"Some people theorize that people can have a "repressed transgender identity" and that the process of deciding to transition is a question of determining whether one has such an identity. This frames the process of transgender identity development as a discovery process. If one has cross-gender feelings one needs to discover whether they are "really" transgender or it is from another cause. This idea is false and also dangerous, because once someone identifies with something, it becomes reified and leads to one acting from one's self-concept rather than organic desire. Identities are constructed, not discovered....The queer community encourages the opposite of this process. It encourages the construction of more and more identities, inventing a blizzard of new terminology that is ever changing. It is not surprising that this happens, because the queer community is a haven for marginalized and vulnerable people and those struggling with their sexuality. Retreat into concepts is a way to keep one safe. People are where they are and need to do what they need to do for safety. However the retreat into concepts has a cost of disconnection from the instinctual desires of the body. It is particularly dangerous when these narratives involve the idea that one must change their body to be whole.
It is my belief that the adoption of transgender identity itself is at cause for some of the dysphoria people experience. I have known people who for 40 years have been mostly okay with being perceived as one gender, but after transition experience that perception as life-threateningly distressful. The only change here was that they adopted the transgender identity. For myself, I was pretty okay with being perceived as male as a teenager, and then when I transitioned that felt horribly threatening, after letting go of my transgender identity I am again okay with being perceived as male.
At the queer counseling center I worked at, one of the directors told me that there was a 400% increase in transgender clients in the last few years.
Go here to read more:
http://thirdwaytrans.com/2014/07/13/there-are-no-identities-lurking-in-the-shadows-of-the-psyche/
Another related and interesting read....
http://thirdwaytrans.com/2014/06/11/a-three-part-model-of-transgender-identity-development-overview/
Susan
An interesting counterpoint to the prevailing view.
The author's experience and backgound is illuminating:
"I am someone who transitioned MTF at age 19, and retransitioned to male presentation at age 39. I never imagined that this would happen, as I believed that I had an essential female identity that required me to transition both socially and physically. However, there was always a part of me that was still restless, even after transitioning.
I worked through a lot of trauma in therapy and discovered that I could be comfortable with presenting male after all, and that it was good to let go of the need of be seen as female. Much to my surprise it was possible to become okay with being seen as male, because it does not limit me from being who I am. I wish I could have saved myself all of this trouble and worked through these issues psychologically and I am concerned that the psychological community does not present this possibility."
Whether the author's experience is generalisable, or a means of rationalising their reversal of a flawed decision, I will leave it to the more qualified to decide. It is nevertheless the author's experience and narrative and I will respect it as such. Perhaps they could have benefited from spending more time in therapy before their initial transition, as it may have avoided their transition/retransition experience. While it reminds me that every experience is unique, it doesn't align with mine.
Safe travels
Aisla
From one person's perspective, this is understandable. Everyone has different experiences.
My question, though, is where the hell are all of these "fad" trans people that the author speaks of on the FtM spectrum? Where? I hear people talk about them all the time in blogs and on Youtube, but I've never seen any of them. Is this just a west coast thing? Is it seriously a "fad" other places? I mean, seriously, here in Ohio I've NEVER seen someone who claimed to be trans who didn't go through severe emotional turmoil to arrive at that point. Hell, you barely ever even see trans people in public here at all because a lifetime of repression has made us all so introverted.
Again, am I missing something here? Is being trans seriously a bandwagon in other places that people just jump on because they want freer gender expression, not because they were genuinely uncomfortable with the body of their birth sex?
Carrie
I agree. Trans* is not a choice - it's certainly not a fad and it shouldn't be seen to be a fashion choice; it certainly isn't a lifestyle choice. Personally, I find these sorts of articles triggering, because it feels to me that they are seeking to challenge and question the entire trans* experience. I have seen the religious right publish similar stuff, and now we see a writer with dubious credentials who admits to not having thought their transition through, questioning the identity of the entire trans* community.
An excellent read?!!!
Aisla
I find it thought provoking because it challenges the prevailing group think which can and does lead to an immense amount of unnecessary turmoil and strife.
Attacking the author as having "dubious credentials" for offering his own thoughts on his own personal experience is a cheap shot IMHO and not becoming an advocate of inclusive exploration of a diversity of opinions and life experiences.
The author goes on to say in his subsequent comments that:
"I don't think it would have been possible for me to avoid transition at 19 given what I knew, and the world at the time. If I had avoided it, I think there would be a very high chance I would have done so later, as I wouldn't have the knowledge I have now. We can only do what we can with the knowledge that we have. It is also healthy to adapt to new knowledge and let go of things that no longer serve.
I do think I might have been able to de-transition 5 years later before I had SRS if I had different support or knew more, but I didn't.
I think people should transition if it will improve their quality of life and not transition if it doesn't. It is also okay to de-transition if it one realizes it does not improve their quality of life. I also think there are many cases where it doesn't improve people's quality of life but they persist because it feels like a compulsion or an essential identity rather than something which serves them, and they can't find a way out of it."
Susan
I give more weight to respected experts. I give less weight to those who are less qualified. But each to their own.
As for those folk other than the writer suffering from 'group think' - you have an interesting perspective...
Aisla
"As for those folk other than the writer suffering from 'group think' - you have an interesting perspective..."
:D :D Ya think? Hey GQ/NB just doesn't work for me. Just because it works for you does not mean that the other 99% of the human race for whom the binary does work, is suffering from "group think".
Perhaps you might allow others to form their own opinions about the authors thoughts without imposing your vast "experience and expertise".
I appreciate the author's insights, as there are some interesting things in that blog about compulsive behavior and what may lead to some's decision to transition, the spiraling dysphoria, the overcompensation, when really they're not addressing their core problems.
It's always good to hear another perspective to check my motives. And I can recognize many of those "fragile identity" behaviors in myself from earlier in transition... the feeling of being threatened when misgendered, being super-defensive, constructing narratives, etc. I appreciate that. And I really appreciate the part where he talked about how two of the happiest trans people he knew were ones who didn't transition because they had no other choice, they transitioned after realizing that they could survive either way, but they just chose to be female. That one hit home.
So yeah, again, reading differing opinions, even ones that I don't generally agree with, always has merit, and I'm glad to have read the blog.
Again, though, I want to know, where are all of these people who are transitioning as a "fad?"
Quote from: Susan522 on August 10, 2014, 11:37:24 PM
At the queer counseling center I worked at, one of the directors told me that there was a 400% increase in transgender clients in the last few years.
I believe that's caused by the Internet. There's been an explosion of information available in recent years, and its easier to access than ever. When you can see so many transgender people on YouTube for example, it starts to become much easier to explore your own feelings, and the knowledge that there's plenty of others like you helps you move forward.
sounds like a lecture from a reparative therapy class
Hmm.. Apparently I have a 'Complex'.. Good old Jungian psychology - oh, but he has no qualifications to say that..
This is one man's opinion, one that disregards accepted and well researched concepts.
Quote from: AnonyMs on August 11, 2014, 01:22:44 AM
I believe that's caused by the Internet. There's been an explosion of information available in recent years, and its easier to access than ever. When you can see so many transgender people on YouTube for example, it starts to become much easier to explore your own feelings, and the knowledge that there's plenty of others like you helps you move forward.
yes very true
Quote from: Susan522 on August 10, 2014, 11:37:24 PM
"Some people theorize that people can have a "repressed transgender identity" and that the process of deciding to transition is a question of determining whether one has such an identity. This frames the process of transgender identity development as a discovery process. If one has cross-gender feelings one needs to discover whether they are "really" transgender or it is from another cause. This idea is false and also dangerous, because once someone identifies with something, it becomes reified and leads to one acting from one's self-concept rather than organic desire. Identities are constructed, not discovered....The queer community encourages the opposite of this process. It encourages the construction of more and more identities, inventing a blizzard of new terminology that is ever changing.
What a load of malarkey!
1. We DO explore our identities. We're trying to find a presentation and self-image that allows us authenticity.
2. We all experience being transgender differently. Some of us feel like a woman/man trapped in a man's/woman's body. Some of us feel like we're a third gender, some of us feel androgynous, some of us feel agendered - that we have no gender at all, and some of us feel gender fluid. What the heck is wrong with coming up with a bunch of different words to describe how it feels to us?
3. It is UNIMPORTANT what our identity is. What is important is how we decide we need to live and what we decide we need to do to feel authentic.
4. Is it possible the reason why there are so many more transgender patients is that (1) people are more aware and (2) people feel safer because of public awareness, and that the increase has NOTHING TO DO WITH a "retreat into concepts".
Suzi
Agree. Malarkey pretty much sums it up.
Aisla
Definitely some poignant views in OP's excerpt.
I also do not agree that being trans is some sort of fad. There is no way that someone knows what a fad is when they are 5-7 years old and already experiencing gender variance. When a person is that young, they probably don't even understand what gender variance is! So many of us have memories from being young and already aware of our differences or even dysphoria. At the time though, we are not in the right place to do something about the physical aspect- at least not until later in life.
There are many viewpoints and perspectives one could take, but not one of them alone works for the whole. There are too many circumstances, and everyone has a unique story. This writeup focuses on one possible scenario, and is kind of understandably directed at the recent influx of trans individuals (almost trying to come up with a reason why it is 400% up).
The only reason it is triggering is because the author seems to allude that if it makes sense for one person, it makes sense for everyone. And considering the whole choice / not a choice topic is part of the verbiage, it is on incredibly thin ice to begin with ;)
Maybe upon closer consideration I'll be able to see this so-called "third way trans" perspective as anything but another attempt to undermine the credibility of transsexualism. Its premise, that gender identity is a construct, goes against main-line thinking of neuro-science. Gender identity and gender expression are different things. The difference is subtle and the boundaries between the two are fuzzy, but there is a clear biological impetus to core gender identity that determines whether one ultimately identifies as trans. The cultural constructs of gender give us avenues for expression of that identity, and the two--identity and expression--are braided very early on. Expression reinforces identity, and not having the opportunity causes all sorts of different reactions.
There are--occam's razor-like--cultural reasons for a 400% percent increase in trans-patients. Given that therapists are the gate-keepers for hormone treatment combined with the increased visibility and acceptance of people who are transgender, I think a 400% increase is modest and would expect that number ot double or triple.
Of course, one could imagine that possibility of false positives and fad transsexuals, but they're stawtransmen at this point.
I should go cool off before I get nasty.
Jane you look too sweet to be nasty
Quote from: stephaniec on August 11, 2014, 08:55:05 AM
Jane you look too sweet to be nasty
Hehe. It's a cover and gives me the element of surprise. >:-)
Well... Of all the threads on the forum this morning, this one has given me the most interesting read!
How many people have a 'need' for the transition experience early in life, right or wrong, in order to sort out who they are and who they are going to be, later in life? This is not to endorse anyone making a mistake. And what are the effects of a non-transition early in life going to be on the individual, later in life? Now, some might criticize me for calling it "the transition experience," but that's all life really is - a collection of experiences from which we learn and change. For some, perhaps it is a 'mistake', yet still a process from which they learn and change. For others, and I think the vast majority, it is not a mistake, but a natural path of following and discovering one's identity, and that's important because it is only when living one's true identity that they are going to vigorously meet their true potential. If they are fortunate enough to recognize this at an early age, and able to pursue it, then they are very fortunate!
PS. The collective societal pressure is what, traditionally, has lead to false identities that STOP people FROM transitioning. If anyone who has posted here who has de-transitioned could go back and do it over again, without transitioning, would they?
PSS. Don't mess with Jane!
Quote from: Suziack on August 11, 2014, 11:58:17 AM
PS. The collective pressure is what, traditionally, has lead to false identities that STOP people FROM transitioning. If anyone who has posted here who has de-transitioned could go back and do it over again, without transitioning, would they?
PSS. Don't mess with Jane!
Don't mess with Jane? When the volleyball starts, I want to be on Suziack's side of the net. That PS is quite a face-spike. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Jane's Sweet Refrain on August 11, 2014, 10:03:55 AM
The collective pressure is what, traditionally, has lead to false identities that STOP people FROM transitioning.
I don't know. Perhaps. I am certainly no trans* expert. I am not sure how anybody could be truly "expert" on such a diversity of conditions. As Suzifrond points out, "trans*" covers everything from non-op, to pre-op, to wannabe-op, to non-gendered, to bi-gendered, etc., etc. etc.
So called self-proclaimed gender "experts" like the Serano's and other Gender Outlaws, are just that, social outlaws, promoting their own
OPINIONS and....selling lots of books.
I think what '3rdwaytrans' was writing about was the consequences, (for which incidentally, he is taking full ownership and responsibility)...the consequence of subscribing to many of these so called "accepted and well researched concepts."
Personally I find these "accepted and well researched concepts", highly suspect. But then, I suspect that my lack of confidence in these "accepted and well researched concepts", has a lot to do with
my lived experience and subsequent points of view.
Susan522
There is no doubt your 'lived' experience informs and shapes your opinion. This is the same for all of us. The departure point between your opinion and mine is the weighting given to third party research and opinion. As you say you are attracted to the author's explanation of their unsuccessful transition, whereas I am attracted to and persuaded by, peer reviewed articles and research, widely published authors etc.
Aisla
Aisla. Please do not mischaracterize my interest in 3rd party's thinking and self-analysis as an "attraction" to his "research and opinion". I appreciate your acknowledgement of "lived experience" and I would ask that you tae note of the difference of the lived experience of such "widely published' writers who make their living bloviating about their lived experience which stand in stark contrast to my life and the lives of the vast majority of women.
Understand that I am not attempting to speak to the lived experience of others. I am recognizing 3rd party's acknowledgement of his own errors, (which may or may not be seen as mistakes), and his recognition that those actions, which he now regrets, were based on the "widely accepted and recognized" thoughts and opinions of those same. "widely published' writers who make their living bloviating about their lived experience".
Rather belated reply but thank you very much for the link, Susan. I deeply appreciate it. I had seen people discussion critiques of this elsewhere and a friend mentioned their views on Facebook but nobody actually provided the text. I appreciate seeing the alternative personal experience as retransitioners seem to be an under-represented minority. Of course, in many cases that may be due to a desire for personal distance or the fact some become rabidly 'gender/trans critical'.
Given my personal perception of gender causes me to see gender as a product of our constant evolving performance of it, quite a bit of the blog is interesting. As will be painfully obvious, I've never read psychology texts in the areas the writer discusses but I've definitely asked myself similar questions based on other writing, such as whether my personal gender narrative in the present is causing me to unwittingly reconstruct past memories or experience in a pattern that conforms to needs. Of course, I also ask whether that's true of any narrative about anything in my life or any identity. (Ultimately, I've decided it doesn't matter much because things continue to seem deeply rooted)
Having expressed understanding, I'm afraid I have questions about the blog that are probably due to my lamentable lack of specialist knowledge. For instance, how could a person distinguish between 'acting from one's self-concept rather than organic desire' effectively and how could you do so without a new self-concept potentially biasing perception of such categorisation?
Equally, I dislike that the significant claims seem to be rooted in anecdotes or ignore alternative possibilities. I appreciate it's just a blog but I can't accept a nebulous and general claim that 'adoption of transgender identity itself is at cause for some of the dysphoria people experience' based on a few people known for forty years with alternatives for their change in attitude to gender perception being ignored.
I'm also disconcerted by the parallel drawn to 'lesbian until graduation' based on a single percentage change and the assertion there's been an explosion in the number of trans men. As has been noted, the greater availability of information and connectivity is a valid alternative to the impact of queer politics. As a possible test, if it could be ascribed to a 'trans until graduation' phenomenon then I'd guess an indicator would be the average age of transition going down but clinic data shared at conferences I've followed or attended shows it's going up.
Sadly, the readiness with which the author says it's due to queer cultural explanations makes me question their motives a tad. I simply can't accept that there's possible pressure or encouragement to identify as trans in anything but the smallest of bubbles given I think we live in an overwhelmingly essentialist patriarchal society and the endless evidence of trans discrimination. Similarly, figures from health surveys consistently show the vast majority of trans people consider suicide while a very significant plurality make at least one attempt rather than actually accept their nature. In light of overarching social pressures that encourage people to seek any alternative explanations, I just can't see how the claim is well-substantiated at present.
"I simply can't accept that there's possible pressure or encouragement to identify as trans in anything but the smallest of bubbles given I think we live in an overwhelmingly essentialist patriarchal society and the endless evidence of trans discrimination."
I agree that we live in what could be described as an essentially patriarchal society. I am not sure that I could go so far as to call it "essentialist.
In any case, I think what should be considered is that 'academia' is most certainly not the "smallest of bubbles". This is where trans* is more than acceptable.
Also....Might you please clarify/amplify your following remark: "Equally, I dislike that the significant claims seem to be rooted in anecdotes or ignore alternative possibilities. I appreciate it's just a blog but I can't accept a nebulous and general claim that 'adoption of transgender identity itself is at cause for some of the dysphoria people experience' based on a few people known for forty years with alternatives for their change in attitude to gender perception being ignored."
Maybe I can clarify with a short synopsis of my own thoughts..
It seems to suggest invalidation of the trans community's support for people who experience feelings of gender variance.
Part of the beauty of life is having the freedom to make these kinds of decisions about our own well being and future regardless of the makeup of our physical bodies at birth. It is up to the individual to know what is best for them. Any hint of a suggestion that people are not qualified to think for themselves and make their own decisions is one I will tend to not agree with.
It's almost as if the 400% figure is presented as a negative, or a reason for worry. Am I the only one that is proud and happy that worldwide representation of trans people is growing rapidly? EDIT: I highly doubt it
"It seems to suggest invalidation of the trans community's support for people who experience feelings of gender variance."
I don't see that at all. I see an individual pointing out the perils of conflating 'support' with 'enabling'.
sorry, mean no disrespect to anyone's point of view , but the reasons given for the validity of this approach in questioning ones true nature as regards whether or not one is truly transgender seems to be the type of logic that would be employed by a conversion therapist. self creation of illusion due to some kind of environmental pressure rather then some natural physical causation.
Quote from: Jennygirl on August 11, 2014, 07:20:36 AM
There are many viewpoints and perspectives one could take, but not one of them alone works for the whole. There are too many circumstances, and everyone has a unique story.
Right on the money! I was just about to say the same thing, and I see my words had already been spoken. :)
Quote from: Jennygirl on August 12, 2014, 11:23:38 PM
It's almost as if the 400% figure is presented as a negative, or a reason for worry. Am I the only one that is proud and happy that worldwide representation of trans people is growing rapidly? EDIT: I highly doubt it
+1 Jenny!!!!!
Looking at the guys website, he does state "This site is supportive of people that transition, but also suggests the exploration of alternatives which may create less suffering." I think he has his own way of looking at it, and I don't think that there's ill intent behind what he's trying to promote. It seems as though he's trying to encourage one to take a harder look at what one is doing with themselves. And I applaud him for sharing his own story. However, all that being said, I personally don't agree with his message. There's not one "right way" or one "wrong way". There's people with different paths doing what works for them in that moment.
Spirituality has helped me in reclaiming my life. I have a different way of looking at transitioning than many others do, and I was overjoyed when I found someone out there who shares very similar perspectives with me. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u6TTorNjL4
Indeed, I found that letting go of my resistance to being born in a male body helped me let go of that part of me, and realize that I am doing this to fulfill my own happiness and authenticity. She does talk about 'choice' and it may turn some off instantly, but she's referring to a pre-birth intention. She's very supportive! If you'd like to watch this video, I'd recommend seeing it in its entirety to get a full understanding of where she's coming from. I love this girl, though!
I really disagree with the author's narrative that identifying as trans* is itself a cause of dysphoria, and getting over being identified as such will also eliminate the need for transition. I spent years pushing the dysphoria down and doing my best to ignore my own feelings at the expense of my emotional well-being. This author called that being "mostly ok with being male." I call it barely living and feeling very isolated.
I will admit that, for me, dysphoria really kicked in after I realized that I am, in fact, transgender. But one did not cause the other. It was the realization that being transgender was the root cause of my unhappiness, discomfort, and isolation. It was at that point that I could no longer keep it all bottled up. I didn't identify as trans* because of the cool factor.
IMO this is similar to the long-held narrative that you should never attempt transition unless your only other option is death. Well, I'm just not that dramatic a person. And so for years I figured this meant I couldn't really be transgender, as I had never attempted suicide and didn't have the early life trauma they claimed all trans people had gone through.
Both narratives are well-intentioned, hoping to discourage people from transitioning who probably shouldn't. But that's what therapists and WPATH are there for. The flip side is that these narratives serve to discourage people who really should transition but don't have the support or they aren't well-informed.
Quote from: Lonicera on August 12, 2014, 12:41:44 PM
if it could be ascribed to a 'trans until graduation' phenomenon then I'd guess an indicator would be the average age of transition going down but clinic data shared at conferences I've followed or attended shows it's going up.
This right here proves that it's not a fad among young people on college campuses. It's people like me who come to a point in life where they realize they're extremely unhappy, stumble upon Susans, and discover transition videos on youtube all in the course of a few weeks.
I've known since I was 5 that I should have been female. There was a time in my early 20's that I almost transitioned, but there was a lack of support and information was still limited. But really it was the next 15 years of slogging through life being "mostly ok with being male" that ultimately led me to transition. Being "mostly ok" is really no way to live.
I am not sure why certain people have such a viscerally negative reaction to this individuals post. I certainly do not see his intention to over simplify he causes of ->-bleeped-<- as just a "fad". To go there onemust argue that this red herring is what is being proposed. Clearly this is not the intent.
Here is another idea which may or mat not have merit.
http://thirdwaytrans.com/2014/07/23/erotic-imprinting-overview/comment-page-1/#comment-103
Quote from: Susan522 on August 13, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
I am not sure why certain people have such a viscerally negative reaction to this individuals post. I certainly do not see his intention to over simplify he causes of ->-bleeped-<- as just a "fad". To go there onemust argue that this red herring is what is being proposed. Clearly this is not the intent.
Here is another idea which may or mat not have merit.
http://thirdwaytrans.com/2014/07/23/erotic-imprinting-overview/comment-page-1/#comment-103
so, what you are trying to convey is that dysphoria is a self created illusion and also a symptom of autogynephillia
Quote from: Susan522 on August 13, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
Here is another idea which may or mat not have merit.
http://thirdwaytrans.com/2014/07/23/erotic-imprinting-overview/comment-page-1/#comment-103
So I read the article to which you linked, and the author starts out with the following thesis:
"Erotic imprinting is a key component in transgender identity development."
There's nothing in the rest of the article, however, to back this claim up. He wrote a great deal about this notion of erotic imprinting, referencing John Money as an expert (which should give all of us pause, given what Money did to David Reimer). The author, however, never ties erotic imprinting to gender identity development. Why is it a key component? What is the connection between the two? What is the mechanism through which the first affects the second? The author answers none of these questions.
It makes me think that the author has an internal bias towards believing that being transgender is somehow intimately tied to abnormal sexual development, since he skips over the connection between the two as if it is obvious (and it clearly isn't).
"so, what you are trying to convey is that dysphoria is a self created illusion and also a symptom of autogynephillia "
No. Not in the least. What I am looking for is the kind of semi-critical analysis offered by Danielle79.
Danielle. Thank you for taking the time to check this out. I see your point that using Money's "research" as a reference definitely raises some red flags. However, I think this "connection" that you seek, though arguably tenuous, can be found here...
"In particular trauma or any strong events in childhood can override erotic imprinting. This is what John Money referred to as a "vandalized love map" Such overwriting can be total, but is usually only partial. This creates a kind of dual sexuality where a person has a typical sexual imprint (hetero/homo/bisexual) as well as some fetishistic scenarios that turn them on. These dual sexual imprints compete. This if found in many other sexual imprints and is not specific to gender issues. There is also a dynamic competition which is life long."
And here..."We see this dual sexuality play out all of the time when MTF-spectrum people are struggling with gender. The cross-gender feelings can go away when one finds a new partner and come back after the limerance has passed. They also tend to increase in times of stress. If there is also a negative schema present, the erotic fantasy can act to discharge the tension caused by the schema (schema avoidance). This also strengthens the schema, creating a feedback loop. The fantasy is never enough, and there is risk of escalation."
Quote from: peky on August 13, 2014, 07:33:26 PM
Yeah, well, everybody has her/his story and their opinion... and I for one respect everybody's opinions... However this persons claims to be "educating... and well then I must rise the question of what are his credentials as a teacher.... Note that I am not assaulting his opinion for his lack of credentials... what I am objecting is his disclaimer that he is only trying to educate...
Here is what a true educator and medical expert in GID has to say about the development of gender identity in humans... it is a biological! not the result of any "construction"
Peky
Many thanks for posting this article. It presents as logical, well researched and based on science which appeals to my need for something more than personal anecdote and opinion
Aisla
Quote from: Susan522 on August 13, 2014, 07:58:37 PM
Danielle. Thank you for taking the time to check this out. I see your point that using Money's "research" as a reference definitely raises some red flags. However, I think this "connection" that you seek, though arguably tenuous, can be found here...
"In particular trauma or any strong events in childhood can override erotic imprinting. This is what John Money referred to as a "vandalized love map" Such overwriting can be total, but is usually only partial. This creates a kind of dual sexuality where a person has a typical sexual imprint (hetero/homo/bisexual) as well as some fetishistic scenarios that turn them on. These dual sexual imprints compete. This if found in many other sexual imprints and is not specific to gender issues. There is also a dynamic competition which is life long."
And here..."We see this dual sexuality play out all of the time when MTF-spectrum people are struggling with gender. The cross-gender feelings can go away when one finds a new partner and come back after the limerance has passed. They also tend to increase in times of stress. If there is also a negative schema present, the erotic fantasy can act to discharge the tension caused by the schema (schema avoidance). This also strengthens the schema, creating a feedback loop. The fantasy is never enough, and there is risk of escalation."
Susan - I did notice those two paragraphs when I read the essay. While I think the author did attempt to establish a connection between "erotic imprint" and gender identity there, he didn't quite achieve his objective.
In the first paragraph, the author is either assuming that being transgender is one side of some sort of dual sexuality (something he never establishes) or else he is trying to relate gender identity to dual sexuality by analogy, which doesn't prove that they come from the same root cause. I am particularly concerned about the way that the author seems to equate being transgender with having a sexual fetish.
In the second paragraph, the author again tries to support his conclusion (that being transgender results from "erotic imprinting" that creates some sort of dual sexuality) using analogy. This time, he discusses the similarity between how, for some of us (not all), gender dysphoria seems to ebb with stress and wane with new love, and how the same tends to be true if someone has an erotic fantasy that they find shameful. Again, this similarity does not demonstrate the author's conclusion, and in fact, we can easily explain why this similarity exists: in both cases, we are suppressing something we, at the time, find shameful. When we are under stress, it becomes more difficult to muster the energy to suppress our feelings; when we are newly in love, we get a burst of energy that makes suppression easy. The fact that both gender identity and sexual fantasies tend to be suppressed does not imply that they are in any way related.
sorry, no matter how you want to view this persons ideas, there still coming from a person who doesn't deem it necessary to provide his name and asks the reader to deal with very sensitive medical issue on the basis of some unverifiable statement that he is a psychiatrist in training and a one time MTF. I also stand by my statement that it sounds a lot like conversion therapy
Quote from: Susan522 on August 12, 2014, 06:28:15 PMI agree that we live in what could be described as an essentially patriarchal society. I am not sure that I could go so far as to call it "essentialist.
I can appreciate the different view but I personally think various essentialisms are at the root of sustaining patriarchy. I think the most obvious is gender essentialism that maintains the inferiority of femininity and women via rigidly guarded gender roles. Fortunately, this one seems to be increasingly breaking down in many places. Within the scope of this are the fierce defence of binary gender in many societies and the way assignment of gender at birth is treated like an immutable fact. Somewhat linked to this is biological essentialism which relies on vacuous appeals to nature for validity. In this case, deviation from initial sex assignment is treated as an inexcusable offence and certain aspects of biology are arbitrarily given primacy based on the enforced functions of the sexes. For instance, the way in which cisgender women are often reduced to their uterus.
QuoteIn any case, I think what should be considered is that 'academia' is most certainly not the "smallest of bubbles". This is where trans* is more than acceptable.
I think our definitions of 'smallest of bubbles' may diverge quite a lot because I tend to think consistent acceptance only occurs in areas like the social sciences in a very limited number of countries. Relative to the rest of academia and the rest of the population, that's a minuscule proportion of the world that is predictably accepting.
Equally, having interacted with some of that 'bubble' in the UK, I don't think being trans is
encouraged within that sphere (I can't speak for anywhere else). The author of the original piece seems to argue that there's some unsubstantiated 'trans until graduation' phenomenon originating from this when I tend to think there's merely acceptance.
QuoteAlso....Might you please clarify/amplify your following remark: "Equally, I dislike that the significant claims seem to be rooted in anecdotes or ignore alternative possibilities. I appreciate it's just a blog but I can't accept a nebulous and general claim that 'adoption of transgender identity itself is at cause for some of the dysphoria people experience' based on a few people known for forty years with alternatives for their change in attitude to gender perception being ignored."
Based on my reading, the author seems to be making a claim about the origin of some dysphoria for all, or many, people but is making that claim based on a handful of people that they've personally known. I can't accept a generalised claim based on such an insignificant sample size and the subjective judgement of the author. In short, the conclusion is not justified by the available information. In my mind, it's massively overstretching and open to incredible influence from personal bias.
Similarly, the author ascribes the fear of returning to male presentation to adoption of 'transgender identity,' a thing they never define, rather than exploring the possibility that their aversion is due to evolution of their legitimate womanhood. People frequently don't realise how painful and empty their life was until they're freed from those things so they can perceive it clearly. When they're able to see, they fear returning to how they were. To borrow from the author, I believe the possibility of their fear being due to 'organic desire' isn't explored.
Alternatively, it's never explained how the author knows that these people were comfortable with their previous presentation. Absence of such information being shared with the author is not evidence of absence.
Finally, I simply do not
trust the author's intellectual rigour. My judgement of them is probably affected by my own biases but in many of their posts they seem to be eager to reach predetermined conclusions rather than explore the possibility of every alternative explanation, or even
any alternative explanations. When people resort to such selective thinking, I become suspicious and very cautious around them. In my experience, it's often the case that they're hiding ideology behind a façade of intellectual enquiry.
QuoteHere is what a true educator and medical expert in GID has to say about the development of gender identity in humans... it is a biological! not the result of any "construction"
I'm afraid I tentatively disagree that the abstract proves that definitively. The sample size is tiny, as was the case with their previous study and important ones such as the original Zhou et al work, so doesn't justify a generalised conclusion to me. Past studies I've read, including their previous work, have also seemed to suffer from failure to account for alternative explanations and reached conclusions based on speculation (e.g. they
seem to speculate three years without testosterone would be enough to rule out it being an important factor in the abstract) so I'll have to see if that's the case here too.
Nonetheless, the findings are interesting and warrant further study to rule out alternatives.
First we had Ray Blanchard and then Anne Lawrence with their treatise on ->-bleeped-<- and now this "expert!"
This reminds me of a rather crude comment one of my friends who holds a master's in education once said, "Opinions are like A-holes, everyone has one and too many A-holes have opinions!" My considerable life experience of having been told how to think, who I am and what I am including a recent diagnosis over the telephone concerning a physical ailment is validation enough that my friend's comment crude as it was is right on the mark! That's all I'll have to say in this thread.
This author is ignoring the last twenty years of neurobiology research.
This photo should be required staring for any psychosocial revisionist who tries to posit a non-biological basis for being trans.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transgendercare.com%2Fimages%2Fbr_sx_diff2-5.gif&hash=d7401c16e44558b14f0b2c32e1c5234a3cb04876)
Full study: http://www.transgendercare.com/medical/hormonal/brain_sex_diff.htm
And before anyone asks there are literally dozens of additional studies about brain differences between trans people and the cisgender population.
Here is a 70 minute webcast to an annual AMA gathering in early 2011 regarding the biological basis for why people are trans (http://media01.commpartners.com/AMA/sexual_identity_jan_2011/index.html).
None of this is new stuff. This is 25 year old research. The only reason I can see for someone denying the research and positing nonsense like this so-called "expert" is that they have an agenda of their own.
Earlier this year, I blogged about Medical Information About Transwomen in Sports (http://lizdaybyday.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/medical-information-about-transwomen-in-sports/) and that article includes numerous links to more brain studies. And finally, I highly recommend the brain section of the AE Brain blog (http://aebrain.blogspot.com/search/label/Brains).
Quote from: LizMarie on August 14, 2014, 10:01:25 AMThe only reason I can see for someone denying the research and positing nonsense like this so-called "expert" is that they have an agenda of their own.
Oh dear, I don't think that's the only reason a person could choose to reject the firm conclusion that gender identity is partly or wholly influenced by initial biology based on available evidence. While I'm only a lay-person, I do have some experience with studying statistics and biology formally and informally via extensive personal interest. This means I'm probably very wrong but I've repeatedly read most of the studies in humans and found them all rather lacking due to issues like infinitesimal sample size, failure to include alternative explanations, and categorically claiming to have ruled out variables like hormone exposure based on very questionable thinking. In the past, I've raised my potential issues with a specialist acquaintance and they said they were valid. Of course, they could just be wrong too or be telling me that so I can save face rather than it actually being true.
Importantly, this doesn't mean that I rule out a neuroanatomical contribution or assume the alternative theories are correct. I just prefer to maintain the default position of 'don't know' until there's more reliable evidence. I also appreciate a lot of people do ignore the existing studies rather than engage with them due to ideological blinkering. I don't think that's the case with me though because, despite knowing appeals to nature are fallacious, my instinct is to long for there to be a definitive contribution based on neuroanatomy. After all, it would probably be perceived as taking any sense of responsibility for what society sees as deviance away from me and anyone I love. How can I not partly want that?
Quote from: Lonicera on August 14, 2014, 11:50:47 AMWhile I'm only a lay-person, I do have some experience with studying statistics and biology formally and informally via extensive personal interest. This means I'm probably very wrong but I've repeatedly read most of the studies in humans and found them all rather lacking due to issues like infinitesimal sample size, failure to include alternative explanations, and categorically claiming to have ruled out variables like hormone exposure based on very questionable thinking. In the past, I've raised my potential issues with a specialist acquaintance and they said they were valid. Of course, they could just be wrong too or be telling me that so I can save face rather than it actually being true.
Importantly, this doesn't mean that I rule out a neuroanatomical basis or assume the alternative theories are correct. I just prefer to maintain the default position of 'don't know' until there's more reliable evidence. I also appreciate a lot of people do ignore the existing studies rather than engage with them due to ideological blinkering. I don't think that's the case with me though because, despite knowing appeals to nature are fallacious, my instinct is to long for there to be a definitive explanation based on neuroanatomy. After all, it would probably be perceived as taking any sense of responsibility for what society sees as deviance away from me and anyone I love. How can I not partly want that?
I think that this is an excellent observation which IMHO merits more discussion.
Your assertion then is that every single study, including those sponsored by NIH and other major scientific bodies is therefore flawed. You fail to show how each study is flawed and just "assume" this is so. You insist that sample size is insufficient, yet fail to assert what you consider sufficient sample size even while other medical and biological studies use similar sample sizes for specific studies that reach specific conclusions about other medical conditions.
It would help if you could identify what specifically is wrong with each individual study rather than making sweeping generalizations trying to assert that hundreds of studies over the last 25 years are all somehow invalid. That's an incredible assertion and incredible assertions require incredible validation and evidence.
I await your evidence rather than simply arguing philosophically. :)
Firstly, if you're a neuroscientist and a specialist in this area then please feel free to say so and I will gladly defer to your expertise in the matter as a bumbling lay-person. As for posting details, I regret that I can't even hope to summarise my position on each individual study given this has been a process that occurred across years of personal research. However, I'll try to give at least an overview of some critical studies based on the things I recall or links I still have available.
QuoteYou insist that sample size is insufficient, yet fail to assert what you consider sufficient sample size even while other medical and biological studies use similar sample sizes for specific studies that reach specific conclusions about other medical conditions.
I'm sure they reach specific conclusions but I'd suggest the validity of those conclusions is entirely dependent on each condition. I think it's illogical to generalise validity of methodology when there are affecting variables such as existing body of work, whether replication of findings in non-overlapping samples occurs, and whether a definitive mechanism is proposed and observed. In the case of research into trans neuroanatomy, at least three of the major studies are conducted on the same sample and they assume a causal relationship to gender identity when they find difference without proposing a mechanism in humans. They typically seem to search until they find a difference then label it a contributing factor, the key difference to that being the Hare et al (2008) study into repeat length polymorphisms but even that only had a p value of .04 which I regard as somewhat questionable.
As for sample size, I don't think it's controversial to assert that the reliability of key studies, such as Zhou et al (1995) or Kruijver et al (2000), is low given they had a largely overlapping sample of six and eight trans people respectively. If you think it's acceptable to generalise that to thousands of transgender people then that's your choice. I don't and it isn't for me to propose appropriate sample sizes, it's up to those undertaking each study to calculate it and ensure they're truly likely to be representative.
With regard to specific criticism of findings or conclusions:
Studies such as the one you cited that focus on the BSTc rely on observed differences in adult trans people to explain observations. Unfortunately, the sexual dimorphism has been shown not be present until adulthood, which instantly raises the question of how the difference in adult structure explains people such as myself that have felt gender dysphoria since childhood. As far as I'm aware, there's speculation that there are as yet unobserved differences in childhood neurology that cause the difference in adults to develop but that hasn't been substantiated.
Most of the studies focusing on neuroanatomy propose a causal relationship wherein anatomical difference yields a different gender identity. It isn't asked whether the unique life sequence of transgender people and their identity yields the biological differences observed. As far as I know, it's known that issues such as PTSD and anxiety yield major neurological changes so why not something like minority stress related to gender experience? As far as I'm aware, only Chung et al (2002) even mentions it as a possibility so it remains unaddressed to me.
Further, the studies I've seen tend to rule out hormone therapy exposure as a cause for differences based on tenuous conclusions. For instance, Zhou et al and follow-up studies ruled it out based on relatively short absence or presence of hormones. They don't explain why those time-frames are sufficient to justify their conclusions or why it couldn't be the case that changes in BSTc volume take long-term exposure or absence for the volume to change significantly. It is just asserted as fact. They rely on facts like a cis woman that had high androgen levels for a year or a trans woman that ceased taking hormone medication three months before death. Further, I believe there have since been fMRI studies that, while lacking the resolution necessary to identify specific BSTc volume changes, show long-term hormone therapy has a significant impact on overall volume of structures. Similarly, I've seen an fMRI study of transgender individuals that have not undergone hormone therapy yet that tentatively suggests we don't match our assigned gender or our actual gender neurologically (can't recall name right now).
These things and many more cause me to remain firmly undecided in this area until there's a great deal of replication with non-overlapping samples and alternatives are definitively eliminated. I'm afraid I'm going to stop now as the above is just an outline of my issues with a few studies and is already quite long. If I were to try to find every study I've read, many of which I simply don't remember much of, then it would be quite monumental. Eap.
QuoteThat's an incredible assertion and incredible assertions require incredible validation and evidence.
I'm afraid I regard the claim that there are 'hundreds of studies' in this domain as a rather incredible assertion too. If there are hundreds of studies demonstrating biological difference of transgender people rather than just general sexual dimorphism, intersex differences, or repeated analysis of a few existing limited datasets then I'd be a tad shocked to say the least.
Topic has well past ran it course on any more added value.
It turned into a tit for tat post.
Locked before it gets more out of hand.
Izzy