I don't know. It does have a physiological basis, that much I know.

it's kind of a pointless distinction to make, i think, or at least one that's not relevant in most discussions or even necessarily to most people's lives. like, i understand why some people are adamant that it's just a medical condition and nothing more, and i also understand why it's a big part of some people's identities, and i don't think the two are or have to be mutually exclusive.

like, i don't doubt for a second that there is a physiological basis, that it's something you're born with (or born predisposed to, maybe, at a push), but i think whether someone chooses to view it strictly as a medical condition or to embrace it as a part of their identity has more to do with their own ways of coping and living with it than anything else.

I view it as solely a medical condition. I disassociate from anyone who views it as an identity.

For cisgendered people, being a Man or a Woman is their identity. Same with Trans* people. Trans* people identify as what their gender has always been. Not necessarily always their status. They might identify with the trans* community but that's optional to the status of being trans*. I hope that makes sense.

Why did the title of my poll get changed?

For me it is an identity because I see medical conditions as something that does not really impact you until you decide to make some sort of action about. For example, depression becomes part of your identity if you are working every single day to eliminate your depression. Being transgendered is an identity to me because most people that are transgendered decide to make a change because of it. So, I guess in a way it would be both. But I don't like it being a "medical condition" because if it were recognized as such, we would likely tried to get "fixed" and "fixed" as not the same as "transitioning" which is becoming more comfortable with yourself through medical and social methods. I hope that makes sense.

I guess it depends on the person? For some people it's one, for some it's the other, and for others like me, it's kinda both.

I'd say it's a medical condition dealing with identity! So, kinda both, but I voted medical condition since I do believe that's the larger part of it.

I'm not trans*, so I feel like I don't have a place to talk.

I also agree with the statement above about deafness. Though it's going to be different for some people.

A different example of "identity" is race or ethnicity -- some people are very much into talking about their racial/ethnic identity in a political context. Some people aren't. Either way, it doesn't mean they weren't born that way. Even if you want to talk about race as a social construct, that doesn't negate individual lived experiences in a shared, socially-constructed reality.

I find it dangerous to go ahead and define something that is extremely personal for everyone. I always go with "when in doubt, ask the person". I really believe it depends, and for most it's a mixture of both. Also gets into the idea that people experience dysphoria differently - for some, it's about how they are perceived, for many more it's about their bodies, and there are probably yet more people who would disagree with just two categories. How can anyone jump from a personal experience to a generalization about everyone in a group?

I'd say other...neither of those describe it accurately. Bleh. Also it could be different for each person!

I tend to say medical condition.

As someone who isn't trans, I view it as a medical condition that can become an intrinsic part of a person's identity, or it may not. My closest trans friend is FtM, and being a transman is part of his identity. He refers to the female identity his parents tried to force on him as his deceased conjoined twin. He is mentally male, but the journey towards finding himself was a big thing, and he does take a lot of pride in not just being a man, but in being a transman. It comes off more like the example of being deaf - a medical condition that is also part of a large, vibrant community.

I have met transgendered people who do not view it as part of their identity. It's a medical condition that they want corrected - it's an inconvenience that exists. Instead of being deaf, I guess it would be more like being born with polydactyly (not trying to be insulting in any way, just the best analogy I could come up with). It doesn't change who they are in any way, and there isn't really a polydactyl community. It's just something you have, and you either get it fixed surgically or you don't.

So I guess the answer from someone on the outside looking in is Either or Both?