This coin was written by the original coiner of transid (aka 6120975), (not me). And the OG coiner claims this is more in line with their original intentions of what transid’s meaning was intended to be. Cherid Coin “Cherid: short for cherished identity is a term for those who are switching to a differing identity than how they are societally perceived. It is for those who genuinely identify as such. These individuals may or may not have dysphoria. To be cherid the identity must meet the following criteria: 1. Can be transitioned to 2. Effects how one is societally perceived 3. Is not based in a desire to harm oneself or others 4. Must be approved by the cherid committee” (Yuki's proposed coin amendments for easier interpretation) (added at end) "Criteria 1-3 shall be interrupted through a scientific lens. We evaluate (and reevaluate) terms based on how the scientific consensus seems to see 1-3." also, this should be changed "1. Can be transitioned to towards" When a cherid committee forms, we will draft up a constitutions, and vote on my amendments. 6120975 is an advisor (can be asked questions) who left me (Yuki) in charge of forming a cherid committee. Terms that are decided by committee are not cherid are still transid. No one in the current community is being excluded from transid.org. I am making this post because I the founder of transid.org identify as cherid. I see the irony there! I'll talk about how this will affect transid.org and then have go into length of my opinions so people don't put words in my mouth.

I stand behind the general concept of cheird. But one thing has become very clear. No one wanted a committee. It is very unpopular. To be honest I want to spend my time working on the website not being a part of some committee. Better to risk, cherid evolve in an unintended way that make a term that serves no one. I can understand the anxiety of not being in control of the umbrella you identify with. I have no problem removing the committee part. I stand behind the coin minus the commitee! I took the liberty of adding my previously proposed edits to the coin. This coin does not reflect the views of all transid.org moderators. Cherid recoin

“Cherid: short for cherished identity is a term for those who are switching to a differing identity than how they are societally perceived. It is for those who genuinely identify as such. These individuals may or may not have dysphoria.

To be cherid the identity must meet the following criteria:

1. Can be transitioned toward

2. Effects how one is societally perceived

3. Is not based in a desire to harm oneself or others

Criteria 1-3 shall be interrupted through a scientific lens. We evaluate, as a community, (and reevaluate) terms based on how the scientific consensus seems to see 1-3”

I assume this is meant to be a way to exclude transharmed identities? Which… I mean… okay, if that’s what you want to do. I would argue that that’s hard to do completely (as transharmed grew out of transtrauma which grew out of transabled identities like transPTSD).

My problem is that depending how you interpret “desire to hurt yourself” (or how antis interpret it) could become a big issue. For example, is desiring an amputation having a desire to hurt yourself? Because this is the claim levied against basically all transabled identities. That it’s just sh. Hell, transphobes will call any medical transition of any kind self harm. With “transgenderism” being called the new equivalent of cutting.

My fear is that adding that specification basically means that in the wrong hands or viewed through the wrong eyes, a lot more than transharm identities could be excluded. And it makes me uncomfortable to just think of that in a definition. I know what you’re trying to do. But to some people, safely blinding yourself or having an amputation is self-harm (since what you’re doing is damaging your body). To some people, tulpamancy/willomancy is self-harm (since you’re encouraging dissociation, a negative coping mechanism). To some people… you get the idea. I don’t agree with either of these, but I wanted you to know they are viewpoints out there.

I would not want to be in a community where that was a specification unless I knew exactly and specifically how “hurting yourself” was going to be defined.

I will attempt to define "hurting yourself" as you have asked me to. I would like it to be a fair and factual metric. I have read that transgender transition and surgery has very very low regret rate less. Trans surgery is less than 1%. As long as you look at real studies that aren't fabricated by TERFS. It seems all regret types are defiantly under 3%. I geniunely hope that the following does not seem transmedicalist! I'm not one. I support people in cherid who choose not to transition. They are cherid. But I think the least biased method I can think of, to numerically assign regret rates is to transitions. I think we should accept everyone by default who fits the other definitions of cherid. And wait for more evidence to rule something out for harm. I think if in future research there a mountain of evidence shows, more than 50% regret a surgery or transition... I think that in that case surgery or transition for that identity would be harmful... If more people regret something than are satisfied with I conclude that causes more harm than good generally. (this is a ethically utilitarian. I choose this ethical frame work because it is simple to follow). I think if someone is very determined to get a high regret rate surgery or similar, we should still be kind to these people. But some people trying to talk them out of it seems warranted. There are a few other caveats to consider, can we rule out the regret coming from how society treats those people (such as rejection)? The regret must from how the person might feel about their surgery in isolation for it to be harmful. I think this only shows a transition of high regret could be harmful, I don't think this is enough evidence to show the identity itself is harms. Let's say the cherid as a concept does not promote transitions that the majority genuinely regret. We can keep identity separate from high regret rate transitions and try and be more inclusive of any identity (that meets the other criteria). I would expect: transspecies, transage, transrace, and transabled all to have much lower regret rates. But I don't have proof. I cannot to yet come to any strongly supported conclusions. Many biased people see woman as less than or disabled as less than. They are seeing the world through a lens where someone is more than someone else. A transwoman's ideal body is often similar to a ciswoman's, I legitimately hope we allow transabled people to get surgery to become disabled, and monitor the regret rates. My guess is they would be happier than way. Not everything in life is about less or more as some people assume. I think what body are you comfortable in is most important. And my guess being the the body you identify with will make people happier even if it is 'disadvantages you' in some way. With transplural I don't expect it to be harmful. I think we should be supportive of anything like that by default. I support transplural. When people's transitions are studied, we could look at regret rates in the future.