hah, well im an autogenophile dispite transitioning under 20, and never even looking at a woman like that... then again, so are most females of my age it seems...

Quote from: Alyssa M. on October 27, 2008, 05:31:32 PM
Where "auto" comes from is beyond my understanding.

Well, gynephilia is those who like women, gyne- (woman) philia (liking).
->-bleeped-<- is supposed to be those who are attracted to themselves as women, auto- (self) gynephilia.

I do like women, put me down as a gynephile.
I find my body attractive, but not enough to make Blanchard/Bailey happy so I'll skip the autogynephile bit.

I for one, am very happy to see research being done!  And I can assure you that I'll be passing this information on to my family.  It's all part of educating the fundamental right in my home state Utah.  I currently live in California.

Does it matter to me personally?  No.  I had my surgery over 20 years ago.  I've had a happy life out here on the west coast and I'm happily married for 16 years now.  BUT, it would mean so very much to me for my mother to undestand the medical nature of this before she passes on.  She still has many doubts.  My folks still use the wrong pronouns.  I don't know... that may never change.

But, having some real research is quite valuable in that regard.

I welcome the scientific research.  I'd like to see more.  Yes, it has the potential to be misused.  But it also has a great potential in understanding and accepting our very existence to those who believe we have no rights to live.

Cindi

As i have said using Bailey-Lawrence I am too an autogynephilic 
There was scorable test somewhere but I do not remember exactly where.

Quote from: goingdown on October 28, 2008, 03:51:40 AM
Some issues that makes you an autogynephilic (according Bailey, Lawrence):
- married with children
- worked ever in traditional masculine career
- late transitioner, over 40 Y
- you have not have relationship with man when you were under age 20
Anything of these makes you an autogynephilic (Bailey, Lawrence) and there are other things too

Hmmmm, by my reasoning, Bailey himself is probably autogynephilic 

Z

Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 27, 2008, 10:30:52 PM
Let me see if I understand this situation correctly. 

"nooneinparticular" is actually the person who posted the web article linked at the beginning of this topic.  She's the same one who falsely asserted that the gene link was found for "classic" transexuals, and not for transexuals as a group without regard to such a distinction.  And that is all in addition to the strange claims of special knowledge of improbable-sounding statistics and a secret technique for identifying ->-bleeped-<- trannies, statistics she refuses to support, and a technique she will not explain.  Plus more garbage.

Does that about sum it up?

I've refrained from posting in this topic, because it seems like those of us not "In the know" are missing a healthy chunk of it. And also because it seems like a bee's nest of old animosities.

Do Autogynephiles exist? probably. Does that mean that every adult who tries to transition later in life is automatically one? Hell no. I knew pre-puberty I needed to transition, because I buried it till I was 31 does that make me less of a classic Transsexual?

And, in the final analysis...... does it matter how we got here? We're here, we exist, and we deserve the same rights as everyone else regardless of the path we travelled to get here.

The only way to guarantee your own civil rights is to fight for those of your neighbor, and quite frankly, the thought that we abandon those the medical establishment arbitrarily determines are autogynephiles leaves me feeling hollow inside, like we're throwing those sisters under the bus for our own rescue.

I'm not sure how GLBt activists have lived with themselves all these years throwing us under the bus, but I won't do it to someone else.

Down Syndrome babies are already being aborted since they discovered a way to test in utero. Do we want to begin a holocaust of our own group by inviting this research to identify a "Trans Gene" so that our future sisters and brothers become biological waste at the abortion clinic? Is that really what you want? To eliminate the diversity and often insightful viewpoints we bring to society as a whole. To eliminate the gadfly before it's even born?

It doesn't matter why we're here. We need to fight for rights based on the fact that we are, without inviting mass-genocide or throwing half of our number under the bus of the psychiatric community.

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 04:24:08 PM

Quote from: Seshatneferw on October 27, 2008, 02:10:09 PM
The title is also sufficiently vague to protect the identity of the psychiatrist in question from trivial googling.

Ayup......and for good reason.

Yes, I quite understand that. However, this also means that we cannot use your friend's identity as a help in evaluating the information they gave you. Unfortunately, you don't give any other means for evaluating your claims either, so your argument really boils down to 'because my friend the anonymous but eminent psychiatrist says so'. I'm sorry, but this does not convince me.

Quote
I gave you the source, the rest of the information came from that source and frankly I don't care if you believe it or not....I offer the information, you are totally free to reject it.  Been down the road before, I happen to have inside information I am willing to share, I share it, period.  My ego is not wrapped up in proving to you I'm tell the truth.  Me, I take people's word on things until they give me reason not to, but then I'm weird.

I tend to behave like that, too, but I also tend to get suspicious when different sources give conflicting information. I'm weird that way. In this case the information you give (or your psychiatrist friend gives via you) does not fit with what others tell me, so there is something wrong somewhere. I would prefer to be able to make up my mind as to which information is more correct and which is the most likely to be false, but your lack of references makes this harder.

Quote
Oh, and AG is an accepted diagnosis under the DSM already, one the profession finds useful.

For some reason I could not find  ->-bleeped-<- in DSM-IV-TR, as available at behavenet.com. Admittedly, one is supposed to list the sexual preference with a GID diagnosis, and there is transvestic fetishism as a separate category, but that's as close as I could get.

Quote
Me, you can call me a blueberry if you wish, that doesn't make it so.  I know who I am.

I have some idea of who I am, too, and in that sense I've quite a while ago come to the conclusion that the descriptions of  ->-bleeped-<- do not fit what I feel. That was not my point. The major point was that if people call you a fetishistic man you are much more likely to get in trouble with various outsiders. As you said yourself, 'there isn't a legislator in the world who will vote to protect a sexual fetish class' -- but there are quite a few lunatics in the world, religious and otherwise, who will consider fetishists sinful, not quite human, and worthy of contempt and even violence. Regardless of whether the fetishist in question has had 'his dick cut off' or not.

This, combined with the rather serious lack of scientific evidence regarding fetishism-motivated transitions, is what makes me feel very bad about most proponents of the Harry Benjamin Syndrome that I have read, even though I agree that a biological explanation for transsexuality seems much more plausible than the other alternatives that have been proposed.

  Nfr

I do not think that the study tells evertyhing. I was ruled out from category ''classical transsexual'' after one psychological test and therapist interview. The result: the therapist refused to treat me so we must think very hard allowing special position to so called androphilic transsexuals leaving others probably without care. In case we have more lenient criterias I belong to so called core group. So the question am I a classical transsexual is open. As I have been said by people who knows much about transsexuality but is not gendertherapist: You have strong signs towards primary transsexuality but not enough for that classification given by shrinks.

Posted on: October 28, 2008, 07:50:13 am

---

The core thing:
Gendertherapist asked me have I ever dated other boys. I said that I have not dated anyone. And then he said that I have probably only serious gender dysphoria, not transsexuality.

The argument, (to include the linked blog) in spite of many excellently reasoned and well-written posts overnight isn't about either sense or sensibility. The matter revolves around something deeper and more atavistic that pertains to personal regard and personal "animosity" as flutter put it.

Nor has it anything at all to do with any "past history" between Cathryn and others who've posted here.

I cannot begin to fathom Cathryn's reasons for her feelings, only she can do that. But, one can easily see that they are "real" and deeply important to her. I tend, as can be seen from my own posts in this thread, firmly believe that new research hasn't in any way made less of someone else while somehow "validating" me or another transsexual.

As Rachael pointed out so well, the Bailey "definition" applies to any number of TS women (and would include men if Bailey had any notion of a personal interest in the men) regardless of age or elements of transition. That fact alone, the capablility of neatly placing everyone within a neatly labelled box makes the "science" of  ->-bleeped-<- suspect at best and probably shows us the insanity and personal nature of it second.

Elegance doesn't mean that something explains and explains away everyone in a particular category. It means that the facts of the matter have been marshalled and expressed in a way that tends to sum things up in a neat and orderly fashion that leaves few if any loose ends available and still covers the territory.

Nfr is exactly correct. ->-bleeped-<- is not now and has never been included in the DSM. As I said in a recent blog post, such statements are a proof of the fashion that knowledge and the ability to convey it are lacking in many respects from the slingers of that term to paint their interlocutors with some sort of negative shade. Not that homosexual transsexual paints anyone with a positive shade: it too is a means of defining people away from what and who they know themselves to be.

The thesis is an explaining away, not an explanation and is not "scientific" in any shape or form it's been presented in. It is, however, neatly able to salve the feelings of the men who've come up with it in their own desire to make a world conform to their prejudices and dislikes and likes. Not the first time, nor will it be the last, that sort of thing has been done and called "science." Much of the "science" in the "evaluation" of racial-types over the past two centuries partakes of the same effort and shows the same general outline.

That women love our bodies and the ways we "look" is testament to the power and fortunes made by the cosmetics & fashion industries. It is NOT a means of defining away transsexuality or ->-bleeped-<-. Period.

The argument, as flutter also pointed out, has nunaces and textures that far surpass the squabbling of this or that self-designated group: ain't that just da bomb about both!? We can individually define ourselves and others to place irrevocably those who agree with us on the "sheep" side of the equasion and those we disagree with on the "goats" side. Just another human effort to show the world how worthy I am and how unworthy my interlocutor is. *sigh* References to mud-people and chosen-people spring readily to mind as I survey this cauldron of emotional and atavistic reactions.

Lisa Harney quite rightly and lucidly pointed to the very obvious fact that the designations that Cathryn wants to read into the research disqualify her as well as any and all of the rest of us from being humanly "valid." Doesn't matter whether you're a "sheep" or a "goat," for the BBL-crew and their political henchmen are after an open season on simply being "ovine" in any shape or form. There would be a cleansing of us all if their dreams reach any concensus-position.

Of course, they don't, haven't and probably never will simply because the ploy is much too visible to those willing to examine it.

My own personal animosity toward white guys who raped me doesn't disqualify white folk from being human, does it? That is hardly "scientific" regardless my feelings about white guys. It's atavistic and personal.

And therein lies the nub of the argumentation: it's about personal and visible discomfort with "those people" so I am gonna try to find a way to invalidate them while making sure I am seen as being really human. That has been the value of the Kelley Winterses, Andrea Jameses and Lynn Conways from the git on this argument. They have seen the pervasive nature of the argument to cover all of us and to invalidate all of us.

I do wish all of my sisters, particularly, and some of my brothers, could cut to the chase and see what is truly at stake: classifying yourself as a "sheep" instead of a "goat" or a "llama" or "alpaca" during an effort to kill off all the ovines is not going to protect you. The ovine-holocaust would take us all.

Nichole




 

Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 27, 2008, 10:30:52 PM
Let me see if I understand this situation correctly. 

"nooneinparticular" is actually the person who posted the web article linked at the beginning of this topic.  She's the same one who falsely asserted that the gene link was found for "classic" transexuals, and not for transexuals as a group without regard to such a distinction.  And that is all in addition to the strange claims of special knowledge of improbable-sounding statistics and a secret technique for identifying ->-bleeped-<- trannies, statistics she refuses to support, and a technique she will not explain.  Plus more garbage.

Does that about sum it up?

If you are a bigot, I suppose so.

Quote from: flutter on October 28, 2008, 07:32:28 AM

I've refrained from posting in this topic, because it seems like those of us not "In the know" are missing a healthy chunk of it. And also because it seems like a bee's nest of old animosities.

Do Autogynephiles exist? probably. Does that mean that every adult who tries to transition later in life is automatically one? Hell no. I knew pre-puberty I needed to transition, because I buried it till I was 31 does that make me less of a classic Transsexual?

Hardly.......if anyone actually bothers to read what I write they'd notice that I talk frequently about the dysphoric imperative.  Typically a transsexual experiences a series of "GID crisis" at semi predicable points in their lives.  Some transition at different points, those who find ways of coping through without transition typically find the intensity increases with each new one until eventually you either transition or simply give up and lose life functionality.  In other words there is no primary and secondary transsexualism.

I've been called every name in the book over the years and the just repeated implication I'm a racist has been done before.  I was active in the original civil rights movement for what it's worth.  Now someone called me (and my friend) AGs because I dared mention it.  The DSM was revised not long ago and AG (modified considerably from the Blanchard and Bailey circus version) was added.  It is used as a faux-transsexual indicator.  Again, in other words, a catagory separate and different from what is called in the psych community, medical model transsexuality, known to the mundane as HBS.

anyone who transitions successfully can use this current study and the ADA to access, right now, civil rights  No one would be required to "prove" themselves beyond a standard diagnosis of GID to do so, no one will likely ever have to prove themselves genetically....that's ridiculous.  We are decades away from the type of genetic testing that would identify transsexuals pre-natally and those traits would not be readily apparent at any rate until after the 12'th week when most doctors will not perform an abortion.  All this scare mongering panic goes back to something I observed years ago, almost anyone trans anything is convinced that if a stardard of testing is found, they won't make the cut.  That's sad and shows a total lack of self-esteem.

Considering the on the ground realities at the moment, transsexuals now actually have Federally protected civil rights in housing, employment and accomodations under the ADA.....we jumped over the entire rest of the LGB spectrum in this fashion.  Given that, saying anyone is being "thrown under the bus" is the same as saying that racial civil rights, women's civil rights etc should be suspended until TGs get civil rights.  There is no incrementalism at work here  Frankly what is being said, in simple terms is "take away those new protections from transsexuals until we get them too".  That is a declaration of open gender warfare.  For 15 years transsexuals have experienced a steady erosion of civil rights as a direct result of TG "education" efforts in trans-activism, this new tack goes far beyond that.  Frankly this gives a lot of ammunition to those conserva-queers who charge trans-activism about being only for themselves, it's a straight out affirmation of that.

I'm sorry, but you're coming out with a lot of rubbish hon... there is a clear difference between early and young transitioners, and between ->-bleeped-<- and classical. We just discussed this in chat and tbh, im more conviced that there are differences between young and old transitioners GID, not that one is better or worse, just DIFFERNET, and i fail to see what is worng with that. As for the whole ->-bleeped-<- thing. I for one do NOT belive ->-bleeped-<- persons are female tbh... just obsessed and fettishistic.... doesnt mean its not caused by something, they just arnt women.

I do not start to argue about different transsexuals. As previosly mentioned whole BBL- system is against all transwomen. What they write about ''gay transsexuals'' is as bad as they write about ''autogynephilic transsexuals''. They say that both transsexuals have no female identity. I come out when I was 18 years old and ready to transition however the system said NO.

Excuse me?

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM

I've been called every name in the book over the years and the just repeated implication I'm a racist has been done before. 

I'll call you "a piece of work" who enjoys the capacity to try to argue without ever reflecting on or talking to the points she makes while loosing tens of hundreds of rabbits to distract from the very real objections someone has to your thinking, Cathryn.

But, harkening back to this past summer, please stick to the point. This is not a high-school or college debate team where points are added by distracting the conversation from my weak-physiqued argumentation to another point entirely.

I don't believe you are a racist, which is absolutely why I used the comparison with racist ideology and method. The method and the insistence of the ideological basis for it DO apply, although not as a means of labelling you anything at all except someone who tries to make personal attacks on herself out of nothing at all and so turn the point away from her arguments' flaws and weaknesses.

To point out a comparison in methodology with the same methodology used in a different way is NOT to label you as anything at all except a poor arguer for your position. You should learn to separate those things when you argue, dear. Makes for more rational argumentation from yourself instead of your usual ploy to distract any conversation from the weakness of your point.

That said. Do, luv, try to remain on point. Your methods have probably been useful to you, but they don't work when someone actually reads what you write rather than allows themselves to be distracted by the fleeing rabbits.

For the record. YOU ARE NOT A RACIST IN ANY SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION.

There, now make please a reasoned argument about your positions. 

Nichole

Funnily, this IS an argument about different transsexual forms, if they are indeed, both actually transsexuality.

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
The DSM was revised not long ago and AG (modified considerably from the Blanchard and Bailey circus version) was added.  It is used as a faux-transsexual indicator...

I'm having trouble following you here. Where is AG mentioned in the DSM again? Am I missing something? I don't remember ever seeing it mentioned in there.

~Kate~

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
The DSM was revised not long ago and AG (modified considerably from the Blanchard and Bailey circus version) was added.

Facts, please.

What are you referring to in DSM-IV-TR?

• 302.3 - Transvestic Fetishism
• 302.6 - Gender Identity Disorder in Children
• 302.85 - Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults

quate: ''It is used as a faux-transsexual indicator''

So many people have said that I am a fake transsexual that I disagree with hole concept. There are no fake transsexuals however non-transsexual people may in very rare situations believe short times that they are transsexuals.

 ->-bleeped-<- is NOT mentioned in the DSM and there have been no revisions since 2000. That entire line of "reasoning" is simply not factual, Cathryn. And "open gender warfare!!!?" Where did that come from and to what end? Again, luv, your rabbits flee.

Nichole

And as far as differences between old and young transitioners are concerned, Rach. I perfectly agree, of course I also agree that there are many differences between myself and my children: the infamous and ever-present "generation-gap."

However, those differences of outlook, knowledge, experiences do not make my children a separate "type" of human being, they simply make us generationally separate.

Nikki

QuoteFor 15 years transsexuals have experienced a steady erosion of civil rights

The picture is much broader than that. The whole American society has gotten more Conservative as Government has ruled by fear and corporations have brainwashed and marketed their way into personal lives. Special rights for individual groups is not needed if they just used the more general term like "all people". The real problem is there is less opportunity for independent thought and lifestyles due to mass marketing and consumption. Social mores seem to be controlled by the TV. You can not give one group more civil rights than another. All the laws in the world will not change people's subjective thought but everyday behavior will. It is up to every individual to be civil if they want to be treated that way.

Lisa, your whole 'tv controls us for the corporations and govornments' speal is getting very bloody old... in several topics... please leave it out hon.