After yesterday's blog, one of my Twitter connections Joanne (@JoNextSteps) reached out via DM with the suggestion that I could try to objectively set out the pros and cons of my different options.
This makes sense and is the way I would approach a project at work for a client. I wouldn't just let them go around in circles never deciding anything (well some do, you can't help everyone if they don't want to help themselves). I would apply some logic and structure to the discussions. I'd sit down and identify all the options. There are usually one or two that are non-starters so don't warrant detailed consideration. Then the remainder, we work through, understand the benefits, costs, risks, etc. and an informed decision can be made.
This seems like a good thing to do for my situation. List my options. Analyse each of them. Choose the best.
That feels like quite a big project and not something I can dash off in a snatched ten minutes writing this on a Thursday night, more of a weekend task.
I guess I can set out the options though:
- do nothing and live as a man
- socially transition and live as a woman
- fully transition and live as a woman
Before I even start though I know there are only two options: full transition or no transition. It really is all or nothing for me. I either give up on the whole idea and accept life as a man, or I do everything.
And let's be honest, I know which one I want already.
So actually the exercise isn't about deciding which I want, it should be more like a risk assessment, identifying what the issues are that I may face in transition, likelihood, impact, potential mitigations or workarounds. This might conclude that the challenges and risks are too great and I shouldn't do it. Or that it is manageable and I can.
OK, needs some proper thought.
Comments
Post a Comment