Wow - thanks for sharing that Pamela. It's funny left to my own devices I may not have married. Certain circumstances aligned to allow me to stay with the same woman for the last 22 years. The calender method was used to start a family and then physical intimacy didn't happen. I do like women but the physical stuff isn't always naturally at ease so doesn't happen. My issues are largely to blame I think. Still thankful about life in general- even though I'm not a woman.
I am working on the woman thing all the same !. Looking forward to seeing how your transition unfolds (exciting).
Wishing you the very best, Kirsten

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Quote from: Ryuichi13 on July 31, 2018, 09:24:09 PM
This is a very interesting line of thinking. 

This is a very interesting line of thinking. 

If I'm reading this correctly, you are asking "how many of us older people that are transitioning/have transitioned are hetero or asexual." am I correct?

I can say that as a FTM, I have always been attracted to males, so since transitioning to male, I suppose am now considered gay.  That blew my mind more to make that realization than it did realizing that I was trans, since being trans is something I've basically known my entire life.

If I am wrong in trying to figure out your line of thinking, please let me know, so that I may answer your question/s properly.

Ryuichi

Hello Ryuchi

Just to clarify I am saying that in my experience most transpeople who transitioned or are transitioning later in life just like you and me are likely be gay/lesbian/(attracted to people the same as their true gender) or bisexual or a fair proportion asexual and usually NOT hetero(attracted to people opposite to their true gender) and hence you and I are both IMHO what is expected.

Like you I realized I was trans long before I realized I had lesbian tendencies - to be precise I am primarily asexual with minor lesbian tendencies.

Best wishes to you

Pamela

Quote from: b3ckettn3lson on August 01, 2018, 04:16:36 AM
I wonder how many of us, either ftm or mtf, are asexual though because of our own dysphoria? I always thought I was bi, but anytime a relationship started getting intimate, I was just like "nope!" I am just so dysphoric and uncomfortable in my own body, I don't want anyone near me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi, b3ckettn3lson!

Welcome to Susan's.

It sounds like it is quite common for us to be asexual.  I didn't have the brain chemistry to socialize fully as a male, nor the social context to socialize as a female.  So, while I am attracted to women exclusively (men are like an alien species to me), my sex life has been mostly, though not totally, hypothetical.

Please feel free to stop by the Introductions forum to tell the members about yourself.  Here is some information that we like to share with new members:

Site Terms of Service & Rules to Live By	Standard Terms & Definitions	Post Ranks (including when you can upload an avatar)
Reputation rules	Cautionary Note	Photo, avatars, & signature images policy

Quote from: Kirsteneklund7 on July 31, 2018, 11:19:33 PM
I came across this a few years ago during a bout of gender angst. It made me think G3 is me ! It is from Dr Anne Vitales "  The Gendered Self " It was a eureka moment for me. I discovered that although I wanted to be a girl since kindergarten - I was a secondary or late onset transsexual. This helped me to start dealing with the issue. Fortunately in the present day a late onset or secondary transsexual can access treatment. In the 1980's for instance only early onset or primary transsexuals could access treatment to transition ( in many cases).

(Quote),
Group One (G1) is best described as those natal males who have a high degree of cross-sexed gender identity. In these individuals, we can hypothesize that the prenatal androgenization process--if there was any at all--was minimal, leaving the default female identity intact. Furthermore, the expression of female identity of those individuals appears impossible or very difficult for them to conceal.

Group Two (G2) is composed of natal females who almost universally report a life- long history of rejecting female dress conventions along with, girls' toys and activities, and have a strong distaste for their female secondary sex characteristics. These individuals typically take full advantage of the social permissiveness allowed women in many societies to wear their hair short and dress in loose, gender-neutral clothing. These individuals rarely marry, preferring instead to partner with women who may or may not identify as lesbian. Group Two is the mirror image of Group One.

*snip*

I hope that helps others. It helped me deal with the whole predicament !
Kind regards, Kirsten.

I suppose I would be a FTM version of both G1 and G2.  For the record, I'm 56. 

I rejected female dress, toys and activities for the most part when I was younger, but I didn't have a distaste of my female parts.  Instead, I held on to the thought that "when I get reincarnated, I hope I come back as male."  Being Pagan and believing in reincarnation, that alleviated much of my dysphoria.  I didn't hate my female body, but I grew to accept that "not much can be done, I'm stuck with it this lifetime around."  I am so glad that I was wrong about "not being able to do anything" about being born the wrong gender!

My hair isn't short at all, my dreadlocks are down to my shoulder blades, but I did dress in jeans and t-shirts and tennis shoes for the most part.  Still do.  I married and even had a kid, but I definitely did not identify as lesbian.  I have always been interested in men and still am.  I suppose that makes me the "rare bird," as it were, or at least according to Dr. Vitales. 

I am so happy that I found out that not only am I not the only transgender person, but that there is something I can do to change to become my authentic self!

Thank you Kirsten, this was a very interesting snippet.

Oh, and to officially answer your question Pamela, I'm gay with absolutely no interest in females.

However, my partner is gender fluid due to financial and familial reasons.  It took me quite some time to become sexually attracted to his female body, so I suppose you can say that his female body is the exception to my "no females" rule.

Ryuichi   

I've chopped up and responded to several comments in this thread that I have found interesting or inaccurate. I hope no one is slighted if their remarks were overlooked or key points missed or if I expressed contradictory opinions. I removed some of what I had written for brevity, which is not my strong suite. Bringing sexuality into the discussion of gender tends to be a hot topic and sometimes pushes forum guidelines but is something I do find interesting but my perspective on the whole thing probably in the minority?

Quote from: pamelatransuk on July 31, 2018, 06:32:34 AM
It appears to me that a significant proportion of young transitioners are heterosexual meaning attracted to the opposite sex of their gender (or to the same sex as assigned at birth) with some bisexual whereas an equally significant proportion of older transitioners are lesbian/homosexual meaning attracted to the same sex as their gender (or to the opposite sex as assigned at birth) with some bisexual and also a significant proportion asexual.

I should stay out of this because this is exactly the type of topic that gets me in trouble but I have some definite opinions about all this that fall outside of the approved dogma so I will try to be as polite and PC as possible. As a friend of Kay Brown's and through study of her analytical essays of Blanchard's work, your observations and descriptions of young transitioners lines up pretty well with Blanchard's HSTS descriptor. Just sayin' - not making any kind of a value judgment.

QuoteI do not know at what approximate age point the former category changes to the latter category...

From a FAQ on transkids matching the early onset/early transition/ HSTS type:

"There are some differences in life arcs of Female-to-Male (FtM) and Male-To-Female (MTF) transkids.  The median age of transition for MTF of this type is 20 years old, with a range of early puberty to mid 20's.  More than 95% transition full time before the age of 25 and it is unheard of to find one who transitions full time after age 30."

Quote...or because before 2000 surgeons would often only perform surgeries on potential straight transpeople.

I had surgery in 1977. My surgeon's only requirement as far as my sexuality was concerned was that I not be legally married. However, the gatekeepers making the referrals for surgery may have had different ideas? Stressed to me as primary criteria over sexuality was that I be stable, had a job and could support myself and of course be passable with the ability to blend into the woodwork and have a normal life as a woman.

Quote from: KathyLauren on July 31, 2018, 06:45:10 AM
For a heterosexual trans person, the misfit would become more apparent earlier, giving them a greater motivation to transition sooner.

My gender atypicality (for a young boy) branded me as gay but I wasn't gay, I was a girl so I never saw my attractions as being any sort of misfit nor was I raised with any stigma attached to homosexuality, at least not after my biological parents divorced and my father left when I was six anyway. Unusual, I know, for a kid born at the beginning of 1955 but who I was attracted to was not a factor motivating me to transition as a teenager.

Quote from: MaryT on July 31, 2018, 07:20:20 AM
I agree with all of you but I suspect that the percentage of older heterosexual trans people would be recognised as much higher except that they have been absorbed by the community of homosexual cis people.  Safe opportunities for transition were much rarer in the past and if HRT began after puberty, many had no real chance of passing as women.

Wait. I'm confused? When you say "older heterosexual trans people", do you mean heterosexual in relation to one's birth sex such as an MTF trans woman being attracted to or in a relationship with another woman or do I have what you're saying backwards? Is this the type of scenario where you conjecture these partnerships have been absorbed into presumably cis lesbian culture?

As an older, primarily androphilically oriented person of teenage trans experience, neither my marriage to my husband or any of the relationships I've been in with men have been absorbed by the community of homosexual cis people. It's late and I may just be confused? Sorry.

QuoteBefore SRS permitted sexual sensitivity, even AMAB people who were attracted to other AMAB people were rarely approved for SRS, as they were regarded as deluded catamites who just presented as women to attract men.  Asexual people were more likely to be approved, perhaps because they were perceived as having less to lose.

Was this like in the 1930's or '50's or something? I go back pretty far with all this trans stuff and am not sure some of this type of information and how horrible things used to be isn't part myth and part transgender urban legend? I could be wrong. I really have no idea at all what other trans people were going through in the early 1970's when I was medically dealing with all this stuff which I'll admit was in a vacuum while my parents held my hand most of the way but at least I don't remember things being this terrible? Maybe part of that too was because I was treated like a medical curiosity because I was so young for the time and so clearly a rare textbook "primary" and or a Benjamin Type VI?

Quote from: pamelatransuk on July 31, 2018, 08:19:24 AM
...I know from previous posts that you just like me "knew" at an early age but we both deferred transition (or even seeking professional advice) till shall I say "middle age". So perhaps "early onset" and "late onset" should be increased to 3 categories:

1. Early onset and taking positive action early...

Let me interrupt right here with a general thought or two and then a specific comment on your number 1.

I think all these terms we use like early onset/late onset, Blanchard's HSTS/->-bleeped-<- paradigm, primary/secondary, true/pseudo/classic, Vitale's G scale and even the old Benjamin scale are all basically just trying to say the same thing: some of us are not the same as the others. Clearly we have different types coming from different directions converging only because we're looking for the same outcome. This has been written about for decades. Acknowledging this doesn't assign superiority or inferiority to one "type" or the other but it would be foolish to think that each camp doesn't also harbor a bit of bias for their own tribe or even possibly a bit of animosity toward the other.

For example, most of the regulars here are familiar with the life and stories of our darling, Julia1996. The labels early, primary, HSTS, trans kid, G1, Type VI, etc., are clearly applicable and it is impossible to perceive her as anything but the enchanting young woman she is and even as a boy has always been but how many of you can actually relate to her experience or point to her life and say the trans aspects of it are just like yours or your story is the same? Very few I would imagine. Maaaybe 10% to 20%, maybe and probably less?

On the other hand, large numbers of you here fit the other and more widely seen pattern. Sure, there's some overlap and outliers but there is indeed a difference between those that could not help but deal openly with their transness as children and adolescents as a fundamental condition for living the rest of their lives and those that were able to hide it until later or those that didn't figure things out or were able to suppress it until they got older.

Not on this well moderated forum of course but have you ever seen so called early and late transitioners really get into it with one another? Those conversations deteriorate in a big hurry because we are so different and there's more to it than just age. As a classic early/primary HSTS trans kid myself, I met and made good email friends with a woman from here close to my own age that is the classic late transitioner. We've had some really great discussions about everything and share similar political views and interests but getting into early vs. late conversations one day saw a lot of shade thrown in each direction and we both had to step away to keep from pissing the other off or ruining our friendship.

My point is that whatever you call it, these differences are really real. One is not better or less than the other... just different and that's okay.

To elaborate on your number one category, I think "taking a positive action" is a bit of a misnomer, at least from my own experience. To quote a line from a post below discussing Anne Vitale's Group One type:

" Furthermore, the expression of female identity of those individuals appears impossible or very difficult for them to conceal."

Having this happen is not to be construed as an undertaking of a positive action or directed conscious thought, it is just something that happens organically and innately. We can't be or don't know how to be anything other than who we are and this happens long before any we have any hand in it or can take a positive action other than to just be. I have no idea what it is or why and I never really questioned it but even from my very earliest clear childhood memories, I've always known myself to be a girl and unconsciously behaved appropriately because that was just my nature and what else was I supposed to do? Certainly I was aware of what was expected of me as a boy but none of that just seemed right for me and I never expressed myself as such. Now if we're going to throw society and external factors into the plot, getting my ears pierced, shaving my legs and telling my parents at 15 that I could not live as a boy was a positive action but this was already after a lifetime of being outwardly and obviously cross-gendered.

Quote from: pamelatransuk on July 31, 2018, 08:26:34 AM
I know GCS was previously "primitive" not permitting sexual activity. Do you agree that the surgery changed to providing such around 1985 please? This is what I recall.

Oh my heavens no! Unless the couple dozen people I've had sex with, healthy marital relations with my husband and the thousands of orgasms I've had and continue to have were all just my imagination, this is not correct. I had sex reassignment surgery 41 years ago in 1977.

Quote from: MaryT on July 31, 2018, 02:02:21 PM
... Dr Georges Burou of Casablanca published his technique, which included the possibility of post-operative orgasms, in 1974 and it must have taken a while for his and other techniques that allowed orgasm to be become commonplace.

Burou's (1910-1987) first formal public presentation of his technique using penile skin to line the vagina took place at the Stanford University Medical School in 1973 but by then and since the late 1950's, he had performed around 3,000 trans surgeries at his Casablanca clinic. His technique was adopted by Dr. Edgerton at John's Hopkins in the 1960's and when contacted by Dr. Stanley Biber in 1968 for advice on how to do this surgery, Edgerton sent him diagrams of Burou's technique. Burou was not actually the first to try penile inversion instead of skin grafted from other places. Biber is said to have done 6,000 trans surgeries. I was/am one of his satisfied patients.

QuoteI just think that sexual orientation permitting, a trans woman in the role of "wife" to a gay cis man might find more fulfillment than a trans woman in the role of husband to a cis woman.

I would agree with your statement overall but seriously, how many cis gay men want to have a wife, especially if she has a vagina? In terms of "fulfillment", how about trans woman wife married to a cis straight dude in a heterosexual relationship as the gold standard?

Quote from: Kirsteneklund7 on July 31, 2018, 11:19:33 PM
... Fortunately in the present day a late onset or secondary transsexual can access treatment. In the 1980's for instance only early onset or primary transsexuals could access treatment to transition ( in many cases).

I am sorry but your timeline on this is inaccurate by at least a decade. In 1974, Dr. Norman Fisk out of the gender clinic at Stanford university coined the term "gender dysphoria" to account for those individuals presenting for treatment that fell outside of the narrowly defined guidelines of classic transsexualism but could nevertheless be helped by hormones, surgery, etc., This mindset spread fairly rapidly to other surgeons and clinics across the country or the U.S. at least, hence the rise of transgender people. I had surgery in 1977 when I was 22 and during my hospital stay, met other trans people for the first time. One was in her 30's and the other two were in their 50's.

QuoteAs a psychotherapist I have found female identified males (G1) to be clinically similar to male-identified females (G2). That is, individuals in both groups have little or no compunction against openly presenting themselves as the other sex. Further, they make little or no effort to engage in what they feel for them would be wrong gendered social practices (i.e., the gender role assigned at birth as the basis of authority). Although I have seen some notable exceptions, especially in male-identified females, these individuals--at the time of presentation for treatment--are rarely married or have children, are rarely involved in the corporate or academic culture and are typically involved in the service industry at a blue- or pink-collar level. With little investment in trying to live as their assigned birth sex and with a lot of practice in living as closely as possible to their desired sex, these individuals report relatively low levels of anxiety about their dilemma. For those who decide transition is in their best interest, they accomplish the change with relatively little difficulty, particularly compared to G3, female-identified males.

I am familiar with Vitale's work and have read this before but as a G1/primary/HSTS/trans kid (whatever) myself, it is shockingly accurate to read again except the "low levels of anxiety about their dilemma" part. I found being a teenage girl then young woman without the proper female bits to be most distressing. The rest of it though from not engaging in wrong gendered social practices, non-involvement in corporate or academic culture, pink-collar industry (I did office/clerical/secretarial work from 19 until I was in my 40's) and transitioning with little difficulty is spot on. It's kind of spooky, actually.

Quote from: Janes Groove on July 31, 2018, 11:43:58 PM
I'm 60 and I can tell you that back when I was growing up being Gay was a lot bigger deal than it is today.
Back then you would get beat up if you were even suspected of being a ->-bleeped-<-got.  The thinking then was that the bully was doing you a favor by toughening you up and helping you to not grow up and be a ->-bleeped-<-got which was pretty much the worst thing that could ever happen to a person.   It was kind of the bully's good deed for the day.  This was all commonly accepted logic and done in the full view and support of parents, teachers and preachers.

I'm 63½ and I approve of this message! Getting bullied and beat up was considered a character building exercise and pretty much describes the first 10 of my school years. Being seen as a girly sissy ->-bleeped-<- queer homo boy painted you with the brightest and biggest target, a lesson I quickly learned in kindergarten, not that I could or wanted to do anything about it.

QuoteIt was terrorism and was a pretty effective way to drive a person deep into the closet.

If you had a closet to hide in... I didn't or couldn't. Curiously, it was an attack by a group of homophobic boys in 1970 when I was 15 that put me in the hospital and took a month out of school to recover from that acted as the catalyst for reopening up the dialog with my parents about living as a girl even though they had already figured that out well before I said anything about it. They knew I wasn't just gay. Being a boy never made any sense to me or them.

If you want history and have a week to read, try A Gender Variance Who's Who

If you have another week to read and are interested in analysis of scientific research, visit On the Science of Changing Sex but be forewarned, Kay Brown is a staunch proponent of Blanchard's two taxonomy theory, is heavily biased and widely reviled for her support of Blanchard but there is a wealth of information available there that's definitely worth absorbing if one has an open mind.

Brilliant reply Lisa! I do actually love it.! It is hard to out debate a woman who has actually lived it.  More than a few grains of truth going on there. Also I am looking forward to your suggested reading.
As a side note a good friend of mine who has always prefered men and was a showgirl in the 80's had no problem accessing treatment to fully transition. Someone else I know who prefered women and presented male had trouble being taken seriously. They have now transitioned post 2010. The criteria seems to have been more stringent then. Small sample of 2 people I know. This was Australia as well. I would love to hear more about this subject.
Lisa you rock by the way.
Kirsten.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Quote from: pamelatransuk on July 31, 2018, 08:26:34 am

I know GCS was previously "primitive" not permitting sexual activity. Do you agree that the surgery changed to providing such around 1985 please? This is what I recall.

Oh my heavens no! Unless the couple dozen people I've had sex with, healthy marital relations with my husband and the thousands of orgasms I've had and continue to have were all just my imagination, this is not correct. I had sex reassignment surgery 41 years ago in 1977.

Hello Lisa

I thank you truly for all the information you have provided on this thread and you have certainly educated me significantly.

I apologise that I mistakenly recollected GCS was not sensually/orgasmically successful till around 1985. I stand corrected - clearly it was so considerably earlier.

Pamela

Quote from: MaryT on July 31, 2018, 07:20:20 am

I agree with all of you but I suspect that the percentage of older heterosexual trans people would be recognised as much higher except that they have been absorbed by the community of homosexual cis people.  Safe opportunities for transition were much rarer in the past and if HRT began after puberty, many had no real chance of passing as women.

Wait. I'm confused? When you say "older heterosexual trans people", do you mean heterosexual in relation to one's birth sex such as an MTF trans woman being attracted to or in a relationship with another woman or do I have what you're saying backwards? Is this the type of scenario where you conjecture these partnerships have been absorbed into presumably cis lesbian culture?

As an older, primarily androphilically oriented person of teenage trans experience, neither my marriage to my husband or any of the relationships I've been in with men have been absorbed by the community of homosexual cis people. It's late and I may just be confused? Sorry.

Hello again

I'm pretty sure Mary was using the same description as I and by heterosexual transpeople meaning heterosexual by true gender (hence MTF attracted to men). Perhaps you could confirm please, Mary?

Thanks to you both.

Pamela

Quote from: Lisa_K on August 01, 2018, 10:41:46 PM

Wait. I'm confused? When you say "older heterosexual trans people", do you mean heterosexual in relation to one's birth sex such as an MTF trans woman being attracted to or in a relationship with another woman or do I have what you're saying backwards? Is this the type of scenario where you conjecture these partnerships have been absorbed into presumably cis lesbian culture?

I meant that pre-op or non-op trans women, attracted to men, may have formed relationships with gay men and continued to do so, for many years, without feeling as repressed as lesbian trans women living male roles in traditional marriages.  For that reason, I thought that they may be less desperate to transition, even in later life.  This is only a suspicion, based on no personal experience or data.

Quote from: Lisa_K on August 01, 2018, 10:41:46 PM
Was this like in the 1930's or '50's or something? I go back pretty far with all this trans stuff and am not sure some of this type of information and how horrible things used to be isn't part myth and part transgender urban legend? ...

I don't doubt that you are right.  As I mentioned in one of my posts, I based what I wrote on 1970s articles in popular magazines that may have been read more for their luridness than their scientific accuracy.  In the 1970s, I did read an interview with a South African trans woman who said that she had been chosen for the first SRS, in that country, to permit sexual sensitivity.

Quote from: Lisa_K on August 01, 2018, 10:41:46 PM
I would agree with your statement overall but seriously, how many cis gay men want to have a wife, especially if she has a vagina? In terms of "fulfillment", how about trans woman wife married to a cis straight dude in a heterosexual relationship as the gold standard?

I understand that in some gay male relationships, one partner is more sexually dominant than the other.  In archaic terms, one would be the sodomite and the other the catamite.  A gay man certainly would not want a "wife" with a vagina, which is why I suspect that if a heterosexual trans woman were in a relationship with a gay man, she may not be desperate for SRS if her life is fulfilling in other ways.  Again, this is merely a personal suspicion based on no experience or data.  I absolutely agree about the gold standard but for one reason or another, not everyone strikes gold.

Quote from: MaryT on August 02, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
I meant that pre-op or non-op trans women, attracted to men, may have formed relationships with gay men and continued to do so, for many years, without feeling as repressed as lesbian trans women living male roles in traditional marriages.

Thank you, MaryT, for the clarification. I think the confusion is mostly mine? All this stuff is relatively new to me, some of it is too politically correct for me to stomach and sometimes I simply just don't get it. I'm still not sure I do?

The only way your sentence makes to me is to replace pre-op or non-op trans women with non-transitioned trans person. No offense to anyone even though it will probably be taken that way and I don't mean to be insensitive but "repressed lesbian trans women living male roles" sounds way too much to me like the joke guys say sometimes about being a lesbian trapped in a man's body. (and we wonder where TERFs get their ammo from?) 

Speaking in terms of those that have transitioned, are androphilic, live their lives as women and disregarding their surgical status, are there really that many in relationships with homosexual men? Sure, some of these relationships may have carried over from pre-transition days but do trans girls really go for gay guys if they're into guys?

I thought the popular notion is that it doesn't make straight guys that partner with trans women gay? What does partnering with a trans woman do to a gay man's identity? I thought trans women, at least transitioned ones weren't into gay dudes? All this stuff confuses the heck out of me.

As an aside, since it is supposed to be so uncool to inquire about a trans woman's genital status because it doesn't matter and is rude and invasive, why do we ourselves still use terms like pre, post and non-op? That seems a bit paradoxical?

QuoteI understand that in some gay male relationships, one partner is more sexually dominant than the other.  In archaic terms, one would be the sodomite and the other the catamite.

Whew! I guess I should brush up on my archaic terminology? Granted, some of my lack of following along may be due to cultural/regional differences and language. Most gay males in North America define their sexual dynamic in terms of being a top or bottom which is more or less analogous to what you're saying, I think?

QuoteA gay man certainly would not want a "wife" with a vagina...

I don't think gay men want a "wife" regardless of what's between her legs?

None of my suspicions were based on data and I apologise if my limited and outdated vocabulary offended anyone.

Quote from: MaryT on August 02, 2018, 12:05:08 PM
None of my suspicions were based on data and I apologise if my limited and outdated vocabulary offended anyone.

I wouldn't worry about it. People are just too darned sensitive. You've done nothing but add to the conversation in a positive way and I have appreciated your comments and the opportunity to respond.

Hello GF

First off I'd like to say what an incredibly interesting topic, with incredibly fascinating replies that I have learned much from.

I can really identify with a lot from what Dawn said, we were both touched by DES, both had long-term relationships  with acceptance and encouragement from our SO,s.
I also feel incredibly lucky to have been with mine for the last 38 years
My wife is so open-minded she hates the idea of putting labels on people at all.
To her, all that you need is a pulse, and not putting any kind of label on any group or person to be accepted.

And from what I could understand
from Lisa's reply that was extremely comprehensive. There's nothing like The Real McCoy like her to shed some light on this subject.
And hats off to you Lisa I never knew anyone existed like you, way back when, other than a very few. I was born in 61 and had the clam up about everything or I just get my Dad's belt across my butt and resulted in me being closeted up for about a half a century, other than to my wife.

And Pamela I think I might know what you have meant about seeing yourself partially in group 1.
I might be interpreting you wrong, but I as you, we wanted nothing but to be female from Age 4. And of course we would have loved to have been this then but I don't think it was done in the 60s pre-puberty. So we have to go to first grade in a Catholic School in the binary world of boys uniform, girls uniform which slammed me like a ton of lead from the first day of grade 1.  I remember fighting with my mom telling her there's no way I can go on this way and she's telling me you don't have a choice and it was either life or death at that point so l chose to live. To this day I think I'm still imprinted and haunted by the highly-coveted girl's uniform that we couldn't have.
But like they say, better late than never and here we are together in group 3. But now thanks to HRT the teeth and fangs of these early feelings are now dissipating as I know they have for you, and I'm so happy for you to express yourself as you always wanted to and who cares how old we are at least we're doing it and didn't have to live the rest of our lives in the dysphoria grinder.
Sorry if I got a bit off track with this.

Very fascinating topic Pamela keep them coming GF

Health, happiness and love, Tatiana

Quote from: Kirsteneklund7 on July 31, 2018, 11:19:33 PM
I came across this a few years ago during a bout of gender angst. It made me think G3 is me ! It is from Dr Anne Vitales "  The Gendered Self " It was a eureka moment for me. I discovered that although I wanted to be a girl since kindergarten - I was a secondary or late onset transsexual. This helped me to start dealing with the issue. Fortunately in the present day a late onset or secondary transsexual can access treatment. In the 1980's for instance only early onset or primary transsexuals could access treatment to transition ( in many cases).

(Quote),
Group One (G1) is best described as those natal males who have a high degree of cross-sexed gender identity. In these individuals, we can hypothesize that the prenatal androgenization process--if there was any at all--was minimal, leaving the default female identity intact. Furthermore, the expression of female identity of those individuals appears impossible or very difficult for them to conceal.

Group Two (G2) is composed of natal females who almost universally report a life- long history of rejecting female dress conventions along with, girls' toys and activities, and have a strong distaste for their female secondary sex characteristics. These individuals typically take full advantage of the social permissiveness allowed women in many societies to wear their hair short and dress in loose, gender-neutral clothing. These individuals rarely marry, preferring instead to partner with women who may or may not identify as lesbian. Group Two is the mirror image of Group One.

Group Three (G3) is composed of natal males who identify as female but who act and appear normally male. We can hypothesize that prenatal androgenization was sufficient to allow these individuals to appear and act normally as males but insufficient to establish a firm male gender identity. For these female-identified males, the result is a more complicated and insidious sex/gender discontinuity. Typically, from earliest childhood these individuals suffer increasingly painful and chronic gender dysphoria. They tend to live secretive lives, often making increasingly stronger attempts to convince themselves and others that they are male.

As a psychotherapist I have found female identified males (G1) to be clinically similar to male-identified females (G2). That is, individuals in both groups have little or no compunction against openly presenting themselves as the other sex. Further, they make little or no effort to engage in what they feel for them would be wrong gendered social practices (i.e., the gender role assigned at birth as the basis of authority). Although I have seen some notable exceptions, especially in male-identified females, these individuals--at the time of presentation for treatment--are rarely married or have children, are rarely involved in the corporate or academic culture and are typically involved in the service industry at a blue- or pink-collar level. With little investment in trying to live as their assigned birth sex and with a lot of practice in living as closely as possible to their desired sex, these individuals report relatively low levels of anxiety about their dilemma. For those who decide transition is in their best interest, they accomplish the change with relatively little difficulty, particularly compared to G3, female-identified males.

The story is very different for Group Three. In the hope of ridding themselves of their dysphoria they tend to invest heavily in typical male activities. Being largely heterosexual, they marry and have children, hold advanced educational degrees and are involved at high levels of corporate and academic cultures. These are the invisible or cloistered gender dysphorics. They develop an aura of deep secrecy based on shame and risk of ridicule and their secret desire to be female is protected at all costs. The risk of being found out adds to the psychological and physiological pressures they experience. Transitioning from this deeply entrenched defensive position is very difficult. The irony here is that gender dysphoric symptoms appear to worsen in direct proportion to their self-enforced entrenchment in the male world. The further an individual gets from believing he can ever live as a female, the more acute and disruptive his dysphoria becomes.
(unquote)
 

I hope that helps others. It helped me deal with the whole predicament !
Kind regards, Kirsten.

I'd seen this before and knew I fell into the G3 category but until reading it again now I  never realized how much a classic case I am.

My unscientific observation is that the younger transitioners (G1 and G2) tend to fall along the same lines as the cis population as far as sexual orientation goes with the G3 group being about a third straight, a third lesbian and a third other (bisexual, asexual, etc)

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

I'm not always a fan of psychological theory. To me it is not a pure science as it is based on group agreement of most common observation but laced with personal preconceptions. Often it can accurately describe a common behavior of people but often is taken as too strictly factual rather than "commonly observational".

If I were to fit into one of those theoretical groups, I would be a G1 but I did successfully hide it for 40 years. For me it was an act of concious mimickery of the "normal" boys. But only just enough to not be seen as queer. I do have bisexual attraction but lean heavily to females. However I see in myself a dustiction in sexual attraction.

I can see two parts of attraction in two distinct areas of reproductive instincts.
1: being the visual attraction.
I can find women's physical appearance universally attractive. I am not struck the same by the common male. However specifically masculine and muscled males do attract my attention. Facial features do not however. I know what makes a man be considered "handsome" but I do not get that same trigger looking at men's faces as I do a pretty woman's face.
2: the sexual instincts, the flirtatious mating dance of humans
I do not have whatever the "normal" male instincts are for being with a woman. I just have no idea how to initiate anything. It's kind of weird being in that situation. However when someone someone acts in a masculine way toward me I fall without effort into the female mating dance role. There is no thinking about it. It just happens.
I find thinking about having a man touch me in a sexual way mentally stimulating but I just can't find a guy attractive in normal life. It's like there is this disconnect between who I am and who I see as attractive.

I always knew I should have been a girl. I have woken up crying at night because I subconciously wanted a baby so badly. I have very female and maternal instincts and always have felt them. I just worked very hard to conciously turn my thoughts away from those things that being born a boy and living as a man I was not supposed to feel.

Quote from: Tatiana 79 on August 04, 2018, 06:08:49 PM
Hello GF

First off I'd like to say what an incredibly interesting topic, with incredibly fascinating replies that I have learned much from.

And Pamela I think I might know what you have meant about seeing yourself partially in group 1.
I might be interpreting you wrong, but I as you, we wanted nothing but to be female from Age 4. And of course we would have loved to have been this then but I don't think it was done in the 60s pre-puberty. So we have to go to first grade in a Catholic School in the binary world of boys uniform, girls uniform which slammed me like a ton of lead from the first day of grade 1.  I remember fighting with my mom telling her there's no way I can go on this way and she's telling me you don't have a choice and it was either life or death at that point so l chose to live. To this day I think I'm still imprinted and haunted by the highly-coveted girl's uniform that we couldn't have.
But like they say, better late than never and here we are together in group 3. But now thanks to HRT the teeth and fangs of these early feelings are now dissipating as I know they have for you, and I'm so happy for you to express yourself as you always wanted to and who cares how old we are at least we're doing it and didn't have to live the rest of our lives in the dysphoria grinder.
Sorry if I got a bit off track with this.

Very fascinating topic Pamela keep them coming GF

Health, happiness and love, Tatiana

Tatiana Dear,

As you know we have had several PMs over the last few months and we know each other's separate histories in some detail. I have also had some PMs with Kirsten on our histories.

I am inclined to think I fit at least 50% in group one if we have to choose groups which should not be appropriate anyway.

Gosh early schools years Yes I felt the same about uniform and also:

I immediately noticed girls buttoned their coat the other way round. Why couldn't I?
Oh and the little girls' shoes, I wanted to wear them ever so much!

When I started this thread, I intended it to just about the Sexual Orientation Difference by Age as at NOW or as at RECENTLY and I did not anticipate the thread moving onto previous theories. However I have found it most enthralling that so many have brought up previous theories some of which are discredited now anyway. Thank you to all respondents.

I am still of the view and I think most members of Susans would agree that NOW it is generally accepted that Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are completely separate subjects and any commonality within statistics is merely that - it is within statistics -and statistics change over time. We all have our own unique (hi)story.

Hugs

Pamela

Quote from: TonyaW on August 04, 2018, 09:11:50 PM

I'd seen this before and knew I fell into the G3 category but until reading it again now I  never realized how much a classic case I am.

My unscientific observation is that the younger transitioners (G1 and G2) tend to fall along the same lines as the cis population as far as sexual orientation goes with the G3 group being about a third straight, a third lesbian and a third other (bisexual, asexual, etc)

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Hello Tonya

I recall we both touched on the subject of this thread on another thread a few weeks ago and it gave me the idea to initiate this thread.

As you see I feel at least 50% group one and I note you feel strongly you are in group three.

I agree that group three certainly possesses a high proportion and probably a majority of other than straight. Group three has much higher rate of asexual that group one which I believe also has a higher rate of asexual than that of the cis population.

Thank you very much for your thoughts

Hugs

Pamela

Quote from: Tatiana 79 on August 04, 2018, 06:08:49 PM
... And from what I could understand from Lisa's reply that was extremely comprehensive. There's nothing like The Real McCoy like her to shed some light on this subject.

I came home last evening from a fantastic and fun night of drinking and flirting with crush number two at my friendly neighborhood pub and sat down to comment about how I felt about being referred to as "The Real McCoy" because it had kind of grown to bug me a little. At 8:00 in the morning and 1,980 words later, I finally found my way to the bedroom and crashed.

Needless to say that after reviewing what I had written with a rested and sober brain, although it was remarkably coherent and quite well worded I thought considering, I decided the length and tone were inappropriate for this venue but I'm still somewhat uneasy being thought of in this manner in spite of the fact I know and understand the sentiment and good, innocent intentions in which this phrase was used.

Some trans people, particularly older adult transitioners do tend to look at those of us that basically, outwardly and inescapably expressed our cross gender sense of self from birth and transitioned as kids as somehow being more authentic or real and the genuine article, etc. Sometimes this is with a degree of envy or wishful thinking their lives could have been the same way and we often get looked at as some sort of model or gold standard of transness.

Undoubtedly there is something a little different about us but don't... just don't. This automatically creates some sort of imagined hierarchy which inevitably leads to the belief that we ourselves are the ones thinking we are better, more real or more true trans when this is generally not the case at all. Sometimes there is resentment or the feeling that we had it easy or that things were handed to us and we are the lucky ones because being girls, femininity and often even our looks came to us by nature whereas I don't see how being trans is particularly lucky for anyone regardless of what point in our lives we had to deal with this crap.

Furthermore, when these notions and assumptions of what we might think about ourselves is foisted upon us, it only creates tension and divisiveness so when someone refers to me or us as being the real thing, it makes me shudder a little thinking the next thing that will come is someone accusing me/us of thinking we are somehow better or superior which is genuinely not true. While there may be a little more to it than just our age when we transitioned, we are simply different, not better or more anything but there is some kind of quality we recognize as sort of a kinship among ourselves in much the same way that those of you transitioning later in life recognize your own tribe as well.

This is a hot button topic for me and I've undoubtedly blown a tiny well intentioned remark out of proportion but it's just a proactive way of trying to avoid the fallout that can happen when others see or label you as something potentially as contentious as The Real McCoy because it infers that others are something less than that and I don't want to be a part of any of this.

Geez! And I'm the one that said earlier that people were too darned sensitive! Point taken.

Thank you Tatiana for what I know what was honestly meant as a compliment but a bit more of a loaded one than you may have realized? I know you're fairly new to all of this and wanted to say something about it before someone questioned you on why you thought somebody like me was more The Real McCoy than anyone else. That just causes trouble and while perhaps the best thing would have been to just let sleeping dogs lie, I just wanted to be clear how I felt about this and avoid a possible sh!tshow down the line.

QuoteAnd hats off to you Lisa I never knew anyone existed like you, way back when, other than a very few.

Thanks but this touches on something else that I have a lot of feelings about because I've not come across or been able to find anyone that was like me way back when. I felt like the "only one" when I was a kid because juvenile transsexualism wasn't even a recognized or documented thing even in 1972 when I was 17 and began medical treatment thanks to a group of doctors that took a chance on me and broke the rules and parents that realized my future prospects without doing something radical were extremely dim.

Certainly, people were changing sex back then and I've encountered a couple of "old-timers" here from around that era but even then, they were all 6 to 10+ years older than me at the time and as far as I can tell, there is nobody from those "good ol' days" that transitioned like I did in their teens. I've even had people tell me that was impossible. You've got to wait another four or five years before that became still exceedingly rare but more common so even the oldest of this real first wave of trans youth is at best several years younger than me so it is somewhat isolating. I'm the youngest old-timer and the way oldest young timer! The current modern day crop of trans kids that were like me when I was a kid are all 40 to 50 years my junior. It is odd but I still can't shake that feeling I had when I was young about being the "only one". That's a little weird sometimes and something I have usually ended up talking about in some of my older posts. (and this one too - it's hard to let go of)

Sadly, I truly believe that the few rare kids like I was in the 1960's and early 70's didn't survive and the ones that did were lost to AIDS or some other tragedy. If there are any still around, they are hidden like I was up until relatively recently. I have found only one that comes close to my timeline. She also transitioned as an 18 year old, had surgery at 23 (I was 22) but is four years younger than I am now. Not so much today but historically, young early transitioners of the past were the ones that usually waited the longest for surgery.

As a preemptive strike against other comments that may be made about me I'm not particularly comfortable with, I know some have also seen me as some sort of pioneer or trailblazer and tried to call me that but like Real McCoy, don't do that either. I'm nobody and never did anything other than just be myself. It was my supportive parents and the brave doctors they found to help me deserving of any credit due if any is to be given. I've never been out after I was 18, have never been a part of the "trans community", waved a flag, marched in a parade or even shared my story at all until three years ago and that was done anonymously so I haven't done a damn thing to be a pioneer and have no intentions of ever being anything but invisible. Besides that, those pioneer bonnets the women wore really don't go with my wardrobe!

It's all good, folks! Sorry for another long post but at least I didn't post the original drunken tome I wrote as undoubtedly that would have driven others to drink as well?

Quote from: pamelatransuk on August 06, 2018, 04:26:20 AM
<snip> ...However I have found it most enthralling that so many have brought up previous theories some of which are discredited now anyway.

Discredited because they were proven to be scientifically invalid or because they may have contained a bit of an uncomfortable truth?

QuoteI am still of the view and I think most members of Susans would agree that NOW it is generally accepted that Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are completely separate subjects...

Not one of the agreeable most members club with a different opinion and while I do agree that gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing, I also feel that they are inextricably linked in reality and this notion that they are completely separate and independent subjects with no correlation whatsoever between them is more ideology than absolute consensus driven fact.

I'm also unclear on Vitale's groups and observations and how some of you seem to think you're G1's when by my understanding of the criteria (which are just as much hooey as any other theory), it seems some of the key markers of this classification are conveniently being overlooked? I'm not picking on anyone, just trying to better understand the mindset or maybe the things I think are significant here that I've emphasized below don't matter as much as I think they might under this paradigm?

QuoteGroup One (G1) is best described as those natal males who have a high degree of cross-sexed gender identity. In these individuals, we can hypothesize that the prenatal androgenization process--if there was any at all--was minimal, leaving the default female identity intact. Furthermore, the expression of female identity of those individuals appears impossible or very difficult for them to conceal.

That is, individuals in both groups have little or no compunction against openly presenting themselves as the other sex. Further, they make little or no effort to engage in what they feel for them would be wrong gendered social practices (i.e., the gender role assigned at birth as the basis of authority).

Although I have seen some notable exceptions, especially in male-identified females, these individuals--at the time of presentation for treatment--are rarely married or have children, are rarely involved in the corporate or academic culture and are typically involved in the service industry at a blue- or pink-collar level. With little investment in trying to live as their assigned birth sex and with a lot of practice in living as closely as possible to their desired sex, these individuals report relatively low levels of anxiety about their dilemma. For those who decide transition is in their best interest, they accomplish the change with relatively little difficulty, particularly compared to G3, female-identified males.

That last bit confuses me. Aren't the G1 group also "female identified males" or in this instance, is Vitale referring sexual orientation i.e. gynephilic? 

I don't see how those of you that hid and repressed for years and decades that had otherwise mostly normal appearing and gender typical childhoods and adolescences that maybe went on to military service or otherwise traditionally masculine careers and marriages and children thinks this fits? Granted, hiding and trying to pass as normal and to not be seen as queer or different was probably challenging and confusing and hella stressful but impossible or very difficult? Hmmm? I'm not sure some of you understand what impossible and difficult to conceal says in this context which I interpret to mean that you couldn't or didn't successfully hide, repress or conceal. Am I getting this wrong? Also, wasn't transition for a lot of you a pretty big deal usually with a lot of upheaval and crisis, lost jobs, social problems, disownment by family, ended marriages and so on? Is having a "high degree of cross-sexed gender identity" alone without matching any of the other listed attributes enough to make someone a G1? I really couldn't care less one way or the other as I have no dog in this fight but I am trying to understand how others reconcile things and find a descriptor that fits.

I also find it curious that Vitale mentions sexuality of the G2 group noting that they "may partner with women" but fails to mention who the G1 group may partner with. My guess would be mostly with men making them analogous to HSTS's described in other theories. Age isn't particularly associated with these groups either but I think the early/late classification can be assumed, don't you think?

How things are internalized and dealt with is not the same thing as those expressed outwardly, uncontrollably and clearly visible to the rest of the world. Not considering how you felt about things or whatever sense of relief was attained from transition, if you had established lives as men and were accepted as such and even if you were completely faking it, didn't openly transitioning take you from a place of relative normativity to a place of otherness? I really am trying to understand, not to threaten anyone's identity. I'm curious and ask a lot of questions. I apologize if they are found to be offensive.

I'm honestly not trying to make trouble, be heretical or antagonistic or diminish or demean anyone's experience but there seems to be a fairly high degree of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias at play here for some of you? I don't begrudge anyone doing what it takes to survive and be happy and more power to you all for finding your way or questioning what way that is but seriously, there's no need to co-opt other's narratives and lived, openly expressed public experience to make your own more palatable as it seems is commonly done? Maybe my own perspectives are just so skewed that I have a hard time understanding?

Heck with all this nonsensical theoretical theory and pseudo-science anyway. Just be yourselves.

Quote from: Lisa_K on August 07, 2018, 10:01:56 AM
Not considering how you felt about things or whatever sense of relief was attained from transition, if you had established lives as men and were accepted as such and even if you were completely faking it, didn't openly transitioning take you from a place of relative normativity to a place of otherness?

Yes it did for me. I think you have a lot of insight and from your stories it seemed you were in "place of otherness" too? I mean when you were andro and picked on. That's a pretty harsh experience to have to go through. You went boy > andro > woman ?

Quote from: Lisa_K on August 07, 2018, 10:01:56 AM

Heck with all this nonsensical theoretical theory and pseudo-science anyway. Just be yourselves.

Right that's the key point "be yourself". Being transgender we're as much of ourselves as we can be and if that satisfies someone, then I'm truly envious.


Sent from my VS501 using Tapatalk