Susan's Place Logo

News:

Please be sure to review The Site terms of service, and rules to live by

Main Menu

Being Trans is Probably a Spectrum, Y’all

Started by Shana A, September 18, 2010, 08:34:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shana A

Being Trans is Probably a Spectrum, Y'all

Written by Lisa Harney
September 17th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=3084

There is no one size fits all definition, there is no one size fits all description of trans experiences. We run the gamut, and no one explanation can possibly cover the variety of trans people who really exist. No one has found any statistically significant genetic markers.  No one knows a thing about etiology. No one has learned a thing whether it's from brain scans, brain dissection, or sitting in bars and noting which trans women give you a goddamned woody.

Also, why the f--- is there any scientist anywhere in the world who still promotes Bailey's ~theories~ as scientifically sound or supportable? Does he just not understand why "confirmation bias" is bad? Is sexology just about promoting bad research* that harms a marginalized group of people? Why is Bailey still polluting the pool of scientific study of trans people in such unethical ways, and why does Northwestern still allow him to teach?
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

transheretic

What utter garbage this article is!

There are more than 300 separate and distinct scientific studies to date indicating that actual transsexed birth conditions are neurologically intersexed as a result of pre-natal neurological development.  This is not an open question any longer.  As for the spectrum, it does not exist at least not with actual transsexed people as part of it.  This sort of nonsense is what has resulting in backlash reactions to formally legal acceptance of women of history and is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to cloud issues well understood scientifically at this point.

While the proximate causes for this developmental issue can vary, the issue itself is understood on a level beyond any reasonable doubt.  Further, since the ADA exclusion was specific as "transsexuality not from physical causes" and there is a legal opinion issued by the DOJ civil rights division that clarifies that transsexuality FROM neurological developmental IS covered under the ADA, passing on this bad information serves to prevent those who might need to use that coverage for civil rights protection is downright dishonest and unethical.  You read that correctly, if you are classically transsexed, typically defined as having the absolute need to put mind and body in congruence, you are fully covered regarding civil rights under the ADA, not just employment, but public accommodations and housing as well.  Pressing such a case might require you undergo some tests, but such tests are readily available now
  •