Hi everyone:

As you probably know, there was a tremendous opposition to the book THE MAN WHO WOULD BE QUEEN by J. Michael Bailey where he talks about the two classifications of male to female transsexuals.
On his book, Bailey states that there are two types of MTF transsexuals, gynephilic (sexually aroused by the thought of viewing themselves  as a woman) and androphillic (distinguished on the basis of their homosexual orientation prior to transition). 
Since this book was published, some reputable pshychologists, like Dr. Ray Blanchard, have stepped forward to concur with Bailey's theory, thus creating disagreement and more confusion among the transgender community.

Personally I'm just fed up with the fact that we are always seen as guinea pigs for their studies and theories.  Perhaps it's about time for them to accept that some  people simply are.
Anyway....no, I don't agree with blanchard's and Bailey's theory simply because my motivation to transition was NOT sexual in any respect at all.  I didn't transition because I was obsessed to appear like a woman, or wanted to get more boyfriends as Bailey implies on his book; I transitioned because I am a woman.  Period.


tinkerbell


P.S.  check out these links:

http://geekbabe.com/annie/feature/dsmiv.html

http://www.genderpsychology.org/ ->-bleeped-<-/ray_blanchard



Posted at: July 04, 2006, 07:33:24 PM

---

Hi Cindi:
Ok  I see where you're getting at... lol...ha..ha..ha..funny girl. I actually agree with you totally...two types,  why not classify them instead as the younger type, and the not so...well...you get the idea........I'm also feeling hilarious today...   I've spent almost three hours in the humor section, you should check it out; it's a lot of fun. 
There's a topic somewhere around here about sexual orientation; so if we take that topic into consideration, probably we should classify ourselves by our sexual preference.  Homosexual, (attracted to people of the same gender (not sex by the way),  heterosexual (attracted to people to the opposite gender, asexual (attracted to neither gender...aha..), bisexual (attracted to both genders), and Pansexual (attracted to pans?) Only God knows what kind of whateverSEXUAL they will come up next. 
Anyway... good night now....sleep tight...don't let the bed bugs bite....it even rhymes....lol.



tinkerbell

P.S.  By the way...I love your chronicles, Cindi.  I'll post a reply when I finish reading them all.

Poetry deleted per administrator request
Michelle

What's ashame is that some of Bailey's observations are actually very interesting, but they're lost in the furor over his self-serving, simplistic and short-sighted conclusions. I don't believe in Bailey's two-types model of transsexualism, but I don't believe in the usual "gender identity" model either. BOTH models, IMHO, incorrectly suggest consequences as causes... and BOTH models are equally self-serving and misleading.

The answer, IMHO, lies somewhere else - though for the life of me, I can't figure it out.

Actually, there are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't

(sorry, but the latter won't get the joke)

Dennis

tinkerbell:
  check the posts o spirituality, about how they (proffesional medical class has become the religion..or something like that...they are the high priests...
agree am fed up with being their guinie pig. the sad part is that even if they got it they could not settle for it because they are addicted to postulating theories , they are projecting their shortcommings on us.

Dennis:
i like that, pun at two levels 

sheila

What happened is that they needed something after the community rejected the whole primary transsexual and secondary transsexual classifications.  :rolleyes

What they are trying to do is fight the rising tide of findings that may make this out to be a biological issue after all.  Kind of like how the Church still fights science that it does not agree with and all.

I am sure there are a few out there who have or would "get off" by going through this.  Some sick and twisted individuals mind you, but no reason to classify everyone  in that way.

homosexual...I thought of myself as a girl trapped in a boy's body and only had intimate relations with other girls...but somehow I doubt that is what these SMFs were thinking of when they put that to print.

Quote from: sheila18 on July 06, 2006, 01:53:52 AMthe sad part is that even if they got it they could not settle for it because they are addicted to postulating theories , they are projecting their shortcommings on us.

We do it too though... it's just harder to see because we're *in* it, indoctrinated into the mythos. It's like fish trying to notice the water they're in.

But the entire concept of having a "gender identity" and being "a woman trapped inside," has no rational, scientific basis. It's as vague and nebulous as the christian "soul." And yet, we're so used to *describing* the sensations in those terms, that they've taken on a life of their own, become assumed to be a physical fact.

It's kinda like gravity: you can't hold gravity in your hand, you can't see it, you can't capture gravity particles. And yet since we've labelled it, we think of it as a THING. But it's not. It's an effect, a process. You can observe the fact the things fall, but to ask WHY they fall leads to a circular reference problem.

Quote from: cindianna_jones on July 06, 2006, 09:47:50 AM
Kate,

I never referred to myself as a woman trapped in a man's body.  It proved to be a hurdle when I needed my official referrals.

"I want to be a woman" 
"Why is that?"
"I have always wanted to be a girl and then a woman"
"What gender to you feel you are?"
"I can look down and see. There's no doubting it."
"So do you see yourself as a man?"
"That's what I see. It's not what I want."
"So in your mind, you are a woman?"
"My muse says so.  But I know that I'm a man."

And on and on and on.

It was great fun. 

EXACTLY! It's soooo relieving to hear you say this. THANK you.

Great fun? Ah yes, a curious definition of "fun" this is, lol...

But yes, even the muse or squirrel explanations are as valid as "gender identity" or  ->-bleeped-<-, methinks. The process really doesn't care. It just laughs at our creativity and keeps right on spinning.

Poetry deleted per administrator request
Cindi

"Great fun" in the same way carving one's eyes out with a rusty spoon is fun, I suspect.

all:
You guys get it! I never liked the "woman trapped in a man's body" explanation
  I am not trapped this is what God wanted me to be, not a genetic woman but a transexual, what  is wrong with that?  Only dogmatic religious society thinks so...actually is not think so because if they thought they would eventually see it as we do...is more : feel so  they fear the wrath of a vengefull god. 
sheila

Quote from: Kimberly on July 06, 2006, 11:53:42 AM
"Great fun" in the same way carving one's eyes out with a rusty spoon is fun, I suspect.

Don't forget that you would be replacing the eye with a different one and would need to use a C-clamp to squeeze it back in.  Yes, great fun indeed.

Melissa

Quote from: cindianna_jones on July 06, 2006, 04:49:10 PM
When I was confronted by my mother, I likened it to her hysterctomy.  It was not all that different, I reasoned.  She didn't see it.

Cindi

  Good one I like that, quick to the heart or chest
sh.

I read bits and pieces of the book and found it to be worth burning. Now, I don't believe in burning books so it is still in my library. As I have said in the past I don't like labels and they tend to destroy who you are. Whoops my partner is home and we are on vacation will see you all later
Love Sheila

Just to stir up some controversy, I would state that there are only two types of people in the world and that they would be those who are women and those who are not

Steph

Hi everyone,

Bailey's study is so flawed that it can only be viewed as a vehicle for his theories, not any real science.  His selection methods and criteria violate simple rules of gathering emperical evidence and starts out by making assumptions.  His study also fails to have a control group.

Sorry folks, I don't think the real mental health community takes this seriously. It's psuedo-science, plain and simple.

Love always,
Elizabeth

I agree Bailey's study is very flawed and should not be taken too seriously by anyone.  The way he gathered the information and narrows it down to draw his conclusions is like bending the truth to present a preconditioned outcome.  Its like looking at charts and graphs.  Anyone can easily manipulate these to mean anything they desire just by how they draw them.   

Shannon