Susan's Place Logo

News:

Visit our Discord server  and Wiki

Main Menu

New study confirms probable genetic cause for classic transsexuality

Started by Natasha, October 27, 2008, 12:17:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vanna

Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 28, 2008, 06:06:07 PM
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"?

i haveto agree with lisa here we all have our own strengths and weakness's in life, im a fairly late transitioner compared to some but i have always identified as female. Its fair to say transitioning today is much more accepted than when i first tried in the eighties as a teen. I was actually frowned apon and not taken seriously by my g.p, left to fend for myself and built a good defence in the meantime to deal with it.

I have never married ect and battled GID but my experiences are very similar to many teens i listen to now on some of the younger transgender forums. When i decided to transition at 35 it was finally in my terms and acceptible not to mention financially viable. I have no idea how this study really affects me or any new dsm-v in treatment terms and thats all that i desire, the right treatment and the right to transition to the gender i was supposed to be born to.
  •  

Nicky

We seem to be getting caught up in trivialities.

There is all this paranoia going on about being labled as autogynophilic when I think it is just a red hearing.

I also don't know what the agest stuff is all about either. Logically we all experience pain in different ways and there is nothing to say that we all experience the same pain equally, so who cares? At the heart of it is still the fact that we have a gender identity that does not match our birth bodies. What else matters beyond that?

As a group we seem to have picked up a lot of bagage about who we are as a people, about what makes us valid. We seem to live in a poisonous air created by the non-transgendered but perpetuated by ourselves. This is really sad.

All we actually have in this discussion is a tiny piece of research that suggests being transgendered could be physiological in 'cause'. I think us transgendered people already know this to be true deep down. Personally I think it is a bit too early to be getting up in arms about it. Certainly it is extra fodder to be used in the fight for recognition and it should not be used to say 'nah nah nah' to all those that don't fit the 'criteria'.
  •  

Shana A

If, for a hypothetical moment, we were to say that Blanchard/Bailey's autogynephelia and/or transvestic fetishism existed as a diagnosis, what's their recommended cure for it? SRS? HRT? Full time transition? Occasional cross-dressing? Inquiring minds want to know.

Z
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

glendagladwitch

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.

It really saddens me that you or anyone would take the view that some who physically transition from male to female are not women.  Even if there were such a thing as homosexual transexuals and ->-bleeped-<-, don't you think that cisgendered people are thinking that the homosexual transexuals aren't women either?  I mean, that's why they use the word "homosexual."  Men attracted to men.  And how would you feel about that?  And how do you think late transitioners or anyone who has been classified ->-bleeped-<- feels about you saying they aren't women?  It's just rude and mean.  You should keep this opinion to yourself.

Posted on: October 28, 2008, 11:29:17 pm
Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 28, 2008, 08:41:44 AM
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.

Wow.  Where did the b-word come from?  That makes absolutely no sense.  And your posts are filled with wild embellishments.  I'm beginning to think that you are severely unhinged.  Are you off your meds?
  •  

nooneinparticular

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.

What you are seeing is a much higher percentage of AGs among older transitioners.  Now I won't pass judgment on who or who isn't a "woman" but I will observe that non-transwomen know other women and those AGs are the ones who typically have so so so much trouble with "passing".......and it ain't appearance. Several of my women friends are PCOS, a hormonal condition with high amounts of testeostrone.  They all had problems being "accepted" among other women before treatment despite very female norm bodies.
  •  

Rachael

glenda: actually, no, i said that ->-bleeped-<- exists, and its easily visible in the community, just because that exists, doesnt mean the hsts exists, or they are the only two categories...

and no, i dont think men who fantasise about themselves having sex as women so much they transition are women, and thats my public opinion.
  •  

Caroline

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 06:22:44 AM
glenda: actually, no, i said that ->-bleeped-<- exists, and its easily visible in the community, just because that exists, doesnt mean the hsts exists, or they are the only two categories...

and no, i dont think men who fantasise about themselves having sex as women so much they transition are women, and thats my public opinion.

Men who have ->-bleeped-<- tendencies obviously aren't women, because they're men.  That seems fairly obvious. However, using this as an argument about ->-bleeped-<-s presumes that all  ->-bleeped-<-cs identify, and will always identify, as male.  Is it not possible to be a male-bodied woman who is very turned on by the image of herself as a woman?  Many trans women go through a fetishtic stage, sometimes about clothing, sometimes about the idea of being female bodied, many of these by the time they transition identify unreservedly as female.  Seems well with the realms of possibility to me that some women may choose to transition due to the ->-bleeped-<- feelings, this does not rule out any underlying identification as female.  Lets not forget that not all trans people consciously identify from a very young age with the gender they later realise they are, many later realise their true gender was there under the surface, affecting their lives, maybe even causing ->-bleeped-<- inclinations!  An  ->-bleeped-<-c is as free as anybody else to define their own gender identity. 
  •  

Rachael

This is getting too silly politically correct... people like anne laurence arnt in a stage. regardless of how they identify, identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession... Im afraid anyone who IDENTIFIES as being attracted to themselves as women is rather confused, and deffinately male in this instance.

Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.
  •  

Shana A

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.

What's with the phallic gun fetish in your avatar?  >:-)

Z
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

Rachael

not every interest = fettish.

Ladysniper... think id have a picture of a tomato to be more apropriate?
  •  

Caroline

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
This is getting too silly politically correct... people like anne laurence arnt in a stage. regardless of how they identify, identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession... Im afraid anyone who IDENTIFIES as being attracted to themselves as women is rather confused, and deffinately male in this instance.

Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.

It's not political correctness, it's not being prepared to jump to conclusions.  "identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession" can be targeted at any and all trans people, you don't need to be ->-bleeped-<- to be on the receiving end of that, simply feeling you should be female bodied or wanting to be perceived as female is enough.  None of us can offer absolute proof that our identities aren't the result of some 'delusion' or 'obsession'.  Nonetheless we consider our identities valid, why is that?  In case you haven't noticed, a lot of cis people play that game with trans people's identities all the time.  Doing that yourself is pot calling the kettle black.
  •  

Rachael

er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?
  •  

Caroline

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:32:47 AM
er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?

"Many trans women go through a fetishtic stage, sometimes about clothing, sometimes about the idea of being female bodied, many of these by the time they transition identify unreservedly as female.  Seems well with the realms of possibility to me that some women may choose to transition due to the ->-bleeped-<- feelings, this does not rule out any underlying identification as female."

Or are all trans women who at any point (even if they identified as female by the time they transitioned and no longer had the fetish) were turned on by the idea of being female bodied actually men? 

I don't see what the big deal is about 'coming at it from a sexual angle'.  It seems fairly logical to me that a person who is very sexual and is in 'the wrong body' would engage in fantasies about being in the body that felt right.  Given how much people often don't want to be trans it also seems logical to me that they'd indulge the fantasy rather than spending too much time wondering about any potential underlying cause.
  •  

Sephirah

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:32:47 AM
er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?

It could be symptomatic of an underlying cause, rather than causal in itself. There's no way to know for sure. And presumptions shouldn't be made based on limited information, information of which the individual themselves may not be fully aware.

I could go to the doctor requiring medication and treatment for persistant headaches and bizarre personality changes, completely oblivious to the fact that it may be a tumor that's causing them.

It takes some people years to figure out who they are, and I think it's possible that while that identity remains obscured, symptoms of that unrealised identity present themselves. Sexuality, while not identity in itself, can be an expression of that underlying identity. Do women not fantasise about having sex as women? Do women not take pleasure in seeing themselves as women?

I'm not saying it is so in all cases, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to dismiss all instances. Appearances can be deceptive, as we all know. :)

Just my two pence. :)
Natura nihil frustra facit.

"You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection." ~ Buddha.

If you're dealing with self esteem issues, maybe click here. There may be something you find useful. :)
Above all... remember: you are beautiful, you are valuable, and you have a shining spark of magnificence within you. Don't let anyone take that from you. Embrace who you are. <3
  •  

Lisa Harney

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
This is getting too silly politically correct... people like anne laurence arnt in a stage. regardless of how they identify, identity can be delusion brought on through extreme obsession... Im afraid anyone who IDENTIFIES as being attracted to themselves as women is rather confused, and deffinately male in this instance.

Sorry, but i refuse to accept every niche fettish.

Oh, I thought Anne Lawrence was a rapist and ->-bleeped-<- who was looking for an excuse to justify her actions.

I have a real problem with pathologizing the idea of women being attracted to themselves as women. Presumably, a cis woman who is attracted to herself as a woman is not a man, so I'm not sure how a trans woman who is attracted to herself as a woman is a man.

I also think the descriptions of trans women's sexual fantasies (stuff like "fantasizing about having sex with a female body and a faceless partner) weren't really compared to any cis women's sexual fantasies, because none of those fantasies are particularly remarkable or unlike anything any cis woman has come up with.
  •  

NicholeW.

I find it odd, and very sad, that someone like Cathryn, who claims to be an advocate for TSes, and, for that matter, any of the rest of us, attempts to use any of the Blanchard thought-experiment BS that has NO proof or scientific underpinnings to dismiss others just like themselves. We take the language of our inquisitors and make it our own to bash and destroy others. As if the major point is simply to hurt and dismiss those we don't like. What kind of male-dominant crap is that?

Judas-priest!! "I won't pass judgement on who or who isn't a "woman" " which immediately brings into the question exactly what she claims to "refuse" to do!! What a meager and absolutely false display of linguistic inability!

It has become more important to hurt another than to soothe one's own pains. Your lonliness and deep lack of belief in yourselves becomes plain to see as you use the axes of an atavistic hatred to hack away at others just like you as you try to say they are not like you. The effort is sad and terribly wrong-headed.

You want acceptance, you want an end to your lonliness and alienation Cathryn, that is not the way to get it. There are reasons, very good and plain reasons that the temple had a huge schism. The reasons are the very things that show in your incessant arguments about this.

Have you and your cohorts not learned yet that the dismissal of others doesn't make you any more at the center and accepted than you were before?

Perhaps instead of talking with your friends the therapists and psychiatrists you should use their services to try to handle the very obvious pain and lack of esteem you demonstrate through your willingness to try to destroy the hopes and validity of others. You make the same mistake that Blanchard and Zucker and Bailey and Lawrence have made: you believe that your argument, your own sense that you should be impotant and heeded, somehow trumps the importance of bringing us all to a place in the world where we can reach acceptance and validity in the eyes of others.

You've lit the fires of your own loathing and wonder why you are continuously burnt? Use your heart for a second and do something about your own pain and alienation instead of trying to use those to dismiss others. And that lesson shouldn't simply be used by you but by others who attempt the exact same thing.

This "argument" was personal and dismissive from the git and you brought that here with the mean-spirited and gloaty falsities of your original essay on your own blog.

Rachael, I admire you in many respects, I have watched you grow tremendously over the past year or two and I credit you with so very much promise and ability. But, my friend, the dismissal or separation of others is only going to leave us more alienated and further from the human world than we have been left already. Please do not make the attempt to provide yourself with belief and efficacy by dismissing others. It will not work. It will only make us all less. :icon_hug:

Andra is spot-on. To use the master's tools at this point to undermine the master is one thing. To use the master's tools to undermine others like one's self or very close kin to one's self is nothing but destructive and mean-spirited.

Now you may see all of this as a personal attack, Cathryn. So be it. It is actually a very sad understanding that one and another of my sisters are in deep pain and I watch them lash out at others hoping that will ease their pain.

It won't and you know it. Don't you? It's never eased any of your pain, has it? Only made it worse as people you care for and hoped to build community with have left you and gone their own way. Sowing my own hatred forever only increases my own hatred.

I find it terribly sad to see a formerly bright and lively intelligence consumed in the fires of its own alienation.

Namaste, Blessed Be, The Peace of The Lord Be With You, May the Wind Always Be At Your Back, Wherever You Go.

I'm done.

Nichole
  •  

Lisa Harney

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 07:32:47 AM
er? its one thing feeling you;'re male, female, a sofa, but when you come at it from a sexual angle, how the HELL do you expect that to be the same?

I think this may be a case of putting the cart before the horse.

How do you completely divorce being male or female from sexuality?
  •  

Rachael

Well i knew i was a girl even before i knew about sex... most humans deal with gender before sex,
  •  

Lisa Harney

Quote from: Rachael on October 29, 2008, 08:07:25 AM
Well i knew i was a girl even before i knew about sex... most humans deal with gender before sex,

That's not what I meant. I knew I was a girl before I knew about sex, but a large number of my own fantasies once I discovered sex involved me as a woman. I don't have those fantasies anymore because I am a woman, but supposedly, this is a sign that I fetishize myself as a woman. I do consider myself a sexual being now, and much of my sexuality is tied up in the fact that I'm a woman, and much is tied up in the fact that I'm attracted to women. Considering that the label ->-bleeped-<- was derived primarily to explain away and pathologize lesbian trans women and imply a deeper level of pathologization of female homosexuality, as a lesbian trans woman, I find the idea that AGTS has any grounding in reality to be truly dodgy, since it doesn't describe my experience of myself as trans or as a woman.

I know several trans women identify themselves as AGTS, but practically none of them describe it in the same way as Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence do. Also, Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence interpret the data to fit the "theory" that AGTS exists and explains anything, rather than trying to gather data to assemble a coherent knowledge base about how trans identities form.

Also, Dr. Mildred Brown already covered fetishists who seek to transition in True Selves, and with a lot more intellectual and ethical honesty than Bailey, Blanchard, or Lawrence have ever shown. Per Dr. Brown, they typically end up not finishing transition, IIRC.
  •  

Rachael

i still belive there is a differece between identity and obsession...
  •