In the 1960s, 70s and well-into the 80s the standard for transitioning through the therapists/endos/surgeons with gatekeeping was that women be small and thin/medium 5'8" was about the height limit. 150# was about the weight limit. One had to appear 'feminine' prior to any surgeries or HRT. In point of fact most gatekeepers didn't change the old ways before the DSM changes of 1994.

The woman could not be married/stay married. Had to claim and live as a heterosexual. Promise not to reveal that she was/had been TS after surgery. She also generally had to live at least a year in gender-role without hormones. Her general presentation had to be that of Carol Brady or June Cleaver.

Otherwise she was winnowed out by the gender clinics and most surgeons.

The proscription against 'telling' was the origin of stealth. It also artificially maintained a 'low' number of diagnosed transsexual women as those who failed to meet the sexual objectification standard (resurrected in the BBL bs) were automatically excluded from a transsexual diagnosis and were not made part of the statistical record.

Besides those guidelines being the origins of the much argued about 'stealth,' they also led to women being forced into a sexually objectified life -- if you weren't willing to be the object of someone else's lust and sexual predation it seems as though you were not a 'true' transsexual. If the gatekeepers didn't find that they were attracted to you, you were out of the money as far as an 'accepted' transition was concerned. Most women had little recourse for getting hormones etc DIY. Information was rare outside of large urban areas in the West where gender-variant populations were fairly large.

Men were totally discounted from those guidelines because the prevailing view of psychiatrists was, still is, that 'women' cannot be aggressive sexually, or any other way. Women do NOT crossdress nor is it possible for them to 'become male,' let alone a female-configured body contain a male. Thus, the instance of FTM were kept at artificially low numbers which tended to support statistically the hypothesis of the sexologists that FTMs were so rare as to be non-existent. Most men simply stayed in the lesbian community as to go through the clinics at Chicago, Stanford, Johns Hopkins & Clarke Institute, etc was a useless endeavor.   

I think in our arguments about stealth/out, true and false transsexuality that many of us maintain in our minds those old standards of the HBS gatekeepers. I find that tendency, part of my own previously-held thoughts, to be both completely retrograde and in many respects profoundly antithetical to other beliefs I hold concerning democracy and the efficacy of an individual to better know her and his own feeling, thoughts and emotional content than does some 'expert' who is forever on the outside-looking-in. 

TBH, those standards seem to me very much misogynistic and demeaning toward both men and women period and especially to those with a transsexual history.

Just curious. 1) How many women here could actually transition under those standards? 2) How many men here would have simply done what your forebears did and remain in the lesbian community were those standards (seemingly called for by many of the so-called HBS movement) put back into effect? 3) Do you think that the danger from imposing such standards again out-weighs the difficulties involved in the current system? 4) Do you have any personal ideas about how the line between misogyny and sexual objectification and a meaningful diagnosis of transsexuality can be made? (Currently the much-discussed autopsy findings about the BSTc of the hypothalamus can only be confirmed by the death and subsequent autopsy of the TS person.)

Thanks for your ideas.


Please keep the discussion reasonable and safe and if your feelings are raw when you want to respond please hold that response until such time as you have cooled enough to maintain a civil post. Thank you.

Nichole

I don't know what the protocal was to transitioning in those decades as I never attempted to transition. I was too scared to. I do know that I have talked to a couple of people who did transition in the 70's and they really did not fit your description. They were all about 6 foot or bigger and I know that one was in the news letter for that community college that I went to. So, she wasn't exactly stealth.
I hope I was nice enough. I really don't like the way that you have threaten people on this thread. I would think that we are pretty much a very nice group of people. I know at times we do get carried away and feelings sometimes get hurt but no one was ever threaten by being taken off in a thread.
Just my opinion.
Sheila

If I was honest with them no. I would still have transitioned and had hormones and surgery, either by hook or crook but I don't think things have changed as much as you might hope. The doc already tried to impose those rules on me and failed. In fact the clarke is damn close to being shut down because of activists like myself and other. If they keep it up they will lose their funding and clinic. I have no qualms about lying to people who are only prepared to hear what they want to hear.

->-bleeped-<-boy

I could almost fit those guidelines..... Almost... But according to those Im a wee bit too tall... 
The people that created that standard probably never ran into some of the women I hang out with <myself included> Taller than 5ft 10... thin... and gorgeous to boot.

I dont think Id have fit into beaver cleaverville either...  I mean, I can be beautiful and sexy and all that... But I have an edge to me and I dont think any amount of beating or molding could dull it... <Infact, its become sharper the further Ive gone> Heheheh, I dont do the whole wholesome thing... sorry everybody... Red and black, tight jeans... tall boots... corsetts and all the edgyer stuff... Thats me. Im the punkgoth chick that causes whiplash when walking into an establishment on a good day... Or manages to blend into the woodwork on a bad one... *shrugs*  KK, I think Im done rambeling.....

1) How many women here could actually transition under those standards?
I certainly would not have made the grade. I'm 6ft tall, and though hopefully HRT will help the matter somewhat, I am always going to be biggish. I'm not (this is a qualified not, mind you - things are mightily in flux upstairs at the moment) attracted to guys, so I would not be a heterosexual woman post transition.

2) How many men here would have simply done what your forebears did and remain in the lesbian community were those standards (seemingly called for by many of the so-called HBS movement) put back into effect?
N/A

3) Do you think that the danger from imposing such standards again out-weighs the difficulties involved in the current system?

I think reimposing such standards would be a profoundly tragic step backwards. It would in effect be a validation of all the homophobic and transphobic atttitudes society at large has, in an age when we are supposedly pushing for ever greater recognition of individual rights and self-determination.

Frankly though, I think that is one genie that could not be bottled again anyway. With the kind of access we have these days - to each other, to information, to medication, so frankly, if such standards were reimposed, it would simply drive us underground - which would be difficult, but doable. The major obstacles would of-course be legal transition and SRS, but even those, I believe, would be surmountable. As it is you hardly need a letter to fly to Thailand, and in South Africa you can pick up a counterfeit ID for R100 (around $15 - don't ask how I know this ...  > ). Obviously this is a dark scenario to consider, but I for one, would not let anybody deny me the right to transition, and I would do what I had to. ( And who knows, it might still come to that, if stories about Pretoria are to be believed ... )

4) Do you have any personal ideas about how the line between misogyny and sexual objectification and a meaningful diagnosis of transsexuality can be made? (Currently the much-discussed autopsy findings about the BSTc of the hypothalamus can only be confirmed by the death and subsequent autopsy of the TS person.)

I actually brought that up in a recent TransLondon meeting when they had a psychiatrist and an endocrinologist from Charing Cross GIC there, and I mentioned this new drug Alice put the news item up about a few weeks that mimics oestrogen in the brain but does not have the feminising effects on the body. Of course, that would not lead to a conclusive diagnosis due to the euphoric effects of oestrogen, but it might point in the right direction. I personally feel that the idea of diagnosis through HRT has some merit - the immediate effects of loss of libido and sexual function, along with them mental effects etc. , as far as I'm concerned, would be a severe blow to somebody who did not really want or expect those changes, and would probably weed out a fair number of "non-transsexuals" by their own choice rather than a gatekeeper's opinion. In cases where the patient somehow is classified as "not a transsexual", but welcomes those changes and subsequent ones, I frankly can't see a problem. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..., after all.

Whatever method we do come up with, it needs to be something better than what we have at present, as much better as the current system may be than older ideas, it is still in essence a question of convincing the therapist about something you ARE, which is coloured by his/her own beliefs and education. If psychological therapy is to have any real meaning, it needs to be a question solely of what you ARE NOT. If schizophrenia and other disorders that may present as TS have been discounted, I see no reason why somebody should be denied transition, whatever his or her brain-structure or background or whatever is. If the person is going to be a happier, more productive individual after transition, what right does anybody have to deny that?


Posted on: 06 April 2008, 12:55:18

---

And like Lynner, I would probably not do Stepford-wife all that well ... 

~Simone

I edited the poll to add a fifth choice and made it possible for a vote to change. I'm going to remove the change vote this evening though and placed it there for those who had already voted and may have wanted to change their votes. Also placed a 30 day limit on the polling.

N~

I liked your well-thought-out ideas Simone.

Hmmm. Is it possible to change votes? if not, I recast for "to hell with the gatekeepers" - so add one there, and subtract one from "I'm too tall & stuff". 

~K, vote changed. Thanks Nichole! 

~Simone

Yes, small enough and lying to gatekeepers is not that difficult.

Of course a system where people lie to get treatment is a waste of resources and does not help people.

Getting HRT outside the system before official treatment would have been harder 30 years ago but not impossible.

I chose the first option, Nichole.  I'm only 5'7'', have never been married nor have any children.  My sexual orientation is: heterosexual.  Oh geez, I think I fit "their" profile pretty well, don't I?  Oh well.    

Did you know that there are some psychiatrists out there that still follow these guidelines?  I was never able to confirm those allegations of course, but according to these few personal friends, these therapists tried to convice them not to go through with transition because they were "not good candidates".   When they asked why, the therapists in question said that it had to do with "passability issues" and that they couldn't help them.  This was in the late 90's so there was NO excuse for this kind of behavior.

They did complain, sent letters to the board even, but they (the therapists) are still practicing psychiatry, so yeah...

tink

Quote from: Tink on April 06, 2008, 01:59:22 PM
Did you know that there are some psychiatrists out there that still follow these guidelines?
...
They did complain, sent letters to the board even, but they are still practicing psychiatry, so yeah...

Unfortunately this seems especially true in public health. I have heard some very disturbing things about the gender clinic at the Pretoria Academic hospital, and we're all quite familiar with the ongoing struggle Berleigh and others have with the UK NHS and its policies.

I would think that psychiatrists in private practice would be somewhat less able to do this simply because they would want to retain custom, but I suppose entrenched beliefs are a powerful force.

~Simone.

Quote from: Tink on April 06, 2008, 01:59:22 PM
I chose the first option, Nichole.  I'm only 5'7'', have never been married nor have any children.  My sexual orientation is: heterosexual.  Oh geez, I think I fit "their" profile pretty well, don't I?  Oh well.    

Did you know that there are some psychiatrists out there that still follow these guidelines?  I was never able to confirm those allegations of course, but according to these few personal friends, these therapists tried to convice them not to go through with transition because they were "not good candidates".   When they asked why, the therapists in question said that it had to do with "passability issues" and that they couldn't help them.  This was in the late 90's so there was NO excuse for this kind of behavior.

They did complain, sent letters to the board even, but they (the therapists) are still practicing psychiatry, so yeah...

tink

Actually, yes. I did know, Tink. If you ask me, I know you didn't, but, you know me. IMO, the Bailey/Blanchard theory has to do with sexual objectification as well. Bailey says in his book that he could always tell the 'true' transsexuals from the 'false' one's (he used a different terminology) by whether or not his male graduate assistance would or would not have gone to bed with the woman in question.

I've never met personally any of those shrinks or therapists either, but I imagine they exist.

I'm lucky as well. I'm not het, but would lie through my teeth. I meet the other look-ist requirements. At least judging by other factors. But the whole objectification stuff just really burns me.

N~

I'd fail the physical requirements. And I'm married.

I don't know why, but words like "misogyny and sexual objectification" just don't stir my righteous indignation. I guess I'm not much of a feminist in that way. I wouldn't mind being desired as a "sex object," as I see that as a source of *power* rather than my persecution. Yea, I know, don't hate me, lol, but I just do. And I said "desired as," that being different than being raped, abused, etc. I don't think it's a requirement for being TS however.

Do you mean would I still transition if those standards were being imposed now? If so, then yes, I would.

In fact, I pretty much DID. I didn't have an easy experience in getting my "approvals," and I'm convinced it was because I didn't meet the expectations of what a "classic transsexual" is or does.

~Kate~

No matter what the rules nothing is perfect and there is always a work around. It just might be more costly. Call the therapist patrol.

There was actually a height limit? Wow. I knew about them having to be straight and present in a feminine manner and all that but not that it was that strict that you had to have a certain body type.

My answer: I'm a man and I've never been in the queer community really, so I'd just have lived as I always have - male presentation to the best of my ability. Though I probably would've had to deal with more homophobia and sexism back then. I'd still be myself though.

I'd say probably not, however I was more passable when I was younger. But I wouldn't have been able to conform to June Cleaver stereotypes, no way! Even when I transitioned in the early 90s, those attitudes still existed among some therapists so I was careful to not go to one of them.

Z

I often wonder how people like Christine Jorgensen and Jan morris did it since essentially they didn't fit "their" profile when they transitioned.  Another thing I read somewhere was that at that time prospective candidates for HRT/SRS needed to fill out an endless questionnaire about physical/sexual abuse and sexual orientation.  Any MTF who said they were sexually attracted to women was "disqualified" on the spot, so people started to lie in an aim to get HRT/SRS.

The ironic part of it all is that most pre-op heterosexual MTF's I know became asexual during transition, for we didn't wish to involve ourselves in any kind of sexual activity, having the wrong anatomy and all.  It is not like that guy said...what's his name? ...Oh yes, Blanchard...that hetero MTF's transition to have more boyfriends...   Jerk!

tink

Christine Jorganson had her surgery overseas, I think Amsterdam. I used to work in the store that she shopped in. I have waited on her a couple of times, that was down in Laguna Niguel, Ca. I also waited on the tennis person, too. For the life of me, I can't think of her name. That was in Costa Mesa, Ca. She seemed very snobby to me. There were a couple of others at the community college I went to. They were very nice, one would have fit the description and the other, no way. She was well over 6 foot and she had been in the service, I believe she was in Vietnam, and she had been married with children. She was in the RLT stage. That was in Mission Viejo, Ca. These were all in the conservative county of Orange County, Ca. You know the OC.
Sheila

QuoteI also waited on the tennis person, too. For the life of me, I can't think of her name.

I believe you mean Renee Richards.

i'm like you Nichole, i don't identify as hetero either. but i would fit most everything else, i believe i'm about 5'10 maybe a little shorter, i haven't been measured in years. but i'm blonde, blue-eyed, and only weigh like 120( i made it to 130 once and never seen it again). i don't want to be anyone's sex object but my lovely wife's, but i have been hit on by guys on more than one occasion, one about took a cement nosedive to open a door for me and my son...lol. i would definitely lie to get everything i needed as well, makes me glad i'm only going to be 25 this year, makes some things so much easier.


i'm loving a lot of these newer threads, they have lots of insight,

Best Wishes
Mickie

Nice to have company, Mickie. I prefer other women. Given the choice I would imagine preferring another trans woman to most men, although, as I have said before, I'm bisexual. Now for this.

Quote from: Kate on April 06, 2008, 02:19:27 PM

I don't know why, but words like "misogyny and sexual objectification" just don't stir my righteous indignation. I guess I'm not much of a feminist in that way. I wouldn't mind being desired as a "sex object," as I see that as a source of *power* rather than my persecution. Yea, I know, don't hate me, lol, but I just do. And I said "desired as," that being different than being raped, abused, etc. I don't think it's a requirement for being TS however.

Kate, I hardly hate you, or even see a reason that I might. But, I believe I see some reasons for discovering that sexual objectification is not the route to go as a goal. Maybe especially for a woman with a trans history. In point of fact, I think that misogyny and sexual objectification is the main reason that trans women, and to a degree trans men, especially Thomas Beatie, are killed, maimed, dismissed/descried and injured on such a frequent basis among a population where the condition is fairly rare.

Male libido and the sneaking suspicion that the male in question might well think himself 'less than' or 'gay' if he beds you, or even wants to.

I had a situation arise a while back that might give you some insight into the sexual objectification part.

Pre-SRS, as you know, you cannot get an "F" on your DL in PA regardless of how much sense it makes to have one given looks, and other "passing" qualities. But pic is my current one and all ID is in my name, not 'his.' I believe that that is one of the major reasons why women often have trouble finding work and in getting killed. "Passing" women, not the elusive 'men in drag.'

In that incident I was stopped in a NJ township because I had a burnt-out headlamp. It had apparently gone out while I was parked and when I started the car didn't come on again. I was driving through this town when I was pulled over by a cop. No big deal, I thought, I've been stopped by cops before. They have always gendered me female and 2 of the 3 who had done so had consistently referred to me as 'ma'am' and 'miss.' The one who didn't was fascinated by the DL info. He was, however, polite asked to call me by my first name. So far so good.

So, cop arrives at the window: "Hello, ma'am. Did you know you had a burnt-out headlamp?" "No, officer, it was fine this morning driving to work." "Well, it's out now, let me see your license, registration and insurance card, please, ma'am. I guess I'll write you a warning ticket this time." I do. He proceeds back to his car where he apparently noticed the "M" designator.

I sat for 15 minutes and another car shows up. Cop exits, talks to cop one and then approaches me. "Hello, ma'am. Could you explain something to me, please." "If I can, officer." "Why does your DL say "M?" "Ummmm (never had this happen before)." "Because I am a pre-operation transsexual, sir. Is that a problem?" "Yes, it is, we have to make sure you are real." (Yep, in "enlightened NJ" a township cop said that and plenty more. Accused me of being false and trying to trap men. Spit on me and yelled at me unmercifully for about five minutes and ended by throwing my school id and voter's registration card through my window. Also suggested I might be "a Mexican who drives with a fake license and no social security card. You know 'they can't get social security cards!")

Cop one came back to the car after that and holds out the DL showing me what is on it: "M" "That says male and you look like this?!!! What are you trying to do, fool men?" By then I was crying and they were fuming. A third cop showed up and cop one handed me a ticket for $54. They left. I sat and cried for about 5 minutes. Total time? 40 minutes on the side of a road while people slowed and stared.

Now, Kate. What do think the problem was? You know me, am I interested in attracting males?

So who was attracted to whom? And what was the result of that do you think? 45 minutes of abuse and grilling on a roadside. Why, because "something about Nichole" touched those yokels very deeply. Their own sense that if they found me an attractive woman then there must be something wrong with their 'pickers.' And that questioned their sexuality. And when they discovered that, then something HAD to be wrong with me.

I made a complaint with the township and the state Division on Civil Rights. The DCR process takes 6 months for them to investigate. The township asked if my headlamp had been out. When I said 'yes' they said well "pay the ticket." The woman on the line dripped with disgust.

Look-it, I understand that most MTFs have spent years being identified as our incorrect sex. I understand the reaffirmation and pleasure that comes in being ided as who we are rather than as something we are not. I also understand that many so-called GGs eat-up being sexually attractive.

But, to hold the sexuality and insecurity of a man in my hands, on my thighs, shoulders, calves, breasts and back is a burden not worth bearing. Yet, for thousands of years that is absolutely what women have done. We have built for men this edifice that they call an ego, a self-worth. "I am better than she is. I can f... her any time I want and she will love it."

That way leads to death, dearie. Not just for you and me, but for women everywhere. Goddess, in Bangladesh and Pakistan women are raped and then stoned to death for having been raped. You don't find that sexual objectification and a deep hatred of women as the objects of lust=misogyny?

Yes, it feels good to be admired. It even feels good to be lusted after. For so long we were not noticed at all and when we were noticed it was as someone we didn't feel we were/are. But, do we accept changing from males to objects as a step forward and upward?

I can not. Will not. 

I hope nothing like that occurs with you during these next few months before your SRS. And I hope you find a handle on how you are going to live life as a woman. But, I suggest that when you go to bed with your first man that you be very very sure before you relate your past. And that you be very very sure every time after that that you can bear the weight of being someone else's source of self-esteem and efficacy. It's a heavy burden and has lead to the deaths of way more than Gwen Araujo -- who, if you recall, was deemed 'deceptive' and asking for it -- as much by trans women and women as by men.

The entire edifice of privilege and subordination, objectification and power makes me sick.

Nichole     

BTW, am I a feminist? Hell, yes. And, imo, anyone who doesn't at least consider the implications of exactly the way life is in USA, UK, Canada and the EU, not just Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, is asking for more pain than she probably really wants. All that 'chivalry' comes with a very high price-tag. How much money you got?

N~


Posted on: April 07, 2008, 05:21:57 PM

---

BTW 2, don't talk to me about "carry-letters" if they gender you female then whatever you give them isn't going to matter once they start to question themselves. You might try THIS for some reasons why.

N~