Gina's motivational ratios - some thoughts

[Nicky]

In some ways I think 'sexuality' is really just a subset of gender as you describe it. I think you have given it more importance that it needs. There will also likely be some social satisfying in the answers in that many people won't admit to sexual motivators and will down play them. This may skew your results and this mode may not be that meaningful. Also is the question about physical mechanics or bedroom roles? I think there is a big difference.

The potential outcomes of physical transition may affect whether someone transitions or not. This should be a consideration. I don't think a mtf transtion is equivalent to a ftm transtion, both in the technology and the effects of drugs or acceptance in society. This will definitly impact on your results.  Sorry, just brain dumping thoughts here.

Also If you split sexuality out from gender why not things like presentation, role, and behaviour? I often hear other transexuals saying that they want to transition to be treated as their gender in society. I'm not sure that is quite the same thing you described as "gender". I guess it fits. But perhaps those finer distinctions are actually really important.

Trans people seem to be combinations of body desires, role, presentation and internal identity. All these things can be different by various degrees. I wonder if your modes should reflect this more?  My personal reason for wanting to 'transition' is to feel authentic. I think this is a lot to do with externalising my identity, being true to myself. I'm not sure your modes capture this. What do you reckon?

Also I have been thinking that my motivations have a lot to do with getting rid of the pain of dysphoria. Perhaps this could express itself as "Sex: I want my external body to match what I perceive my innate sex to be.", this might be the goal of transition but really the motivation is 'I don't want to be in pain anymore'. Something to think about?

Another rewrite of your "sex" mode could be I want my body to match what my mind is telling me should be there. I think just saying sex is an oversimplification.

Hope my comments are helpful.

[Vexing]

Personally, I feel that my sexuality is a completely different issue and has absolutely nothing to do with my transsexual status.
Whether I am bi, pan, straight, gay or asexual has nothing to do with my gender.

[NicholeW.]

Personally, I feel that my sexuality is a completely different issue and has absolutely nothing to do with my transsexual status.
Whether I am bi, pan, straight, gay or asexual has nothing to do with my gender.

Odd, I was about to write a post that completely agrees with that.

And questions exactly where you are coming from with your "sexuality" designation, Gina.

Sexuality: I want my external body to be the best match for the kind of sexual experiences and sexual partners I want to have.  I want to change my external body so that both myself and my sexual partners will be more comfortable with my body.

and

For example, I would speculate that a natal female who is attracted to females and wants to adopt a male role sexually, has less motivation to transition than a comparable natal male who is attracted to males and wants to adopt a female sexual role.  So, in this example, I would expect more natal males, who are high in sexuality modality score, to transition than similar natal females.

I'm not seeing how this is very much different than a current theory that's been floated between Toronto and Chicago, concerning "homosexual transsexuals." The implications seem to be that people attracted to people who are members of their targeted sex would have less motivation to transition.

I suppose I am wondering how that, prima facie, might be true. Bisexuality has been left out altogether as a relevant issue as well. Does it not "really" exist? Is it not a form of sexuality? Or if it is why is no weight attached at all to it?

I also have to agree with Nicky that the likelihood of having the questions skewed by folks unwilling to face the sexuality aspects of binary genders is prolly pretty large.

Your "sex" designation appears to be a good one. The gender-designator perhaps a bit less good than the sex designator (or perhaps it was the "make-up and dress" examples that bothered me in that as those are rather facile parts of gendering and there's a good deal more "gendered" behaviors that play into "gendering"). But, the sexuality designator has pretty much stumped me altogether.

N~

[Sarah Louise]

The additions she made to each definition made me change my ratio's.  Its all subjective anyway.

Sarah L.

[Renate]

Well, if we throw away the sexuality (which is irrelevant) we are left with only two numbers.

How about:

• Somatic dysphoria - the personal dislike of your body
• Social dysphoria - the dislike of your social role and other's perception of you

Even with two numbers, I'd have a difficult time choosing a ratio.

[GinaDouglas]

To my view, the sexuality modality relates to the way that the medical community has always looked at MtF transsexuals.  Admittedly, that is changing now, but you have to recognize that, until a few years ago, the Standards of Care would not let you be a MtF unless you professed a desire to have sex with men.

I would also ask why, if sexuality is not a factor, why does SRS create a vaginal cavity that is big enough to take a penis, as opposed to using the available skin to make a realistic-looking vulva?

I made a direct inquiry with Dr. Bowers and several other surgeons, about whether there was an alternate surgery for lesbian MtFs, who would prefer a realistic vulva to a deep vaginal cavity.  Dr. Bowers replied that she had developed a"modified surgery" and the others replied (essentially) that they could do it, but it had never come up or occurred to them.

On the one hand, I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see that results of a survey on this topic would show sexuality to be a non-issue.  On the other hand, I think that if sexuality was not an issue, most MtFs would prefer the modified surgery; however that does not seem to be the case.  I have to consider that it might be the case that some MtFs are in denial about the relative importance of sexuality.

As for whether gender is actually distinct from sex, all I can say is, that for me personally, it is.  I understand the distinction perhaps better than I describe or define it.  It's not about my body so much as it about my wordview, who my friends are, what type of friendship I have with them, how I feel, how I like to dress, and how I want to interact with other people.  While I recognize that these things are different, I see them as more similar than different; and to my view, they seem to fall under the broad category of gender differences.
Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 08:16:22 PM

The additions she made to each definition made me change my ratio's.  Its all subjective anyway.

It is subjective now.  But I think I could design a survey that would measure these factors objectively.

[Nicky]

If you would like to have sex with men, and you are female, it makes sense to have a vagina that can accomodate that. That does not sound like a motivator to transition. Function is important in the finished product. If you are going to transition you might as well get something that works for you. I would be surprised if someone choose looks over the possibility of being able to have vaginal intercourse with their partner, considering the looks are likely to pass muster anyway. Sexual function is important for a lot of people.

I think this could also come more under body needs than sexuality. Do women feel less fem if they have their breasts removed, or they loose half of their vagina through surgery? Probably yes.

Obviously MtF's in general don't prefer the modified surgery as your enquiries suggest though I wonder if most know of the possibility? I don't think they do.  I know a few transexuals that never bothered with the stents, why didn't they just get this alternative surgery?

[Vexing]

To my view, the sexuality modality relates to the way that the medical community has always looked at MtF transsexuals.  Admittedly, that is changing now, but you have to recognize that, until a few years ago, the Standards of Care would not let you be a MtF unless you professed a desire to have sex with men.

And we are all glad that this is no longer the case.
It presumes that lesbians are not women at all; which is f**king retarded.

I would also ask why, if sexuality is not a factor, why does SRS create a vaginal cavity that is big enough to take a penis, as opposed to using the available skin to make a realistic-looking vulva?

Because penetrative vaginal sex isn't a purely heterosexual activity.
Lesbians don't just look at the damn thing and make silly noises.

I made a direct inquiry with Dr. Bowers and several other surgeons, about whether there was an alternate surgery for lesbian MtFs, who would prefer a realistic vulva to a deep vaginal cavity.  Dr. Bowers replied that she had developed a"modified surgery" and the others replied (essentially) that they could do it, but it had never come up or occurred to them.

See above.

On the one hand, I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see that results of a survey on this topic would show sexuality to be a non-issue.  On the other hand, I think that if sexuality was not an issue, most MtFs would prefer the modified surgery; however that does not seem to be the case.  I have to consider that it might be the case that some MtFs are in denial about the relative importance of sexuality.

No.
Instead, I think you have some startling misconceptions about homosexual women.

[NicholeW.]

To my view, the sexuality modality relates to the way that the medical community has always looked at MtF transsexuals.  Admittedly, that is changing now, but you have to recognize that, until a few years ago, the Standards of Care would not let you be a MtF unless you professed a desire to have sex with men.

I would also ask why, if sexuality is not a factor, why does SRS create a vaginal cavity that is big enough to take a penis, as opposed to using the available skin to make a realistic-looking vulva?

I made a direct inquiry with Dr. Bowers and several other surgeons, about whether there was an alternate surgery for lesbian MtFs, who would prefer a realistic vulva to a deep vaginal cavity.  Dr. Bowers replied that she had developed a"modified surgery" and the others replied (essentially) that they could do it, but it had never come up or occurred to them.

On the one hand, I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see that results of a survey on this topic would show sexuality to be a non-issue.  On the other hand, I think that if sexuality was not an issue, most MtFs would prefer the modified surgery; however that does not seem to be the case.  I have to consider that it might be the case that some MtFs are in denial about the relative importance of sexuality.

As for whether gender is actually distinct from sex, all I can say is, that for me personally, it is.  I understand the distinction perhaps better than I describe or define it.  It's not about my body so much as it about my wordview, who my friends are, what type of friendship I have with them, how I feel, how I like to dress, and how I want to interact with other people.  While I recognize that these things are different, I see them as more similar than different; and to my view, they seem to fall under the broad category of gender differences.
Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 05:16:22 PM
It is subjective now.  But I think I could design a survey that would measure these factors objectively.

Has it come through that perhaps we'd tend to want "full vaginas" as a body part whether or not we were interested in sex and I suspect if you ask the men they'd prefer to have a full penis rather than a nubbin as well! Or perhaps asexual "ggs" could tell you if they'd prefer having a full vagina or a "vaginal facade." I think your reasoning there is flawed.

That may not be you, but the survey will not be surveying you, Gina.

It would be about transsexuals. You are one, but we aren't a vast amalgam with everyone exactly the same.

As in most social sciences research, hell, most research, you've specifically got particular notions in mind, but weighing those and taking some time to filter as much of your own bias out of your questions and your answer-weighting is gonna take some time.

If you presume, for instance, "I am the typical transsexual." Then you've got a couple of major difficulties from the git. One that you've made yourself the standard model and two that there is anything remotely like the typical transsexual.

Is sexuality important? Of course it is. Does the partner or lover desired make some aspect of transsexuals more or less motivated to transition? That seems like a huge leap to me. And I'm not exactly sure how you'd hope to justify that in a defense of your dissertation. Perhaps something to consider?   

Good luck with your ideas. They are interesting, even if I am having a couple of difficulties with them at this point.

Nichole

[GinaDouglas]

Instead, I think you have some startling misconceptions about homosexual women.

I doubt it.  I have been an accepted member of the local lesbian community for years, and have a number of close lesbian friends.  My inquiry asked about a vaginal cavity large enough to accept one or two fingers, which I understand to be a much more common practice amongst lesbians than use of an artificial phallus.  I also understand the second practice to be something that is requested substantially more often than it is offered.
Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 08:24:03 PM

If you would like to have sex with men, and you are female, it makes sense to have a vagina that can accomodate that. That does not sound like a motivator to transition. Function is important in the finished product. If you are going to transition you might as well get something that works for you. I would be surprised if someone choose looks over the possibility of being able to have vaginal intercourse with their partner, considering the looks are likely to pass muster anyway. Sexual function is important for a lot of people.

I think this could also come more under body needs than sexuality. Do women feel less fem if they have their breasts removed, or they loose half of their vagina through surgery? Probably yes.

Obviously MtF's in general don't prefer the modified surgery as your enquiries suggest though I wonder if most know of the possibility? I don't think they do.  I know a few transexuals that never bothered with the stents, why didn't they just get this alternative surgery?

From the pics I have seen, looks don't pass muster.  Or to quote Dr. Bowers, "If your gynocologist can't tell the difference, you need a new gynocologist."

I don't disagree with your contention that a workable vagina is important for MtFs who want to have sex with men.  But I am saying that the desire to have one would logically have to be at least a partial factor in deciding to transition.

As for the women who may not have known about the possibility of a modified surgery - I would say that, if it was important to them, they would have inquired.

[Vexing]

I doubt it.  I have been an accepted member of the local lesbian community for years, and have a number of close lesbian friends.  My inquiry asked about a vaginal cavity large enough to accept one or two fingers, which I understand to be a much more common practice amongst lesbians than use of an artificial phallus.  I also understand the second practice to be something that is requested substantially more often than it is offered.

Despite this, you clearly know next to nothing about the sexual practice of lesbians.
As I said, being a lesbian doesn't preclude one from wanting and/or having penetrative sex. One of my ex's loved to be exhaustively finger-f**ked with as many fingers as possible. Your 'cosmetic' vagina idea wouldn't cut it in that scenario.
My point is this:
Wanting a full sized vagina does not mean you want a penis inside you!
It simply means that you want to be normal.
Seriously, how would I go about explaining to a potential female partner that my vagina is only half an inch deep, especially if I was stealth?

[GinaDouglas]

Has it come through that perhaps we'd tend to want "full vaginas" as a body part whether or not we were interested in sex and I suspect if you ask the men they'd prefer to have a full penis rather than a nubbin as well! Or perhaps asexual "ggs" could tell you if they'd prefer having a full vagina or a "vaginal facade." I think your reasoning there is flawed.

That may not be you, but the survey will not be surveying you, Gina.

It would be about transsexuals. You are one, but we aren't a vast amalgam with everyone exactly the same.

As in most social sciences research, hell, most research, you've specifically got particular notions in mind, but weighing those and taking some time to filter as much of your own bias out of your questions and your answer-weighting is gonna take some time.

If you presume, for instance, "I am the typical transsexual." Then you've got a couple of major difficulties from the git. One that you've made yourself the standard model and two that there is anything remotely like the typical transsexual.

Is sexuality important? Of course it is. Does the partner or lover desired make some aspect of transsexuals more or less motivated to transition? That seems like a huge leap to me. And I'm not exactly sure how you'd hope to justify that in a defense of your dissertation. Perhaps something to consider?   

Good luck with your ideas. They are interesting, even if I am having a couple of difficulties with them at this point.

Nichole

The standard surgery doesn't create inner or outer lips.  So it's incomplete genitals either way.  To my view, the modified version, with a narrow and shallow cavity, is closest to the real thing.

You misunderstand me in a major way.  This is an idea for a dissertation.  I wouldn't be making conclusions until the data was gathered and analyzed, so there is nothing to defend, at this point.

And by no means do I consider myself typical.  One thing in my novel, is that the character based on me sometimes yearns to be a "normal transsexual."  This means that she knows she is several standard deviations from the mean, wherever that mean migh be.  I fully understand that there is no such thing as a typical transsexual.  The entire basis of this proposed study is to try and use divergent measurements to illustrate how wide the variety actually is, and then to attempt to understand it.

I'm not building this concept around me, but it would be just as wrong to try and build it exclusive of me.

[Nicky]

I see what you are saying, definitly the desire to have one is a reason to transition. But does this desire have to be a sexual motivation or is it more likely a motivation to be a woman in ways that is important to them?

It is kind of "I get hot over the thought of being a sexually functional woman so I am going to transition to become one" vs "I am a woman and when I transition I want to be a sexually functional woman because that is important to me"

Which one makes more sense?

[NicholeW.]

You misunderstand me in a major way.  This is an idea for a dissertation.  I wouldn't be making conclusions until the data was gathered and analyzed, so there is nothing to defend, at this point.

Actually, I didn't misunderstand you at all. You may not have written conclusions yet, but you sound like you've already made some conclusions, Gina, and will be furthering those, you expect, with your research.

That's pretty much the way this kind of social research works, Gina. And yes, I am the possessor of two master's degrees in social services areas and I know a small bit about statistics as well. Like 99% of the research is that someone has an idea and then sets about confirming their theories.

But, unlike in maybe chemistry it tends to be much more difficult to exclude bias, get a meaningful sample, exclude falsification by respondents, write one's questions in such a way that she/he excludes as much "leading" as possible and so forth.

The deal with defense is that if we can do what's been done so far, wouldn't you imagine the same problems will arise more acutely later on, with the statistical geniuses and the profs who'll be vetting your dissertation? They'll be much more difficult to pass off with "I've been a lesbian for 20 years and know a lot of lesbians."

And I agree, you cannot build the concept exclusive of you. But if you load up your concept with "this is logical to me" I think you're gonna have a lot of difficulty in excluding tester and evaluator bias in the end results.

Like I said, I wish you well. It's an interesting project.

N~

[GinaDouglas]

Despite this, you clearly know next to nothing about the sexual practice of lesbians.
As I said, being a lesbian doesn't preclude one from wanting and/or having penetrative sex. One of my ex's loved to be exhaustively finger-f**ked with as many fingers as possible. Your 'cosmetic' vagina idea wouldn't cut it in that scenario.
My point is this:
Wanting a full sized vagina does not mean you want a penis inside you!
It simply means that you want to be normal.
Seriously, how would I go about explaining to a potential female partner that my vagina is only half an inch deep, especially if I was stealth?

Ok, your girlfriend wanted it, because it felt good to her to have it done.  She did not do it because other lesbians wanted to do it to her.  This seems to be in accordance with what I said.  When men speak of wanting to to screw a woman, they are referring to taking their own pleasure, with the expectation that the woman will enjoy it too.  When lesbians speak of wanting to screw a woman, they are referring to their enjoyment that comes from giving the other woman pleasure, as she wants it.

The idea of "half an inch deep" is your own, not mine.  The modified surgery creates a cavity deep enough to accomodate the entire length of the finger.  As for stealth, come on.  A lesbian knows what a vagina looks like, smells like and tastes like, as well as the way it lubricates and opens and closes.  No surgery can come close to duplicating that.

[Vexing]

So let's get this straight, is this your position:
MTF's who proclaim they are homosexual, yet want a full sized vagina are not homosexual. They are deluding themselves.
Yes?
Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 10:05:56 PM

A lesbian knows what a vagina looks like, smells like and tastes like, as well as the way it lubricates and opens and closes.  No surgery can come close to duplicating that.

I wasn't aware that Lesbians were a hive mind.
Consider me educated...

[GinaDouglas]

It is kind of "I get hot over the thought of being a sexually functional woman so I am going to transition to become one" vs "I am a woman and when I transition I want to be a sexually functional woman because that is important to me"

Which one makes more sense?

Whichever way it is, I think the sexuality score measures it.  However, I think that in the final survey, which would have a couple of hundred questions and a sliding scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, in order to make an attempt to score these ratios objectively; both of those versions of the question would be in there.
Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 10:13:06 PM

Actually, I didn't misunderstand you at all. You may not have written conclusions yet, but you sound like you've already made some conclusions, Gina, and will be furthering those, you expect, with your research.

I'll grant that perhaps my bias precludes me from being able to see my bias.  That's why graduate students have faculty advisors while they are working on their theses.  However, I think the only conclusion I have made, so far, is that the attempt to understand transsexuality from this trinary perspective is likely to provide valuable insight.

[Nicky]

Whichever way it is, I think the sexuality score measures it.  However, I think that in the final survey, which would have a couple of hundred questions and a sliding scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, in order to make an attempt to score these ratios objectively; both of those versions of the question would be in there.

Cool, yeah, I think they are very different animals. Perhaps the later is more a motivator for not transitioning rather than transition itself i.e. I'm not going to get what I want so I won't do it.

[GinaDouglas]

So let's get this straight, is this your position:
MTF's who proclaim they are homosexual, yet want a full sized vagina are not homosexual. They are deluding themselves.
Yes?

No, I am not saying that.  I am simply seeing a choice between a full-size vagina and a realistic-appearing vulva, and stating my opinion that the former seems to make more sense for a transwoman who wants to have sex with men, and the latter seems to make more sense for a transwoman who wants to have sex with women; as well inferring logically that the former would seem to correlate more with a high sexuality modality, and the latter would seem to correlate more with a high sex modality.

As for the "hive-mind" thing, I think you may have intended some sarcasm, and I am not going to try and reason with it.

[NicholeW.]

I'll grant that perhaps my bias precludes me from being able to see my bias.  That's why graduate students have faculty advisors while they are working on their theses.  However, I think the only conclusion I have made, so far, is that the attempt to understand transsexuality from this trinary perspective is likely to provide valuable insight.

Yes, that's exactly why there are such advisors.

And three legs are perhaps better than two which would give your theory one more than the Blanchard theory has.

I have a bias as well though. I admit it. I am suspicious of very facile and easily drawn explanations for occurrences that may well be more on the order of honey bees, spiders, or even centipedes in the prevalance of legs on which to stand.

Elegance is wondeful and often true-ish as many elegant scientific theories show. But the stuff on which most of those theories found themselves are, perhaps, a bit less complex than the thoughts and feelings of 500-1000 transsexuals.

Best fortune.