Cathryn, my dear, your sense of your own persecution is admirable, if somewhat over-dramatized in my view.

Please take note that no one but yourself has called you any of those things, not in this thread anyhow. What's been said is that your reasoning lends itself toward those sorts of interpretations.

And those points are well-taken.

If I were to guess I'd say you like to be seen as an outsider. But, like most outsiders you pose as being the ultimate insider in your characterisation as an outsider. No one here has attacked you in any way.

In fact, try to sit down and read the blog post that Natasha posted originally. It truly does appear to indicate that you find a certain gleefulness in making differentiations that are not made in the research you cite. As have some of the statements you've made about your inside knowledge of what the Zucker committee is likely to do or not do.

Please address the points you've been trying to make rather than your sense that you are beset by enemies here. I don't think that fear is accurate or borne-out by what has been written in this thread.

Again its a rabbit-run whereby your ideas are somehow confused with your person to enhance the possibility that someone will not see that your arguments are badly flawed.

We've all pretty much experienced that "outsider" effect in our lives. Just as you have done.

I think what has been questioned more than anything else is how, having experienced that exile from human possibility, you seem more than willing to exile others or at least label them in ways that sheer conditioning will shade into a labelling and a sense of them that makes them less-than.

I know you're adept enough at language to know that difference.

Nichole

It seems that the study is ok, while the blog post cited is utter rubbish.

The study didn't have anything to do with "classical" transsexual, they just used a group of mtfs without dividing them into any groups like AG/classical.

The actual results of the study are a lot grayer than mentioned here. (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36158020081026)
"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry.". This is statistically significant, but not a binary distintion.

Quote from: lexshue on October 28, 2008, 01:03:58 PM
This is statistically significant, but not a binary distintion.

Which is exactly the opinion made by our transsexed-historied rocket scientist here.

Nichole

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 27, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa.......

First of all what does this have to do with the gaining of rights under the ADA.  Second of all, you are familiar with what I wrote in my own blog entitled "Towards Trans Sanity".  What you might not be familiar with is that particular entry was vetted by the International Psychiatrist of the Year, who just happens to be one of my closest friends and the current "go to" person in the psychiatric community on this very issue.

I soft pedal the figures but the actual current ratio of AG to classic transsexuals presenting for evaluation is estimated at 65 to 35........and we can separate them with what Harvard Medical states is close to 100% accuracy now.  Psychiatry considers this important because:  there is approaching zero dissatisfaction with surgical outcome even when less than perfect among the classical transsexuals.  Among the AGs the figures run closer to 50-50 regardless of the outcome.  This might not be significant to you, but to a profession that wishes to do no harm and also cover it's own butt, this is pretty darn important.

AG is in the DSM, it ain't coming out because the deck was stacked with the revision team to make sure it didn't.  What is coming with the revision is a redefinition of all non-classical transsexuality (medical model it's called in the trade) as fetishist.  Don't shoot the messenger, it's just how it was stacked.  And since I need to spell it out to you........there isn't a legislator in the world who will vote to protect a sexual fetish class.......ergo, an end to transgender dreams of protection via an inclusive ENDA.

I started warning the trans-activist crowd more than a decade ago this was coming.....now it's too late to stop it.

You're perpetuating the autogynephelia notion right there. Saying that there's a distinction. Why?

And, as was pointed out, AG isn't specifically in the DSM.

My previous statement was not a personal attack, it was honest sincere questioning.

I called your position hypocritical. I called you to task for a belief you've espoused, that isn't a personal attack, that is an attack on a position.

If you want a personal attack, here it is - you're paranoid. Now knock of the theatrics and hysterics and actually talk about the issue. I'm not here to abuse you, just your position of exclusion and divisive idealogy.

I am entitled to actually have an answer to a challenge made to a position you've put forward in a debate, this isn't male privilege, this is simply proper debate technique. But, like most politicians, instead of sticking to the issues, you've turned this into a big ball of emotions. Sorry hun, I don't have emotions (remember? - Aspergers) I'm running on pure logic here, and your statements don't follow a consistent idealogy.

Also, I did see that you were a mosaic chimera - doesn't matter - the point holds. What right does anyone have to deny the validity of the gender dysphoria of another human being? Especially someone who has experienced that Gender Dysphoria, and the resultant issues that come with people not understanding.

It's like a rape victim raping someone else to validate their experience. I don't understand the logic.

In the past 24 hours I've been called an autogynophile, a racist, a demented cult leader, homophobic, illogical and my ideas vile and transphobic.  I've been told I threw most of the trans community under a bus, oppose civil rights for those not like me.......feel the love.  At least I haven't received a new round of death threats yet, but then the day is young.

Didnt YOU say you were an autogynophile?
the rest i dont really belive was said, but ill solve your memory issues, you are however extremely agressive and confrontational, and lack any knowlage of the whole referencing mlarkey... oh and paranoia, thats a good one.

Quote from: Nichole on October 28, 2008, 09:15:26 AM
->-bleeped-<- is NOT mentioned in the DSM and there have been no revisions since 2000. That entire line of "reasoning" is simply not factual, Cathryn. And "open gender warfare!!!?" Where did that come from and to what end? Again, luv, your rabbits flee.

Nichole

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

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

Nikki

It actually is mentioned once, on page 574 of the soft bound version under 302.3 Transvestic Fetishism.  paragraph 1, " The paraphilic focus of Transvestic Fetishism involves cross-dressing by a male in women's attire.  In many or most cases sexual arousal is produced by the accompanying thought or image of the person as a female  (referred to as " ->-bleeped-<-")."

That is the only time the word is used in the section on sexual dysfunctions.  It definately is not a stand alone condition.

Thanks for the correction, Claire.

So, taking what I hadn't noticed into account let me re-parse my thought. " ->-bleeped-<- is not mentioned in the DSM as a condition that is either prevalent or indicative of anything except as a footnote and nod of recognition to the views of Dr. Blanchard who was working with the committee that cited the word."

Which, of course, heightens my suspicion and stance that the APA is working itself and its DSM into the category of obsolete manual due to its unmitigated use of it's own committee members' definitions of processes and 'behavioral triggers" that have not been shown scientifically to exist at all.

OK, I can accept that.

Nichole

Rachael - who are you talking to?

She appeared to be talking to Cathryn, flutter. Or so her words read to me since she quoted Cathryn.

Nichole

Soooo... going back to the OP and obviating the reference to "classic" transsexuality and AG (because we have discussed this a bazillion times). Does this mean we are on a merger path with the IS community? This is neat, more friends

I believe that to be true, SJ. There's more and more evidence pointing toward an intersex condition.

Of course, that merger may well not be a better stuation than we are currently in as the intersex folk have been as dismissed and marginalized by the "psychiatric profession" AND the medical profession as have we by the shrinks.

What we gain may be a loss in point of fact in some areas. Although the fact of a materially available "reason" will do for the individual pretty much what Cindi said earlier she hoped it would do. At the least it grants a physical rather than a mental-health "reason" for the ways we are.

Of course humans don't have a grand track-record about acceptance of physical difference either. Just ask persons of color or the disabled. *sigh* It is what it is, but it would sure be nice to see some changes in "the way it is."

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on October 27, 2008, 08:14:00 PM
Mnay patient's rights groups are finding a similar reception as are the gender-disordered, Lisa. The intent focus we have on the gender parts helps us to not see that this is typical behavior seen typically by providers who are insistently marginalized by the "psychiatrists" who very seldom, any longer, spend more than about 5 minutes a visit with patients. There's more time that way to see drug reps or have a drug company fund some research to promote a "pathology" the drug-company just developed a medication to treat!

Nichole

Yeah, I know all this happens, given that I've had one of those five minute appointments to get the worst prescription of my life (paxil). What I didn't know was whether the various groups assigned to various parts of the DSM-V were as awful as those assigned to the gender bits.

Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:18:45 pm

---

Quote from: goingdown on October 28, 2008, 07:18:19 AM
As i have said using Bailey-Lawrence I am too an autogynephilic 
There was scorable test somewhere but I do not remember exactly where.

Per Bailey's scoring system, I am neither AGTS nor HSTS. I don't exist.

Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:20:32 pm

---

Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 08:47:45 AM
I'm sorry, but you're coming out with a lot of rubbish hon... there is a clear difference between early and young transitioners, and between ->-bleeped-<- and classical. We just discussed this in chat and tbh, im more conviced that there are differences between young and old transitioners GID, not that one is better or worse, just DIFFERNET, and i fail to see what is worng with that. As for the whole ->-bleeped-<- thing. I for one do NOT belive ->-bleeped-<- persons are female tbh... just obsessed and fettishistic.... doesnt mean its not caused by something, they just arnt women.

Is there really a difference between early and late transitioners? Because I started transition at 18, and I've spoken to several late transitioners, and I'm hard-pressed to find a difference between their own experiences in childhood and mine. I mean...we don't all have identical experiences, but their description of dysphoria is pretty comparable to mine.

What's wrong with trying to set up a false dichotomy between early and late transitioners is that it reinforces anti-trans bigotry, and reinforces a parallel dichotomy where some trans women are good and some trans women are bad.

I don't believe ->-bleeped-<- exists, so I find it puzzling that anyone talks about whether any trans women are ->-bleeped-<- or not.

Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:33:19 pm

---

Quote from: Nichole on October 28, 2008, 09:15:26 AM
->-bleeped-<- is NOT mentioned in the DSM and there have been no revisions since 2000. That entire line of "reasoning" is simply not factual, Cathryn. And "open gender warfare!!!?" Where did that come from and to what end? Again, luv, your rabbits flee.

Nichole

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

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

I agree with this, actually.

I don't think there's really a strong difference in how early or late transitioners are transsexual, but our experiences differ in many ways.

Posted on: October 28, 2008, 04:38:30 pm

---

Quote from: lexshue on October 28, 2008, 01:03:58 PM
The actual results of the study are a lot grayer than mentioned here. (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36158020081026)
"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry.". This is statistically significant, but not a binary distintion.

It's even grayer than that.

Take a population of 10,000,000 men and trans women. If you take Lynn Conway's most liberal estimate of 1 in 500 being trans. That'd be 9,980,000 cis men and 20,000 trans women.

If 47.6% of the cis men have the gene, that's 4,750,480 with the "transsexual gene." If 55.4% of the trans women have the gene, that's 11,080 trans women with the gene, for a total of 4,761,560 out of 10,000,000 people.

Or rather, that 02.327% of the people with the transsexual gene actually turn out to be trans women.

Didnt say thier childhoods were differnt love, just that there is an inherrent difference in gid that allows someone to live to 40, marry, have kids, then forces them to transition, and a gid that forces a teenager to do it there and then. none is better or worse, but you must admit that there are two camps of transition

Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:34:40 PM
Didnt say thier childhoods were differnt love, just that there is an inherrent difference in gid that allows someone to live to 40, marry, have kids, then forces them to transition, and a gid that forces a teenager to do it there and then. none is better or worse, but you must admit that there are two camps of transition

I'm not so sure that its that easy to distinguish between differences caused by GID, from those caused by social environment/personality/etc.

Just because a person's GID may result in them doing completely different things from you or i, doesn't imply that its any different.  I think its more likely that its down to people coping with their GID differently.

ok, so it apears two distinct groups deal differently. why?

Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:34:40 PM
Didnt say thier childhoods were differnt love, just that there is an inherrent difference in gid that allows someone to live to 40, marry, have kids, then forces them to transition, and a gid that forces a teenager to do it there and then. none is better or worse, but you must admit that there are two camps of transition

I don't believe that's true.

I also don't believe that there are two camps of transitioning. I believe that people transition at any age, and some develop stronger coping strategies to avoid transition than others.

Do you think that someone who comes out as lesbian in her teens is inherently different from someone who comes out later in life? That her being lesbian is somehow qualitatively different than the teenaged lesbian?

Posted on: October 28, 2008, 06:04:17 pm

---

Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 05:52:05 PM
ok, so it apears two distinct groups deal differently. why?

They're not two distinct groups.

You have girls who transition before puberty
You have women who transition in our teens
You have women who transition in their 20s
You have women who transition in their 30s
You have women who transition in their 40s
You have women who transition in their 50s
You have women who transition in their 60s
You have women who transition in their 70s

Where's the cutoff point for "two distinct groups"?

different maybe.... better or worse? no, the trans community seems to belive that younger is somehow better... or older is worse. i dont see that as the case, but surely the most stuborn amungst us must see there are people who transition as soon as they can, and some who will live 30-40 years then do it. It seems quite cut to me... dispite plenty doing it at all ages as you say, theres seems distinct groupings however in the averages.

Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 06:06:32 PM
different maybe.... better or worse? no, the trans community seems to belive that younger is somehow better... or older is worse. i dont see that as the case, but surely the most stuborn amungst us must see there are people who transition as soon as they can, and some who will live 30-40 years then do it. It seems quite cut to me... dispite plenty doing it at all ages as you say, theres seems distinct groupings however in the averages.

Distinct groupings? Really?

Like many gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, I don't believe the difference is anything more than trying to not be trans for a longer period of time. Some of us can do that, some of us can't. That's all it is. It doesn't mean there's a qualitative difference in our transness, just our willingness to develop coping strategies.

haha, so you are agreeing with me? i didnt SAY there was a difference in 'how ->-bleeped-<-' they were, just that there WAS a difference in HOW....

Quote from: Rachael on October 28, 2008, 06:15:06 PM
haha, so you are agreeing with me? i didnt SAY there was a difference in 'how ->-bleeped-<-' they were, just that there WAS a difference in HOW....

There's a difference in what age they transition.

Using that to establish a false distinction between "early transitioners" and "late transitioners" is inaccurate.