I've read your Thesis and enjoyed it very much.
It seems to be written in a clear style, the spacing is very welcome and it it flows, making it less tiresum to follow what you are saying.
On page xii there is a reference to hitting women in a fictional setting. The response is, hitting humans.
This is an area of social custom I have always had difficulity with. We seem to take it that a man hitting a man is, at the very least, of minor importance, but can even be seen as socially acceptable. Certainly, a man complaing about being hit by a man is often dismissed.
This enforced, uninvited physical contact, might be seen as essentially sexual in nature.
It purpose, of course, is to establish male dominance. Indeed, all violence between men is essentially about dominance and positioning within the peer group.
I think there are two possible explanations about the role of women here. The first seems intuitive, that women as not part of the male peer group, it is not acceptable to hit them.
The second is that as one man hits another, he drives his victim down the order within the peer group. If the man seeks further dominance, he will continue hitting and humiliating. Eventually, he will subdue his victim to the point that he becomes submissive, essentially taking on a psuedo sexual role.
This might explain why some men, who otherwise have a position within the male peer group, hit women.
(Another is, of course, that they have been provolked. But it gets overly complicated there).
The response of the character, to a man hitting a biological male, that you can't hit a human is interesting. The speaker seems to be attempting to remove the justification for hitting on the basis of the peer group positioning. The speaker is recognising the position of the victim as not part of the male peer group.
Equally, by hitting the boilogical male, the man is asserting his own position within the peer group, while not seeking to subdue his victim.
On page 38 you make reference to your difficulities in geting approval for the use of the internet as a source of information.
I have come across this repeatedly myself. The argument being that, since you cannot be sure who contributed the information you cannot be sure of its reliability.
I think this is a regretable position. The accuracy of any information relies upon a number of factors, cross referencing, relevance and so on. Yet some accademics seem to insist upon dismissing huge amounts of data as irrelevant. I know, on many news discussion forums, often good points are made which can be of interest sociologically and culturally.
I personally start form a position, with any source, including the internet by asking the question, is there any reason to doubt some of this information?
Page 30. I too always drastically underestimated the number of biological women who need to be male.
I confess I always assumed that there were considerably more but that they were more likely to suppress their needs because of the relative differences in the female mating process.
This is a rather clumsey assumption, I accept. Probably borne out of my own view point. But one of the greatest lessons I have learnt on Susan's is the degree of pain that biological females experience.
Before finding Susan's I did regularly visit a number of other, similar forums. Biological females there would ask for help and sources. I was saddened to discover there seem to be very few.
Page 37 makes reference to medical authorities complaining about patients accessing too much information and making diagnosis difficult.
I have noticed this attitude repeatedly in medicine.
It is quite revealing of the attitudes of medical people that they see their role as taking control, discovering what is wrong, taking adulation for discovering it, then proceeding to treat the condition while the patient stands, patiently, having spinal orgasims at the honour of being noticed by these pargons of higher humanity.
Indeed, I have listened to consultants, in medical conferences, dismissing, or modifying, once accepted tools of diagnosis, because too many patients already know about them.
If patients are fabricating symptoms to access treatment then surely the question is, why does this patient want this treatment so much?
The assumption seems to be that the patient is an upstart who is seeking what has not yet been handed down to them by a high power. (Actually, this is probably more a truth than an assumption).
Page 85 refers to how individuals identify themselves. These labels are touched upon elsewhere as well.
I can't be the only one who resents each of these labels?
My lable is, I am a biological man who wants to be female. If they need a fancy title they could just use BMWWTBF.
But another point this raised is the association with homosexual. I too have noticed that many seem to feel uncomfortable with homosexual. Perhaps this is because the social acceptability of homosexuality has not progressed as much as many would like to think.
The biggots aside, here we are, seeking to achieve, whatever, yet many in our situation don't wish to be associated with.... them.
Perhaps this raises some points about how are society has progressed and how far.
A further issue, which you also touched upon, is the question, is someone seeking to change their gender role, a homosexual who seeks hetrosexuality or someone distinctly different from a homosexual?
As I discussed in another thread, my need to be female emerged when I was about 4 years. I did manage to live, very briefly, as female in my late teens. This caused me to be divorced from my family, almost entriely and ended with my falling so low down the social spectrum, I gave in to the pressure from my family to conform.
After a couple of years, I realised my mistake and once again decided to pursue my own goals in life.
When I was 23, I met a gay fellow in the street and began talking. He was, in presentation, an entirely normal fellow. He talked in a male voice and dressed like any other male of the time.
It ended with us going to his accommodations with the intention of sexual relations.
I was unable to fulfill my part simply because his expectation was of two men engaging in equal male relations. Both playing a proactive role. Both touching equally. Both seeking similar genital contact and fulfilment.
My expectation was to be submissive. To be taken, to be seduced. I didn't get any significant 'male response', as I had never done and was accustomed to my own satifaction coming from different experiences.
I apologise for my excessive tact in wording that.
I get the impression, from many of the medical and social profesionals and accademics who seek to many pronouncements in these areas that they are attempting to understand what they are reliuctant to experience.
To distinguish between homosexual and GID they need first to understand the differing needs of these two groups.
A homosexual, in my experience, needs the contact of someone, not only of the same sex and themselves, but with similar responses.
Someone with GID, I suggest, seeks to play a role, with someone of the same biological sex as themselves, but from the opposite stand point.
This is, of course, on a purely sexual level. It is equally strange that
the preoccupation of these people is with the sexual level of interaction.
The homosexual can, generally, have a completely uncomplicated and convention relationship with society. Some homosexuals exhibit traits that are generally associated with homosexuality, excessive touching, efininate voice and so on. Hetrosexual men however often behave in these ways as well. So, a homosexual may be defined as such only within the sphere of intimate relations.
Those of us with GID seek to alter our entire relationships, interpersonaland with society. I currently, as a percieved man, dress as a man, I attempt, as far as I can, to deflect with male banter and so on. I seek a relationship with society as a woman, able to take a caring, nuturing role.
One of the major difficulities I and I'm sure many in my position have had is thinking of my own expectations of being female as seeking to free myself from the rigors of a male role.
Is my desire for a female shaped body, as desire to be noticed?
Is my desire to interact with others as a female a yearning for the privledges generally granted to women, especially by men?
Is my desire to be female a sublimination of my inability to attract female company and intimacy?
These are questions which could be argued continuously. But the response must be that my desire to be female is my own. Are any of these ambitions so utterly abhorrent that I should be dismissed?
I hope I have made this clear.
Page 96. You discuss your wish to have had your questionare answered by people other than from within the GID group.
I don't know if this is too late but I have a niece who is taking a Master's course at a London University who I could ask about distribution the questionare.
I also have a sister in law who holds a nursing degree and currently works in a senior position in a large hosptial.
I can't, of course, guarantee that they will agree, but if it will assist you I would like to try.
If you want me to, I will ask you to PM me. I will approach both and if they agree, I will give you their contact details so you can deal with each of them directly.
Once again, I would like to thank you so much for sharing your thesis with us all. I really enjoyed reading it and feel much better informed as a result.
