman. Weird but she likes/feels more comfortable with her body as a woman and I'm sure i would feel uncomfortable if I grew a beard and had a bunch of masc features.

This takes a bit of introspection and an ability to have empathy for others that are different from you and put yourself in their shoes. That is something most people can do with time and thought. Someone saying they're neither a man nor a woman but somewhere in between is not something most people can relate to. There's a sort of framework for understanding the binary gender for most of the population. This just doesn't exist for nonbinary people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Np. This is the paragraph right before the one quoted.

“Dr Mir-Jalali, 66, a Paris-trained surgeon, has performed 320 gender operations in the past 12 years. Around 250 have involved the complex and physically painful process of transforming men into women by creating female genitals through a skin graft from the intestines. In a European country, he says, he would have carried out fewer than 40 such procedures over the same period. The reason for the discrepancy, he says, is Iran's strict ban on homosexuality, as required by the Qur'an.”

I don’t see how is confusing or unclear. Especially the bolded.

And the article went on to say that Maryam only recently got her SRS and not liking what was available in Iran, got it done in Thailand.

That’s not quite accurate. The article was written in 2005 and it says she had the operation 4 years before that. So 22 years ago.

Okay. She waited 14 years after the fatwa. And though Iran does more SRS than nearly any other place,

she decided to have it done in Thailand.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gender-reassignment-surgery-the-sun/

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.

Here’s a good explanation, Jeff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9745420/ Nothing happens in a vacuum and this is a very weird hill to die on.

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.

Np. This is the paragraph right before the one quoted.

“Dr Mir-Jalali, 66, a Paris-trained surgeon, has performed 320 gender operations in the past 12 years. Around 250 have involved the complex and physically painful process of transforming men into women by creating female genitals through a skin graft from the intestines. In a European country, he says, he would have carried out fewer than 40 such procedures over the same period. The reason for the discrepancy, he says, is Iran's strict ban on homosexuality, as required by the Qur'an.”

I don’t see how is confusing or unclear. Especially the bolded.

And the article went on to say that Maryam only recently got her SRS and not liking what was available in Iran, got it done in Thailand.

That’s not quite accurate. The article was written in 2005 and it says she had the operation 4 years before that. So 22 years ago.

Okay. She waited 14 years after the fatwa. And though Iran does more SRS than nearly any other place,

she decided to have it done in Thailand.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make it is surprising how you consistency manage to get things wrong. At the time she had her operation, Thailand was the world leader in sex change operations and did more surgeries than Iran.