New study confirms probable genetic cause for classic transsexuality
http://radicalbitch.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/new-study-confirms-probable-genetic-cause-for-classic-transsexuality/ (http://radicalbitch.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/new-study-confirms-probable-genetic-cause-for-classic-transsexuality/)
10/26/2008
The ink isn't even dry on this before the TG community has started trying to pick it apart but let's be realistic here. The Danish BSTc studies, the recent German studies confirming olfactory pheromone sensitivity in transsexual women falling within gendered (female) norms, the repeated several times studies on the sex specific cognitive function also confirming the truth behind, at least for male to female classic transsexuals, the truth that they have a neurologically female central nervous system and the "markers" for determining physiological different responses to estrogen in classic transsexual women and AGs pretty much confirm this is true.
So, us young, "classic" transsexuals are "real" women, while "autogynephiles" are not? Sorry to put so many quotation marks in one sentence, they just belie my difficulty in believing in this stuff.
Lia
Well, young not so neceserily, but autogenophiles i never considered women to start with... just men with a woman fettish....
I do think its a good sign though.
You know what has shocked me to the core in the last 48 hours? Getting final confirmation that trans-activism is actually opposed to getting civil rights. This is something I suspected for years, that the neo-gynophobia in the TG community runs so deep and true that they will actually actively oppose transsexual civil rights.
On places like the Betty Boards the refrain goes, "but I don't want to be considered disabled".......Newsflash, the disabled don't want to be considered disabled either but we take the coverage under the ADA to ensure a level playing field. Disclosure: I am physically disabled with severe back injuries that eventually will have me confined to a wheelchair. Right now I still walk with a cane. Do I want sympathy for that?......hell no, but if the ADA protects me from open discrimination in accomodations will I turn my back on that? Again, hell no.......And that's what was just handed to the entire transsexual community. Due to a lucky accident of bigotry in the writing of the ADA, the transsexual exclusion, to avoid dragging the intersexed into it, is specific about transsexuality not from physical causes. What this means in simple terms is that transsexuality from physical causes (ie: genetics) is a protected class under the ADA in housing, employment and public accomodations. Bingo! No more need for ENDA, and given the difficulty proving who is and isn't classically transsexual if they have transitioned, the burden of proof would descend on the bigot.
But the TG activist and blogging crowd doesn't want this. They want to be loved and accepted. Errrr, you cannot legislate acceptance, you either get it personally by the way you live your life, or you don't. My goal was always a level playing field, I could give an excrement if some random bigot loves me and accepts me but I'll be damned if I'll let him deny me the basics of life........and apparently that is the real issue that separates me from the TGs and the trans-activists. If it were about civil rights, there would be celebrations in the streets, instead they are in mourning.......
I dont think i've ever seen that put better...
I truly believe that everyone that considers themselves Trans anything are intersexed in that you have a feeling that something is not correct with your body even though there are no physical outwards signs as is the case with intersexed people and that the root is genetics I would not call it a birth defect but an anomaly that can be corrected with surgery the level or amount of surgery is determined by the anomaly, some require extensive modifications while others can have minor surgery to correct the anomaly.... just my thoughts :)
Quote from: Rachael on October 27, 2008, 04:33:50 AM
Well, young not so neceserily, but autogenophiles i never considered women to start with... just men with a woman fettish....
I do think its a good sign though.
Does anyone really believe that "->-bleeped-<-" actually exists as a primary reason to transition (and actually go through with the transition)? I know there are several women who claim to be ->-bleeped-<- (and I've been on a not ->-bleeped-<--related mailing list with Willow Arune in the past), but aren't their claims inconsistent with the definitions of ->-bleeped-<- as described by Bailey and Blanchard?
Isn't "->-bleeped-<-" a definition devised by Blanchard to explain why some women transition without having to actually believe what these women say about their own lives? And isn't it
also part of the way trans women's sex drives and sex lives are pathologized just for being trans?
And if someone goes through the full process of transitioning and assimilates as a woman, does it really matter?
Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 27, 2008, 12:46:17 PM
And if someone goes through the full process of transitioning and assimilates as a woman, does it really matter?
Nope!
NEEDS > EXPLANATIONS, imho ;)
~Kate~
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa.......
First of all what does this have to do with the gaining of rights under the ADA. Second of all, you are familiar with what I wrote in my own blog entitled "Towards Trans Sanity". What you might not be familiar with is that particular entry was vetted by the International Psychiatrist of the Year, who just happens to be one of my closest friends and the current "go to" person in the psychiatric community on this very issue.
I soft pedal the figures but the actual current ratio of AG to classic transsexuals presenting for evaluation is estimated at 65 to 35........and we can separate them with what Harvard Medical states is close to 100% accuracy now. Psychiatry considers this important because: there is approaching zero dissatisfaction with surgical outcome
even when less than perfect among the classical transsexuals. Among the AGs the figures run closer to 50-50 regardless of the outcome. This might not be significant to you, but to a profession that wishes to do no harm and also cover it's own butt, this is pretty darn important.
AG is in the DSM, it ain't coming out because the deck was stacked with the revision team to make sure it didn't. What is coming with the revision is a redefinition of all non-classical transsexuality (medical model it's called in the trade) as fetishist. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just how it was stacked. And since I need to spell it out to you........there isn't a legislator in the world who will vote to protect a sexual fetish class.......ergo, an end to transgender dreams of protection via an inclusive ENDA.
I started warning the trans-activist crowd more than a decade ago this was coming.....now it's too late to stop it.
Posted on: October 27, 2008, 01:04:52 pm
Quote from: Kate on October 27, 2008, 12:57:21 PM
Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 27, 2008, 12:46:17 PM
And if someone goes through the full process of transitioning and assimilates as a woman, does it really matter?
Nope!
NEEDS > EXPLANATIONS, imho ;)
~Kate~
Hey, once through the hoops, no, it's no longer an issue unless you make it one.
Quote from: Purple Pimp on October 27, 2008, 02:31:40 AM
So, us young, "classic" transsexuals are "real" women, while "autogynephiles" are not? Sorry to put so many quotation marks in one sentence, they just belie my difficulty in believing in this stuff.
Lia
I've no idea what the blog is going on about classic transsexuals for, but in the article it linked to, it talks about a genetic link to transsexualism without using blanchard's categories. Same with the abstract of the journal article (though i haven't been able to find the actual article yet), talks about mtf transsexuals without grouping them into HT/->-bleeped-<-.
(http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/content/0800425abs (http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/content/0800425abs)) - abstract
Posted on: October 27, 2008, 07:15:01 pm
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
...there is approaching zero dissatisfaction with surgical outcome even when less than perfect among the classical transsexuals. Among the AGs the figures run closer to 50-50 regardless of the outcome.
Really? If thats true i'd be incredibly surprised! Where do you get these figures from?
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
I soft pedal the figures but the actual current ratio of AG to classic transsexuals presenting for evaluation is estimated at 65 to 35........and we can separate them with what Harvard Medical states is close to 100% accuracy now. Psychiatry considers this important...
I didn't think the the existence of so-called AGs was accepted much outside of the Bailey crowd?
~Kate~
I think studies like this are interesting from the point of view of sheer curiousity.
Using them to "normalize" transsexuality is problematic. Science has no method to differentiate "normal" from "abnormal" -- it just describes what is. When I hear HBS supporters declare, in effect, that "science" has pronounced them to be normal, I can't help but hear the echo of the pro-life crowd that declare that "science" had pronounced that human life begins at conception.
As noip said, you can't legislate acceptance. And, yes, an accepting society is the goal; anything less is a compromise along the way. The problem is not that some bigots discriminate against transsexual people. It's that we as a society use arbitrary criteria to demonize anyone who we deem abnormal. So while I rejoice at the possibility that an interpretation of these results could lead to legal protection, I worry that the same interpretation perpetuates bigotry.
I'd like to make some observations and ask a couple of questions, if you don't mind too much.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
Second of all, you are familiar with what I wrote in my own blog entitled "Towards Trans Sanity". What you might not be familiar with is that particular entry was vetted by the International Psychiatrist of the Year, who just happens to be one of my closest friends and the current "go to" person in the psychiatric community on this very issue.
Being vetted by 'the International Psychiatrist of the Year' sounds impressive. However, that's all it does -- it does not tell us anything by which we could see where your claims come from and try to assess their validity. This is especially true since, first, you do not cite any references for some of the more esoteric claims and, second, since a quick internet search did not reveal what exactly an 'International Psychiatrist of the Year' is and who appoints them. The title is also sufficiently vague to protect the identity of the psychiatrist in question from trivial googling.
In short, while I do not doubt that your friend is a well-respected psychiatrist you have not convinced me that your blog entry is authoritative just because they read it before it was posted.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
I soft pedal the figures but the actual current ratio of AG to classic transsexuals presenting for evaluation is estimated at 65 to 35........and we can separate them with what Harvard Medical states is close to 100% accuracy now.
How do you know that ->-bleeped-<- in fact exists as a real condition? Where does this 65:35 ratio come from? How can the two conditions be separated? Please cite your sources, I'd really like to know -- and I'm pretty sure there are gender therapists all over the world who would like to know at least the answer to the last one, too.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
Psychiatry considers this important because: there is approaching zero dissatisfaction with surgical outcome even when less than perfect among the classical transsexuals. Among the AGs the figures run closer to 50-50 regardless of the outcome.
Again, I'd really like to know your sources.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
AG is in the DSM, it ain't coming out because the deck was stacked with the revision team to make sure it didn't. What is coming with the revision is a redefinition of all non-classical transsexuality (medical model it's called in the trade) as fetishist.
Do you have any information regarding the diagnostic criteria? What is this 'classical transsexuality' and how is it different from the 'fetishistic' gender identity disorders?
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
Hey, once through the hoops, no, it's no longer an issue unless you make it one.
Or unless someone else makes it an issue by claiming that you are not a woman but instead a fetishistic man who has deceived the medical system into mutilating his body.
Nfr
Quote from: Alyssa M. on October 27, 2008, 02:04:12 PM
So while I rejoice at the possibility that an interpretation of these results could lead to legal protection, I worry that the same interpretation perpetuates bigotry.
I resent the whole search for explanations, to be honest. The search for "explanations" by science, as well as the embracing of supposed physical causes IMHO is all spurred by the same underlying assumption:
IT'S WRONG TO CHANGE ONE'S SEX!
Why don't people try and find the gene that "causes" people to buy SUVs? Or drink Dr. Pepper?
But no, some "outsiders" think it's so weird and wrong to change sexes that they feel they have to explain it somehow, with the unspoken intention of "curing" it. And the community is so wrapped up in embracing it's guilt and shame about their needs that they cling to every "it's not my fault!" explanation handed to them by the same.
~Kate~
Kate,
I'm not sure I'd be terribly interested in genetic factors that predispose some people to driving trucks. But things like music, language, gender, sexuality, mathematical ability, social introversion or extraversion, love -- the things that make us human -- yes, I'm interested in how they emerge. It the science is done from this point of view, then I have no problem.
But that's just me being optimistic. Realistically, I agree with you. And personally, I'm more interested in why electrons have mass than any of those other things. ;)
~Alyssa
This gene science is such a small sample and has not been duplicated, all is you can be sure about is the question needs to be investigated more fully by several groups. This type of research borders on pseudo science. They have also announced a religious gene. Unless more evidence is found the error could be just a subjective view.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on October 27, 2008, 02:04:12 PM
Why don't people try and find the gene that "causes" people to buy SUVs? Or drink Dr. Pepper?
But no, some "outsiders" think it's so weird and wrong to change sexes that they feel they have to explain it somehow, with the unspoken intention of "curing" it. And the community is so wrapped up in embracing it's guilt and shame about their needs that they cling to every "it's not my fault!" explanation handed to them by the same.
Buying an SUV and or drinking Dr. Pepper are absurd analogies. That statement sounds like a girl I had in a class one time stating that being homosexual was like choosing a bad career. WOW
I think the goal is to understand ->-bleeped-<-. An understanding can help society to accept transgendered individuals. How many people have stereotypes of people who are trans? A lot, most people don't even know what the term means not alone wrapping their minds around the concept. It is a proven fact that education and knowledge on a topic leads to less discrimination and more positive attitudes. If I had a kid and saw them suffering like I have I would be interested in how to fix it. Whether that be better surgeries or understanding the genetic links to it. i think it is interesting because ->-bleeped-<- is so rare and I am interested in solid research. Just my opinion. Would I take a pill to get rid of feeling as if I am male. .not sure?
Brady
QuoteI'm not sure I'd be terribly interested in genetic factors that predispose some people to driving trucks. But things like music, language, gender, sexuality, mathematical ability, social introversion or extraversion, love -- the things that make us human -- yes, I'm interested in how they emerge. It the science is done from this point of view, then I have no problem.
There is not enough information stored in DNA to determine all these details of life. Life experiences are a greater factor on how you will live. Genes like food help in achieving things with a little less work as they also can require more work to overcome a deficiency.
Quote from: Natasha on October 27, 2008, 12:17:13 AM
New study confirms probable genetic cause for classic transsexuality
The funny thing is, the only person I know who took part in this study is non-binary identified. Call me cynical but to make statements about "classic transsexuality" rather than just MTF spectrum trans people you actually need to be doing research specifically on "classic transsexuals" (whatever the hell that means) do you not?
Quote->-bleeped-<- is so rare and I am interested in solid research
1 in 3000 is not that rare.
Quote from: Kate on October 27, 2008, 02:18:57 PM
But no, some "outsiders" think it's so weird and wrong to change sexes that they feel they have to explain it somehow, with the unspoken intention of "curing" it.
Funnily enough, one of the major reasons for me to be curious about the causes (besides 'know thyself') is that I'd really like to know what makes some people grow up comfortable with their own sex. I've never really understood cissexuality. Of course, I don't really want to 'cure' it -- at least not unless I'm very angry at someone ;) -- but it might make it easier to live with people suffering from that condition.
And yes, despite the flippancy I really do mean it.
Nfr
QuoteI'd really like to know what makes some people grow up comfortable with their own sex.
The same thing that lets them be comfortable with going bald.
Quote from: darius82501 on October 27, 2008, 02:43:15 PM
Quote from: Alyssa M. on October 27, 2008, 02:04:12 PM
Why don't people try and find the gene that "causes" people to buy SUVs? Or drink Dr. Pepper?...
Buying an SUV and or drinking Dr. Pepper are absurd analogies. ...
Stupid quote bug ... I didn't say that -- Kate did! :eusa_doh:
Posted on: October 27, 2008, 03:10:57 pm
Quote from: lisagurl on October 27, 2008, 02:50:00 PM
Quote->-bleeped-<- is so rare and I am interested in solid research
1 in 3000 is not that rare.
1 in 3000 is probably rarer than transsexualism, which is rarer than ->-bleeped-<-, however you define them.
Quote1 in 3000 is probably rarer than transsexualism
1 in 6000
Quote from: Lynn ConwayAt least one out of every 2500 persons born male in the U. S. has ALREADY undergone SRS to become female ... at least 3 to 5 times as many people suffer intense MtF transsexualism as those who have already undergone SRS. The reasons are obvious.
link
Quote from: lisagurl on October 27, 2008, 02:39:35 PM
This gene science is such a small sample and has not been duplicated, all is you can be sure about is the question needs to be investigated more fully by several groups. This type of research borders on pseudo science. They have also announced a religious gene. Unless more evidence is found the error could be just a subjective view.
LOTFLMAO Give a ->-bleeped-<- a goose that lays golden eggs and the first thing they'll do is cook it for dinner.
Who freakin' cares if the study meets your personal standards? It was published, being so it just established civil rights for all transsexual people.....guess that means nothing to you? I'm more practical than that myself.
Quote from: Seshatneferw on October 27, 2008, 02:10:09 PM
Being vetted by 'the International Psychiatrist of the Year' sounds impressive. However, that's all it does -- it does not tell us anything by which we could see where your claims come from and try to assess their validity. This is especially true since, first, you do not cite any references for some of the more esoteric claims and, second, since a quick internet search did not reveal what exactly an 'International Psychiatrist of the Year' is and who appoints them. The title is also sufficiently vague to protect the identity of the psychiatrist in question from trivial googling.
Ayup......and for good reason. She is arguably the highest professionally statused person in the world who transitioned on the job.......and the only psychiatrist to ever do so and not kill herself....and she's almost completely off the ->-bleeped-<- radar screen. And the position is voted on by the entire psychiatric community at large btw, putting her currently at the very top of the profession. BTW both she and I are chimera intersexed so we both already have access to these civil rights under the ADA.
Quote from: Seshatneferw on October 27, 2008, 02:10:09 PM
In short, while I do not doubt that your friend is a well-respected psychiatrist you have not convinced me that your blog entry is authoritative just because they read it before it was posted.
How do you know that ->-bleeped-<- in fact exists as a real condition? Where does this 65:35 ratio come from? How can the two conditions be separated? Please cite your sources, I'd really like to know -- and I'm pretty sure there are gender therapists all over the world who would like to know at least the answer to the last one, too.
snip
Again, I'd really like to know your sources. Do you have any information regarding the diagnostic criteria? What is this 'classical transsexuality' and how is it different from the 'fetishistic' gender identity disorders?
I gave you the source, the rest of the information came from that source and frankly I don't care if you believe it or not....I offer the information, you are totally free to reject it. Been down the road before, I happen to have inside information I am willing to share, I share it, period. My ego is not wrapped up in proving to you I'm tell the truth. Me, I take people's word on things until they give me reason not to, but then I'm weird. As for diagnostic criteria for classic transsexuality.....I laid it out clearly in the other blog I wrote about.......it's basic old fashion trans 101 pre transgender everything nonsense. Oh, and AG is an accepted diagnosis under the DSM already, one the profession finds useful.
Quote from: Seshatneferw on October 27, 2008, 02:10:09 PM
Or unless someone else makes it an issue by claiming that you are not a woman but instead a fetishistic man who has deceived the medical system into mutilating his body.
Nfr
Me, you can call me a blueberry if you wish, that doesn't make it so. I know who I am.
We tend to find the results we seek and "read" them in that fashion.
You need a scientific study to be twisted and deformed to show your own validity? What's the problem with one's own experience? Are you not real? Is your validity denied by recognition of the validity of others?
Cathryn, this isn't Ohio years ago. I'm sure the "transgendered" then and there managed to anger you greatly; but doesn't personal affront sometimes just need to be called what it is? Personal affront and a refusal to allow that to stop affecting my life?
What you've claimed for the research doesn't comply with what the researchers have claimed for it. I'm shocked that you and your "friend" know more about the matter than the people at Prince Henry's Institute and at UCLA who actually did the study.
I presume there's a psychic component to that that you've withheld from your blog? Face it. The fact you don't want a spectrum, that you don't particularly want to be associated with transgenders is not the key to life. It's a choice you make. So make your choice and go your own way.
So 24 hours after a press-release, not the research itself, was publicized Harvard (your friend?) has concluded that they can use the Zucker/Blanchard so-called research and come up with a winnowing process?
They must be using the John McCain "I try to jump to a conclusion before anyone else" approach to science. Kinda unusual for Harvard, but you have the inside-track I presume to knowledge.
My sense of efficacy and reality isn't dependent on making sure others are denied either their own efficacy or their own "ability to choose" if that is what science discovers they are doing. But such discoveries are certainly much further in the future than a 122-person research base that is as yet unvetted, unread and unpublished.
Talk about over-reaching. You have.
Nichole
Give it up Nicole........the blog I referred to as being "vetted" is one that's been up for ten months.
The study, before all the sidetracking, simply states a probable genetic causality......as I wrote in the current blog that's enough with all the other prior work done to settle the issue good enough for a politican or a court right now.......ergo civil rights.
The marker, as we discussed at length before, for separating transsexual goats from AG sheep is the result of personal research spanning over a decade, adopted for testing by my friend who then expanded that testing to others in psychiatry several years ago.......She and I talk an average of 2 hours on the phone everyday. She and I discuss these issues regularly and everything I write on the subject is the result of those discussions and she reads and comments to me upon. The marker works close to 100% of the time, is simple and elegant, apparently confirms the neurological basis of transsexuality as a result and is based on physiological responses of pre-ops to estrogen. That's all you get, no agenda is attached other than the spectrum is nonsense to everyone in the know professionally.
This discussion was centred on civil rights today.......your's too. That's not worth burying your hatchet for?
I have no hatchet for you, Cathryn. The fact that you wish to designate in the most inflammatory terms "->-bleeped-<-" shows me a lot of basic dislike in you for those who don't prescribe to your particular brand of HBS-theory you and your followers subscribe to, people who appear to have certain self-efficacy problems with themselves.
Civil rights for me, you and Andra are certainly highly to be desired. So are civil rights for prostitutes of color who have difficulty making lives match in quite the way you seem to imagine everyone should.
OF course that cause is something you and I agree on. But the tropes of civil rights for some and endless trashing of others just don't sit well with me, never have, never will.
I grew up with civil rights like those, luv. I watched black faces being bused 20 miles to school while I went 3 blocks. I've seen first-hand what civil rights means when my friend couldn't drink from the same water fountain as I could. And it's as abhorrent and puzzling to me now as it was fifty years ago.
So, you "come off it." You want at the least a two-tiered approach to validity and value and civil rights. I've seen and experienced the inherrent lack of rights in that. And I'd be willing to bet you saw it in Ohio as well as I did in Tennessee.
It stinks and so does the fact that you and your friend are in typical psychiatric fashion engaged in thought experiments posing as science. Kinda like finding ways to make people blue-eyed through injecting dye directly into the iris, no?
Yep, there it is. What I have always objected to in you is not your person, not your intelligence, but to the ends to which you use those assets. You, and your worshippers, and there is simply no other word for them, insistently promote your own efficacy at the expense of the efficacy of others.
Like I said, I lived through that. I have no desire to live through it with transsexuality as well as having lived through it with "race."
Unthinking and atavistic prejudice and folly is simply that. It never should be given any other terms.
Now, if you're willing to promote the value and efficacy of people, then we can certainly walk hand-in-hand. If you want to walk hand-in-hand just me and you and others you wish to call "classic" transsexuals, then no thanks, I'll go sit over there with the other second or third class citizens of this board.
you are unbelievable.......I'm outta here again
My dear, first, I can see you haven't gone anywhere at all. Next I am not unbelievable. I actually believe and live by the notion that people are important and valuable regardless whatever label we are willing to give them. The only label that matters is "people."
One may be better-off economically, professionally, through agnecy-of-birth, through hard work, through having a congenital condition they didn't effect themselves, and any number of other things. But, in the last analysis the people I have worked with over the years who have been labelled "schizophrenic" or "borderline" are as absolutely as much people and worthy of respect, rights and human kindness and acceptance as are "classic" transsexuals or hetrogenous transgender-people.
What you call for is not to my liking and I imagine never will be. If I am willing to be among those you disdain why would that be unbelievable?
I've also seen white folks march hand-in-hand with black folks through hails of bullets, fire-hosing and rock-throwing. I've lived through people of tremendous heart and integrity being labelled seditious and "->-bleeped-<--lovers" because they saw a need, a commandment, to stand with those who were being discounted.
Is that unbelievable? Unthinkable? If so, then yep, I'm unbelievable. Go blog about it if you wish. Take glee in what you feel is the discomforture of those you dislike and don't see as valid human beings as deserving of the recognition of their humanity as you are of yours.
I hope to Mother that there will be more unbelievable people who write with you. I don't think the exposure could hurt you at all.
The plea you've made thus far I have read as simply, "leave them behind and enter the house of humanity while they remain outside." That is a plea, as I see it, to saving my own skin while watching others lose their's. It's not right, it's not moral it's simply, as I said, something that made a great impression on me when I was a child.
If the chance arises now to oppose something similar, then I shall do so.
Mother's blessings on you.
Added after you really did leave the thread, Cathryn. Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 04:42:03 PM
Give it up Nic(h)ole........the blog I referred to as being "vetted" is one that's been up for ten months.
O, this may come as a shock to you, but I wasn't talking about
your posts, Cathryn.
Sorry, I've read the entire radicalbitch sequence, when it appears, but don't go back and re-read it. Once is usually more than enough.
Although if you could shorten some of your paragraphs it would make it easier to read. Unless you reach the writing level of Gregory Rabassa in his translations of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's early novels. Then go ahead with the run-on paragraphs, they'll sing.
The study I was speaking of is the one by Prince Henry's Institute and UCLA which I am sure you weren't given an advanced publication of. You read the same press-release the rest of us read. (My blog tomorrow will link that release.)
QuoteThis discussion was centred on civil rights today.......your's too. That's not worth burying your hatchet for?
And that, unbelieveable as it may appear to you, seemed to me to be your suggestion that I save my own skin while others fry.
I don't know how to attempt to get you to understand that it isn't you I stand against, it's the relationship I surmise between your ideas and the "common-good" of people who are all pretty much excluded in many ways by many other groups.
I mean, maybe it's a fine thing to be still a part of what I more and more realize is simply a new kinda of "men's club" modelled after the ones many transitioners can no longer belong to. So we make a new one, include her and her and leave out that, that, him and him.
Personally, I'd rather just go find people to interact with who aren't so much concerned with who is "first among equals." Or whether or not we should accept "that kind."
Therein lies my hugest problem with your brand of HBS theory. It's divisive, sconomically-based and simply seems another way of people trying to find their own justifications for why they are "better-than." And given the ways I actually quite like and respect your abilities, I'm sorry that I cannot read anything else in your agitation.
I truly don't want to believe that is what you are doing because there is so very much ability and promise in you. So much experience of being rejected that I think you could be a remarkable "civil-rights leader" in and of your own experience.
So, label me "disappointed."
Nichole
QuoteLOTFLMAO Give a ->-bleeped-<- a goose that lays golden eggs and the first thing they'll do is cook it for dinner.
Who freakin' cares if the study meets your personal standards? It was published, being so it just established civil rights for all transsexual people.....guess that means nothing to you? I'm more practical than that myself.
As the tobacco companies studies said smoking is not harmful or the drug companies say drugs are effective or the manufactures of corn syrup say it is perfectly safe but now say limit your intake. Science is an ever changing world with new evidence revising old claims every day. Then there where the claims of cold fusion. Studies are subject to inspection. I for one would not want to be given anything that I did not work for and I do not accept things just because they are in my favor. I do give back money to the cashier that can not count. You have not given value personal morals. I would not want friends like that.
I do not own stock in the tobacco companies no matter how much they go up.
To no one in particular,
How does "separating the sheep from the goats" jibe with your statement "it just established civil rights for all transsexual people"?
If, as you say, this establishes a "physical" cause (as though that's a well-defined category -- but never mind) for "classic" transsexuals (which, I presume, are the "homosexual" ones, not the more common "AG's"), then it would seem, according to your numbers and your reasoning, that we've got protection for 1/3 of the transsexual population. What am I missing?
The last I heard, any MtF transsexual who is a scientist, engineer, or mathematician; who transitiones later than about 30; or who is not exclusively attracted to men is an "autogynephile" to Blanchard's reckoning. (Where "auto" comes from is beyond my understanding -- but again, never mind.) Do you have a different set of criteria?
Forgive me for saying it, but I have a deep distrust for "everyone in the know" in this particular profession. It seems to me that we "know" very little about how the human brain works, so claiming to be "in the know" is rather bold.
Even the Balmer series is a spectrum, when you actually look at it. Only on paper is anything discrete.
~Alyssa
Quoteyou are unbelievable.......I'm outta here again
Having a bad day?
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa.......
First of all what does this have to do with the gaining of rights under the ADA. Second of all, you are familiar with what I wrote in my own blog entitled "Towards Trans Sanity". What you might not be familiar with is that particular entry was vetted by the International Psychiatrist of the Year, who just happens to be one of my closest friends and the current "go to" person in the psychiatric community on this very issue.
... Okay. Googling "International Psychiatrist of the Year" only gets three hits, and you're not saying which year. I have no idea who you're talking about, and can't really judge whether sie's actually trustworthy about trans issues or are more likely to (as many people, like Zucker, Bailey, Dreger, Blanchard, and McHugh do) focus on interpretations that serve hir own prejudices and beliefs about trans people.
As for the ADA, I'll believe that when I see trans people covered.
QuoteI soft pedal the figures but the actual current ratio of AG to classic transsexuals presenting for evaluation is estimated at 65 to 35........and we can separate them with what Harvard Medical states is close to 100% accuracy now. Psychiatry considers this important because: there is approaching zero dissatisfaction with surgical outcome even when less than perfect among the classical transsexuals. Among the AGs the figures run closer to 50-50 regardless of the outcome. This might not be significant to you, but to a profession that wishes to do no harm and also cover it's own butt, this is pretty darn important.
You really need to cite claims like this.
QuoteAG is in the DSM, it ain't coming out because the deck was stacked with the revision team to make sure it didn't. What is coming with the revision is a redefinition of all non-classical transsexuality (medical model it's called in the trade) as fetishist. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just how it was stacked. And since I need to spell it out to you........there isn't a legislator in the world who will vote to protect a sexual fetish class.......ergo, an end to transgender dreams of protection via an inclusive ENDA.
I think you're unclear about what ENDA was poised to protect. As with most civil rights laws, it didn't specify the oppressed class, but rather the trait that describes the oppressed class - so, "gender identity" was protected, not "being transgender." Aside from certain sexologists who are deeply invested in disbelieving what trans women say about ourselves, what exactly is the actual scientific, medical, scholarly basis for belief in the idea that there's a large number of "autogynephiles" transitioning into womanhood>?
I also find it hard to believe that you don't see how ->-bleeped-<- is used
against all trans women to delegitimize us as women and pathologize our sexuality. It's part of a model that also describes "homosexual transsexuals" and the two are defined strictly by who you're attracted to - HSTS are defined as being sexually attracted to men, and AGTS are defined as being sexually attracted to yourself as a woman (and trans women who are attracted to women are interpreted as AGTS, because apparently it's impossible to be a trans lesbian). A diagnosis of AGTS completely pretends that subconscious sex or gender identity doesn't exist.
QuoteI started warning the trans-activist crowd more than a decade ago this was coming.....now it's too late to stop it.
Quote
Hey, once through the hoops, no, it's no longer an issue unless you make it one.
Thank you for acknowledging this.
Posted on: October 27, 2008, 06:17:52 pm
Quote from: Kate on October 27, 2008, 02:18:57 PM
I resent the whole search for explanations, to be honest. The search for "explanations" by science, as well as the embracing of supposed physical causes IMHO is all spurred by the same underlying assumption:
IT'S WRONG TO CHANGE ONE'S SEX!
Why don't people try and find the gene that "causes" people to buy SUVs? Or drink Dr. Pepper?
But no, some "outsiders" think it's so weird and wrong to change sexes that they feel they have to explain it somehow, with the unspoken intention of "curing" it. And the community is so wrapped up in embracing it's guilt and shame about their needs that they cling to every "it's not my fault!" explanation handed to them by the same.
I believe that this study (and the recent parallel study that identified similar genetic stuff about trans men) are ethically problematic for a host of reasons.
I also think that having a genetic basis won't get us any more acceptance from anyone, and one only needs to look at how intersex people have been treated medically and socially to see that. There is no such thing as a "blameless category."
Also, 'cause I and some of my closest friends all drink Dr. Pepper, I totes think it's linked to the trans genes.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
AG is in the DSM, it ain't coming out because the deck was stacked with the revision team to make sure it didn't. What is coming with the revision is a redefinition of all non-classical transsexuality (medical model it's called in the trade) as fetishist. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just how it was stacked. And since I need to spell it out to you........there isn't a legislator in the world who will vote to protect a sexual fetish class.......ergo, an end to transgender dreams of protection via an inclusive ENDA.
I started warning the trans-activist crowd more than a decade ago this was coming.....now it's too late to stop itwoman, does it really matter?
You wanna know what is REALLY gonna happen here, Cathryn? If the APA allows the "stacked-deck" of Blanchard and Zucker's personal profit and Anne Lawrence's personal identification and Mike Bailey's personal crusade to push himself as entertainer-psychologist to win out over evidence? Evidence that is now coming fast and furiously it appears, that there is, indeed, "brain-sex"?
What is going to happen on a number of fronts is that the APA is gonna "interest" itself right onto the "ignored" boards of therapy and psychology.
There are already tremendous lobbying efforts by practitioners and patients who are concerned about the pathologizations the APA has accepted in the DSM (any rendition) for many mood and personality disorders.
There's a growing recognition that "medicalization," so-called, of therapy and diagnosis does NOT work in point of fact to any acceptable degree. Even with addiction "medical" models are becoming obsolete because they simply do not show results that can be replicated reliably and for patient good.
There's also a growing recognition that the pathologizations are an interest group of their own promoted by pharmaceutical firms and purveyors of particular areas of expertise of the doctors involved in the pathologizations. In other words, the APA is going to be seen as exactly what a number of it's members have been trying to make it: a way of promoting themselves and making profit on other's pain and marginalizations.
Rather than describing anything of importance outside the area of psychotic disorders more and more practitioners who actually work with clients, and not with drug consortiums or Park Avenue clients or other "worried well," are finding the APA becoming meaningless: think investment banks as a similar circumstance.
You seem to think you have insight into the workings of APA and perhaps you do. But I am thinking that what you, your friend and the APA is about to find out that the internal politics are about to be swept away and replaced. Give it till 2012 and lets talk again.
Nichole
I should hope that the APA is becoming increasingly irrelevant, considering that they're developing the DSM-V completely outside the public eye and are willing to bring people on-board (at least for GID) who are actually hostile to the people whose lives their decisions will affect.
Mnay patient's rights groups are finding a similar reception as are the gender-disordered, Lisa. The intent focus we have on the gender parts helps us to not see that this is typical behavior seen typically by providers who are insistently marginalized by the "psychiatrists" who very seldom, any longer, spend more than about 5 minutes a visit with patients. There's more time that way to see drug reps or have a drug company fund some research to promote a "pathology" the drug-company just developed a medication to treat!
Nichole
Let me see if I understand this situation correctly.
"nooneinparticular" is actually the person who posted the web article linked at the beginning of this topic. She's the same one who falsely asserted that the gene link was found for "classic" transexuals, and not for transexuals as a group without regard to such a distinction. And that is all in addition to the strange claims of special knowledge of improbable-sounding statistics and a secret technique for identifying ->-bleeped-<- trannies, statistics she refuses to support, and a technique she will not explain. Plus more garbage.
Does that about sum it up?
Quote from: Rachael on October 27, 2008, 04:33:50 AM
Well, young not so neceserily, but autogenophiles i never considered women to start with... just men with a woman fettish....
I do think its a good sign though.
But who knows that are autogynephiles expect those that themselves say that they are. According to Bailey-Lawrence criteria nearly every transsexual I know is an autogynephil and that is not simply true.
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 03:35:11 am
Some issues that makes you an autogynephilic (according Bailey, Lawrence):
- married with children
- worked ever in traditional masculine career
- late transitioner, over 40 Y
- you have not have relationship with man when you were under age 20
Anything of these makes you an autogynephilic (Bailey, Lawrence) and there are other things too
hah, well im an autogenophile dispite transitioning under 20, and never even looking at a woman like that... then again, so are most females of my age it seems...
Quote from: Alyssa M. on October 27, 2008, 05:31:32 PM
Where "auto" comes from is beyond my understanding.
Well, gynephilia is those who like women, gyne- (woman) philia (liking).
->-bleeped-<- is supposed to be those who are attracted to themselves as women, auto- (self) gynephilia.
I do like women, put me down as a gynephile.
I find my body attractive, but not enough to make Blanchard/Bailey happy so I'll skip the autogynephile bit.
I for one, am very happy to see research being done! And I can assure you that I'll be passing this information on to my family. It's all part of educating the fundamental right in my home state Utah. I currently live in California.
Does it matter to me personally? No. I had my surgery over 20 years ago. I've had a happy life out here on the west coast and I'm happily married for 16 years now. BUT, it would mean so very much to me for my mother to undestand the medical nature of this before she passes on. She still has many doubts. My folks still use the wrong pronouns. I don't know... that may never change.
But, having some real research is quite valuable in that regard.
I welcome the scientific research. I'd like to see more. Yes, it has the potential to be misused. But it also has a great potential in understanding and accepting our very existence to those who believe we have no rights to live.
Cindi
As i have said using Bailey-Lawrence I am too an autogynephilic >:(
There was scorable test somewhere but I do not remember exactly where.
Quote from: goingdown on October 28, 2008, 03:51:40 AM
Some issues that makes you an autogynephilic (according Bailey, Lawrence):
- married with children
- worked ever in traditional masculine career
- late transitioner, over 40 Y
- you have not have relationship with man when you were under age 20
Anything of these makes you an autogynephilic (Bailey, Lawrence) and there are other things too
Hmmmm, by my reasoning, Bailey himself is probably autogynephilic >:-)
Z
Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 27, 2008, 10:30:52 PM
Let me see if I understand this situation correctly.
"nooneinparticular" is actually the person who posted the web article linked at the beginning of this topic. She's the same one who falsely asserted that the gene link was found for "classic" transexuals, and not for transexuals as a group without regard to such a distinction. And that is all in addition to the strange claims of special knowledge of improbable-sounding statistics and a secret technique for identifying ->-bleeped-<- trannies, statistics she refuses to support, and a technique she will not explain. Plus more garbage.
Does that about sum it up?
I've refrained from posting in this topic, because it seems like those of us not "In the know" are missing a healthy chunk of it. And also because it seems like a bee's nest of old animosities.
Do Autogynephiles exist? probably. Does that mean that every adult who tries to transition later in life is automatically one? Hell no. I knew pre-puberty I needed to transition, because I buried it till I was 31 does that make me less of a classic Transsexual?
And, in the final analysis...... does it matter how we got here? We're here, we exist, and we deserve the same rights as everyone else regardless of the path we travelled to get here.
The only way to guarantee your own civil rights is to fight for those of your neighbor, and quite frankly, the thought that we abandon those the medical establishment arbitrarily determines are autogynephiles leaves me feeling hollow inside, like we're throwing those sisters under the bus for our own rescue.
I'm not sure how GLBt activists have lived with themselves all these years throwing us under the bus, but I won't do it to someone else.
Down Syndrome babies are already being aborted since they discovered a way to test in utero. Do we want to begin a holocaust of our own group by inviting this research to identify a "Trans Gene" so that our future sisters and brothers become biological waste at the abortion clinic? Is that really what you want? To eliminate the diversity and often insightful viewpoints we bring to society as a whole. To eliminate the gadfly before it's even born?
It doesn't matter why we're here. We need to fight for rights based on the fact that we are, without inviting mass-genocide or throwing half of our number under the bus of the psychiatric community.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: Seshatneferw on October 27, 2008, 02:10:09 PM
The title is also sufficiently vague to protect the identity of the psychiatrist in question from trivial googling.
Ayup......and for good reason.
Yes, I quite understand that. However, this also means that we cannot use your friend's identity as a help in evaluating the information they gave you. Unfortunately, you don't give any other means for evaluating your claims either, so your argument really boils down to 'because my friend the anonymous but eminent psychiatrist says so'. I'm sorry, but this does not convince me.
Quote
I gave you the source, the rest of the information came from that source and frankly I don't care if you believe it or not....I offer the information, you are totally free to reject it. Been down the road before, I happen to have inside information I am willing to share, I share it, period. My ego is not wrapped up in proving to you I'm tell the truth. Me, I take people's word on things until they give me reason not to, but then I'm weird.
I tend to behave like that, too, but I also tend to get suspicious when different sources give conflicting information. I'm weird that way. In this case the information you give (or your psychiatrist friend gives via you) does not fit with what others tell me, so there is something wrong somewhere. I would prefer to be able to make up my mind as to which information is more correct and which is the most likely to be false, but your lack of references makes this harder.
Quote
Oh, and AG is an accepted diagnosis under the DSM already, one the profession finds useful.
For some reason I could not find ->-bleeped-<- in DSM-IV-TR, as available at behavenet.com. Admittedly, one is supposed to list the sexual preference with a GID diagnosis, and there is transvestic fetishism as a separate category, but that's as close as I could get.
Quote
Me, you can call me a blueberry if you wish, that doesn't make it so. I know who I am.
I have some idea of who I am, too, and in that sense I've quite a while ago come to the conclusion that the descriptions of ->-bleeped-<- do not fit what I feel. That was not my point. The major point was that if people call you a fetishistic man you are much more likely to get in trouble with various outsiders. As you said yourself, 'there isn't a legislator in the world who will vote to protect a sexual fetish class' -- but there are quite a few lunatics in the world, religious and otherwise, who will consider fetishists sinful, not quite human, and worthy of contempt and even violence. Regardless of whether the fetishist in question has had 'his dick cut off' or not.
This, combined with the rather serious lack of scientific evidence regarding fetishism-motivated transitions, is what makes me feel very bad about most proponents of the Harry Benjamin Syndrome that I have read, even though I agree that a biological explanation for transsexuality seems much more plausible than the other alternatives that have been proposed.
Nfr
I do not think that the study tells evertyhing. I was ruled out from category ''classical transsexual'' after one psychological test and therapist interview. The result: the therapist refused to treat me so we must think very hard allowing special position to so called androphilic transsexuals leaving others probably without care. In case we have more lenient criterias I belong to so called core group. So the question am I a classical transsexual is open. As I have been said by people who knows much about transsexuality but is not gendertherapist: You have strong signs towards primary transsexuality but not enough for that classification given by shrinks.
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 07:50:13 am
The core thing:
Gendertherapist asked me have I ever dated other boys. I said that I have not dated anyone. And then he said that I have probably only serious gender dysphoria, not transsexuality.
The argument, (to include the linked blog) in spite of many excellently reasoned and well-written posts overnight isn't about either sense or sensibility. The matter revolves around something deeper and more atavistic that pertains to personal regard and personal "animosity" as flutter put it.
Nor has it anything at all to do with any "past history" between Cathryn and others who've posted here.
I cannot begin to fathom Cathryn's reasons for her feelings, only she can do that. But, one can easily see that they are "real" and deeply important to her. I tend, as can be seen from my own posts in this thread, firmly believe that new research hasn't in any way made less of someone else while somehow "validating" me or another transsexual.
As Rachael pointed out so well, the Bailey "definition" applies to any number of TS women (and would include men if Bailey had any notion of a personal interest in the men) regardless of age or elements of transition. That fact alone, the capablility of neatly placing everyone within a neatly labelled box makes the "science" of ->-bleeped-<- suspect at best and probably shows us the insanity and personal nature of it second.
Elegance doesn't mean that something explains and explains away everyone in a particular category. It means that the facts of the matter have been marshalled and expressed in a way that tends to sum things up in a neat and orderly fashion that leaves few if any loose ends available and still covers the territory.
Nfr is exactly correct. ->-bleeped-<- is not now and has never been included in the DSM. As I said in a recent blog post, such statements are a proof of the fashion that knowledge and the ability to convey it are lacking in many respects from the slingers of that term to paint their interlocutors with some sort of negative shade. Not that homosexual transsexual paints anyone with a positive shade: it too is a means of defining people away from what and who they know themselves to be.
The thesis is an explaining away, not an explanation and is not "scientific" in any shape or form it's been presented in. It is, however, neatly able to salve the feelings of the men who've come up with it in their own desire to make a world conform to their prejudices and dislikes and likes. Not the first time, nor will it be the last, that sort of thing has been done and called "science." Much of the "science" in the "evaluation" of racial-types over the past two centuries partakes of the same effort and shows the same general outline.
That women love our bodies and the ways we "look" is testament to the power and fortunes made by the cosmetics & fashion industries. It is NOT a means of defining away transsexuality or ->-bleeped-<-. Period.
The argument, as flutter also pointed out, has nunaces and textures that far surpass the squabbling of this or that self-designated group: ain't that just da bomb about both!? We can individually define ourselves and others to place irrevocably those who agree with us on the "sheep" side of the equasion and those we disagree with on the "goats" side. Just another human effort to show the world how worthy I am and how unworthy my interlocutor is. *sigh* References to mud-people and chosen-people spring readily to mind as I survey this cauldron of emotional and atavistic reactions.
Lisa Harney quite rightly and lucidly pointed to the very obvious fact that the designations that Cathryn wants to read into the research disqualify her as well as any and all of the rest of us from being humanly "valid." Doesn't matter whether you're a "sheep" or a "goat," for the BBL-crew and their political henchmen are after an open season on simply being "ovine" in any shape or form. There would be a cleansing of us all if their dreams reach any concensus-position.
Of course, they don't, haven't and probably never will simply because the ploy is much too visible to those willing to examine it.
My own personal animosity toward white guys who raped me doesn't disqualify white folk from being human, does it? That is hardly "scientific" regardless my feelings about white guys. It's atavistic and personal.
And therein lies the nub of the argumentation: it's about personal and visible discomfort with "those people" so I am gonna try to find a way to invalidate them while making sure I am seen as being really human. That has been the value of the Kelley Winterses, Andrea Jameses and Lynn Conways from the git on this argument. They have seen the pervasive nature of the argument to cover all of us and to invalidate all of us.
I do wish all of my sisters, particularly, and some of my brothers, could cut to the chase and see what is truly at stake: classifying yourself as a "sheep" instead of a "goat" or a "llama" or "alpaca" during an effort to kill off all the ovines is not going to protect you. The ovine-holocaust would take us all.
Nichole
Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 27, 2008, 10:30:52 PM
Let me see if I understand this situation correctly.
"nooneinparticular" is actually the person who posted the web article linked at the beginning of this topic. She's the same one who falsely asserted that the gene link was found for "classic" transexuals, and not for transexuals as a group without regard to such a distinction. And that is all in addition to the strange claims of special knowledge of improbable-sounding statistics and a secret technique for identifying ->-bleeped-<- trannies, statistics she refuses to support, and a technique she will not explain. Plus more garbage.
Does that about sum it up?
If you are a bigot, I suppose so.
Quote from: flutter on October 28, 2008, 07:32:28 AM
I've refrained from posting in this topic, because it seems like those of us not "In the know" are missing a healthy chunk of it. And also because it seems like a bee's nest of old animosities.
Do Autogynephiles exist? probably. Does that mean that every adult who tries to transition later in life is automatically one? Hell no. I knew pre-puberty I needed to transition, because I buried it till I was 31 does that make me less of a classic Transsexual?
Hardly.......if anyone actually bothers to read what I write they'd notice that I talk frequently about the dysphoric imperative. Typically a transsexual experiences a series of "GID crisis" at semi predicable points in their lives. Some transition at different points, those who find ways of coping through without transition typically find the intensity increases with each new one until eventually you either transition or simply give up and lose life functionality. In other words there is no primary and secondary transsexualism.
I've been called every name in the book over the years and the just repeated implication I'm a racist has been done before. I was active in the original civil rights movement for what it's worth. Now someone called me (and my friend) AGs because I dared mention it. The DSM was revised not long ago and AG (modified considerably from the Blanchard and Bailey circus version) was added. It is used as a faux-transsexual indicator. Again, in other words, a catagory separate and different from what is called in the psych community, medical model transsexuality, known to the mundane as HBS.
anyone who transitions successfully can use this current study and the ADA to access, right now, civil rights No one would be required to "prove" themselves beyond a standard diagnosis of GID to do so, no one will likely ever have to prove themselves genetically....that's ridiculous. We are decades away from the type of genetic testing that would identify transsexuals pre-natally and those traits would not be readily apparent at any rate until
after the 12'th week when most doctors will not perform an abortion. All this scare mongering panic goes back to something I observed years ago, almost anyone trans anything is convinced that if a stardard of testing is found, they won't make the cut. That's sad and shows a total lack of self-esteem.
Considering the on the ground realities at the moment, transsexuals now actually have Federally protected civil rights in housing, employment and accomodations under the ADA.....we jumped over the entire rest of the LGB spectrum in this fashion. Given that, saying anyone is being "thrown under the bus" is the same as saying that racial civil rights, women's civil rights etc should be suspended until TGs get civil rights.
There is no incrementalism at work here Frankly what is being said, in simple terms is "take away those new protections from transsexuals until we get them too". That is a declaration of open gender warfare. For 15 years transsexuals have experienced a steady erosion of civil rights as a direct result of TG "education" efforts in trans-activism, this new tack goes far beyond that. Frankly this gives a lot of ammunition to those conserva-queers who charge trans-activism about being only for themselves, it's a straight out affirmation of that.
I'm sorry, but you're coming out with a lot of rubbish hon... there is a clear difference between early and young transitioners, and between ->-bleeped-<- and classical. We just discussed this in chat and tbh, im more conviced that there are differences between young and old transitioners GID, not that one is better or worse, just DIFFERNET, and i fail to see what is worng with that. As for the whole ->-bleeped-<- thing. I for one do NOT belive ->-bleeped-<- persons are female tbh... just obsessed and fettishistic.... doesnt mean its not caused by something, they just arnt women.
I do not start to argue about different transsexuals. As previosly mentioned whole BBL- system is against all transwomen. What they write about ''gay transsexuals'' is as bad as they write about ''autogynephilic transsexuals''. They say that both transsexuals have no female identity. I come out when I was 18 years old and ready to transition however the system said NO.
Excuse me?
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
I've been called every name in the book over the years and the just repeated implication I'm a racist has been done before.
I'll call you "a piece of work" who enjoys the capacity to try to argue without ever reflecting on or talking to the points she makes while loosing tens of hundreds of rabbits to distract from the very real objections someone has to your thinking, Cathryn.
But, harkening back to this past summer, please stick to the point. This is not a high-school or college debate team where points are added by distracting the conversation from my weak-physiqued argumentation to another point entirely.
I don't believe you are a racist, which is absolutely why I used the comparison with racist ideology and method. The method and the insistence of the ideological basis for it DO apply, although not as a means of labelling you anything at all except someone who tries to make personal attacks on herself out of nothing at all and so turn the point away from her arguments' flaws and weaknesses.
To point out a comparison in methodology with the same methodology used in a different way is NOT to label you as anything at all except a poor arguer for your position. You should learn to separate those things when you argue, dear. Makes for more rational argumentation from yourself instead of your usual ploy to distract any conversation from the weakness of your point.
That said. Do, luv, try to remain on point. Your methods have probably been useful to you, but they don't work when someone actually reads what you write rather than allows themselves to be distracted by the fleeing rabbits.
For the record. YOU ARE NOT A RACIST IN ANY SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION.
There, now make please a reasoned argument about your positions.
Nichole
Funnily, this IS an argument about different transsexual forms, if they are indeed, both actually transsexuality.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
The DSM was revised not long ago and AG (modified considerably from the Blanchard and Bailey circus version) was added. It is used as a faux-transsexual indicator...
I'm having trouble following you here. Where is AG mentioned in the DSM again? Am I missing something? I don't remember ever seeing it mentioned in there.
~Kate~
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
The DSM was revised not long ago and AG (modified considerably from the Blanchard and Bailey circus version) was added.
Facts, please.
What are you referring to in DSM-IV-TR?
- 302.3 - Transvestic Fetishism
- 302.6 - Gender Identity Disorder in Children
- 302.85 - Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults
quate: ''It is used as a faux-transsexual indicator'' ???
So many people have said that I am a fake transsexual that I disagree with hole concept. There are no fake transsexuals however non-transsexual people may in very rare situations believe short times that they are transsexuals.
->-bleeped-<- is NOT mentioned in the DSM and there have been no revisions since 2000. That entire line of "reasoning" is simply not factual, Cathryn. And "open gender warfare!!!?" Where did that come from and to what end? Again, luv, your rabbits flee.
Nichole
And as far as differences between old and young transitioners are concerned, Rach. I perfectly agree, of course I also agree that there are many differences between myself and my children: the infamous and ever-present "generation-gap."
However, those differences of outlook, knowledge, experiences do not make my children a separate "type" of human being, they simply make us generationally separate.
Nikki
QuoteFor 15 years transsexuals have experienced a steady erosion of civil rights
The picture is much broader than that. The whole American society has gotten more Conservative as Government has ruled by fear and corporations have brainwashed and marketed their way into personal lives. Special rights for individual groups is not needed if they just used the more general term like "all people". The real problem is there is less opportunity for independent thought and lifestyles due to mass marketing and consumption. Social mores seem to be controlled by the TV. You can not give one group more civil rights than another. All the laws in the world will not change people's subjective thought but everyday behavior will. It is up to every individual to be civil if they want to be treated that way.
Lisa, your whole 'tv controls us for the corporations and govornments' speal is getting very bloody old... in several topics... please leave it out hon.
When I knew less about transwomen I used to think that there are two categories as concept: young transitioners and old transitioners. However there are no reasons to use those categories. Every transwoman has a different life and situation. Soon I realized that it would be as adequate to discuss about four or five types of transsexuals or even more. Transwomen that realize their situation have usually very much common despite of age. Of course you live in the different situation and have different views because of age difference and probably different problems. But I see not enough reasons to use two categories: young transitioners and old transitioners.
but its realy not that common....
young transitioners have parent issues, school issues, different experiences, peers. older transitioners have families, jobs, established lives etc, its actually fairly different as far as experiences go.
Yes, the social situation is very different. It always wary at individual level.
Quote from: Kate on October 28, 2008, 09:03:30 AM
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
The DSM was revised not long ago and AG (modified considerably from the Blanchard and Bailey circus version) was added. It is used as a faux-transsexual indicator...
I'm having trouble following you here. Where is AG mentioned in the DSM again? Am I missing something? I don't remember ever seeing it mentioned in there.
~Kate~
Autogynophilia was added to the DSM IV-TR not as a separate diagnosis but as part of transvestic fetishism. The current thinking is giving it a separate category in the DSM-V, but yes, it's in there just like Total.
This article is also now posted at Bilerico
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/new_study_links_genetics_to_transsexuali.php (http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/new_study_links_genetics_to_transsexuali.php)
so infact ->-bleeped-<- is NOT transsexuality.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 10:18:52 AM
Autogynophilia was added to the DSM IV-TR not as a separate diagnosis but as part of transvestic fetishism. The current thinking is giving it a separate category in the DSM-V, but yes, it's in there just like Total.
You mean this?
Quote
Specify if:
With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent discomfort with gender role or identity
That's the closest I get, and it's not at all obvious that a 'fetishistic transvestite with gender dysphoria' is the same as what Blanchard describes as ->-bleeped-<-c transsexual -- the criteria for fetishistic transvestism in general are already pretty strict, and it's hard for me to believe that 65% of transsexuals really fall into this category, like you wrote at the start of this thread. But all right, for the sake of argument let's assume it is so. How do you know that the gender dysphoria of such a person is not related to the gender dysphoria of a 'classic' transsexual?
Nfr
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 10:34:14 AM
so infact ->-bleeped-<- is NOT transsexuality.
Exactly......it is currently considered the end stage of transvestic fetishism and a condition that mimics classic transsexuality, but is in fact exclusionary of it.
Can you please cite the place it's "in there," Cathryn. As it stands your statement isn't supported as the term itself is not used that I have been able to find. That it may well be "lurking" is not the question. But, to date, " ->-bleeped-<-" has never been recognized as anything more than Ray Blanchard's adaptation and linguistic trope for what he and mentor Freund have believed, not proven or supplied any creditable scientific evidence for at all. Unless one surmises that Anne Lawrence's copping to something like that narrative rates as "scientific proof."
Which is, afterall, the level of "science" these "thinkers" have at their base. Wanting something to be true doesn't give me truth. Feeling something should be true isn't a scientific anything, it's a thought. Thoughts and opinions appear to be normal among all human beings, but their existence doesn't provide one with "authority" anymore than does my acquaintance with a host of gender-specialists give me some deep insight into the development of sex in the human body.
Given the bases you've used thus far, I could simply toss out a label for you and voila, you'd become in that instant a "Red Queen." That would hardly make you a "Red queen" or a character in Lewis Carroll's works of literature would it?
The entire labelling ploy is remarkably full of irrationality and a lack of human compassion, dignity and value. As I wrote for my blog, it's a way to deflect the uncareful reader from the true point here: humanity is various and we fail to notice that we fail to notice things such as that.
What seems to me to be truly "at stake" in our discussion is that recognition that humanity has many experiences and configurations inside a frame that makes every last one of us about 99% alike. Now that's the biological reality of the matter. Period.
That we have different ways and means of interpreting who is "me" and who is "like me" and who is "other" is simply a carry-over from days when we were spread thinly as snail-darters are now on the planet. "The stone-age child meets the modern mother." We continue to react to one another as dangerous strangers rather than as examples of similarity and sameness.
We wish to make defining characteristics of human-being out of our own fears and fever-dreams: old folk are different, young folk are different, "transvestic fetishists" are socially unacceptable. Hell, that's why we use the term fetish in a supposedly "scientific" compendium now isn't it?
Because the dirty "secret" of DSM is that it's not, at base, a scientific work, at base it's a work that makes for payment for treatment, niches for study and "work" and it's considered now and has been since its inception a means of defining whom we will treat as "human" and whom we will "exile" to some other area where societies can "deal" with them.
As a practioner and someone who uses DSM on a regular basis I can tell you that that is the truth.
So, for all practical purposes, the argument is simply about whom I will accept as like me and whom I will relegate to some niche where they "require treatment" so they will confine their expresssions of self and reality to those I am comfortable with and my society is comfortable with.
The difficulty with Western "psychology" is that it categorically rejects "soul" in spite of the origins of it's name and adheres rigorously to pathologizing what is uncomfortable for me to deal with.
Nichole
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 10:34:14 AM
so infact ->-bleeped-<- is NOT transsexuality.
Exactly......it is currently considered the end stage of transvestic fetishism...
Wait.. "currently considered" by who?
You're perfectly welcome to interpret the DSM to fit your own ideas, but it's confusing me when you say personal opinions as if they're universally accepted fact in the medical community. I'm trying to follow all this, but... that doesn't make it easy!
~Kate~
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 10:34:14 AM
so infact ->-bleeped-<- is NOT transsexuality.
Exactly......it is currently considered the end stage of transvestic fetishism and a condition that mimics classic transsexuality, but is in fact exclusionary of it.
In fact there is no evidence that it even exists except as a term invented by Ray Blanchard for the purposes I have delineated above. Now that is the "fact."
Your acquaintanceship with the "International Psychiatrist of the Year" notwithstanding, you walk on the swamp of something you don't have a very good grasp of. Matters not that your friends Arlene and the undesignated psychiatrist may have a good grasp of the matter. The "fact" is that you are sinking in a pool of quicksand you didn't notice was even there.
That's the difficulty of walking in a swamp when you're used to walking elsewhere, luv.
Nichole
how is fettish transvestiteism 'close' to classic transsexuality? arnt those two as polar as you can get?
Neither
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 11:02:53 AM
how is fettish transvestiteism 'close' to classic transsexuality? arnt those two as polar as you can get?
How far apart are "French" and "British," Rach? I mean at one time there was no real political difference if one goes back to Angevin times, wot?
The terms are simply terms that have been invented, first by Harry Benjamin and then redefined and modulated by his successors to what seems to make a lot of sense and what seems to be polarized but truly isn't.
Have you come to the point where you actually, mostly, enjoy your body and the way you look? Do you find yourself at any time "looking sexy" or desiring to be "sexier" than you are right now? If so, then you fall into "->-bleeped-<-" as defined by the BBL crew and Cathryn.
The base differential here is a sexual one whereby the prejudices of certain old white guys about "women" altogether have somehow been given the elevation to homage that Cathryn and others seem to wish for them as a way of asserting one's own separation from all those "others."
I'd submit that although language, custom and outlook between "French" and "British" differ that neither becomes something other than human and within the full-range of human potential and existence. But, of course, the American Psychiatric Association has not to date written a few paragraphs that would make either "British" or "French" a fetish.
That's about the actual level of this entire exchange when you take a look at what is truly being said. I might not understand "the French" if I am "British" and how they manage to hold certain aspects of their lives the way they do. But, do I truly have to "pathologize" the French?
Nichole
Good Lordy, do you all see what I meant now when I said that SHAME and GUILT infect and drive both the "community" and the scientists who study us? Would all this crazy searching and categorizing and polarizing and separating exist if changing one's sex was as boring and normal to everyone as changing one's hair colour?
But no, ultimately it's STILL a moral issue for everyone. Everyone is just scrambling to make it OK to do somehow, someway, because deep down inside they still think it's wrong and immoral to change one's sex. Everyone clings to whatever theory makes it NOT MY FAULT and ok to do.
What if it IS "just a choice?" YEA? SO? But wow, suggest that and watch everyone go crazy trying to prove it's not. I'm not saying it IS a choice, I frankly just don't know. But still, pay attention to your own reaction - and that of others - when that suggestion is made. WHY do we all recoil at the mere thought of it being a choice?
What is the *point* of all this study and classifying? Does it truly lead to happier outcomes for people? Or does it just provide ITS NOT MY FAULT! boxes for people to isolate themselves within so they never have to truly resolve their shame and guilt for how they feel? And give "scientists" an excuse to pathologize us as immoral weirdos in need of study?
~Kate~
What? feeling sexy, or wanting to look sexyer is not because you find yourself attractive to you... you find yourself attractive to OTHERS...
im sorry, but if personal grooming is ->-bleeped-<- then im a full on bloody trasvestite....
If i wasnt staff, id say what i really meant, but 'this is stupid' will sufice.
Well, Kate, I'd certainly HAVE to pathologize you if I were in the business of pathologizing anyone at all!!! >:-) :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
You are simply too weird for you to, in fact, be human!!! :laugh: :laugh:
One doesn't need to test her or his own "realness" by the definitions some guy or gal puts out there masquerading as science. Just pinch yourself and see if you're real or a "fetish."
Like much of our world we like to make things exist or not exist by the method of "defining" them. Most of all we like to do that with people.
You made an excellent point. If it is a choice what difference would that make to your actual reality as a human being? None at all as I see it.
And no, not all of us are going crazy, however, at your words. :) A bit overly dramatic aren't you? :) O, that's right, for you that's well within the parameters of "Kate." :laugh: :laugh:
:icon_hug: Very nice post and points.
Nichole
And Rach, you are absolutely correct. (Doncha wish for a second you weren't staff again?) >:-)
But yes, my friend, if you can admire your own body for its own sake then you are ->-bleeped-<-. Pretty ridiculous, no? OMG!! Women never do that nor do we have sex-drives either!! That kinda stuff is simply unheard of at the CAMH and at Northwestern University!! Of course, neither, I sometimes think, have they gootn the news there that Queen Victoria and her era passed a hundred years ago!!
*sigh* You know how paper-carriers can get sloppy, eh?
Nikki
Who is a classic transsexual to comment on the validity of the gender dysphoria of an Autogynephile? (assuming such is a real distinction, and not just one coping mechanism out of a host of coping mechanisms used to deal with dysphoria).
You're talking about civil rights, but in the same thread stating the "->-bleeped-<-" aren't women.
How do you know? In the same way that no one else can tell me whether or not I'm a Transsexual, no one can tell an "Autogynephile" that their gender dysphoria is any less real, or that their need to transition is any less pressing.
Maybe I'm a bit too much of an idealist. In fact, I know I am. I'm not practical about civil rights, because I can't understand not granting everyone the same liberty to be themselves. I also live with Aspergers, which colors my views and perceptions of the world around me.
But god damn it, I don't think that idealism is bad. And I don't think anyone else has the authority to tell someone else they're "just" an autogynephile.
You talk about wanting civil rights for transsexuals, and I agree whole heartedly, but in the same thread you dismiss an entire segment of the transsexual community, how is that any different from straight society telling you you're crazy for wanting to be a woman? Explain to me how that position isn't hypocritical.
And this isn't a personal attack on you, this is a discussion board, I am raising legitimate questions to your statements, and expect civil and logical answers.
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 11:24:02 AM
im sorry, but if personal grooming is ->-bleeped-<- then im a full on bloody trasvestite....
You would be -- unless you are also attracted to boys, in which case you'd be so extremely gay that you want SRS in order to be able to seduce straight men. These, according to Blanchard, are the only two options.
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 11:24:02 AM
If i wasnt staff, id say what i really meant, but 'this is stupid' will sufice.
Indeed. Also, considering how
both of the Blanchard categories are equally silly, it seems a bit short-sighted to claim that one of them is really a neurophysiological condition while the other is fetishistic.
Of course (and along the lines of what Kate wrote), one can find fetishism anywhere if one digs deep enough and discards enough common sense.
Nfr
But Kate, I don't want it to be MY fault! ;)
Sincerely though, I don't care for myself. It has bee years since I've had any real issues in my daily life. My family matters are mostly dealt with... as my kids have disowned me.
I worry more about others like me who are trying to find out "why me"? And... to help them with their families so that they never have to go through what I had to endure. No one should have to put up with that!
Cindi
Quote from: flutter on October 28, 2008, 11:38:24 AM
Who is a classic transsexual to comment on the validity of the gender dysphoria of an Autogynephile? (assuming such is a real distinction, and not just one coping mechanism out of a host of coping mechanisms used to deal with dysphoria).
You're talking about civil rights, but in the same thread stating the "->-bleeped-<-" aren't women.
No, I avoid all references as to who is and isn't a "woman", at least in this round. And since you apparently didn't read all I said here, I'm not a "classic transsexual" myself, I'm a quadra-gametic mosaic chimera, sometimes called a true hermaphrodite. This was not confirmed until long after I transitioned which I had to do under the same SOC standards as transsexuals so I am quite familiar with the process.
I don't know you, said nothing specific about you personally so your anger and nastiness is totally unjustified. As for a demand I answer you.......yeah, right.......can we say "privilege?" I knew you could.
In the past 24 hours I've been called an autogynophile, a racist, a demented cult leader, homophobic, illogical and my ideas vile and transphobic. I've been told I threw most of the trans community under a bus, oppose civil rights for those not like me.......feel the love. At least I haven't received a new round of death threats yet, but then the day is young.
Cathryn, my dear, your sense of your own persecution is admirable, if somewhat over-dramatized in my view.
Please take note that no one but yourself has called you any of those things, not in this thread anyhow. What's been said is that your reasoning lends itself toward those sorts of interpretations.
And those points are well-taken.
If I were to guess I'd say you like to be seen as an outsider. But, like most outsiders you pose as being the ultimate insider in your characterisation as an outsider. No one here has attacked you in any way.
In fact, try to sit down and read the blog post that Natasha posted originally. It truly does appear to indicate that you find a certain gleefulness in making differentiations that are not made in the research you cite. As have some of the statements you've made about your inside knowledge of what the Zucker committee is likely to do or not do.
Please address the points you've been trying to make rather than your sense that you are beset by enemies here. I don't think that fear is accurate or borne-out by what has been written in this thread.
Again its a rabbit-run whereby your ideas are somehow confused with your person to enhance the possibility that someone will not see that your arguments are badly flawed.
We've all pretty much experienced that "outsider" effect in our lives. Just as you have done.
I think what has been questioned more than anything else is how, having experienced that exile from human possibility, you seem more than willing to exile others or at least label them in ways that sheer conditioning will shade into a labelling and a sense of them that makes them less-than.
I know you're adept enough at language to know that difference.
Nichole
It seems that the study is ok, while the blog post cited is utter rubbish.
The study didn't have anything to do with "classical" transsexual, they just used a group of mtfs without dividing them into any groups like AG/classical.
The actual results of the study are a lot grayer than mentioned here. (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36158020081026 (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36158020081026))
"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry.". This is statistically significant, but not a binary distintion.
Quote from: lexshue on October 28, 2008, 01:03:58 PM
This is statistically significant, but not a binary distintion.
Which is exactly the opinion made by our transsexed-historied rocket scientist here (http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-more-part-of-puzzle.html).
Nichole
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa.......
First of all what does this have to do with the gaining of rights under the ADA. Second of all, you are familiar with what I wrote in my own blog entitled "Towards Trans Sanity". What you might not be familiar with is that particular entry was vetted by the International Psychiatrist of the Year, who just happens to be one of my closest friends and the current "go to" person in the psychiatric community on this very issue.
I soft pedal the figures but the actual current ratio of AG to classic transsexuals presenting for evaluation is estimated at 65 to 35........and we can separate them with what Harvard Medical states is close to 100% accuracy now. Psychiatry considers this important because: there is approaching zero dissatisfaction with surgical outcome even when less than perfect among the classical transsexuals. Among the AGs the figures run closer to 50-50 regardless of the outcome. This might not be significant to you, but to a profession that wishes to do no harm and also cover it's own butt, this is pretty darn important.
AG is in the DSM, it ain't coming out because the deck was stacked with the revision team to make sure it didn't. What is coming with the revision is a redefinition of all non-classical transsexuality (medical model it's called in the trade) as fetishist. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just how it was stacked. And since I need to spell it out to you........there isn't a legislator in the world who will vote to protect a sexual fetish class.......ergo, an end to transgender dreams of protection via an inclusive ENDA.
I started warning the trans-activist crowd more than a decade ago this was coming.....now it's too late to stop it.
You're perpetuating the autogynephelia notion right there. Saying that there's a distinction. Why?
And, as was pointed out, AG isn't specifically in the DSM.
My previous statement was not a personal attack, it was honest sincere questioning.
I called your position hypocritical. I called you to task for a belief you've espoused, that isn't a personal attack, that is an attack on a position.
If you want a personal attack, here it is - you're paranoid. Now knock of the theatrics and hysterics and actually talk about the issue. I'm not here to abuse you, just your position of exclusion and divisive idealogy.
I am entitled to actually have an answer to a challenge made to a position you've put forward in a debate, this isn't male privilege, this is simply proper debate technique. But, like most politicians, instead of sticking to the issues, you've turned this into a big ball of emotions. Sorry hun, I don't have emotions (remember? - Aspergers) I'm running on pure logic here, and your statements don't follow a consistent idealogy.
Also, I did see that you were a mosaic chimera - doesn't matter - the point holds. What right does anyone have to deny the validity of the gender dysphoria of another human being? Especially someone who has experienced that Gender Dysphoria, and the resultant issues that come with people not understanding.
It's like a rape victim raping someone else to validate their experience. I don't understand the logic.
In the past 24 hours I've been called an autogynophile, a racist, a demented cult leader, homophobic, illogical and my ideas vile and transphobic. I've been told I threw most of the trans community under a bus, oppose civil rights for those not like me.......feel the love. At least I haven't received a new round of death threats yet, but then the day is young.
Didnt YOU say you were an autogynophile?
the rest i dont really belive was said, but ill solve your memory issues, you are however extremely agressive and confrontational, and lack any knowlage of the whole referencing mlarkey... oh and paranoia, thats a good one.
Quote from: Nichole on October 28, 2008, 09:15:26 AM
->-bleeped-<- is NOT mentioned in the DSM and there have been no revisions since 2000. That entire line of "reasoning" is simply not factual, Cathryn. And "open gender warfare!!!?" Where did that come from and to what end? Again, luv, your rabbits flee.
Nichole
And as far as differences between old and young transitioners are concerned, Rach. I perfectly agree, of course I also agree that there are many differences between myself and my children: the infamous and ever-present "generation-gap."
However, those differences of outlook, knowledge, experiences do not make my children a separate "type" of human being, they simply make us generationally separate.
Nikki
It actually is mentioned once, on page 574 of the soft bound version under 302.3 Transvestic Fetishism. paragraph 1, " The paraphilic focus of Transvestic Fetishism involves cross-dressing by a male in women's attire. In many or most cases sexual arousal is produced by the accompanying thought or image of the person as a female (referred to as " ->-bleeped-<-")."
That is the only time the word is used in the section on sexual dysfunctions. It definately is not a stand alone condition.
Thanks for the correction, Claire.
So, taking what I hadn't noticed into account let me re-parse my thought. " ->-bleeped-<- is not mentioned in the DSM as a condition that is either prevalent or indicative of anything except as a footnote and nod of recognition to the views of Dr. Blanchard who was working with the committee that cited the word."
Which, of course, heightens my suspicion and stance that the APA is working itself and its DSM into the category of obsolete manual due to its unmitigated use of it's own committee members' definitions of processes and 'behavioral triggers" that have not been shown scientifically to exist at all.
OK, I can accept that. :)
Nichole
Rachael - who are you talking to?
She appeared to be talking to Cathryn, flutter. Or so her words read to me since she quoted Cathryn.
Nichole
Soooo... going back to the OP and obviating the reference to "classic" transsexuality and AG (because we have discussed this a bazillion times). Does this mean we are on a merger path with the IS community? This is neat, more friends :D
I believe that to be true, SJ. There's more and more evidence pointing toward an intersex condition.
Of course, that merger may well not be a better stuation than we are currently in as the intersex folk have been as dismissed and marginalized by the "psychiatric profession" AND the medical profession as have we by the shrinks.
What we gain may be a loss in point of fact in some areas. Although the fact of a materially available "reason" will do for the individual pretty much what Cindi said earlier she hoped it would do. At the least it grants a physical rather than a mental-health "reason" for the ways we are.
Of course humans don't have a grand track-record about acceptance of physical difference either. Just ask persons of color or the disabled. *sigh* It is what it is, but it would sure be nice to see some changes in "the way it is."
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on October 27, 2008, 08:14:00 PM
Mnay patient's rights groups are finding a similar reception as are the gender-disordered, Lisa. The intent focus we have on the gender parts helps us to not see that this is typical behavior seen typically by providers who are insistently marginalized by the "psychiatrists" who very seldom, any longer, spend more than about 5 minutes a visit with patients. There's more time that way to see drug reps or have a drug company fund some research to promote a "pathology" the drug-company just developed a medication to treat!
Nichole
Yeah, I know all this happens, given that I've had one of those five minute appointments to get the worst prescription of my life (paxil). What I didn't know was whether the various groups assigned to various parts of the DSM-V were as awful as those assigned to the gender bits.
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:18:45 pm
Quote from: goingdown on October 28, 2008, 07:18:19 AM
As i have said using Bailey-Lawrence I am too an autogynephilic >:(
There was scorable test somewhere but I do not remember exactly where.
Per Bailey's scoring system, I am neither AGTS nor HSTS. I don't exist.
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:20:32 pm
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 08:47:45 AM
I'm sorry, but you're coming out with a lot of rubbish hon... there is a clear difference between early and young transitioners, and between ->-bleeped-<- and classical. We just discussed this in chat and tbh, im more conviced that there are differences between young and old transitioners GID, not that one is better or worse, just DIFFERNET, and i fail to see what is worng with that. As for the whole ->-bleeped-<- thing. I for one do NOT belive ->-bleeped-<- persons are female tbh... just obsessed and fettishistic.... doesnt mean its not caused by something, they just arnt women.
Is there really a difference between early and late transitioners? Because I started transition at 18, and I've spoken to several late transitioners, and I'm hard-pressed to find a difference between their own experiences in childhood and mine. I mean...we don't all have
identical experiences, but their description of dysphoria is pretty comparable to mine.
What's wrong with trying to set up a false dichotomy between early and late transitioners is that it reinforces anti-trans bigotry, and reinforces a parallel dichotomy where some trans women are
good and some trans women are
bad.
I don't believe ->-bleeped-<- exists, so I find it puzzling that anyone talks about whether any trans women are ->-bleeped-<- or not.
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:33:19 pm
Quote from: Nichole on October 28, 2008, 09:15:26 AM
->-bleeped-<- is NOT mentioned in the DSM and there have been no revisions since 2000. That entire line of "reasoning" is simply not factual, Cathryn. And "open gender warfare!!!?" Where did that come from and to what end? Again, luv, your rabbits flee.
Nichole
And as far as differences between old and young transitioners are concerned, Rach. I perfectly agree, of course I also agree that there are many differences between myself and my children: the infamous and ever-present "generation-gap."
However, those differences of outlook, knowledge, experiences do not make my children a separate "type" of human being, they simply make us generationally separate.
I agree with this, actually.
I don't think there's really a strong difference in how early or late transitioners are
transsexual, but our experiences differ in many ways.
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:38:30 pm
Quote from: lexshue on October 28, 2008, 01:03:58 PM
The actual results of the study are a lot grayer than mentioned here. (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36158020081026 (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36158020081026))
"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry.". This is statistically significant, but not a binary distintion.
It's even grayer than that.
Take a population of 10,000,000 men and trans women. If you take Lynn Conway's most liberal estimate of 1 in 500 being trans. That'd be 9,980,000 cis men and 20,000 trans women.
If 47.6% of the cis men have the gene, that's 4,750,480 with the "transsexual gene." If 55.4% of the trans women have the gene, that's 11,080 trans women with the gene, for a total of 4,761,560 out of 10,000,000 people.
Or rather, that 02.327% of the people with the transsexual gene actually turn out to be trans women.
Didnt say thier childhoods were differnt love, just that there is an inherrent difference in gid that allows someone to live to 40, marry, have kids, then forces them to transition, and a gid that forces a teenager to do it there and then. none is better or worse, but you must admit that there are two camps of transition
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:34:40 PM
Didnt say thier childhoods were differnt love, just that there is an inherrent difference in gid that allows someone to live to 40, marry, have kids, then forces them to transition, and a gid that forces a teenager to do it there and then. none is better or worse, but you must admit that there are two camps of transition
I'm not so sure that its that easy to distinguish between differences caused by GID, from those caused by social environment/personality/etc.
Just because a person's GID may result in them doing completely different things from you or i, doesn't imply that its any different. I think its more likely that its down to people coping with their GID differently.
ok, so it apears two distinct groups deal differently. why?
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:34:40 PM
Didnt say thier childhoods were differnt love, just that there is an inherrent difference in gid that allows someone to live to 40, marry, have kids, then forces them to transition, and a gid that forces a teenager to do it there and then. none is better or worse, but you must admit that there are two camps of transition
I don't believe that's true.
I also don't believe that there are two camps of transitioning. I believe that people transition at any age, and some develop stronger coping strategies to avoid transition than others.
Do you think that someone who comes out as lesbian in her teens is inherently different from someone who comes out later in life? That her being lesbian is somehow qualitatively different than the teenaged lesbian?
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 06:04:17 pm
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:52:05 PM
ok, so it apears two distinct groups deal differently. why?
They're not two distinct groups.
You have girls who transition before puberty
You have women who transition in our teens
You have women who transition in their 20s
You have women who transition in their 30s
You have women who transition in their 40s
You have women who transition in their 50s
You have women who transition in their 60s
You have women who transition in their 70s
Where's the cutoff point for "two distinct groups"?
different maybe.... better or worse? no, the trans community seems to belive that younger is somehow better... or older is worse. i dont see that as the case, but surely the most stuborn amungst us must see there are people who transition as soon as they can, and some who will live 30-40 years then do it. It seems quite cut to me... dispite plenty doing it at all ages as you say, theres seems distinct groupings however in the averages.
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 06:06:32 PM
different maybe.... better or worse? no, the trans community seems to belive that younger is somehow better... or older is worse. i dont see that as the case, but surely the most stuborn amungst us must see there are people who transition as soon as they can, and some who will live 30-40 years then do it. It seems quite cut to me... dispite plenty doing it at all ages as you say, theres seems distinct groupings however in the averages.
Distinct groupings? Really?
Like many gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, I don't believe the difference is anything more than trying to not be trans for a longer period of time. Some of us can do that, some of us can't. That's all it is. It doesn't mean there's a qualitative difference in our transness, just our willingness to develop coping strategies.
haha, so you are agreeing with me? i didnt SAY there was a difference in 'how ->-bleeped-<-' they were, just that there WAS a difference in HOW....
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 06:15:06 PM
haha, so you are agreeing with me? i didnt SAY there was a difference in 'how ->-bleeped-<-' they were, just that there WAS a difference in HOW....
There's a difference in what age they transition.
Using that to establish a false distinction between "early transitioners" and "late transitioners" is inaccurate.
Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 28, 2008, 06:06:07 PM
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:34:40 PM
Didnt say thier childhoods were differnt love, just that there is an inherrent difference in gid that allows someone to live to 40, marry, have kids, then forces them to transition, and a gid that forces a teenager to do it there and then. none is better or worse, but you must admit that there are two camps of transition
I don't believe that's true.
I also don't believe that there are two camps of transitioning. I believe that people transition at any age, and some develop stronger coping strategies to avoid transition than others.
Do you think that someone who comes out as lesbian in her teens is inherently different from someone who comes out later in life? That her being lesbian is somehow qualitatively different than the teenaged lesbian?
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 06:04:17 pm
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:52:05 PM
ok, so it apears two distinct groups deal differently. why?
They're not two distinct groups.
You have girls who transition before puberty
You have women who transition in our teens
You have women who transition in their 20s
You have women who transition in their 30s
You have women who transition in their 40s
You have women who transition in their 50s
You have women who transition in their 60s
You have women who transition in their 70s
Where's the cutoff point for "two distinct groups"?
i haveto agree with lisa here we all have our own strengths and weakness's in life, im a fairly late transitioner compared to some but i have always identified as female. Its fair to say transitioning today is much more accepted than when i first tried in the eighties as a teen. I was actually frowned apon and not taken seriously by my g.p, left to fend for myself and built a good defence in the meantime to deal with it.
I have never married ect and battled GID but my experiences are very similar to many teens i listen to now on some of the younger transgender forums. When i decided to transition at 35 it was finally in my terms and acceptible not to mention financially viable. I have no idea how this study really affects me or any new dsm-v in treatment terms and thats all that i desire, the right treatment and the right to transition to the gender i was supposed to be born to.
We seem to be getting caught up in trivialities.
There is all this paranoia going on about being labled as autogynophilic when I think it is just a red hearing.
I also don't know what the agest stuff is all about either. Logically we all experience pain in different ways and there is nothing to say that we all experience the same pain equally, so who cares? At the heart of it is still the fact that we have a gender identity that does not match our birth bodies. What else matters beyond that?
As a group we seem to have picked up a lot of bagage about who we are as a people, about what makes us valid. We seem to live in a poisonous air created by the non-transgendered but perpetuated by ourselves. This is really sad.
All we actually have in this discussion is a tiny piece of research that suggests being transgendered could be physiological in 'cause'. I think us transgendered people already know this to be true deep down. Personally I think it is a bit too early to be getting up in arms about it. Certainly it is extra fodder to be used in the fight for recognition and it should not be used to say 'nah nah nah' to all those that don't fit the 'criteria'.
If, for a hypothetical moment, we were to say that Blanchard/Bailey's autogynephelia and/or transvestic fetishism existed as a diagnosis, what's their recommended cure for it? SRS? HRT? Full time transition? Occasional cross-dressing? Inquiring minds want to know.
Z
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 08:47:45 AM
I'm sorry, but you're coming out with a lot of rubbish hon... there is a clear difference between early and young transitioners, and between ->-bleeped-<- and classical. We just discussed this in chat and tbh, im more conviced that there are differences between young and old transitioners GID, not that one is better or worse, just DIFFERNET, and i fail to see what is worng with that. As for the whole ->-bleeped-<- thing. I for one do NOT belive ->-bleeped-<- persons are female tbh... just obsessed and fettishistic.... doesnt mean its not caused by something, they just arnt women.
It really saddens me that you or anyone would take the view that some who physically transition from male to female are not women. Even if there were such a thing as homosexual transexuals and ->-bleeped-<-, don't you think that cisgendered people are thinking that the homosexual transexuals aren't women either? I mean, that's why they use the word "homosexual." Men attracted to men. And how would you feel about that? And how do you think late transitioners or anyone who has been classified ->-bleeped-<- feels about you saying they aren't women? It's just rude and mean. You should keep this opinion to yourself.
Posted on: October 28, 2008, 11:29:17 pm
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 27, 2008, 10:30:52 PM
Let me see if I understand this situation correctly.
"nooneinparticular" is actually the person who posted the web article linked at the beginning of this topic. She's the same one who falsely asserted that the gene link was found for "classic" transexuals, and not for transexuals as a group without regard to such a distinction. And that is all in addition to the strange claims of special knowledge of improbable-sounding statistics and a secret technique for identifying ->-bleeped-<- trannies, statistics she refuses to support, and a technique she will not explain. Plus more garbage.
Does that about sum it up?
If you are a bigot, I suppose so.
Wow. Where did the b-word come from? That makes absolutely no sense. And your posts are filled with wild embellishments. I'm beginning to think that you are severely unhinged. Are you off your meds?
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 06:06:32 PM
different maybe.... better or worse? no, the trans community seems to belive that younger is somehow better... or older is worse. i dont see that as the case, but surely the most stuborn amungst us must see there are people who transition as soon as they can, and some who will live 30-40 years then do it. It seems quite cut to me... dispite plenty doing it at all ages as you say, theres seems distinct groupings however in the averages.
What you are seeing is a much higher percentage of AGs among older transitioners. Now I won't pass judgment on who or who isn't a "woman" but I will observe that non-transwomen know other women and those AGs are the ones who typically have so so so much trouble with "passing".......and it ain't appearance. Several of my women friends are PCOS, a hormonal condition with high amounts of testeostrone. They all had problems being "accepted" among other women before treatment despite very female norm bodies.
glenda: actually, no, i said that ->-bleeped-<- exists, and its easily visible in the community, just because that exists, doesnt mean the hsts exists, or they are the only two categories...
and no, i dont think men who fantasise about themselves having sex as women so much they transition are women, and thats my public opinion.
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 06:22:44 AM
glenda: actually, no, i said that ->-bleeped-<- exists, and its easily visible in the community, just because that exists, doesnt mean the hsts exists, or they are the only two categories...
and no, i dont think men who fantasise about themselves having sex as women so much they transition are women, and thats my public opinion.
Men who have ->-bleeped-<- tendencies obviously aren't women, because they're men. That seems fairly obvious. However, using this as an argument about ->-bleeped-<-s presumes that all ->-bleeped-<-cs identify, and will always identify, as male. Is it not possible to be a male-bodied woman who is very turned on by the image of herself as a woman? Many trans women go through a fetishtic stage, sometimes about clothing, sometimes about the idea of being female bodied, many of these by the time they transition identify unreservedly as female. Seems well with the realms of possibility to me that some women may choose to transition due to the ->-bleeped-<- feelings, this does not rule out any underlying identification as female. Lets not forget that not all trans people consciously identify from a very young age with the gender they later realise they are, many later realise their true gender was there under the surface, affecting their lives, maybe even causing ->-bleeped-<- inclinations! An ->-bleeped-<-c is as free as anybody else to define their own gender identity.
This is getting too silly politically correct... people like anne laurence arnt in a stage. regardless of how they identify, identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession... Im afraid anyone who IDENTIFIES as being attracted to themselves as women is rather confused, and deffinately male in this instance.
Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.
What's with the phallic gun fetish in your avatar? >:-)
Z
not every interest = fettish.
Ladysniper... think id have a picture of a tomato to be more apropriate?
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
This is getting too silly politically correct... people like anne laurence arnt in a stage. regardless of how they identify, identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession... Im afraid anyone who IDENTIFIES as being attracted to themselves as women is rather confused, and deffinately male in this instance.
Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.
It's not political correctness, it's not being prepared to jump to conclusions. "identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession" can be targeted at any and all trans people, you don't need to be ->-bleeped-<- to be on the receiving end of that, simply feeling you should be female bodied or wanting to be perceived as female is enough. None of us can offer absolute proof that our identities aren't the result of some 'delusion' or 'obsession'. Nonetheless we consider our identities valid, why is that? In case you haven't noticed, a lot of cis people play that game with trans people's identities all the time. Doing that yourself is pot calling the kettle black.
er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:32:47 AM
er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?
"Many trans women go through a fetishtic stage, sometimes about clothing, sometimes about the idea of being female bodied, many of these by the time they transition identify unreservedly as female. Seems well with the realms of possibility to me that some women may choose to transition due to the ->-bleeped-<- feelings, this does not rule out any underlying identification as female."
Or are all trans women who at any point (even if they identified as female by the time they transitioned and no longer had the fetish) were turned on by the idea of being female bodied actually men?
I don't see what the big deal is about 'coming at it from a sexual angle'. It seems fairly logical to me that a person who is very sexual and is in 'the wrong body' would engage in fantasies about being in the body that felt right. Given how much people often don't want to be trans it also seems logical to me that they'd indulge the fantasy rather than spending too much time wondering about any potential underlying cause.
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:32:47 AM
er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?
It could be symptomatic of an underlying cause, rather than causal in itself. There's no way to know for sure. And presumptions shouldn't be made based on limited information, information of which the individual themselves may not be fully aware.
I could go to the doctor requiring medication and treatment for persistant headaches and bizarre personality changes, completely oblivious to the fact that it may be a tumor that's causing them.
It takes some people years to figure out who they are, and I think it's possible that while that identity remains obscured, symptoms of that unrealised identity present themselves. Sexuality, while not identity in itself, can be an expression of that underlying identity. Do women not fantasise about having sex as women? Do women not take pleasure in seeing themselves as women?
I'm not saying it is so in all cases, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to dismiss all instances. Appearances can be deceptive, as we all know. :)
Just my two pence. :)
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
This is getting too silly politically correct... people like anne laurence arnt in a stage. regardless of how they identify, identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession... Im afraid anyone who IDENTIFIES as being attracted to themselves as women is rather confused, and deffinately male in this instance.
Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.
Oh, I thought Anne Lawrence was a rapist and ->-bleeped-<- who was looking for an excuse to justify her actions.
I have a real problem with pathologizing the idea of women being attracted to themselves as women. Presumably, a cis woman who is attracted to herself as a woman is not a man, so I'm not sure how a trans woman who is attracted to herself as a woman is a man.
I also think the descriptions of trans women's sexual fantasies (stuff like "fantasizing about having sex with a female body and a faceless partner) weren't really compared to any cis women's sexual fantasies, because none of those fantasies are particularly remarkable or unlike anything any cis woman has come up with.
I find it odd, and very sad, that someone like Cathryn, who claims to be an advocate for TSes, and, for that matter, any of the rest of us, attempts to use any of the Blanchard thought-experiment BS that has NO proof or scientific underpinnings to dismiss others just like themselves. We take the language of our inquisitors and make it our own to bash and destroy others. As if the major point is simply to hurt and dismiss those we don't like. What kind of male-dominant crap is that?
Judas-priest!! "I won't pass judgement on who or who isn't a "woman" " which immediately brings into the question exactly what she claims to "refuse" to do!! What a meager and absolutely false display of linguistic inability!
It has become more important to hurt another than to soothe one's own pains. Your lonliness and deep lack of belief in yourselves becomes plain to see as you use the axes of an atavistic hatred to hack away at others just like you as you try to say they are not like you. The effort is sad and terribly wrong-headed.
You want acceptance, you want an end to your lonliness and alienation Cathryn, that is not the way to get it. There are reasons, very good and plain reasons that the temple had a huge schism. The reasons are the very things that show in your incessant arguments about this.
Have you and your cohorts not learned yet that the dismissal of others doesn't make you any more at the center and accepted than you were before?
Perhaps instead of talking with your friends the therapists and psychiatrists you should use their services to try to handle the very obvious pain and lack of esteem you demonstrate through your willingness to try to destroy the hopes and validity of others. You make the same mistake that Blanchard and Zucker and Bailey and Lawrence have made: you believe that your argument, your own sense that you should be impotant and heeded, somehow trumps the importance of bringing us all to a place in the world where we can reach acceptance and validity in the eyes of others.
You've lit the fires of your own loathing and wonder why you are continuously burnt? Use your heart for a second and do something about your own pain and alienation instead of trying to use those to dismiss others. And that lesson shouldn't simply be used by you but by others who attempt the exact same thing.
This "argument" was personal and dismissive from the git and you brought that here with the mean-spirited and gloaty falsities of your original essay on your own blog.
Rachael, I admire you in many respects, I have watched you grow tremendously over the past year or two and I credit you with so very much promise and ability. But, my friend, the dismissal or separation of others is only going to leave us more alienated and further from the human world than we have been left already. Please do not make the attempt to provide yourself with belief and efficacy by dismissing others. It will not work. It will only make us all less. :icon_hug:
Andra is spot-on. To use the master's tools at this point to undermine the master is one thing. To use the master's tools to undermine others like one's self or very close kin to one's self is nothing but destructive and mean-spirited.
Now you may see all of this as a personal attack, Cathryn. So be it. It is actually a very sad understanding that one and another of my sisters are in deep pain and I watch them lash out at others hoping that will ease their pain.
It won't and you know it. Don't you? It's never eased any of your pain, has it? Only made it worse as people you care for and hoped to build community with have left you and gone their own way. Sowing my own hatred forever only increases my own hatred.
I find it terribly sad to see a formerly bright and lively intelligence consumed in the fires of its own alienation.
Namaste, Blessed Be, The Peace of The Lord Be With You, May the Wind Always Be At Your Back, Wherever You Go.
I'm done.
Nichole
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:32:47 AM
er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?
I think this may be a case of putting the cart before the horse.
How do you completely divorce being male or female from sexuality?
Well i knew i was a girl even before i knew about sex... most humans deal with gender before sex,
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 08:07:25 AM
Well i knew i was a girl even before i knew about sex... most humans deal with gender before sex,
That's not what I meant. I knew I was a girl before I knew about sex, but a large number of my own fantasies once I discovered sex involved me as a woman. I don't have those fantasies anymore because I
am a woman, but supposedly, this is a sign that I fetishize myself as a woman. I do consider myself a sexual being now, and much of my sexuality is tied up in the fact that I'm a woman, and much is tied up in the fact that I'm attracted to women. Considering that the label ->-bleeped-<- was derived primarily to explain away and pathologize lesbian trans women and imply a deeper level of pathologization of female homosexuality, as a lesbian trans woman, I find the idea that AGTS has any grounding in reality to be truly dodgy, since it doesn't describe my experience of myself as trans or as a woman.
I know several trans women identify themselves as AGTS, but practically none of them describe it in the same way as Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence do. Also, Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence interpret the data to fit the "theory" that AGTS exists and explains anything, rather than trying to gather data to assemble a coherent knowledge base about how trans identities form.
Also, Dr. Mildred Brown already covered fetishists who seek to transition in
True Selves, and with a lot more intellectual and ethical honesty than Bailey, Blanchard, or Lawrence have ever shown. Per Dr. Brown, they typically end up not finishing transition, IIRC.
i still belive there is a differece between identity and obsession...
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 08:22:01 AM
i still belive there is a differece between identity and obsession...
You seem to be missing the point that there's no reliable way to tell whose identities are the result of an obsession and whose aren't. Also, no reliable way to tell whose obsessions are the result of underlying identities and whose aren't. Unless a self-proclaimed autogynephile says 'I am a MAN who is an autogynephile' you are not in a position to state that they're not a woman. Invalidating trans people's identities or even deciding their identities for them is Not A Good Thing(tm). In doing so you give tacit consent for people to question ALL trans people's identities.
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 08:22:01 AM
i still belive there is a differece between identity and obsession...
Hmmm, well for myself, I must admit there was never a moment in my life where I wasn't thinking about all this. Changing my sex, being a girl, however you wanna phrase it. Every single thought throughout my 44 years of existence had
"yea but you're not a girl, darn it..." appended to it. 24/7. Nonstop. Unrelenting. Whether happy, sad, laughing, mad...
"yea but you're not a girl, darn it..."It was beyond "obsession," it defined who I was, how I saw the entire world and myself.
FWIW.
~Kate~
Quote from: Kate on October 29, 2008, 08:51:28 AM
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 08:22:01 AM
i still belive there is a differece between identity and obsession...
Hmmm, well for myself, I must admit there was never a moment in my life where I wasn't thinking about all this. Changing my sex, being a girl, however you wanna phrase it. Every single thought throughout my 44 years of existence had "yea but you're not a girl, darn it..." appended to it. 24/7. Nonstop. Unrelenting. Whether happy, sad, laughing, mad... "yea but you're not a girl, darn it..."
It was beyond "obsession," it defined who I was, how I saw the entire world and myself.
FWIW.
~Kate~
Well im so glad to have read that Kate, I completely obsess about transitioning, heck I think about it more times than men supposedly think about sex, once a min so ive read :) and to the point that all my dreams for years have been female in nature or basis so if that is then perceived as a form of ->-bleeped-<- then so be it. Society though has encouraged women for at least the last decade and beyond to revel in your womanhood, look and sexuality.
Btw I have really enjoyed this thread having never really read such an in-depth opinion of this subject and its many nuances before. I apologise now for any ignorance I have on the subject, just a girl trying to be a girl I am >:-)
Thank you for the really interesting posts.
Quote from: Kate on October 29, 2008, 08:51:28 AM
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 08:22:01 AM
i still belive there is a differece between identity and obsession...
Hmmm, well for myself, I must admit there was never a moment in my life where I wasn't thinking about all this. Changing my sex, being a girl, however you wanna phrase it. Every single thought throughout my 44 years of existence had "yea but you're not a girl, darn it..." appended to it. 24/7. Nonstop. Unrelenting. Whether happy, sad, laughing, mad... "yea but you're not a girl, darn it..."
It was beyond "obsession," it defined who I was, how I saw the entire world and myself.
FWIW.
~Kate~
Exactly!
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 08:22:01 AM
i still belive there is a differece between identity and obsession...
But where do you draw the line? And how much of an obsession may someone have
in addition to the identity, or even
about making their body congruent with the identity? To quote Louis Gooren,
The biology of human psychosexual differentiation (Hormones and Behavior 50 (2006) 589--601),
Quote
Preoperatively, many subjects experience sexual arousal to cross-dressing or to fantasies about themselves as women (' ->-bleeped-<-'). In all probability, with a male anatomy experienced as an alienation from the self, there are not many other options for sexual fantasies about oneself than to imagine oneself as woman. This assumption is substantiated by the observation that postreassignment surgery episodes of autogyenephilia declined from occurring in 49% preoperatively to 3% postoperatively (Lawrence, 2005). These observations argue against the use of the term nonhomosexual and autogyenephilia as a trait of late onset transsexuals since they lack permanence in the course of the lives of transsexuals.
This sounds pretty reasonable to me -- and please note how he uses Lawrence's own data to argue against her conclusions. Explaining ' ->-bleeped-<-', or at the very least the vast majority of it, in this manner is much more plausible than the BBL line: the article Gooren cites above (Anne Lawrence,
Sexuality Before and After Male-to-Female Sex Reassignment Surgery, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 147--166) contains mental gymnastics such as
Quote
Several previous studies (Bentler, 1976; Blanchard, 1985; Blanchard, Clemmensen, et al., 1987; Freund,
Steiner, & Chan, 1982; Leavitt & Berger, 1990) have reported a history of autogynephilic arousal in persons
described as homosexual relative to anatomic sex, an unexpected finding if ->-bleeped-<- is theorized to be
a variant form of gynephilia. Blanchard (1985) suggested that some ostensibly homosexual transsexuals who reported autogynephilic arousal were probably not genuinely homosexual but had misrepresented their sexual orientation.
All in all, Lawrence's article has some vaguely interesting data, but large parts of the discussion would be best described as funny if it wasn't meant so seriously. The bottom line in any case is that the number of 'homosexual' transsexuals who are free from autogynephilic 'obsession' is small -- only 14% of Lawrence's study participants claimed to be completely free from such experiences, and she herself notes that there is a clear reluctance to admit to any ->-bleeped-<-.
Sure, there was a clear correlation that straight girls had less 'autogynephilic experiences' than lesbian or bisexual girls, but it's a bit hard to figure out whether this is because of how the study defined 'autogynephilic experience' (she doesn't specify this), or because straight girls tend to get turned on by the male body rather than the female, or for some other reason. And it's interesting to note that the number of these experiences dropped drastically after SRS (before, 49% had 'hundreds or more' of these and 14% 'none', after 3% had 'hundreds or more' and 56% had 'none'): if one really was turned on by the thought of being female, wouldn't 'he' be even
more constantly turned on post-op?
If a study that was designed to find such obsession didn't result in better evidence than this, I'm sorely tempted to think that the obsession is at best rare enough to be meaningless.
Nfr
Quote from: Zythyra on October 28, 2008, 10:07:07 PM
If, for a hypothetical moment, we were to say that Blanchard/Bailey's autogynephelia and/or transvestic fetishism existed as a diagnosis, what's their recommended cure for it? SRS? HRT? Full time transition? Occasional cross-dressing? Inquiring minds want to know.
Z
An interesting question.......and the answer is: Blanchard regards SRS for AGs legitimate treatment. At least that's the position he maintained for years at Jurassic Clarke. A growing number of psychiatrists however disagree with him on that and will not write letters for those who fall on the AG side.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 09:21:43 AM
An interesting question.......and the answer is: Blanchard regards SRS for AGs legitimate treatment. At least that's the position he maintained for years at Jurassic Clarke. A growing number of psychiatrists however disagree with him on that and will not write letters for those who fall on the AG side.
Amoungst those who embrace these theories, is there any consensus about the "success" of transitioning for AGs vs. Everyone Else? Are AGs as capable of blending and assimilating as Everyone Else?
~Kate~
Nicole, your constant need to psychoanalysis me is getting beyond old.......
You know little of my life, nothing of my day to day realities and frankly I do not share many of my personal opinions on trans issues. What you are doing is bordering on the obsessive. It is beyond a doubt offensive in the extreme. If this board had an Intergalactic Overlord Monitor, I'd be tempted to complain about it.
I have no reason to care much for transgenders, that is absolutely true. Your constant shots at my "self esteem" issues and "need for personal vindication" and "need to be real" are total bull...the fact is I am supremely comfortable within my own skin, my womanhood creds unquestioned by myself and almost everyone in my life, I have no passing issues and hell, I'm not even trans. I don't buy into "no trans left behind" and never will. I'm a feminist and I do draw personal distinctions. I do, however, treat people with respect until they give me reason not to and you are giving me ample reason not to.
Give it up.
Isn't it the problem with the concept of AG that it sees everything through the prism of testosterone-fueled sexuality and dismisses gender identity altogether?
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 05:25:27 AM
Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 06:06:32 PM
different maybe.... better or worse? no, the trans community seems to belive that younger is somehow better... or older is worse. i dont see that as the case, but surely the most stuborn amungst us must see there are people who transition as soon as they can, and some who will live 30-40 years then do it. It seems quite cut to me... dispite plenty doing it at all ages as you say, theres seems distinct groupings however in the averages.
What you are seeing is a much higher percentage of AGs among older transitioners. Now I won't pass judgment on who or who isn't a "woman" but I will observe that non-transwomen know other women and those AGs are the ones who typically have so so so much trouble with "passing".......and it ain't appearance. Several of my women friends are PCOS, a hormonal condition with high amounts of testeostrone. They all had problems being "accepted" among other women before treatment despite very female norm bodies.
So you *ARE* reading the thread, but choosing not to reply to my direct question to you.
Does this mean you concede my point that your position is hypocritical and damaging too the community as a whole?
Or are you holding your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALLALALLALALL I CAN'T HEAR YOU
Why does it matter how someone gets here? Once they're here, they're here. The only thing left to do is to help them transition.
We do not need another gatekeeper sorting out "classic" and "AG" transsexuals.
The evidence overwhelmingly shows the autogynephilic feelings decrease post-op, did you ever think that conceivably it's just one more in a large array of coping mechanisms?
WHY must you create a divide and insist that different groups even exist?
We all reach that point in our lives where we simply can not continue living as a man. We all reach that decision point and either decide to suicide, or to go through with the transition. How long and how well we cope prior to that decision point has a lot to do with environment, upbringing, personal, familial and financial considerations.
So, a Transsexual who can't transition imagines herself as a woman to get off, but hasn't yet admitted that she *is* a woman.... I call that a coping mechanism, not a sexual deviant who shares nothing in common with "true" transsexuals.
You've said it yourself, you're not a Transsexual, you're a mosaic chimera intersex who's chosen to live in the female gender, so from whence do you derive your power to apply a label to someone else, invalidating their experience and expect it to stick? Why do you or anyone else get to say who is and isn't a "true" transsexual?
Yes, I expect an answer. I expect it in calm logic, and not the emotional filibuster you've been using. You're dodging me, and it's either because I've stated uncomfortable truths, or because you can't differentiate my persistent pursuit of consistency of logic and civil rights for all, and instead think I'm attacking you personally.
Like I stated earlier, I am not attacking you personally. I am attacking your position and asking you to defend it. I don't care who you are, I don't believe that anyone has the right to label another human being against their will, and I believe in this case it is harmful to the community as a whole to cause this division.
We need to stand up to the gatekeepers, not become their lapdogs, or nothing will ever change.
Quote from: soldierjane on October 29, 2008, 09:36:16 AM
Isn't it the problem with the concept of AG that it sees everything through the prism of testosterone-fueled sexuality and dismisses gender identity altogether?
Yes, it's my understanding that they're saying there is no such thing as Gender Identity. It's a myth, an illusion, an erroneous conclusion people use to justify their actions and behavior.
There would only be two motivations to transition:
1) Effeminate gay men who see it making life easier for themselves, since being effeminate as a female is accepted by society. AND they can get more (and straight) men for sex
2) Hetero men who are in love with the idea of themselves as women, in an odd kind of romantic/sexual dynamic directed towards the self rather than another person. One becomes their own romantic/sexual partner, and the only way to fulfill the relationship is to transition
That's my take on it anyway...
~Kate~
Flutter:
Simple answer......there is no "community", what there is is a ramble of people with unrelated issues and conditions, some of whom demand others accept their imposed labels.......which I refuse to do. Hell, the entire HBS vs. the transgenders issues is actually one of HBS people refusing a label and the TGs insisting they wear it anyway for some perceived legitimacy coattailled off it........
I know a bunch of post op crossdressers.......they remain crossdressers. It isn't the surgery, it's the neurology. Crossdressed body, crossdressed genitials......it's still crossdressing. One is either a woman or they are not.
Plain enough for you?
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 09:49:15 AM
I know a bunch of post op crossdressers.......they remain crossdressers...
Is there a noticable difference though, in terms of assimilation into society and happiness overall, between postop CDrs and postop TSs?
~Kate~
My two cents worth on the whole thing.
Any shrink who takes the easy road out by using the definition I found at the Wikipedia site is lazy, inept, and should be run out of the profession.
What a bunch of hogwash.
Sarah L.
Quote from: Kate on October 29, 2008, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 09:49:15 AM
I know a bunch of post op crossdressers.......they remain crossdressers...
Is there a noticable difference though, in terms of assimilation into society and happiness overall, between postop CDrs and postop TSs?
~Kate~
Asked and answered.......several times, no one here liked the answer. The AGs have a lousy post surgical satisfaction track record and a high rate of personal acceptance post transitioned issues.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 09:55:04 AM
Asked and answered.......several times, no one here liked the answer. The AGs have a lousy post surgical satisfaction track record and a high rate of personal acceptance post transitioned issues.
So if someone is not completely happy after transition they are a post-op crossdresser instead of a transsexual woman? Is that what you are saying, or is there some other criterion you can use to decide who is what?
Nfr
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 09:49:15 AM
Flutter:
Simple answer......there is no "community", what there is is a ramble of people with unrelated issues and conditions, some of whom demand others accept their imposed labels.......which I refuse to do. Hell, the entire HBS vs. the transgenders issues is actually one of HBS people refusing a label and the TGs insisting they wear it anyway for some perceived legitimacy coattailled off it........
I know a bunch of post op crossdressers.......they remain crossdressers. It isn't the surgery, it's the neurology. Crossdressed body, crossdressed genitials......it's still crossdressing. One is either a woman or they are not.
Plain enough for you?
There is no community because people seek to legitimize their own experience by belittling the experience of others.
Have these "post op crossdressers" told you they were still men? Can you provide a reference to this study you state 1) finds a way to differentiate the two groups and 2) shows their satisfaction ratings post-op?
This seems entirely to subjective to have such concrete figures as you mentioned earlier. And if these "post-op crossdressers" don't apply the term to themselves, or consider themselves women, what right do you have to tell them they are not?
How would you feel if I said you weren't a woman simply because you were born with a penis despite being a mosaic chimera? Do I have a right or a special insight that allows me to invalidate your reality?
Would you say a Boi in the lesbian scene isn't a woman because she acts and dresses like a man?
I'm sorry to pop your solipsistic bubble here, but why do you get to pick the labels?
Quote from: Kate on October 29, 2008, 09:48:05 AM
Quote from: soldierjane on October 29, 2008, 09:36:16 AM
Isn't it the problem with the concept of AG that it sees everything through the prism of testosterone-fueled sexuality and dismisses gender identity altogether?
Yes, it's my understanding that they're saying there is no such thing as Gender Identity. It's a myth, an illusion, an erroneous conclusion people use to justify their actions and behavior.
There would only be two motivations to transition:
1) Effeminate gay men who see it making life easier for themselves, since being effeminate as a female is accepted by society. AND they can get more (and straight) men for sex
2) Hetero men who are in love with the idea of themselves as women, in an odd kind of romantic/sexual dynamic directed towards the self rather than another person. One becomes their own romantic/sexual partner, and the only way to fulfill the relationship is to transition
That's my take on it anyway...
~Kate~
That was my point. I think that the concept of AG applied to TS issues is based on misperceptions and no matter how much explanation we do after the fact, it still won't work because the basic tenets are wrong, the categorization is wrong at the root. Discussing the prevalence or non prevalence of AG among a certain population, for example, is just hot air. Besides, the contempt it shows for transmen and their stories should really raise a flag.
But of course, if someone wants to call themselves AG, be my guest. Same if you want to call yourself '->-bleeped-<-' or any of those things; just don't expect much intellectual respect I guess.
Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
This is getting too silly politically correct... people like anne laurence arnt in a stage. regardless of how they identify, identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession... Im afraid anyone who IDENTIFIES as being attracted to themselves as women is rather confused, and deffinately male in this instance.
Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.
There was at least one study (someone posted it at BL) that reported natal women identified as AG at the same rate as transwomen. I think a lot of people are just judging the "womanhood" of other transitioners based on how well they pass, which I think is ridiculous and shameful. There are a lot of women who act butch but are still women. If they were male bodied, they would probably have a lot more trouble passing. Discrimination against butch acting women is a notoriously contemptible type of misogyny.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 29, 2008, 10:14:43 AM
I think a lot of people are just judging the "womanhood" of other transitioners based on how well they pass, which I think is ridiculous and shameful.
But not really new. Lookism is alive and well in our community as well as in the larger female community.
Quote from: flutter on October 29, 2008, 10:07:38 AM
There is no community because people seek to legitimize their own experience by belittling the experience of others.
Have these "post op crossdressers" told you they were still men? Can you provide a reference to this study you state 1) finds a way to differentiate the two groups and 2) shows their satisfaction ratings post-op?
This seems entirely to subjective to have such concrete figures as you mentioned earlier. And if these "post-op crossdressers" don't apply the term to themselves, or consider themselves women, what right do you have to tell them they are not?
How would you feel if I said you weren't a woman simply because you were born with a penis despite being a mosaic chimera? Do I have a right or a special insight that allows me to invalidate your reality?
Would you say a Boi in the lesbian scene isn't a woman because she acts and dresses like a man?
I'm sorry to pop your solipsistic bubble here, but why do you get to pick the labels?
I get to pick MY label and who I associate with as "community", not you. You don't get the right to tell me I'm anything.....and if you called me a man, I'd laugh in your face because your opinion on that issue means less than nothing to me...you sure do insist on me being blunt with you don't you?
I have my private opinions on the gender of those I meet, I mostly keep that private and go with what they tell me they are.....that's called politeness and common (most uncommon in transland apparently) curtesy.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 09:21:43 AM
An interesting question.......and the answer is: Blanchard regards SRS for AGs legitimate treatment. At least that's the position he maintained for years at Jurassic Clarke. A growing number of psychiatrists however disagree with him on that and will not write letters for those who fall on the AG side.
Thanks!
One more question, relating to your sig line, what kind of cookies? ;)
Z
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 09:35:16 AM
Nicole, your constant need to psychoanalysis me is getting beyond old.......
You know little of my life, nothing of my day to day realities and frankly I do not share many of my personal opinions on trans issues. What you are doing is bordering on the obsessive. It is beyond a doubt offensive in the extreme. If this board had an Intergalactic Overlord Monitor, I'd be tempted to complain about it.
I have no reason to care much for transgenders, that is absolutely true. Your constant shots at my "self esteem" issues and "need for personal vindication" and "need to be real" are total bull...the fact is I am supremely comfortable within my own skin, my womanhood creds unquestioned by myself and almost everyone in my life, I have no passing issues and hell, I'm not even trans. I don't buy into "no trans left behind" and never will. I'm a feminist and I do draw personal distinctions. I do, however, treat people with respect until they give me reason not to and you are giving me ample reason not to.
Give it up.
You earned our collective disrespect first with your dishonest reporting and megalomania.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 29, 2008, 10:34:46 AM
You earned our collective disrespect first with your dishonest reporting and megalomania.
My reporting is totally honest....my source impeccable. My "megalomania" is actually you don't like I know who I am and my own comfort with that........proving the point I made to Nicole.
Nothing but insults?........no rational discussion? Tsk tsk and I'm the one with issues?
And just how was it honest of you to title your article "New study confirms probable genetic cause for classic transsexuality?" You revise and misconstrue facts to sell your assumptions. And that is a pattern of behavior you exhibit. Everything you post is suspect.
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: flutter on October 29, 2008, 10:07:38 AM
There is no community because people seek to legitimize their own experience by belittling the experience of others.
Have these "post op crossdressers" told you they were still men? Can you provide a reference to this study you state 1) finds a way to differentiate the two groups and 2) shows their satisfaction ratings post-op?
This seems entirely to subjective to have such concrete figures as you mentioned earlier. And if these "post-op crossdressers" don't apply the term to themselves, or consider themselves women, what right do you have to tell them they are not?
How would you feel if I said you weren't a woman simply because you were born with a penis despite being a mosaic chimera? Do I have a right or a special insight that allows me to invalidate your reality?
Would you say a Boi in the lesbian scene isn't a woman because she acts and dresses like a man?
I'm sorry to pop your solipsistic bubble here, but why do you get to pick the labels?
I get to pick MY label and who I associate with as "community", not you. You don't get the right to tell me I'm anything.....and if you called me a man, I'd laugh in your face because your opinion on that issue means less than nothing to me...you sure do insist on me being blunt with you don't you?
I have my private opinions on the gender of those I meet, I mostly keep that private and go with what they tell me they are.....that's called politeness and common (most uncommon in transland apparently) curtesy.
So, you're telling me you dismiss anyone who calls you a male, but yet you privately hold in your own mind opinions on the gender identity of others contra to their own definition of themselves?
Regardless of whether or not you express these opinions, is not having them hypocritical?
I'm not telling you who is and isn't *Your* community, but you've already excluded yourself from this one by bragging about your mosaic chimera condition, and that it validates your position as a woman, therefore granting you free reign to judge others.
You still haven't answered why there needs to be different classifications.
You just proved my point by saying no one else gets to label you, so why do you get the right to apply labels? Why does anyone get the right to apply labels to any one else.
And yes, I am forcing you to be blunt because I'm backing you into a corner in the hopes some self-realitization of the hypocrisy of your position will spring forth through forcing you to defend it repeatedly.
And finally, you site this "impeccable source" without providing evidence or credentials, so how are we to assess the validity of your source? Are you sure your source isn't telling you what you want to hear so you'll leave her alone, and that's why she put you under an injunction *not* to say her name? How do we know you're not delusional, or that you're simply so pushy that she's lying to you to get you to go away.
Prove it. Empirical evidence. On the table.
Provide it, or tell me why you can't.
Actually is it an oldfashioned and in many places out of practice that concept or diagnose of ->-bleeped-<-. Where I live even the gender clinic that is not trans-friendly does not believe anymore on it.
It seems like we are in a hopeless "loop" here, just going around in circles and not getting anywhere.
Time to relax and just enjoy life.
Sarah L.
I get to pick MY label and who I associate with as "community", not you.
I happen to think and believe that statement is true.
However, if you get to do that, so does everyone else. Their choices for who they are, and what they are, and how they describe it are no more, or no less valid than anybodies choices.
That being said, any outside opinion about those choices, any sort of values-based assessment as to how much or how little the person resembles that, are equally irrelevant.
No one gets to say "I determine for me, and for everyone else too."
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 29, 2008, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 29, 2008, 10:34:46 AM
You earned our collective disrespect first with your dishonest reporting and megalomania.
My reporting is totally honest....my source impeccable. My "megalomania" is actually you don't like I know who I am and my own comfort with that........proving the point I made to Nicole.
Nothing but insults?........no rational discussion? Tsk tsk and I'm the one with issues?
You don't read much of what you say, do you, Cathryn?
When one can read, like it or not, one finds nuance, habits of usage and written demeanor, that come through as clearly on a board or in a blog as they come through with personal contact.
Unlike you I pay attention: it's what I have been trained to do. I do it well.
The only points you ever manage to prove in all of this are that you have an ideological POV that overrides all else, nothing quite matters to you as much as the self-impression that you are "right" and that others wish to "exile" you. That, dearest, is what you show, again and again. It's not what I simply make up.
That you choose to alienate yourself and then claim gloriously to be alienated because you are "right" shows a consistent unwillingness to imagine that your own life is as wholesome and as accepted as you claim. You would like it to be so, but you have these suspicions of failure, do you not?
No, I have never met you, but I have met other human beings, many and I count you among the human community.
We humans don't have a entire nuanced repetoire of various personalities and ways of being. We mostly fall within certain very recognizable patterns and those become evident to one who observes. Plus, it's always a good idea to check with some other observers to see what one doesn't see. I have and do.
I believe you are nailed, dear, and don't care for that. Just look at you. One supposed Cybelline amidst the crowd of wild-beasts who surround you. You live your own myth, Attis.
It may come as a shock to you, but when people pay attention they can see to the heart and through the mind. It's a skill one develops. Not magic, not fake. It simply occurs.
I suspect you don't pay very much attention to what is said to you and how when you are running one of these
auto de fe masquerades that you run at various places.
Do I hate you? No. Do I feel for your pain? Yes. Now you may complain to Dennis as you wish, but I do not think that anyone is going to find an attack in anything I have written you.
You hurt; I feel badly for you. And this thread and others like it are simply the mythography of that made real on this board or at some blog.
You and I are visible in what we write and how we write for one who can read with ability. All I have done is to point out that all of us are visible in our concerns and the ways we write about them and the behaviors we express on this and other boards.
I'd hardly imagine a valid complaint could arise from that.
I truly do wish you Peace, beyond all else.
Nichole