Hello everyone. I am doing an inquiry into the terminology currently being used to describe the situation we are in. The current words used are transsexual, transgender, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), and Gender Identity Dysphoria (also known as GID). The terms transsexual and transgender are used interchangebly but their definitions are not. According to my therapist gender refers to the brain and sex to ones anatomy. The prefix trans means to cross. My view is that I am not crossing to anything but correcting what was not done by biological events. GID is a term found in the DSM to describe a mental condition. Guys we are not mental. The term I would like to see used is Gender Sex Misalignment or GSM for short. The reason for this is to get us out of the DSM and into the medical books so that insurance would cover what needs to be done. I would like your input on this. Thank you for your help. M777a
From my very limited experience I've just came to the conclusion that it's hard to give a name to a group of people whose main characteristic is driveled from identity confusion.
Ultimately they are just words used to group us together, and aren't really important beyond that, We all just want to be happy x3 and the road to that leads everyone to a different but sometimes similar place.
Terminology is whatever you want it to be. There is no ultimate authority on the meanings of words in the english language.
So I say as long as you can understand them and they you, use whatever words work.
Thanks for your reply. What I am trying to do is not to just label someone, but to help us and the general public to better understand our reality. I would also like to see GSM in the medical books so that all insurance would cover the cost of the medical procedures nessicary to make one whole, whatever the individual feels that may entail. The current terminology creates confusion not only for GSM person but with the very people whose support we need. GSM is not about expression or ones orientation, but the base of ones self actualisation.
I guess it could be argued that I'm not transgender, as my gender is woman. It could be argued that since I am pre-op, I am transsexual as eventually I will be changing (crossing) from male anatomy to female anatomy.
Conversations can become very confusing if you don't agree on terminilogy.
^^
Language only works when everyone agrees to follow the same definitions. When there is no agreement on a word, it becomes meaningless.
Currently the trans* (speaking of new words...) community is going through quite a rapid shift in form. The words are changing. In another 20 years or so things will probably start to settle down.
Right now it's kind of fascinating though. Trans* folk have created and defined dozens of new words in the last decade. Some of them even have legal status. It's pretty cool. At least when people aren't yelling at each other about it.
To the topic though... That's not really how it works. If the medical community decides that transsexualism is a medical condition, they'll come up with their own word in their own time - possibly named after whoever eventually proves it's a medical condition, if that ever happens. (I've always found that tradition to be a bit odd, who wants a disease or genetic disorder or whatever named after them?) Same as the psychiatrists came up with Gender Identity Disorder. We don't really get much input into those.
Thank you Connie Anne, Sarah Louise, and Sarah7 for taking the time to respond. For Connie Anne my response to you is that metaphorically you may be crossing, but you are a woman and fixing what nature didn't provide. Sarah Louise you are so very correct. Sarah7 the words do matter their just not the right ones. You are correct that there is a lack of agreement of the words but no real discussion. This confusion may have played a part in the responses from a survey I had read where the 92 identified trans people responded, 75% had said they had attempted or had thoughts of suicide. My conclusion is based on my own experience. The terminology made no sense to me. I am not crossing over to anything. I was born female nature just didn't get it right. Understanding ones self and being able to explain it others is very important. The terminology we use does matter. We know who we are and having a doctor study it or a shrink determine the terms makes us in advertant victims. If you had a mole or tumor that needed to be removed you would get the diagnosis and the proper medical treatment. So what is the difference with us. The answer is none. The therapist are there to help us deal with it. The doctors to fix it. As long as the words stay in the DSM and the terminology confusing, the general public will view us as mental. We are not. GSM can cause mental conditions due to lack of understanding ones self but a consensus of terms will alleviate some of those mental conditions.
The terms I would like to see used are male and female, he and she. For instance, "This lady has a medical condition, she was born with a penis and testicles, I recommend surgery and hormone replacement therapy." If people talked about us like we were males and females then maybe more of Society would begin to accept us as our target sex instead of hearing strange words and then having to make a decision what we are in their heads when they can't even begin to grasp the situation.
Also being lumped in with GLB may seem helpful at times, but generally only to people who are okay with being "othered". If we could just be who we are and if people talked about us like we were what we really are then I think it would not only help Society's perception of us but it would aid in our perception of ourselves.
A consensus of terms might be good in theory for people going through it, and the medical establishment, but the question I have is: how does it enable the general public to understand better when all the other terminology is already out there in the public consciousness? If the current terminology makes no sense to even the people who are dealing with it, would it not just cause more confusion for everyone who isn't, and make them have to come to terms with yet another acronym / descriptor being thrown in the mix?
Rather than simplifying everything, might it not cause even more complexity by having to explain how GSM is different to all the other terminology, and why it should be used instead of something else? Or even worse - add another subdivision to an already very subdivided community? Just from reading threads here, some people are okay with it being called GID, and even with it being in the DSM. Their experiences and feelings about themselves may be no different to your own.
The trouble with semantics is that everyone applies their own perceptions to the meanings of a word, or words. And getting 100% consensus on what something means, doesn't mean, or should mean is nigh on impossible. For example, you don't agree with the 'trans' prefix, whereas Connie sees it as something relevant to the process she's undergoing to change her physical attributes to match her mental state of mind and self-image. And that's kinda the point of it. The more you try to make someone see things your way, the more it becomes the immovable force meeting the irresistable object because how one person sees their condition is no more and no less valid than how someone else sees theirs.
It becomes an endless degree of complexity; those who think it should be GSM, those who think it should be Transsexual, those who think it should be in the DSM, those who think it shouldn't, those who think it should be Transgendered, those who think it should just be male and female... and all of these subdivisions end up at each others throats because the very existence of the other groups is considered a threat to their own validity.
Quote from: M777a on May 23, 2012, 04:37:31 PM
As long as the words stay in the DSM and the terminology confusing, the general public will view us as mental.
Just as an aside, I've had dealings with lots of people who think we're mental anyway, and they think the DSM is somewhere you go to take driving lessons. So I don't know that it would make as big a difference as you think. In those cases it's not knowledge of the psychiatrical handbook which leads to that assumption, it's total ignorance of it.
Quote from: Noey Nooneson on May 23, 2012, 04:48:28 PM
The terms I would like to see used are male and female, he and she. For instance, "This lady has a medical condition, she was born with a penis and testicles, I recommend surgery and hormone replacement therapy." If people talked about us like we were males and females then maybe more of Society would begin to accept us as our target sex instead of hearing strange words and then having to make a decision what we are in their heads when they can't even begin to grasp the situation.
That would be nice, however I'm not sure it's quite as simple as being born with the wrong genetalia. It affects a lot more than that because of the genetic problem of having the wrong chromosomes. They don't just affect which parts you're born with down below.
Great response. I agree with what you said. Unfortunately for insurance purposes they need a term for the paperwork otherwise it could become plastic surgery and not be covered. That in turn could cause problems for those who can't afford the treatment. After looking at some of the other posts on the site on self medication these people can cause great harm to themselves, most likely due to lack of insurance coverage and proper medical supervision. Also what someone who gets desperate might do to get the money for surgery. Not to mention what a person might do if those options aren't within their will to do. A regular job with insurance benefits will make this better if the proper terminology was used by the medical profession to better treat the community.
This post was for the one from nooey
I tend to agree with Sephirah. There are already too many different terms with even more viewpoints on their correctness. If we are confused and conflicted over them imagine how a layperson feels. Especially when you factor in all the negative or derogatory names that have been applied throughout the ages and still often used by those that do not suffer from the gender issues that we do..
Over almost 50 years now I've seen a lot of changes in terms. There is a very slowly building consensus over the language usage. What is growing at a far far slower pace is general acceptance, understanding, and lowered bigoted and hateful attacks. If there is anything to fret over, it is that.
Quote from: Sephirah on May 23, 2012, 05:39:42 PM
A consensus of terms might be good in theory for people going through it, and the medical establishment, but the question I have is: how does it enable the general public to understand better when all the other terminology is already out there in the public consciousness? If the current terminology makes no sense to even the people who are dealing with it, would it not just cause more confusion for everyone who isn't, and make them have to come to terms with yet another acronym / descriptor being thrown in the mix?
[response]
My hope is for this terminology to make it easier for us and the general public to understand. Iam not asking you or anyone else to give up old terminology. The current terms are in the DSM and have prevented people from getting the care that they need. I trying to end the confusion and get us out of the DSM.
Quote
Rather than simplifying everything, might it not cause even more complexity by having to explain how GSM is different to all the other terminology, and why it should be used instead of something else? Or even worse - add another subdivision to an already very subdivided community? Just from reading threads here, some people are okay with it being called GID, and even with it being in the DSM. Their experiences and feelings about themselves may be no different to your own.
[response]
What is wrong with simplicity. GSM is a base term. Let us take a look at the word cancer. Does it discribe all the different types of cancer? No of course not, but it does bring instant meaning to those who suffer from it. I am not adding a new subdivision but trying to help people better readily understand ones situation with minimal confusion. I find it hard to believe that people are okay with the terms in the DSM since mental illines has such stigma attached to it. Your settling when you don't need to.
[quote}
The trouble with semantics is that everyone applies their own perceptions to the meanings of a word, or words. And getting 100% consensus on what something means, doesn't mean, or should mean is nigh on impossible. For example, you don't agree with the 'trans' prefix, whereas Connie sees it as something relevant to the process she's undergoing to change her physical attributes to match her mental state of mind and self-image. And that's kinda the point of it. The more you try to make someone see things your way, the more it becomes the immovable force meeting the irresistable object because how one person sees their condition is no more and no less valid than how someone else sees theirs.
[response}
Perceptions are not definitions. We can make words confusing because we choose to, but if you had cancer i wouldn't think you would want to confused about what it entails. Why should that be any different for us? Your reference to Connie and how you phrased it gives the impression you think she is mental. She is not crossing over to anything she is becoming who she is. This is biological not psychological. She didn't think herself this way she is female. The point of the term GSM is to get it out of the DSM (mental) and into the medical books (biological) so that all insurance will cover the cost for whatever a person feels they need to do medically.
Quote
It becomes an endless degree of complexity; those who think it should be GSM, those who think it should be Transsexual, those who think it should be in the DSM, those who think it shouldn't, those who think it should be Transgendered, those who think it should just be male and female... and all of these subdivisions end up at each others throats because the very existence of the other groups is considered a threat to their own validity.
[response]
Who are these people and why would they want that? This isn't a turf war, this is trying to help us and those who help us and those we love better understand what we are about. Don't confuse ones expression or orientation with GSM. This is about the base core of ones self.
Quote
Just as an aside, I've had dealings with lots of people who think we're mental anyway, and they think the DSM is somewhere you go to take driving lessons. So I don't know that it would make as big a difference as you think. In those cases it's not knowledge of the psychiatrical handbook which leads to that assumption, it's total ignorance of it.
[response]
There was a documentary made that was exclusively about getting us out of the DSM. These people knew as well as most of you we are not mental. If the people you speak of think your mental now, what do you think will happen when they find the DSM? WE ARE NOT MENTAL. Just plain old human variation.
Quote
That would be nice, however I'm not sure it's quite as simple as being born with the wrong genetalia. It affects a lot more than that because of the genetic problem of having the wrong chromosomes. They don't just affect which parts you're born with down below.
[response]
Of course there is more to it. As I have said before what I am trying to is find a way to help us, those who support us and the professions that help better understand who we are. The brain determines gender and the body the sex. You don't get to chose, but deal with it when its misaligned.
This is in response to to JoanneB's post.
What started me on this was a survey done by the University of Nebraksa Medical Center. In the survey of the LGBT community, of 92 trans repondents, 75% had thought of or attempted suicide. My experience, because of the confusion in terminology, also lead me down that path. If that percentage was maintained to include a survey of the size of the US, harm from others wouldn't seem as important. I am not dismissing what has happened to our brothers and sisters at the hands of others, but you need to see that you are more likely to harm yourself than be harmed by someone else. While terminology confusion may not be the sole cause of this I think it plays a major role. Especially when you are trying to understand yourself and explaining it to others.
Quote from: M777a on May 23, 2012, 10:15:10 PM
What is wrong with simplicity. GSM is a base term. Let us take a look at the word cancer. Does it discribe all the different types of cancer? No of course not, but it does bring instant meaning to those who suffer from it. I am not adding a new subdivision but trying to help people better readily understand ones situation with minimal confusion. I find it hard to believe that people are okay with the terms in the DSM since mental illines has such stigma attached to it. Your settling when you don't need to.
There's nothing wrong with simplicity. Hon, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just posing questions based on how practical it would be to achieve. But with regard to the stigma you speak of, here's another question: would it not be equally beneficial to work towards removing the stigma instead, rather than just disassociating oneself with it because of how you think other people will see you?
Quote
Perceptions are not definitions. We can make words confusing because we choose to, but if you had cancer i wouldn't think you would want to confused about what it entails. Why should that be any different for us? Your reference to Connie and how you phrased it gives the impression you think she is mental. She is not crossing over to anything she is becoming who she is. This is biological not psychological. She didn't think herself this way she is female. The point of the term GSM is to get it out of the DSM (mental) and into the medical books (biological) so that all insurance will cover the cost for whatever a person feels they need to do medically.
That's rather putting words in my mouth. I wasn't actually talking about the DSM at all, or whether anything is or isn't mental. I was speaking about the 'trans' prefix and how, in this instance, it's seen as relevant. Based on this post:
Quote from: Connie Anne on May 23, 2012, 11:54:56 AM
I guess it could be argued that I'm not transgender, as my gender is woman. It could be argued that since I am pre-op, I am transsexual as eventually I will be changing (crossing) from male anatomy to female anatomy.
If someone sees themselves that way, and the word has relevance, who is anyone to say that they can't?
Interestingly, some organisations and authorities don't see Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness, or recognise it as such. For example, the NHS in the UK. Here's how they see it:
From: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_097168.pdf (http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_097168.pdf)
QuoteWhat is gender dysphoria?
Occasionally, however, a few individuals find that the way they look on the outside doesn't fit how they feel inside. Also, the way they are expected to behave may be quite different from the way they actually want to behave. This causes a feeling of discomfort that is sometimes described as gender dysphoria (dysphoria means unhappiness). However, this is not a mental illness. Gender dysphoria is a recognised condition for which medical treatment is appropriate in some cases.
So since more and more places are starting to use the term GD (Gender Dysphoria) instead, is there really any need to call it something else?
The psychological is biological. The former cannot exist without the latter. In fact, the psychological is a subset of the biological. One demonstration of this is how HRT has changed my emotional responses. Emotions are little more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Change the chemicals (reduce testosterone, increase estrogen and progesterone) and the emotions change.
I am indeed crossing over something as I become who I am supposed to be.
Quote from: M777a on May 23, 2012, 10:38:15 PM
This is in response to to JoanneB's post.
What started me on this was a survey done by the University of Nebraksa Medical Center. In the survey of the LGBT community, of 92 trans repondents, 75% had thought of or attempted suicide. My experience, because of the confusion in terminology, also lead me down that path. If that percentage was maintained to include a survey of the size of the US, harm from others wouldn't seem as important. I am not dismissing what has happened to our brothers and sisters at the hands of others, but you need to see that you are more likely to harm yourself than be harmed by someone else. While terminology confusion may not be the sole cause of this I think it plays a major role. Especially when you are trying to understand yourself and explaining it to others.
I don't want to go off into the woods on this point. Perspective changes everything. Yes, suicide rates are horrific, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Substance abuse, self mutilation etc. is quite common. I am certainly part of that self hate percentage. However, our numbers are but a tiny, according to some even fractional, percentage of the population. While we may hate ourselves for who we are, there is an overwhelming number of people standing in the hate line in front of us. My wife's greatest fear is getting that 2:00 AM phone call about my mutilated body being found, followed by me loosing my job because someone read me and it got back to my employer.
As someone mentioned earlier, we do not get much of a vote when it comes to choosing a name. "The Powers That Be" have that privilege. After some critical mass is reached, a more friendly term can be floated. In some ways that is currently happening with the updates to the DSM and WPATH. Until the academic, medical and political elites are totally onboard, we are subservient to their whims. They are the ones writing the rules, defining the language, and setting the direction of public discourse. It takes a long time for them to reach any sort of consensus amongst themselves. Lobbying for yet another name/term however "better sounding" may ultimately disenfranchise those sitting on the sidelines just barely able to grasp what is going on.
The best example of this I can put forward harkens back to 60's or 70's. On American tele was a show with a character called Archie Bunker. Race, religion, cultural, societal, and sex norms, stereotypes, "truths" were examined in a totally un-PC manner by today's standards. In regards to race Archie always complained about not knowing which term out of Colored, Blacks, Negro, African-American, etc.. he should use that week as it always seemed to be a moving target. At the end of the day Archie was not going to accept them, or even make the effort to. His mind was made up. It doesn't matter what new name you want to try using. You aren't going to fool him or change his mind. That mindset is exactly what we need to keep in mind.
Perhaps it is because of my chameleon nature, living part-time, being born into a lower middle class blue collar immigrant world, and now upper middle and at times doing sales has given me a lot of experience dealing with the average person in many diverse areas of the USA.The words of P.T. Barnum are just as true today as when they were first spoken nearly a century ago. Especially when you peel away the societal pressure to be PC when the situation calls for it.
As much as a friendlier term without disease, disorder, syndrome, dysphoria, etc. may make us feel a little better about ourselves, at this point in history it will nothing to change the vast majority of peoples impressions that we are sick. Especially when the negative stereotypes sensationalized in the media, and confusion between long established like sounding names goes well beyond their immediate grasp. The founder of The Guardian Angels and sometime NYC radio Host Curtis Sliwa would refer to us as "->-bleeped-<-s, transsexuals, transformers, or whatever". Anytime a TG rights bill is put forward, the "Bathroom Nuts" are out there in full force talking about all those sex crazed men that will be lurking in bathrooms and showers just waiting to rape some unsuspecting woman or young girl. Facts have nothing to do with their arguments. From listening to the testimony given for Maryland's SB212 a few months back I can guarantee there is no changing their minds about TG people in this lifetime.
From reading the last three posts status quo seems to be the predominate idea here. Change can not happen without effort to make something better. It is easy to find the reasons not to try something, but if the truth were to be found that we stood a higher chance of dying by our own hand than I feel the status quo has to change. Our numbers may be small but it shouldn't be a death sentence. We can make a difference. Sometimes the medical and psychological professions have to be made to see the suffering being caused by their lack of attention. Giving up gives them the power. The subdivisions that have been refered to are nothing more than self segragation. We seek inclusion but settle for exclusion due to the fact working togather seems to hard. That is a shame. The people who responed to my posts are not sideliners, they are people who have the guts to engage the dialogue and speak up. With that kind of energy being used here imagine what could be done to better help the community and society has a whole to better understanding. I reall y respect you guys for taking the time to respond. Don't let the haters win. There is no courage with out fear. I feel it everyday, but I am not going to quit. You have put a lot of time in energy to nay say what I am trying to do, but how about give some ideas on how to make it better that I haven't thought of. There is always a better way. There may not be many but we can make a difference. Thank you guys for taking the time to respond I really appreciate it, you're the best.
I always felt gyped for being born a few years too late to really be part of the anti-war movement in the 60's (Still got to love the music. Misplaced my draft card :o ). Attending the Maryland State Senate's hearing for SB212 the TG rights bill to provide moral support for my fellow group members giving testimony really struck an emotional chord deep within. By the time the opposition was 1/4 of the way through I was regretting being from out of state and unable to give testimony in spite of the risk to my job that being outed would bring. I was deeply upset over the brutal beating video of Chrissie Lee Polis as it was.
I found my anti-war movement. I'll be back again next year, even if it is to read a statement from another in-state group member. I may be in red neck WV but they are dealing with a Jersey girl born and raised in the shadow of NYC. There is always an angle :-X
I'd like to note that at least one of us has a lot of power to fix the naming issue (hint: me), so if people could put together what they would actually like to see done about the naming, I can start putting the word out and meaningful change WILL happen.
Don't feel powerless. There are those of us with some power, and we're willing to use it, but we need to know what people prefer.
I don't like 'transsexual' to describe me, but it's hard to consider alternatives. What should we use?
Rachl thank you for taking the time to respond. The word or words should be straight forward and non confusing. That is why I came up with GSM (Gender Sex Misalignment). We are talking about here is who we are not our sexual oreintation or expression. Orientation is completely different from GSM, which is about ones self. Who you are attracted to is not based on your sex. Expression is a individual thing based on how you want the world to see you and that is special to each individual. GSM is the situation we find ourselves in due to some biological mix up. Where this all started no one seems to know, but if DNA is the building block somewhere in the code something happened that created the situation we find ourselves in. How it happened maybe important but how ever it happened we have to deal with this variation of the human being. As I have been told Gender refers to the brain of the individual and sex to the vessel its carried in. Thus the term gender and sex. Misalignment is nothing more than the two parts not being in agreement. The brain is the main controller and end terminus of the entire system. If it identifies as female than you are female no matter what is between your legs. The problem begins when you become aware of it and the internal system can't correct it. We are left to external means to correct the DNA mistakes. We are not transitioning our bodies we are fixing them. The only transitioning going on is your lifestyle. The purpose of this is to get out of the DSM and into the medical books here in the US and other countries so that all insurance companies will cover it. If we simplify the terminology we all stand to gain. The word homosexual has been shortened to one three letter word "gay". Everyone understands it immediately. Let's hope for the same with GSM. Does it sound good to you? What are your thoughts. We can do this guys for the good of us all.
If I read you right, You want to change the word terms so ins. will pay for sex change operation. I really dont think that would make Ins. componies to pay! First, It's not a disease like cancer. Some may say a mental disease, but not a disease. And second, You will not be in a life or death situation. They are never going to pay! So no matter what you call it, no change!
Quote from: M777a on May 27, 2012, 12:48:13 AM
Rachl thank you for taking the time to respond. The word or words should be straight forward and non confusing. That is why I came up with GSM (Gender Sex Misalignment). We are talking about here is who we are not our sexual oreintation or expression. Orientation is completely different from GSM, which is about ones self. Who you are attracted to is not based on your sex. Expression is a individual thing based on how you want the world to see you and that is special to each individual. GSM is the situation we find ourselves in due to some biological mix up. Where this all started no one seems to know, but if DNA is the building block somewhere in the code something happened that created the situation we find ourselves in. How it happened maybe important but how ever it happened we have to deal with this variation of the human being. As I have been told Gender refers to the brain of the individual and sex to the vessel its carried in. Thus the term gender and sex. Misalignment is nothing more than the two parts not being in agreement. The brain is the main controller and end terminus of the entire system. If it identifies as female than you are female no matter what is between your legs. The problem begins when you become aware of it and the internal system can't correct it. We are left to external means to correct the DNA mistakes. We are not transitioning our bodies we are fixing them. The only transitioning going on is your lifestyle. The purpose of this is to get out of the DSM and into the medical books here in the US and other countries so that all insurance companies will cover it. If we simplify the terminology we all stand to gain. The word homosexual has been shortened to one three letter word "gay". Everyone understands it immediately. Let's hope for the same with GSM. Does it sound good to you? What are your thoughts. We can do this guys for the good of us all.
Gender is as lot more complicated than "it's in the brain, and sex is in the body," but at least you've given me something to think about. Typically, we separate gender into the following parts: expression, role, performance, identity, and attribution.
Gender expression is how one chooses to express one's gender: how do you like to signal to the world your gender?
Gender role involves things like how you fit into society based on your gender. (There's a lot of stupid bowing to stereotypes here, of course.)
Gender performance is recognizing that Judith Butler was on to something: there are some aspects to gender where we fully choose to adopt certain behaviours and tastes, and in a sense, we 'perform' our gender rather than simply embody it.
Gender identity is the one we're most familiar with: it's which gender one most stably identifies with. Of course, one need not accept a strict binary here.
Gender attribution is what gender people attributes to oneself: how does the world perceive you?
So you can see why it's simplistic to say "gender is in the brain." Gender attribution is a feature of other people, and gender role is almost entirely social.
So let's assume that we go with GSM: how do we describe people who want to transition as a response to GSM? One might think that there are mild cases of GSM and who will socially transition without any desire to physically transition. What terms would you use to distinguish between these?
Quote from: rachl on May 27, 2012, 05:55:47 AM
Gender is as lot more complicated than "it's in the brain, and sex is in the body," but at least you've given me something to think about. Typically, we separate gender into the following parts: expression, role, performance, identity, and attribution.
(response)
The human machine is a very complex system. The brain the most complex. Mankind has come along in understanding its operation, but there is alot more to be discovered. Brain mapping has taken place, but mapping of the individual neuron pathways is a daunting task and their relation to the individual. Percise location of the ones in relation to ones sex are shrouded in theroy for now,but continued progress in medical science will someday lead to how this mix up takes place. If DNA is the instructions in the construction of the human vessal, than would not the code that tells you your sex obviously be a part of it? As has been said so many times "as early as I can remember I knew I was female". The separation of gender into the parts listed still refer to brain activity. Thus the general use of the term refering to the brain.
Quote
Gender expression is how one chooses to express one's gender: how do you like to signal to the world your gender?
(response)
True statement, but not to be confused with the general use of the term. Just as cancer has many types people still understand the word without knowing specific details. Simply stated that informing someone of your situation may be more understandable and more readily explained with the term Gender Sex Misalignment (GSM).
Quote
Gender role involves things like how you fit into society based on your gender. (There's a lot of stupid bowing to stereotypes here, of course.)
(response)
Good thing to know, but isn't this more of societal construct imposed on people? Not a true subset of gender when refering to oneself.
Quote
Gender performance is recognizing that Judith Butler was on to something: there are some aspects to gender where we fully choose to adopt certain behaviours and tastes, and in a sense, we 'perform' our gender rather than simply embody it.
(response)
Isn't that based on what we see and experience? Again a brain activity.
Quote
Gender identity is the one we're most familiar with: it's which gender one most stably identifies with. Of course, one need not accept a strict binary here.
(response)
The most important subset and the one most used to explain gender. Ones identity is the base from which all roles, expression, and experiences start.
Quote
Gender attribution is what gender people attributes to oneself: how does the world perceive you?
(response)
Unfortunately for us the situation we find ourselves in will send mixed visual cues that will need to be dealt with. While GSM may not be complete in its definition on its face, once the term gets more familiar with the public visual cues maybe altered for easier passing.
Quote
So you can see why it's simplistic to say "gender is in the brain." Gender attribution is a feature of other people, and gender role is almost entirely social.
(response)
True, but are they preceiving sex more than gender? Are we adding two subsets that are more based on anatomical cues?
Quote
So let's assume that we go with GSM: how do we describe people who want to transition as a response to GSM? One might think that there are mild cases of GSM and who will socially transition without any desire to physically transition. What terms would you use to distinguish between these?
(response)
Under GSM a male or female isn't transitioning. They are correcting a flaw brought on by corrupted code in the genetic system. GSM is more directed at the individual who is seeking anatomical correctness to the best the medical profession can provide. The individual still can choose to what level they wish to attain without being a subset of GSM.
Rachl, there's some great stuff you've presented here. I've had to think on it for a while before being able to reply.
I still think that it's safe to say that "gender is in the brain." Here's why...
My gender identity is how I perceive myself. How I express and perform that gender identity is based on conscious decisions that I make based on my identity and my perception of gender roles.
But at the same time, gender roles are based on concepts constructed by society. Likewise with attribution, or how the world perceives me. These are still in the brain, just in the brains of others around me.
So, yes, it is simplistic to say that gender is between the ears and sex is between the legs. But, it is accurate in its simplicity, to me.
Furthermore, to say that my sex and my gender are currently misalligned is a great way to describe my need for transition.
Thank you, Rachl. Yours was very thought provoking post.
Quote from: Montie5646 on May 27, 2012, 02:43:26 AM
If I read you right, You want to change the word terms so ins. will pay for sex change operation. I really dont think that would make Ins. componies to pay! First, It's not a disease like cancer. Some may say a mental disease, but not a disease. And second, You will not be in a life or death situation. They are never going to pay! So no matter what you call it, no change!
Sorry Montie5646 for not responding sooner to your post. First off, you are not fully understanding what I am trying to do. The medical part of this discussion entails the use of the term so that insurance companies will cover both the medical and psychological treatment nessicary for the patients with GSM. Your right this is not a disease, but like a child born with the bone in his/her face malformed insurance mostly covers the surgeries to fix it. Maybe a better example is someone who has been badly burned. I am sure they didn't chose to have that happen to them, but insurance covers the plastic surgery to correct the damage as well as the therapy to deal with it. We didn't chose what happened to us but insurance should help with the cost. If it is in the medical books then insurance will cover both treatment requirements.
Your second point that this isn't a life and death issue is off the mark. The study done by the University of Nebraska Medical Center were of 92 GSM respondents, 75% had thought of or attempted suicide. I would consider that a life or death situation.
Change can only happen when we all work together to make it so.
Quote from: Connie Anne on May 28, 2012, 08:58:07 AM
Rachl, there's some great stuff you've presented here. I've had to think on it for a while before being able to reply.
I still think that it's safe to say that "gender is in the brain." Here's why...
My gender identity is how I perceive myself. How I express and perform that gender identity is based on conscious decisions that I make based on my identity and my perception of gender roles.
But at the same time, gender roles are based on concepts constructed by society. Likewise with attribution, or how the world perceives me. These are still in the brain, just in the brains of others around me.
So, yes, it is simplistic to say that gender is between the ears and sex is between the legs. But, it is accurate in its simplicity, to me.
Furthermore, to say that my sex and my gender are currently misalligned is a great way to describe my need for transition.
Thank you, Rachl. Yours was very thought provoking post.
Okay, we really need to stop talking this way. First, it's assuming something yet to be supported by evidence. Second, it's utterly unhelpful. I'm asking about what language people would like used to describe trans persons (of various kinds), and I'm getting nearly nothing in response.
By way of example, gender roles are not entirely social: some people
feel a long-standing desire to take on a given gendered role, and this can't be entirely socially constructed or socially imposed on the person: it comes from within (for some people). How you express your gender identity isn't only up to conscious decisions you've made: there are all sorts of non-conscious influences from friends, family, media, and society at play. It's just unrealistic to place it all in one's psychology (and one's volitional psychology, at that). Moreover, this "psychology" vs "biology" is a bull->-bleeped-<- distinction, and has been shown to be problematic for decades now. I know that most (all?) of you haven't read up on all of those developments, but maybe you can just take my word for it.
@M777a: I just gave you the standard definitions of those terms. You seem to think that everything is reducible to brain activity: not everyone agrees. Moreover, it's, again, NOT HELPFUL to think that way. In fact, it's harmful. The fight for respect and human rights doesn't go through neuroscience. You're also, erroneously, assuming that all trans persons experience what you experience; namely, that they've always felt as being in the wrong sexed body. But that ignores scores of "emergent" trans person (of which I am one) who didn't feel that way as a child. You're assuming that people are born with GSM and so people don't "transition" because they were always that gender, but that doesn't describe my experience (nor other people I know). You're
assuming, with no evidence, that GSM is genetic!
I don't understand why you even wrote your post the way you did. I gave those terms to help you separate out the different aspects of gender, and instead you disagree or misunderstood essentially every term. You also didn't respond to my question: what language would you use to describe people with various degrees of GSM? You've tried to avoid talk of 'transitioning,' but we can't do that: it is a transition. You're assuming an essentialist position on personal identity, one which doesn't square with the evidence (and it's metaphysically implausible: philosopher, remember?).
Right now we use "transsexual" to describe someone (let's say) with GSM who chooses to medically transition. We use other terms for people who may have the same internal feeling of gender/sex discord but don't choose to medically transition. I hate the term 'transsexual' and I'm working towards new language there too: what should we use? GSM is an improvement over GID, but it doesn't address the wider concerns.
This is a good place to start (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html) at least as far as this web site goes....
Forgive me, Rachl, I was merely trying to present my point of view.
Quote from: Susan on May 29, 2012, 08:49:49 AM
This is a good place to start (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html) at least as far as this web site goes....
I'm well aware of those terms and how they're employed. My point is that I've heard a lot of people upset with the terminology currently being used to describe trans people (and other options), mostly because they were terms imposed upon us by psychiatrists etc.
I've also heard people explicitly bemoan that we have no power to change that. But they're wrong: people like me write academic papers, attend conferences, and advise policy makers on things like which language to use and why. So I'm offering my time to this cause, if people would only speak to what terms they would prefer to the standard selection, such as those in the link.
Edit: Here's another example: SRS is now coming to be called "Gender Confirmation Surgery," particularly by people in our community. However, I think that this is a bad thing: one cannot "confirm" someone's gender through surgery. One can alter someone's "sexed" or "gendered" body, but the surgery itself doesn't "confirm" anything: one feels the same gender before and after the surgery. What's changed is that one's body is brought into alignment with how one feels one's body should be. So it's closer to "Sex-Gender Alignment Surgery." (My term.)
Short short answer from me: the terms at the end of the link that Susan provided fit what I know and am fine with. Personally, I use transsexual when I refer to myself because I seem to have forgotten to care about it all that much. ::) Oh, and the doctors use that term so it's kinda the accepted norm... just sayin'.
In general, I want the terms on that page to stick more or less because making it more and more and more complicated misses the point entirely for my purposes: making it commonly understood and acceptable to those who aren't. Trying to sum up the horror, terror, confusion, joy, and simply uncommon experience that is who and what I am in a single term or phrase is silly but, to my way of thinking, there are enough commonalities with myself and the rest of the girls who go through HRT/electro/whatever to get their weird mental/physical sense aligned that using a common term to make it clear that there are quite a few of us out in the world to the population that sees us as strange... well... it's just necessary if we want the kind of acceptance and whatnot that most T folk care for. While I like GSM or some of the other terms a little more, transsexual works well enough. Getting all fed up with each other because the term doesn't really say who/what they are inside is odd to me because there is likely no such term outside of your name.
You sound like you have an agenda, one all about making the fact that we are doing something the vast majority of the public will always consider taboo less offensive, basically you are trying to make a trout smell less like a trout, by calling it a rose. Sorry it isn't going to work, at least until we can biologically prove that there is a physical source for all of this. Even so most people will want to fix it making us accept gender norms, instead of letting us just be our true selves.
The terms for this site are set in stone until I change it. It will take something pretty significant for me to become willing to reopen that loaded bear trap.
Susan: Was that to me or the OP? *laughs a little* I *agree* with the site terms.
Hello again everyone, sorry it took so long to respond. I took a little time to think through what Gender Sex Misalignment (GSM) was all about. First I would like to address transitioning. The word itself does accurately describe what we go through during the process. The reason I have changed my view on this is when you put it in the context like a child transitioning into an adult. Then it makes perfect since. The word then has the meaning of change rather than cross.
The second point is the word transsexual. Though the meaning to us is understood, the general public reacts to the prefix trans, as to cross, and sexual as ones orientation. Possibly thinking pose as a girl but still be a boy. Crossing between the two. Whatever their thoughts may be, the term is confusing. Unfortunately for us we too can suffer that confusion.
I have finally realized that GSM deals solely with the binary male-female. I am not saying that one has to have the surgery to be complete. That decision has to be left with the individual. The term is for ease of understanding of all involved. After thinking on it abit I would like to see the term in both the medical and psychological books since both professions are needed to help one through this. It needs to be in the medical books so that all insurance will help cover the main surgeries, hopefully giving the individual comfort in knowing it is attainable.
I would like to address comments made by Rachl. You have said I was assuming this was genetic with out any proof. The only research I have seen or heard was brain dissection after a GSM person has died. They would look at the hypothalamus, saying it was smaller in woman and trying to relate it to GSM. The study was inconclusive due to the effects prescribed hormones had on it. The only other research I had heard of was of a child in uterus where a biological wash made the brain male to match the body. The study was again inconclusive. I am sure other research has or if it is going on, has not reached the people needing it. My assumption/reasoning is sound. To paraphase Sir Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes "When you take away all that it possible than what is left, no matter how improbable must be the truth.". With out the finanical means this research is low on the totem pole.
Rachl I also get the feeling that I am attacking you. That can't be further from the truth. I am questioning definitions. Sometimes you take them point by point for better clarity. Take look at what you are saying in your response to my post. Communication is a brain activity so is thought. My question to you than is what organ allows us to contemplate the natural world? The words we use to define ourselves are learned so that we can better communicate. When the word doesn't make sense we seek a better one. This is thought, a brain activity. When the brain malfunctions, biologically or psychologically, there is a problem. The thoughts, pyschological, and the brain, biological, are not exclusive of each other.
Finally Rachl you took a quote of mine out of context. The quote:"As has been said so many times "as early as I can remember I knew I was female".". That was taken from a post I made on May 28th, 2012. That was an example not what everyone feels or has felt. It is a phrase commonly used. You comments on SRS are enlightening. Your term Sex Gender Alignment Surgery is a good one goes well with GSM.
Susan your post sounds resigned to the world but at the same time authoritarian. Correct me if I am wrong, but basic human rights are just that. Every person no matter what should be given some dignity. The human race at sometime will realize variation in humans is more common than not. Ours is just obvious. No word should be set in stone. Be open to new ideas. You may have not meant it the way you said it but it sure comes across that way. Change is always slow, but I hope science will help.
Just a note, if something is in the medical 'books' , does not mean insurance will pay for it. Exclusions are made all the time. You can get insurance to cover many things not in medical books also. You may pay through the nose for it but it can be done.
I am sure just because it's in the medical books doesn't mean insurance will help pay, but if it isn't there then you can be assured it will not be. You have to start somewhere. Each hurdle brings its own challenges.
Quote from: M777a on May 22, 2012, 09:01:49 PM
Hello everyone. I am doing an inquiry into the terminology currently being used to describe the situation we are in. The current words used are transsexual, transgender, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), and Gender Identity Dysphoria (also known as GID). The terms transsexual and transgender are used interchangebly but their definitions are not. According to my therapist gender refers to the brain and sex to ones anatomy. The prefix trans means to cross. My view is that I am not crossing to anything but correcting what was not done by biological events. GID is a term found in the DSM to describe a mental condition. Guys we are not mental. The term I would like to see used is Gender Sex Misalignment or GSM for short. The reason for this is to get us out of the DSM and into the medical books so that insurance would cover what needs to be done. I would like your input on this. Thank you for your help. M777a
Yea, I hate some of the terminology, especially 'Transwomen' or 'Transman' which sounds like something from a Sci Fi movie! those definitions suck!
The terms 'Transsexual' and '->-bleeped-<-' often get lumped together as though people perceive it to be the same thing. 'Gender Dysphoria' which is the true term seems more exceptable. I class myself as female and don't volunteer to out myself using of these terms which are usually degrading or viewed by the some of the general public as sexual deviant lifestyle choices rather than a true medical condition.
Thanks Naturally Blonde for your response. Loved the way you put things, especially about outing ones self. My only hitch would be with gender dysphoria. Sounds a little mental don't you think. That is why I am trying to find a better term like Gender Sex Misalignment (GSM). Again thanks for taking the time to post.
Returning to the scene of the crime so to speak. Haven't posted in awhile. I hope people are reading this far and would take time to post. The last time I posted some 700 views had taken place, now there is over 800. I truly value inputs so please take a moment to respond its really appreciated. I would like to add food for thought now. Has anyone else been told about the male /female binary or has there been other categories created? I would classify these other categories as feel good categories. The truth be told there is only the male/female binary and anything else must be forms of expression that should not confused with ones sex. This is in no way a put down to someone who wants to express themselves as feminine but they are not GSM. We must face the facts that women don't have penises. To take hormones and not seeking the surgical correction than you would still be male. Only the binary exists and to play both sides seems deceptive, which is one of the main reasons society frowns on our condition. Definitions become important to the world's understanding so complicating them with categories outside of the natural binary we become self isolating. This does not help us. What are your thoughts? Please take a moment to respond. Thank you.
This is kind of all over the place. But I just need to say it whether anyone reads it or not.
Self isolation is in many ways just self protection. As with animals, the human race will subconsciously isolate or expell any individual that doesn't fit the societal norm. To avoid expulsion, and the subsequent loss of the benefits provided by society, those individuals being threatened will adapt by accepting a less desirable roll, or by just hiding.
All of us know we are fully capable of functioning and dealing with society from within an operating shell we created for ourselves. This is absolutely normal, and we do it to protect ourselves from those who would further denigrate us, isolate us, or suffer harm from that rare individual who finds pleasure in physical confrontation in order to cleanse society as they view it. I know those people are despicable. They really see nothing wrong with forced isolation, harassment, and in some cases physically beating (or killing) other members of society who they believe pose some strangely perceived danger. These despicable people are generally not liked by the majority of the society group, but they are for some reason more tolerated, and less isolated, and they are rarely expelled.
The vast majority of people around us will never fully welcome us, and we will always be marginalized. I've been hiding in plain sight for so long that it saddens me to think about it. But that's what we do to survive. No term or legal protection will change how that despicable but more tolerated portion of society harasses us, while the majority of the group ignores us. For that reason I'll leave terminology up to others, and just try to use terms that will NOT denigrate, or further isolated my family, friends, acquaintances, and anyone who is part of my society subset.
I have never been in a position where I ever felt I had to seriously contemplate ending my life. I HAVE thought about why it could be one of my options, but that was 40 or more years ago when drinking was a big problem. But, there was always a reason to go on, and head for a bright spot that I either found in reality, or manufactured in my mind. When I was young there were fewer words to describe the way I sometimes acted. Most common term was Queer, but that was better than the ever present call of ->-bleeped-<-got by some Cretan. The derogatory name calling today is much worse and more deliberately hurtfull. I can't imagine how painful life can be for a young person struggling with gender. And I see very little honest support or protection for these kids. If they don't feel safe, and they can't understand why there is no safe place for them, they will run and hide to contemplate the worst. God I wish I could find the right words for sadness......
Name calling does hurt deeply, either face to face or behind someones back. I always found it odd that the terms and name calling didn't apply to who I was. I guess the hurt was more from being called something I wasn't, and not really knowing what I was. Just having a new name for me wont change things, and after all this time it will never make me feel better about anything in my past, or the prosects for society accepting me in the future. I'll just try to use the accepted terms for now, and I know I'll even fail at that.
This may sound stupid. I don't know you, yet I care about all of you. Just love yourself a little more today, and call yourself whatever you want.
Love, Kathy
It took me a while but, I finally read all the posts for this thread. It seems that everyone that has responded has some well thought opinions.
O.P. - I like the intention behind this thread. I would like to offer what little help I could.
Rachl- a while back in this thread, you mentioned you are a philosopher. If you dont mind, what school of thought do you most follow? I ask because you have offered your professional assistance. So, in order to best describe what I think the language could be, I would like to address you using the school of thought you are most comfortable with. If you would prefer not to open that up, that is just fine.
I don't fit anywhere in the sexual/gender binary.
My mother took DES while I was gestating. I functioned fairly well as male between ages 15 and 50.
In my early 50's I became hypogonadic (low testosterone).
A decade later I'm definitely not male, but not exactly female either.
There is no "choice" involved here. I'm not deciding to isolate myself.
I am neither male nor female and that is a biological fact, not something in my imagination. Before you ask, I did indeed take testosterone injections for years in an attempt to remain male. It just didn't work.
So you think society frowns on my condition, do you? I'm a respected member of my community and church. I am a military veteran with honors to my credit. Some consider me a leader and I'm on the board of several community organizations. I spent 32 years thriving in a highly technical job. I'm now retired with an income well above the national median.
There's nothing phony, deceptive or imaginary about me. I'm no longer male, and not female either. Please don't think you have the authority to place me in either category
Randi
Quote from: M777a on July 05, 2012, 11:47:26 PM
Has anyone else been told about the male /female binary or has there been other categories created? I would classify these other categories as feel good categories. The truth be told there is only the male/female binary and anything else must be forms of expression that should not confused with ones sex. This is in no way a put down to someone who wants to express themselves as feminine but they are not GSM. We must face the facts that women don't have penises. To take hormones and not seeking the surgical correction than you would still be male. Only the binary exists and to play both sides seems deceptive, which is one of the main reasons society frowns on our condition. Definitions become important to the world's understanding so complicating them with categories outside of the natural binary we become self isolating. This does not help us. What are your thoughts? Please take a moment to respond. Thank you.
Quote from: M777a on July 05, 2012, 11:47:26 PM
Returning to the scene of the crime so to speak. Haven't posted in awhile. I hope people are reading this far and would take time to post. The last time I posted some 700 views had taken place, now there is over 800. I truly value inputs so please take a moment to respond its really appreciated. I would like to add food for thought now. Has anyone else been told about the male /female binary or has there been other categories created? I would classify these other categories as feel good categories. The truth be told there is only the male/female binary and anything else must be forms of expression that should not confused with ones sex. This is in no way a put down to someone who wants to express themselves as feminine but they are not GSM. We must face the facts that women don't have penises. To take hormones and not seeking the surgical correction than you would still be male. Only the binary exists and to play both sides seems deceptive, which is one of the main reasons society frowns on our condition. Definitions become important to the world's understanding so complicating them with categories outside of the natural binary we become self isolating. This does not help us. What are your thoughts? Please take a moment to respond. Thank you.
And yet, Bugis have 5 genders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bissu). Then, there's the Two-Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit) as well. It seems somewhat dismissive and culturally imperialistic to say these are merely "expressions."
Quote from: M777a on July 05, 2012, 11:47:26 PM
Returning to the scene of the crime so to speak. Haven't posted in awhile. I hope people are reading this far and would take time to post. The last time I posted some 700 views had taken place, now there is over 800. I truly value inputs so please take a moment to respond its really appreciated. I would like to add food for thought now. Has anyone else been told about the male /female binary or has there been other categories created? I would classify these other categories as feel good categories. The truth be told there is only the male/female binary and anything else must be forms of expression that should not confused with ones sex. This is in no way a put down to someone who wants to express themselves as feminine but they are not GSM. We must face the facts that women don't have penises. To take hormones and not seeking the surgical correction than you would still be male. Only the binary exists and to play both sides seems deceptive, which is one of the main reasons society frowns on our condition. Definitions become important to the world's understanding so complicating them with categories outside of the natural binary we become self isolating. This does not help us. What are your thoughts? Please take a moment to respond. Thank you.
Why are you ignoring the wide variety of intersex conditions? Why do you discount that a gender identity issue might stem from a hormone incident
in utero? Have not third sexes, two spirits,"hermaphrodites," and similar gender and phenotype variants been recognized in cultures for all of recorded history?
It is true the dominant genotypes are XY and XX, but they are not the only types.
What makes a woman a woman; or a man a man? Mind? Body? Is there no chance for a blending of both?
The new proposed name is "Gender Identity Incongruity (GII)," because during early development and later on during pre- and peri-natal stage the part of the brain that dictates your innate self-perception as male or female turn into a state that is in incongruity with your external genitalia.
Peky
Quote from: Brooke777 on July 06, 2012, 11:29:00 AM
It took me a while but, I finally read all the posts for this thread. It seems that everyone that has responded has some well thought opinions.
O.P. - I like the intention behind this thread. I would like to offer what little help I could.
Rachl- a while back in this thread, you mentioned you are a philosopher. If you dont mind, what school of thought do you most follow? I ask because you have offered your professional assistance. So, in order to best describe what I think the language could be, I would like to address you using the school of thought you are most comfortable with. If you would prefer not to open that up, that is just fine.
I'm not sure what you're asking me. There aren't really "schools of thought" in philosophy except, MAYBE, the analytic/continental division in philosophy, which is itself a little artificial. I'm an analytic philosopher though: I work on epistemology, language, decision theory, and metaphysics. But I also work on gender identity and trans issues.
How about?
Early Naturalists
Early Rationalists
Athenian sophists
Socrates and his followers
Platonic Academy
Aristotle and the Peripatetics
Sceptics
Cynics
Epicurans
Stoics
Neo-Platonists
Christians
Islamic Aristotelians
Empiricists
Rationalists
Idealists
Materialists
Phenomenologists
Existentialists
Logical Analysts
Pragmatists
Post-Modernists
You study philosophy without learning about the great thinkers who came before you?
Quote from: rachl on July 07, 2012, 01:00:06 PM
I'm not sure what you're asking me.
There aren't really "schools of thought" in philosophy except, MAYBE, the analytic/continental division in philosophy, which is itself a little artificial.
Yeah, whatever. How many professional philosophers do you know? Go walk into any philosophy department, ask someone what school of thought they belong to, and take a picture of the "WTF?!" face for me.
Essentially no one self-identifies as any of those any more. And even at the height of any of those movements, it was only a vast minority of philosophers who ascribed to any of those movements. And if you knew anything about the state of the discipline, you'd know that no one really identifies with a "school of thought." At best we separate ourselves into disciplines like epistemology, philosophy of science, metaphysics, etc. But some of us move freely through a number of these sub-fields; I'm one of them.
My apologies. My schooling was many years ago, and barely went up through the 18th grade. I'm way out of date.
Quote from: rachl on July 07, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Yeah, whatever. Engaging in an internet argument over this would be absurd. Way to try to put me in my place; maybe I'll take my PhD, publications, and teaching awards and just leave?
Please stick to the topic and not take jabs at one another. Thank you, Devlyn
Quote from: rachl on May 26, 2012, 10:15:38 AM
I'd like to note that at least one of us has a lot of power to fix the naming issue (hint: me), so if people could put together what they would actually like to see done about the naming, I can start putting the word out and meaningful change WILL happen.
Don't feel powerless. There are those of us with some power, and we're willing to use it, but we need to know what people prefer.
I don't like 'transsexual' to describe me, but it's hard to consider alternatives. What should we use?
Well, I don't mind transsexual to describe me, I'm quite happy with it so long as "woman" is added after it when there is any confusion.
What if your power to make change ends up taking away the option for those who actually want to be called transsexual?
Quote from: Kadri on July 08, 2012, 04:26:02 AM
Well, I don't mind transsexual to describe me, I'm quite happy with it so long as "woman" is added after it when there is any confusion.
What if your power to make change ends up taking away the option for those who actually want to be called transsexual?
It's flat-out impossible to take away someone's right to call themselves whatever they want. But the issue is wider: would it be, in general, better for the disadvantaged group if the language used to described them changed? Saying that some might like the old terms, as a way to argue against the broader benefits of change, would be like saying that at least some autistic people may like to be called "retarded," and so we shouldn't change the language.
You would still be able to identify with whatever terms you like; what would happen by changing the language is giving you that freedom. In a sense, it's what the LGBQ people did by reclaiming "queer." But lots of people don't like being called queer; so the change in language gave people more freedom to choose the terms they want to describe them.
it seems to me -if I do not say myself- that i gave you the best term: "Gender Identity Incongruity," simple, concise, and science-based. Why to look for some esoteric and confusing terms?
Comments?
I'm not sure what you mean by "science based." Also, there's possibly a connotation that one is confused about one's gender identity with "Gender Identity Incongruence."
Quote from: rachl on July 08, 2012, 11:21:52 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "science based." Also, there's possibly a connotation that one is confused about one's gender identity with "Gender Identity Incongruence."
"Sciences based" means that the given term is based on scientific facts.
Your innate self-perception of being: "a male, or a female, or having no gender, or both genders, or sometimes male and sometimes female" that is you "Gender identity."
When your "Gender Identity" does not match your external genitalia, a situation that cause anxiety and unhappiness, you my dear, have a "Gender Identity Incongruity"
As those of us who have worked in the natural and social sciences know, the discussion of new ideas or terminology, can sometimes become heated. But part of science is putting new ideas, as well as old ideas, to the test. Shibboleths are often counter-productive.
Sometimes this can cause disputes. Sometimes this can bruise egos. Sometimes this can hurt feelings. But the goal is to have a civil dialogue in which these ideas can be thoroughly investigated.
Moderation on this site is to make sure the tone and tenor of the discussion remains civil, not to censor.
Differing perspectives are to be expected. We all have our own experiences which shape our world view. I ask that the posters here respect each others views, even if we disagree.
Quote from: peky on July 08, 2012, 11:46:37 AM
"Sciences based" means that the given term is based on scientific facts.
Which facts? Seriously.
Your view also privileges genitals, which is a bad idea. That suggests that the goal of all people with GII is to have SRS, which we know is very false.
Quote from: rachl on July 08, 2012, 03:34:09 PM
Which facts? Seriously.
Your view also privileges genitals, which is a bad idea. That suggests that the goal of all people with GII is to have SRS, which we know is very false.
Your gender iis determined at birth, and written in your birth certificate, by the attending physician by looking at your external genitalia. So, dear, this is not my view, honey.
As facts, here is a quick one:
Sexual differentiation in the human brain
D.F. Swaab1, A-M. Bao1, T. Ishunina1,2
1Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2Department of Histology, Kursk State
Medical University, Kursk, Russia
Functional sex differences are expressed from early childhood onwards, e.g. in our playing
behaviour and drawings. Sex differences in cognition, reproduction, gender identity (the
feeling to be male or female) and sexual orientation, and in the incidence of neurological and
psychiatric disorders in adulthood are presumed to be based upon structural and functional
sex differences in the brain. Many of such sex differences have now been described in the
human brain. They arise during development by an interaction of sex hormones and the
developing neurons, although direct genetic effects are probably also involved [1]. Factors
influencing structural [2] and functional [1, 3] sex differences in the brain are genetic factors
like mutations or polymorphisms in the sex hormone receptors, abnormal prenatal hormone
levels and compounds such as anticonvulsants, Diethylstilbestrol (an estrogen-like
compound) and environmental endocrine disrupters. When given during pregnancy they
interact with the action of sex hormones on the fetal brain. An influence of postnatal social
factors on gender or sexual orientation has not been established. In rodents, masculinization
of the brain in development is due to estrogens that are formed by aromatization of
testosterone. In sexual differentiation of the human brain direct effects of testosterone seem
to be of primary importance based upon evidence shown e.g. from subjects with mutations in
the androgen receptor, estrogen receptor or in the aromatase gene [3].
In transsexuals we observed a reversal of the sex difference in the central nucleus of the bed
nucleus of the stria terminalis. The size, type of innervation and neuron number agreed with
their gender identity and not with their genetic sex [4,5]. Various structural and functional
brain differences related to sexual orientation have now also been reported [1,6,7].
There is a clear sex difference in psychiatric disorders such as depression: the prevalence,
incidence and morbidity risk is higher in females than in males, which may be due to both
organizing and activating effects of sex hormones on the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal-axis.
Fluctuations in sex hormone levels are considered to be involved in the susceptibility to
depression, seen e.g. in the premenstrual, ante- and postpartum period, during the transition
phase to the menopause and during oral contraceptives treatment. It was found that about
40% of the activated corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) neurons in the hypothalamic
paraventricular nucleus in mood disorders expresses also the estrogen receptor (ER)- [8].
Estrogen-responsive elements are found in the CRH gene promoter region, while estrogens
stimulate CRH expression in animal studies. An androgen-responsive element in the CRH
gene promoter region has also been identified recently, which initiates a suppressing effect on
CRH expression [9].
In addition, there are sex differences present in the way the brain ages and in Alzheimer
neuropathology [3, 7]. The field is becoming extra complex by the presence of splice variants
(and isoforms) of ER- and the local production of steroid hormones in the brain. In the
human medial mamillary nucleus and hippocampus we detected, using RT-PCR, ER splice
forms skipping entire exons 7, 4 and 2 and we identified two novel variants: 1) MB1 that is
lacking 168 nucleotides in exon 1, and 2) TADDI, in which 31bp are missing in between exons
3 and 4, while 13bp are inserted from the middle of exon 2 [10,11]. In our recent work we
investigated whether canonical and alternatively spliced ER-mRNA and protein are affected
by age, menopause and Alzheimer disease (AD) in the hippocampus that is essential for
declarative memory. Experimental and clinical studies indeed suggested beneficial effects of
estrogens on hippocampus-dependent cognitive functions. Such positive effects have,
however, not been obtained in late AD stages. Interestingly, nuclear ER
immunocytochemical expression was prominently higher in young women (34-50 years of
age) than in young men (31-64 years of age), possibly due to higher plasma estrogen levels.
Moreover, nuclear ER, aromatase and the Golgi complex size which is indicative of neuronal
metabolic activity, enhanced during aging in women. Our data suggested that the elevated
expression of nuclear ER in postmenopausal women versus pre- and perimenopausal
women is due to a drop in circulating estrogen levels that seems to cause an increase in the
local estrogen production in the hippocampus, which may subsequently up-regulate ER.
Furthermore, locally synthesized estrogens may stimulate hippocampal neuronal metabolic
rate in postmenopausal women via rapid non-genomic mechanisms. In AD cases canonical
and alternatively spliced ER-mRNA, and aromatase gene transcripts were down-regulated,
suggesting reduced local estrogen levels and diminished signaling through ER. Whether this
finding may be related to a general genetic shut-down in the AD hippocampus remains to be
elucidated. Concluding, structural and functional sex differences in the brain are present in all
stages of life, and are involved in many functions in heath as well as in diseases.
References
1 Swaab DF: The human hypothalamus. Basic and Clinical Aspects. Part I: Nuclei of the
Hypothalamus, Handbook of Clinical Neurology; in Aminoff MJ, Boller F, Swaab DF (ed. Amsterdam,
Elsevier, 2003, vol 79.
2 Swaab DF, Fliers E: A sexually dimorphic nucleus in the human brain. Science 1985; 228:1112-1115.
3 Swaab DF: Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relevance for gender identity, transsexualism
and sexual orientation. Gynecol Endocrinol 2004;19: 301-312.
4 Zhou JN, Hofman MA, Gooren LJ, Swaab DF: A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to
transsexuality. Nature 1995; 378: 68-70.
5 Kruijver FP, Zhou JN, Pool CW, Hofman MA, Gooren LJ, Swaab DF: Male-to-female transsexuals
have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85: 2034-2041.
6 Swaab DF, Hofman MA: An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Res 1990;
537: 141-148.
7 Swaab DF: The Human Hypothalamus. Basic and Clinical Aspects. Part II: Neuropathology of the
hypothalamus and adjacent brain structures. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Amsterdam, Elsevier,
2004.
8 Bao AM, Hestiantoro A, Van Someren EJ, Swaab DF, Zhou JN: Colocalization of corticotropinreleasing
hormone and oestrogen receptor-alpha in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus in
mood disorders. Brain 2005; 128: 1301-1313.
9 Bao AM, Fischer DF, Wu YH, Hol EM, Balesar R, Unmehopa UA, Zhou JN, Swaab DF: A direct
androgenic involvement in the expression of human corticotropin-releasing hormone. Mol Psychiatry
2006; 11: 567-576.
10 Ishunina TA, Swaab DF, Fischer DF: Estrogen receptor-alpha splice variants in the medial mamillary
nucleus of alzheimer's disease patients: Identification of a novel mb1 isoform. J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2005; 90: 3757-3765.
11 Ishunina TA, Fischer DF, Swaab DF: Estrogen receptor alpha and its splice variants in the
hippocampus in aging and alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 2006.
Love the science Peky. Are the references easily found on the internet? Also are there books that can be found in english of the studies you mentioned? I would love to learn more and thanks for the science lesson. It was great.
Hi, miss M777a
You can tried "google scholar," but I use "Pubmed"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)
I do not know about any books; usually by time a book gets published, it is usually already several years out of touch with current research.
Happy searching!
Quote from: rachl on July 08, 2012, 08:06:34 AM
It's flat-out impossible to take away someone's right to call themselves whatever they want. But the issue is wider: would it be, in general, better for the disadvantaged group if the language used to described them changed? Saying that some might like the old terms, as a way to argue against the broader benefits of change, would be like saying that at least some autistic people may like to be called "retarded," and so we shouldn't change the language.
Except I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone on the autistic spectrum who identifies with that term, so it isn't a particularly good analogy. Also I'm not sure whether all people on the autism spectrum were called retarded by others to start with, some were regarded as geniuses.
I didn't suggest that "some may like the old terms" either, because transsexual is still a current term, and nothing useful has replaced it yet in wider currency (except the wider term transgender). It's more the perception that the word has a negative connotation that is the problem isn't it? Or is it because it is inaccurate for some people's experiences or not inclusive of people on the boundaries?
I suppose the better question to ask about connotation would be: Do others' attitudes really change just because of the language used, or could acceptance by western societies of transsexualism and gender variance destroy the negative connotations of the word transsexual without needing to replace it with something else? Actually you asked that question in yourself...
I think the persistence of social stigma can give even the nicest name ("gay" for example) a negative connotation. I'm sure queer and dyke still have a negative connotation amongst homophobes, though, even though they have been reclaimed by their respective communities. Will the attitude be fixed by the language, or the language fixed by the attitude?
Wouldn't reclaiming the word for ourselves be just as good for us as inventing something new?
I've just asked more questions than given answers..... I can't really answer them.... but at least I've been thinking about it a bit.
(modified for spelling!)
Kadri thanks for thinking about. That is the whole idea of this post. Being okay with the accepted terms is fine, the idea here is to see if there are better terms that help all of us with better understanding. We can get used to terms because that is comfortable, but we should not be afraid of change to ensure better understanding by all. No one should be left out. My personal observation of the current terminology in this area has caused confusion for myself as well as others.
Quote from: M777a on July 08, 2012, 07:27:19 PM
Love the science Peky. Are the references easily found on the internet? Also are there books that can be found in english of the studies you mentioned? I would love to learn more and thanks for the science lesson. It was great.
Almost all peer-reveiewed studies can be found online but you need to subscribe to the specific journal or pay a fee ( a rather hefty one) to access anything more than the abstract. Or you might find some of these studies at a University data base such as EBSCO host. I have access to one of the greatest databases in the world, maybe we can work out a deal. :laugh:
Quote from: Sephirah on May 24, 2012, 04:36:12 AM
Interestingly, some organisations and authorities don't see Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness, or recognise it as such. For example, the NHS in the UK. Here's how they see it:
From: [url=http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_097168.pdf]http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_097168.pdf (http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_097168.pdf)[/url]
So since more and more places are starting to use the term GD (Gender Dysphoria) instead, is there really any need to call it something else?
I think you are a little miss- guided as the NHS only considers Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness:
http://www.wlmht.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gender-Dysphoria-Services-An-English-Protocol.pdf (http://www.wlmht.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gender-Dysphoria-Services-An-English-Protocol.pdf)
http://www.wlmht.nhs.uk/gic-updates/dh-consultation-on-gender-dysphoria-guidance/ (http://www.wlmht.nhs.uk/gic-updates/dh-consultation-on-gender-dysphoria-guidance/)
All GIC NHS GD protocols in the U.K are strictly held under the mental health guidelines only and Gender Dysphoria only goes under the 'mental health' banner. Other countries don't see it that way and I think the U.K system sucks partly for that reason.
Canada definitely does, too.
The NHS doesn't consider GD to be a mental illness - the reason why someone presenting to their GP with apparent GD is initially assessed by a psychiatrist over here (and therefore under the auspices of the mental health service, as that's where the psychiatrists are based) is to determine whether they have GD (rather than mental health issues that can initially present as like GD), and whether they also have any mental health issues (which if they do, need addressing separately from the GD). So the client is initially funnelled briefly through the mental health system for that purpose, but then they're referred to a gender clinic which does the GD assessment proper, and which is emphatically separate from the mental health services.
Quote from: Padma on August 01, 2012, 10:55:08 AM
The NHS doesn't consider GD to be a mental illness - the reason why someone presenting to their GP with apparent GD is initially assessed by a psychiatrist over here (and therefore under the auspices of the mental health service, as that's where the psychiatrists are based) is to determine whether they have GD (rather than mental health issues that can initially present as like GD), and whether they also have any mental health issues (which if they do, need addressing separately from the GD). So the client is initially funnelled briefly through the mental health system for that purpose, but then they're referred to a gender clinic which does the GD assessment proper, and which is emphatically separate from the mental health services.
I don't know how my six years at a NHS GIC can be called 'funnelled briefly through the mental health system'? I also disagree with most of your points regarding 'the gender clinic does the assesment proper' as GIC's refer some people for SRS surgery who regret it afterwards and they revert back to their original gender and they block others who end up having to go private like I did. So the psychiatrists don't seem to know what they are doing or who they should and shouldn't refer for surgery.
I'm not going to get into specifics, not knowing the details of your experience - but studies show regret rates post-GRS are very low, around 1%, and that for a mixture of reasons.
Quote from: Padma on August 02, 2012, 08:05:15 AM
I'm not going to get into specifics, not knowing the details of your experience - but studies show regret rates post-GRS are very low, around 1%, and that for a mixture of reasons.
I know two cases who went to the London NHS GIC who reverted back to their original gender. Both had different reasons. I knew one because she attended the GIC the same time as I did and the other I knew through one of the forums.
My experience was quite bad and I didn't get an NHS surgery referral even though I was already six years into my RLT. That was back in 2007. They agreed I complied with the HBSOC and the RLT but still wouldn't provide a referral or a reason as to why not? It was very frustrating for me at the time.
That does sound very frustrating - especially the part where they didn't explain why.
I understand that my description of the NHS process doesn't fit your particular experience - but it does seem that your experience was way worse than most people's experience is of transitioning under the NHS, especially recently.
Ladies and Gentlemen, though I can appreciate the posts in this section, we are getting away from the purpose of the discussion here. We are focusing on the current terms to describe our condition and I am asking is there a better term that is less confusing than transexual or transgender. Though these terms are accepted by the individuals affected the terms do have a negative connotation to the general public. The prefix tran or trans meaning to cross and sexual seen as the act of sex not the sex of a individual. The current terms, as been my experience, is the public interprets it just that way. I am sure others have had different experiences but the miss interpretation is still present. We are women who were born with a male reproduction system, under the heading of this section, and clarity of terms would make understanding by all easier. You are all a great bunch of people and with your insights, from what I have seen here, can help with clear terminology that will help those who need it. Keep reading all the posts here and put your thoughts down here to weigh in on the subject. Keep in mind that we all stay on task here and focus on the terminology.
I have reviewed this topic for the last few months and since my last post no further discussion has taken place. It is a bit of a shame that terminology has stagnated. The intention of the topic was to find better words to describe a unique condition. This was to help ourselves as well as the public to better understand what is going on with us. The terminology defines the condition not the individual. I felt that with insightful discussion there was hope of refining the terms that best describe this particular condition, not just as a psychological issue but a medical one as well. Since it takes both specialities to properly correct it. I would like to take this next sentence to thank Susan for letting me post and Rachl for making me think, also Peky for her wonderful knowledge. A special thanks for those others who took the time to respond. I'll check back in a month to see if there is any interest to continue the topic, if not then I'll ask to have it locked. Again thanks for taking the time to read this post.
You need to participate, not watch, if you don't want your topic to stagnate. After all, we aren't your employees! Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: M777a on May 22, 2012, 09:01:49 PM
Hello everyone. I am doing an inquiry into the terminology currently being used to describe the situation we are in. The current words used are transsexual, transgender, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), and Gender Identity Dysphoria (also known as GID). The terms transsexual and transgender are used interchangebly but their definitions are not. According to my therapist gender refers to the brain and sex to ones anatomy. The prefix trans means to cross. My view is that I am not crossing to anything but correcting what was not done by biological events. GID is a term found in the DSM to describe a mental condition. Guys we are not mental. The term I would like to see used is Gender Sex Misalignment or GSM for short. The reason for this is to get us out of the DSM and into the medical books so that insurance would cover what needs to be done. I would like your input on this. Thank you for your help. M777a
I quite like the term 'Gender Sex Misalignment': I can see its logic ... but doesn't that still imply a disorder?
And frankly, isn't that because we do actually have a disorder?
The only reason the word 'disorder' seems offensive, in the context of the DSM is because of the negative stereotyping suffered by ALL psychiatric ailments.
For what it's worth, I'm personally convinced that the disconnect between our mental gender and the bodies we were born with is a matter of brain chemistry and structure, caused by pre-natal issues. I've always felt that my feelings were so deep, so instinctive and so overpowering that there was no way they could have been caused by bad parenting, or some kind of personal neurosis (though my 'misalignment' has certainly given me huge mental distress, trying to cope with it/deny it/suppress it/get over it/live with it, etc) ...
... But it's still a disorder. I mean, what we have is a dis-ordering of our physical and mental selves .. and it's also a disorder in the sense that it's an ailment that causes great anguish and requires treatment. Of course we all support one another as much as we can, but let's be honest, how many of us would choose to be born this way? And how many would wish the same disorder on our children? Most of all, I would love to have been given a female body so that I could have lived the life my deepest self was made for. Failing that, I wish I could just be a regular guy who never gives a second's thought to worrying that he's not actually male. I can cope with being transgendered, but it comes way down my preferred list of options.
My point is, you can call a blind person visually-challenged, but it doesn't help them see any better. You can say 'small person' is a more PC term than 'dwarf' (though a lot of dwarves actually prefer being called dwarves): either way they don't get any taller.
So, while I'm confused about the difference between transsexual and transgender, and whether I should even use either term ... and while I'm just about getting my head around the whole 'cis' thing and 'assigned at birth', the truth is I don't care what anyone calls me, so long as they treat me with dignity and respect.
With one exception ...
I can call my self a ->-bleeped-<- - and, trust me, it's not self-hating. My fellow ->-bleeped-<-s can call me a ->-bleeped-<-. My very closest, most intimate, most lovng and trusted friends can call me a ->-bleeped-<-. Anyone else calls me a ->-bleeped-<-, I reserve the right to bust their jaw.
Not very ladylike, I know. But sometimes a girl's gotta do ...
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on October 17, 2012, 07:02:40 AM
You need to participate, not watch, if you don't want your topic to stagnate. After all, we aren't your employees! Hugs, Devlyn
Well, I find this post not particularly helpful. First off I do participate, this is not a blog but a discussion. Also I had some personal stuff come up that made this a little less a priority. Secondly, no posts had been made for approximately 2 months, if you noticed before yours that the last posts were mine. Finally and most importantly I truly value anyone who has taken the time to post their thoughts on the subject here. They are not my employees and your implication, however meant, is a bit offensive and distracting from the discussion. Enough said, hope that this matter is closed and we can get back to the discussion of terminology.
My post was not meant to be offensive, I apologize. Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: M777a on October 19, 2012, 06:16:06 AM
Well, I find this post not particularly helpful. First off I do participate, this is not a blog but a discussion. Also I had some personal stuff come up that made this a little less a priority. Secondly, no posts had been made for approximately 2 months, if you noticed before yours that the last posts were mine. Finally and most importantly I truly value anyone who has taken the time to post their thoughts on the subject here. They are not my employees and your implication, however meant, is a bit offensive and distracting from the discussion. Enough said, hope that this matter is closed and we can get back to the discussion of terminology.
That being the case, I'd love to know what you made of my point that gender misalignment, dysphoria, call it what you will actually IS a form of disorder ... and I say that as someone who has it.
As I come out to more people, especially conservative people, I am starting to not mind it being a "disorder". It helps those who are completely ignorant on the subject grasp the fact that it is not a choice. It is just part of who I am.
Quote from: Brooke777 on October 19, 2012, 09:51:28 AM
As I come out to more people, especially conservative people, I am starting to not mind it being a "disorder". It helps those who are completely ignorant on the subject grasp the fact that it is not a choice. It is just part of who I am.
Good point!
I have made my own terminology which I will use almost every time except for very specific situations.
XY Female and XX Male. Rather than Cis, XX Female and XY Male
Quote from: Rita on October 19, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
I have made my own terminology which I will use almost every time except for very specific situations.
XY Female and XX Male. Rather than Cis, XX Female and XY Male
I like this. Much more concise that the alternatives.
It is to the point ;D
That is why I like it, because it is how I feel.
Quote from: Rita on October 19, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
I have made my own terminology which I will use almost every time except for very specific situations.
XY Female and XX Male. Rather than Cis, XX Female and XY Male
Likewise, I identify as a "male-bodied woman."
I label myself as a woman
It cuts through the red tape, the hour long explanations and it's how I feel.
Quote from: Annah on October 19, 2012, 01:32:41 PM
I label myself as a woman
It cuts through the red tape, the hour long explanations and it's how I feel.
That is for the outside world away from this forum ;D
Carlita, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I felt I needed to address the post before yours without starting a firestorm. Also I felt it would be improper to put both responses in one post, I hope you'll pardon me for that. Now that's been said let's move to you post. I would have to agree with you the conflict comes from our "disorder" being in the DSM. Your right this is a disorder, but since I also know this to be a biological malfunction should it not be in the medical disorders book? By putting it in just the DSM the public and some us view this as something you can simply just think away (a mental thought) or pop a pill and your cured. That couldn't be further from the truth as you well know. The word disorder does have its own negative connotation. I may be wrong but the word seems to be used with mental conditions more often the physical ones. Misalignment seems better than disorder, due to the fact it doesn't seem to have a large negative connotation.
While it may be okay with you to be called a ->-bleeped-<-, from my perspective as someone who respects you for taking the time to input on this topic and in your life, I'll call your Carlita(that is you, ->-bleeped-<- is your "disorder"). I call people by their names, not by name calling.
Quote from: Rita on October 19, 2012, 02:02:27 PM
That is for the outside world away from this forum ;D
Thats how i label myself in here
Quote from: Annah on October 19, 2012, 01:32:41 PM
I label myself as a woman
It cuts through the red tape, the hour long explanations and it's how I feel.
Well said Annah. The terminology describes the condition not the individual. Have any other thoughts on the terminology of the condition.
I have made my own terminology which I will use almost every time...
Doesn't that, in fact, only confuse the situation more? Doesn't that lead to a rather literal Through The Looking Glass kind of world, where instead of clarity one gets only confusion?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Long ago there was a proposal to use the word 'variant' as in gender variant, giving it a patina of a naturally occurring mathematical possibility. But that notion sank quicker than the Titanic. And though there is a movement to try to - as the gay community did with 'homosexuality' - get it out of the DSM entirely, but then 'no DSM, no money', and because there are (can be) such huge expenses involved in correcting the incongruenty, that movement goes no where fast.
And where terms are meant to limit, they are intended to include, as is the case with Trans - (sexual/gender), but most of these kinds of discussions always sound to me a lot more about excluding, having a heavy undertow of "those people over there, I'm not like THEM."
I would like to take a look at tekla's last post. First a quote from the post:
quote/
And though there is a movement to try to - as the gay community did with 'homosexuality' - get it out of the DSM entirely, but then 'no DSM, no money', and because there are (can be) such huge expenses involved in correcting the incongruenty, that movement goes no where fast.
My first question is why do you feel, as you imply in the quote, that if the condition is taken out of the DSM there is no money? Money from where? Also couldn't there be a debate as to whether the condition is a medical or psychological or both? Certainly by defining a term wouldn't that give clarity to where it falls on the medical/psychological spectrum?
The next quote:
And where terms are meant to limit, they are intended to include, as is the case with Trans - (sexual/gender), but most of these kinds of discussions always sound to me a lot more about excluding, having a heavy undertow of "those people over there, I'm not like THEM."
To respond: the only way you can be excluded is if you don't have it. The terminology describes only the condition not the individual. Maybe to help clarify a little bit, a captain in the army happens to be black, so he doesn't want to be refered to as a black captain, but a captain who just happens to be black. He didn't get to chose his skin pigmentation and that doesn't define who he is. In this topic there is no undertow of exclusion simply just to exclude people, if you don't have GSM then you don't. I don't like the term trans because I am not crossing anything, I am already there. Just have to fix a few flaws on the old cover stock.
Because there is no physical test, no obvious symptoms, then it's in the mind - and if it's in the mind, and it's going to be covered by insurance (and like it or not that's the way our health care works, and given what the new laws say, it's going to continue that way - insurance companies are - and will continue to be - at the fulcrum point of medicine in the USA for a long time to come) it has to be in the DMS. That's a basic requirement for most insurance carriers. If they can't 'code' it on the billing, they ain't going to pay for it, and in that sense the DMS is a huge coding guide. And if your looking for insurance companies to adopt a more liberal, open and understanding attitude, then you haven't met many. They hire huge office complexes of people to avoid paying, not for trying to find new and novel ways to give the company money away. (Which is exactly how they see it.)
I guess if you have an argument with the use of the prefix 'trans' then, you need to pick a fight with the Dons of Oxford, as well as the Romans. Now count me in on the second, after all the Latin I was forced to take in school I have my own set of problems with them. If - on the other hand - your have trouble with how words come into existence in English, how they are validated and defined, and how they enter into popular usage, then count me out. Trying to change usage, though possible, tends to be like something out of Animal House, you know, a situation that absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part - and I'm not that person.
And, since this does seem a lot like attempting to create a definition of one (you) that does not cover everyone else (them), I'm not at all sure what my part in it would be as my basic response to attempting to define/explain/elaborate/educate myself, or any part of me is to tell the person that I'm not a library, I'm not 411, and I'm not their personal professor either. So the words used tend not to matter to me. I'm pretty much OK with being called anything except late for dinner.
I mean I feel you on that whole 'trans' thing, if I was forced to pick (which I'm not) I prefer crossdresser to ->-bleeped-<-, if a choice has to be made. Though I just call it 'doing drag' as that's' an old theater term/stage direction and I'm comfortable with that and everyone knows what it is. ->-bleeped-<- , first off, is a big, old, pompous Latin-type word when crossdresser, the Anglo-Saxon description, is much more to the point. When any sort of alternative is offered, the modus operandi should always favor the Anglo-Saxon word, ceteris paribus. Good writing, Strunk & White assures us, eschews the Latin, knowing; Vox populi, vox Dei. Besides, crossdresser seems to center more on the fashion aspect, opposed to ->-bleeped-<-, which arises from the psychiatric community and basically defines a pathology of mental illness revolving around specific sexual issues. ->-bleeped-<-s are routinely presumed to be gay men dressing as women for the point of luring other men to have sex with them, or else straight men with a sexual fixation to the point of fetish - neither of which seems to fit me very well. And though I'm not 'doing a show' drag works for me because in a way (like the other public aspects of my life) is is a performance of a kind. But there you have it.
That, and I don't really believe in the psychiatric community either. So there is that too.
Quote from: M777a on October 19, 2012, 07:52:36 PM
Well said Annah. The terminology describes the condition not the individual. Have any other thoughts on the terminology of the condition.
This right here~
Yes, I am a woman. But I was physically born XY rather than XX.
There needs to be some kind of designation between us so that we can get the right answer to the right questions.
I find it like going to the doctor, you have to explain your situation in case he is not your endo. Otherwise you may not be diagnosed properly.
tekla, at present there is no physical test to find the biological malfunction that could cause GSM. They said the same thing about clinical depression. They know there is a biological reason for clinical depression and thanks to that discovery they have better treatments for people who suffer that particular condition. As far as the insurance part of your responce, we could take up Susan's entire web site discussing what is wrong with the insurance industry. Just by taking GID out of the DSM won't make it any harder than it already is.
As far as the current terms being used, as I have said so many times before, doesn't make them the best terms to describe a particular condition. Knowing where they come from, though informative, adds nothing to this topic. The terms currently in use are inadequate in helping people understand this condition especially when your are seeking help. My experience and others. It is a lot easier to ask for a glass of water than to ask for that liguidity stuff coming out of that shiny dohicky.
You said I am attempting to create a definition of one that doesn't cover everyone else. If I get your meaning you think I am isolating a group of people, eliteist if you will, from all others here. Let me explain this again, the term GSM is to describe a condition not a individual. You can't be a member of the cancer survivor's club unless you had cancer. By referring to yourself as a crossdresser are you not doing exactly what you are accusing me of since I am not a crossdresser? We come to this site for support and understanding not to isolate into groups, but if your a crossdresser, by labeling yourself as such are you not defining yourself by a category. I just think of you as tekla who happens to be a crossdresser, but is smart and has insight into the world.
Rita, amen sister. Hit the nail on the head.
Quote from: M777a on October 19, 2012, 03:04:07 PM
Carlita, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I felt I needed to address the post before yours without starting a firestorm. Also I felt it would be improper to put both responses in one post, I hope you'll pardon me for that. Now that's been said let's move to you post. I would have to agree with you the conflict comes from our "disorder" being in the DSM. Your right this is a disorder, but since I also know this to be a biological malfunction should it not be in the medical disorders book? By putting it in just the DSM the public and some us view this as something you can simply just think away (a mental thought) or pop a pill and your cured. That couldn't be further from the truth as you well know. The word disorder does have its own negative connotation. I may be wrong but the word seems to be used with mental conditions more often the physical ones. Misalignment seems better than disorder, due to the fact it doesn't seem to have a large negative connotation.
While it may be okay with you to be called a ->-bleeped-<-, from my perspective as someone who respects you for taking the time to input on this topic and in your life, I'll call your Carlita(that is you, ->-bleeped-<- is your "disorder"). I call people by their names, not by name calling.
First, thank you for your courtesy!
Next ... I'm not sure that I see the distinction you draw between a psychiatric and medical disorder since psychiatry is a branch of medicine and all psychiatrists (as opposed to psychotherapists) are qualified doctors. The fact that there may be a pre-natal/neurological causation for GID doesn't mean that it isn't psychiatric, since the symptoms we experience are mental and emotional rather than physiological - even if the cure may well be physical surgery.
Frankly, ours is a very strange state of being and although everyone on here can share or relate to many of the experiences and feelings that other people describe, we are all individuals and have our own personal story of how we have coped (or not) with the problem that our inner selves don't tally with our outer bodies, and we experience that contradiction in very different ways, from the little boys who dress as girls and are treated as girls from kindergarten onwards - nowadays even transitioning in their teens - to those (like me) who somehow fool the world that they are 'real men' and then find themselves trapped for decades by the very success of that deceit.
I think it would be very hard to find one word, or one term that would fully deal with that whole spectrum of disorder. the main thing, I think, is to find a description which is easily grasped and hopefully even understood to some extent by the rest of the world. Gender Identity Disorder seems to me to be as good a general description as any other. It's easily understood, clearly applies to a particular group of people and actually, by being labelled as a disorder makes it clear that we didn't choose to be this way and with a little bit of education folks can also come to understand that we can't be persuaded by therapy, disapproval or miracle drugs to be any other way.
So there's no point people being bigoted or ignorant. they've just got to deal with us and accept us as we are.
To start, psychiatrists for the most part do not do surgery, but they can perscribe drugs and mostly deal with behavorial problems. Psychcologists are therapists with Phd's and are also considered doctors. These people help you with the effects of GID not nessicarily the biological cause. I think we sometimes forget the brain isn't just thoughts (psychological) but also an organ (biological). No all brain disorders show as headaches, but present as behavorial manifestations. As I had said in a earlier post clinical depression can't be seen with an MRI , but they know its a biological malfunction. It would seem that folks see the genetic code as infallible, but we know that not to be true. To what extent we seek to repair this genetic glitch is up to the individual, but I can safely say you will need a therapist to deal with the impact of this biological mix up.
Secondly, Rita said it profoundly that we are women, not men trying to be women and using the term transexual does hold us back emotionally. (Rita, hope you don't mind me paraphrasing your thoughts.) How we deal with our indiviual situations is up to each individual.
Finally, I can't fully dispute your logic on the word disorder, it makes sense. Though I still think Gender Sex Misalignment (GSM) is more palletable then Gender Identity Disorder (GID). By the way I think in the new SOC the D stands for dysphoria, which to me is a hell of alot worse.
This topic has moved beyond the original subject matter, and it's time to let it die a gentle death. This topic is now locked.