This article really helps me in my doubts as to whether I am really transsexual.  Reading the description of Group 3 fits me to a T. I'm going to share this article with my GT this week. Thanks for sharing it!

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 21, 2013, 07:19:05 PM
II do think it's important to remember that any model is going to be a best-fit and will invariably have to leave some people out. Basically, it's awesome if you recognize yourself in that article and it helps you to better understand your situation/needs. That's really great! But it's also totally cool if you don't relate to the article; it doesn't make you any lesser or anything. You do you.

I guess I just worry sometimes that people might end up reading things like this, and not being able to relate and end up feeling even more alone and lonely. So if that's you, don't be sad; you are awesome too, promise!

Thank you for saying this. I guess I kind of fit into the G3 category but not well. I'm definitely not a 1. There were so many little parts that don't fit.  Just a little tired of being the exception that proves the rule.

However, it still helped.  Thank you for the article. 

Quote from: Carrie Liz on October 17, 2013, 12:15:35 PM


http://www.avitale.com/developmentalreview.htm

Ann suggests GID can be classified into groups based on inappropriate androgenization of the brain at a critical stage of embryonic development.

This would not only confront religious belief that people are born male or female, also this could be seen as reducing humans down to be the same as every other animal on this planet. This would bring into question the fundamental premise of religion that humans are the "chosen ones" made in God's image with an after-live awaiting us, unlike all the other creatures of the Earth.

There will be furious opposition to any science that tries to prove GID is pre-birth.

Quote from: genderhell on November 04, 2013, 07:21:43 PM
There will be furious opposition to any science that tries to prove GID is pre-birth.

I hate to tell you this - but that ship has sailed over 20 years ago. There is already solid medical evidence (I might even say proof) that the underlying causes of this condition pre date birth in a lot of people. This is being widely taught in medical schools as fact already! It's only the "head in the sand" mob in the USA, whose minds are so made up, that they are trying to deal with it by completely ignoring/suppressing any facts, and what is now  well known!

I could seriously cite you at least 10 or 15 reputable European and Australian studies in this area, including one done right here in the UK by someone at my medical school, whom I see every day. There are even a few from America.

The only thing that is really under debate is the precise mechanism by which people move from a hidden and unexpressed condition, to one which is actively expressed, pressing, and life changing.

Quote from: Doctorwho? on November 06, 2013, 08:41:44 AM
I could seriously cite you at least 10 or 15 reputable European and Australian studies in this area, including one done right here in the UK by someone at my medical school, whom I see every day. There are even a few from America.

Would you know if there's a website that's a central source for all these studies?  Perhaps a good wiki idea for Susan's if there isn't one.   I would guess most of these studies are published in journals that you need to pay to read.  I would really like to read them or at least the summaries.

Thank you so much for posting this Doctorwho. 

I'm glad to see people are getting something out of this article.

I read it and my first thought was, great, another psychologist trying to come up with a Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor of a "disorder". However, I realize that it does help people to have some name to put with the particular way they feel.

For me, it's just more unnecessary diagnosis. It's just more trying to narrow people down into tidy little boxes. It's also just someone else's "theory" and parts of it I read were, frankly, way off for me personally (such as, "These individuals rarely marry, preferring instead to partner with women who may or may not identify as lesbian." I guess I'm "rare".). It's applying majority rule to individuals. Which is why I have a personal distaste for much of psychology.

On another note, I am a firm believer that being "gender variant" can be linked to events in utero in some cases (like mine). But I also believe that these types of things do naturally occur. Meaning, they're valid on the gender spectrum ... that there isn't just 100% male and 100% female. Just look at some of the stats for intersex conditions, such as 1 in 100 people born do not have a "standard" male or female body. And so I believe that's how it is when your brain chemistry has been effected in the womb. You may have a fully functioning body, but you're not the typical male or female. And I don't think that's abnormal, it's psychologists and a lot of society who do.

Psychologists were the ones that originally theorized that gender is a learned "identity". I don't believe that. I believe you pop out into the world with that identity hardwired into you – whether it be male, or female, or anywhere in between the two. Even in cases where people may "decide" they're trans* at a certain point, it's only because they've found a definition for how they've been feeling for chunks of their lives. So I can agree with the generalization that most "gender variant" people have felt something is "not right" for some time or in some instances of their lives. I can agree that the social constructs of gender are learned. You learn from your earliest examples what society thinks men and women should be and do and look like (because in the good old US of A that pretty much is your only options for "socially acceptable"). If you're not distinctly playing for one team or the other, you're an outcast and you can just plan on those "not right" feelings being intensified through these social expectations that you were never cut out to meet in the first place.

Quote from: Carrie Liz on October 17, 2013, 12:15:35 PM
Yesterday night, I stumbled upon this article.

I know for a long time I've had issues with the term "gender dysphoria," because really all it means is a feeling of being unwell with one's gender. And it really doesn't do much to explain where it comes from, what it is, or how to treat it. This article rectifies these things by arguing for a new term, "Gender Expression Deprivation Anxiety Disorder." In other words, the experience of dysphoria isn't just a feeling of being unwell with one's gender, it's coming from a lack of ability to express oneself's internal gender identity.

I know for me this has been a helpful definition, because just using the term "dysphoria" when I'm feeling bad about myself, it really doesn't say anything, just that I'm feeling bad. And when people talk of being a man or a woman trapped in the wrong body, I didn't know that this really applied to me, because I didn't really feel that strongly about it. I didn't feel "trapped" per se, just a lingering feeling of unhappiness about who I was. The definition as proposed, though, says everything about the problem. That it comes not from just a general feeling of unwellness, but from a lack of self-expression, a lack of being oneself in regards to gender.

This article really helped me to clarify in my mind what I was feeling, and what I have been feeling my whole life. So I highly recommend it. And even if you don't agree with the definition part, this article contains some very profound stories of how gender dysphoria manifests itself through different stages of life. Reading this, SO many of the experiences resonated with me. The experiences from childhood to early adulthood felt like they were hitting me right in the gut in terms of self-application. And some of the experiences from those later in life than me really served as a cautionary tale, as though saying "this is your future if you don't deal with this."

I hope it helps someone else as much as it helped me.

http://www.avitale.com/developmentalreview.htm

The basic summary of this article is as follows:

Living in conflict with one of the basic tenets of existence (Am I male or am I female?) is understandably anxiety provoking. This fact leads me to suggest that Gender Identity Disorder as this conflict is described in the DSM IV, is not an appropriate descriptor. I suggest here as I have elsewhere (Vitale, 1997, 2001) that instead the condition be termed Gender Expression Deprivation Anxiety Disorder (GEDAD). After explaining my thinking on gender expression deprivation anxiety, I will describe how this anxiety, if left untreated, is manifested in each of the five developmental stages of life: confusion and rebellion in childhood, false hopes and disappointment in adolescence, hesitant compliance in early adulthood, feelings of self induced entrapment in middle age, and if still untreated, depression and resignation in old age.

you mean DSM 5 ?

Thanks for sharing, it was definitely an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it.
The only thing I was wondering about is the absence of a group 4, meaning female assigned but male identifying with similar characteristics to group 3.
The article seems to suggest that all ftm individuals acted masculine since childhood and never attempted overcompensation, like typical female activities or outfits and so on due to society being more accepting of them. But from my little experience I know (either personally or for having heard their stories on the web) of many ftms who lived a relatively typical female childhood and adolescence) and always felt distress over their assigned sex but never showing it  openly ( just like group 3 mtf's). Let's just think about all the late transitioners who married and had children before accepting who they were. Not all of them were masculine females to begin with.
Me too, I lived extremely girly phases trying to deny what I felt. I was never able to express myself the way I felt right for fear of other people's opinion.
I think this hypothetic group 4 exists, but I am sure there are reasons for not including it. Anyone else thinking so?
( I still liked the article, it made me think about a lot of subjects and gave me new keys of interpretation for many feelings)

Quote from: Sacha on November 13, 2013, 10:15:19 AM
you mean DSM 5 ?

Now, yes, but this article is a few years old, so it was technically written in regards to the definition as presented in DSM-IV.

Awww... this article... In the beginning of this year, when slowly but steadily all things started to collapse around and inside of me, I was desperately searching and reading all articles I could find. This one looked quite "scientific" and as I was reading through it, how it described different stages in one's life, how precisely it had described my life... The message it sent me was - I was totally screwed, all my life-long efforts had been in vain and this... feeling is never ever going to go away. What scared the hell out of me was that apparently I would not be able to deal with this alone and I would have to tell my shameful story to someone else. I am pretty sure, if I had a gun back then... well, but I had not . About an hour later, having read this article, I finally accepted myself and decided to proceed with something (I had no idea what at that time) to avoid the bleak scenario of living remainder of my life with an untreated GID.
I still see that day when I read this article as my second birthday .

Thank you for sharing this :-)

The G3 parts have resonated so much in me, it has helped me pave a large portion of my yellow brick road toward acceptance of who I really am, and how denial and suppression of the truth never helps..

I was reading the whole thing with tears running down my face ...which made reading quite tricky
Lots of food for thought...

Thanks again xx

I actually used this article in my most recent therapy session. My therapist was already familiar with Anne Vitale's work, so I didn't need to explain it what it was about, though in retrospect, I should have reread it immediately beforehand so that I wouldn't have had to waste time looking up the relevant passages. Oh well. I had brought it up near the end of the previous session, but didn't have time to go into it, so these things happen.

Anyway, I talked about how the experiences of Group 3 really seemed to mirror my own, especially during the first two stages. I was the gentle, if weird, kid that never quite fit in; that knew that they were different early on; that had little interest in sports or rough-and-tumble play, and tended to play by themselves. While I didn't play with the girls that often, nor was I opposed to it the way many boys were. With adolescence, I never dated; I experimented with my mother's clothes; I spent a colossal amount of time engaged in fantasy, where I could pretend I was female. I often wished I would go to bed a boy and wake up a girl. And of course, there was that constant anxiety that I could never express how I really felt, lest I be castigated by my peers. Despite this, I never took on the defensive, hyper-masculine persona that many do, because I knew it wasn't me; my own sense of self-integrity would not allow me to embrace what I knew was a lie. I think this may have a had a lot to do with why I was picked on so much, but it also explains why I don't match the description of Group 3 in Early Adulthood quite as well as the first two stages. That being said, I can easily see how if things had been different, I might have turned out the way that many in Group 3 did. That's especially scary in regards to the sexism, as I've always found misogyny to be particularly odious. Regardless, I still have that sense of embarrassment that I feel the way that I do.

Interestingly enough, I find a lot of this mirrors what my own introspection over the past year has told me. This is real. This has been going on my entire life. I haven't seen it because I didn't want to accept it.

So again, thanks. This is proving to be quite useful.