What I am always amazed at is this: let's say for the sake of the argument that ' ->-bleeped-<-' affects 75% of the population of women and men who transition past 30 years of age. And that it affects 10% of those who transition before age 30, because there will be some overlap. All this is never all that.
So, who makes, and how do they make, the distinction of who has a paraphilia and who doesn't? Currently the BBL theories make the distinction based on age, whether or not someone gets married and, in Bailey's case, whether someone served in the military, had children, worked in a professional field of endeavor that is historically male-dominated. So all professors, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, engineers, politicians, med-techs, doctors, lawyers, writers and psychoanalysts CANNOT be HSTS. Does there appear to be a 'sexist' bias at the base of those designations?
Otherwise, all HSTSes are "well-suited,' he states, as prostitutes, hair-dressers, show-girls and sales-clerks plus they yearn to be sexualized. Their deepest desire is to have sex with heterosexual men and be sexual playthings.
Now who is fantasizing about women?
Blanchard has not openly made those designations in the way Bailey has; yet, they work hand-in-glove, one coming in to support the other. Thus, lil ole me has trouble making a distinction that doesn't demand a difference in that regard. Zucker's insistence that children with penises not be allowed to play with dolls, ponies, 'girl'-games, like pink!! or be better conversationalists than fighters is also not different, is it? (I'm serious, if anyone shows me how none of these are related to one another and do NOT present the world's most blatant and reactionary sexist distinctions, please enlighten me. I will be happy to change my mind and make a public apology.)
That some women want to place themselves on the 'good side' of the Blanchard, Zucker, Lawrence and Bailey criteria doesn't surprise me in the least. Except that the attempt seems horribly short-sighted and internally dismissive of one's self and of other women. How do you, when you transition in your forties, make anyone believe (if they work from those criteria) that you are more 'real TS' than the ->-bleeped-<-TSes?
Since surgery is as efficacious as it has been shown to be, the 'regret' rate in less than 2%, perhaps less than 1%, does it dawn on the pro-dismiss- the-so-called ->-bleeped-<-TSes-and-only-allow-surgeries-for-those-'truly'-in-need-of-it school, that this will make it very difficult to justify surgery for anyone? The general public is gonna see it all, as Paul McHugh has shown us, as surgeries are merely 'mutilation' of the sacred penis? The pressure on the surgeons will be as great as that on doctors who perform abortions after 12 weeks. And availability will quite probably be restricted to countries like Thailand and Iran that do not work with the current SOC. Getting any 'publically-funded' surgeries is going to be closed down. Again, look at McHugh and Johns Hopkins.
Thus, the distinctions that were being made above are short-sighted and just plain beg the question: so who does get approved for surgery if the children are being 'repaired' and the women and men who are not between 20 and 30 are not given surgeries, and how do we determine that someone between 20 & 30 does not fall into the ->-bleeped-<-TS category? Afterall, in a matter this serious one would wish to establish a fool-proof way to deny all mutilators-by-surgery-for-sexual-purposes. What better way than to just cut the Gordian Knot and deny surgeries for all?
My guess is that the long-run decision under that model is gonna be, deny all surgeries and 'brainwash' anyone who does say they are TS. That way we can put that genie back into its bottle and be done with these very uncomfortable occurrences of anything that makes us uncomfortable with the physical binary we currently wish to uphold.
There are reasons that Bailey and Blanchard also belong to work-groups that openly discuss eugenic work that will rid the genome of 'problematic' genetic markers: like homosexuality, transsexuality, etc. But, show me some evidence that I am way off-base and, like I said, I will publically apologize on this board in whatever space is required and admit that some women and men are more 'real' than are others.
Nichole
And for those of you long-done with surgery or just about to have it or who will have it in the next 3 years (the DSM-V is scheduled for 2011 publishing,) I'd say you better think again. This will affect you if ALL and every record isn't totally expunged. Now how would it look to allow any of you to run around 'mutilated' if you can be found and outted? *sigh* Not wanting to be affected hardly kept blacks, Hispanics, closeted-gays and other minorities from being detected and handled in the same fashion as the more visible ones of their minority.
Good luck getting estrogen at all after you are post-op if this kind of regime takes hold. And you will need that for the rest of your lives.
