Susan Stanton made a comment that she wasn't like those men in dresses (I'm paraphrasing) in an apparent attempt to disassociate herself from the image the public most often uses when demonizing MTFs.  Young transitioners can be stealth so much easier than late transitioners and are accepted more readily because they look more female (minimal T damage).  The author(s) of this piece are doing what Stanton did, supporting the notion that if you don't look like a natal female you should never be accepted as female.  Since they look the part, they are 'real'.

You don't have to go to Susan Stanton to get that, you only have to go to other posts here.

Quote from: SisterGirlfriend on February 12, 2009, 10:31:34 AM
It doesn't necessarily offend me because I feel like it's almost an accurate representation of my life, to be honest. Actually, that site is what helped me come to terms with my transition (though at the time I didn't know there was some sort of controversy behind it). I'm kind of confused about what the controversy stems from. Though I do take issue with the term "homosexual transsexual", mainly because its confusing as all hell. 

Check out our wiki entry as a start for the controversy:
https://www.susans.org/wiki/ ->-bleeped-<-

To my mind it tries to classify trans people as misdiagnosed homosexuals and completely disregards the mountain of evidence that gender identity and sexual orientation are completely separate parts of personality.

Sexual orientation is how you deal externally with people and gender identity is how your feel about yourself internally.

By implying that there is no such thing as gender identity, it trivializes transsexuality.  Also it does not accept the transsexual as their internal gender but stresses the birth gender as being dominant.

Check out Dr. Lyn Conway's website to get an idea of the issues of autogyephilia.

-Sandy

I just do not get that. In case they represent young transtioners why the pages have scientific articles from Transphobic people???

Quote from: Sandy on February 12, 2009, 11:01:08 AMTo my mind it tries to classify trans people as misdiagnosed homosexuals and completely disregards the mountain of evidence that gender identity and sexual orientation are completely separate parts of personality.

Sexual orientation is how you deal externally with people and gender identity is how your feel about yourself internally.

-Sandy

Are you kidding!  I transitioned just so I could play with myself.  Now I never leave the house! 

Julie

According what I can find Bailey's book  gives even more negative picture about so-called ''gay''-transsexuals than so called '' ->-bleeped-<-s''

Quote from: Kiera on February 12, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
I see in myself characteristic elements of both and perhaps it wouldn't be a totally vain endeavor to try and "classify" our Susan's membership here according to life experiences and preferences? (not to "divide" but rather to see what we share in common?) What Am I Missing Here?

Kiera,
That's the way I have always thought of myself, too, in between.  I don't really fit any of the models exactly, so I get frustrated with the classification thing.  But I guess it is one of the reasons I get irked when I hear someone say anyone who does not have their particular experience is some kind of phony.  Oh yeah?  Who would not want to be free of this if they could?  That is such BS.

Quote from: SisterGirlfriend on February 12, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
It doesn't necessarily offend me because I feel like it's almost an accurate representation of my life, to be honest. Actually, that site is what helped me come to terms with my transition (though at the time I didn't know there was some sort of controversy behind it). I'm kind of confused about what the controversy stems from. hough I do take issue with the term "homosexual transsexual", mainly because its confusing as all hell.

Yes, I know one other whose life was similar to that depicted, and the article was helpful in that respect.  No problem with that at all.  But I have to ask you:  Do you really feel you are a homosexual male who has an easier time in society having relationships with men because you look female?  Or do you feel that you were already female inside?  That is the biggest difference I see.  No doubt, we can see examples of both, but if I am to accept this person as a "true" TS, they should also accept me, even if I do not fit into their restrictive box.  But they don't, and make it clear they never will.

Kristi

Sandy, thank you for the link. I've never known anyone who describes their gender dysphoria in that way ( ->-bleeped-<-) so I find this all kind of interesting. I obviously need to do more reading. I guess this would the "secondary" transsexual category as defined by some that I've never actually encountered, so I always assumed it was very rare or just outright misunderstood.

Bailey-Blanchard crap where everything is about sex and arousal. In their view, the sole object of femininity is attracting males. I wonder what he thinks of GGs who aren't very feminine growing up. Maybe they don't exist like f2ms, lesbian transwomen, lipstick lesbians, etc.

About this website
This is a website about male to female transsexuals who were obviously feminine as young children and whose social and sexual issues are improved by choosing to live as female rather than male, a decision which usually takes place between the onset of puberty and the end of puberty for the majority of us. We have been called different names in the past, primary transsexuals, "true" transsexuals and most recently homosexual transsexuals. We feel this last taxonomy is more etiologically and descriptively correct and that it holds the most potential for understanding, both socially and therapeutically, those of us who begin our lives as "transkids".

---

Post Merge: February 12, 2009, 11:57:42 AM

---

Quote from: Rebis on February 12, 2009, 09:55:52 AM
We should classify ourselves as "Susans Transpeople"

All others are fakes!

I couldn't care less how someone else wants to presume to divvy up the world. That's usually just about "proving" that they are somehow better than somebody else. It's hogwash.

Hold it! Hold it!

If homosexuality had a part to play in that people would transition so as not to be identified as "homosexual" because of the stigma that the culture places upon that, then, why would there be TS people in cultures that are entirely accepting of homosexuality?

I'm too lazy to go looking for an example.

Quote from: Kristi on February 12, 2009, 11:17:29 AM
Kiera,
That's the way I have always thought of myself, too, in between.  I don't really fit any of the models exactly, so I get frustrated with the classification thing.  But I guess it is one of the reasons I get irked when I hear someone say anyone who does not have their particular experience is some kind of phony.  Oh yeah?  Who would not want to be free of this if they could?  That is such BS.


Yes, I know one other whose life was similar to that depicted, and the article was helpful in that respect.  No problem with that at all.  But I have to ask you:  Do you really feel you are a homosexual male who has an easier time in society having relationships with men because you look female?  Or do you feel that you were already female inside?  That is the biggest difference I see.  No doubt, we can see examples of both, but if I am to accept this person as a "true" TS, they should also accept me, even if I do not fit into their restrictive box.  But they don't, and make it clear they never will.

Kristi

I just know I've always been way too feminine and attracted to boys, realized that I'd probably be happier  as a girl and so far its been smooth selling and I've never been happier.  Either way I'd NEVER try to invalidate the experiences of anyone else. Anyone who identifies as a woman is woman enough in my book, period, and I'm uncomfortable with trying to put down others just because they arrived to where they are in a different way than I did.

But I certainly wasn't motivated by anything sexually. I've only lived in very liberal areas where living as a gay man and dating men shocks no one, where as being transsexual always raises eyebrows no matter what crowd you're in.

Quote from: Kiera on February 12, 2009, 04:24:52 PM
lol! Key phrase there is "part to play" Rebis and who said anything 'bout "stigma", it cannot be "built in"? Surely it is still easier now-a-days to be "gay" rather than a "TS" but 'ell, forget "culture" . . . since my parents always suspected the former of me anyway why seriously bother now trying to un-enlightening 'em?

I am no "crusader" and remember, one must always keep in mind "the material" we are truly dealing with here so . . .

Lazy, contented minds beget I can be too lazy too?

Oh. I wasn't targeting anything you wrote.  I meant people in general.  It is easier to be gay these days but until recently, it was a serious stigma.  Now not so bad.

remember when Jodie on SOAP came close to GRS so he could be with his football star boyfriend?  I can't envision anyone doing that, but it sounds like that's what the transkids place is saying. 

Ok, my life would have been much better (this morning) not finding this link ... and reading as far as I could take it    If I read the term "autogynephilic transsexuals" one more time I'm going into dry heaves.   

Wasting time, *huggs*,
Melan

---

Post Merge: February 13, 2009, 07:56:03 AM

---

Yikes sorry for the double posting, but I've continued reading more on the subject after getting up.  The bad taste left in my mouth from reading the site listed in this thread, led me to reading more about "Autogynephilic Transsexualism" this morning.  I was surprised to see recent publications from Anne Lawrence actually touting the theory.  A more well-rounded theory, but still pushing the theory forward.

This is her conclusion, in her article, "Becoming What We Love: Autogynephilic Transsexualism Conceptualized as an Expression of Romantic Love":

QuoteThe concept of  ->-bleeped-<- is essential to understanding the increasing
prevalence of atypical MtF transsexualism in Western countries. Autogynephilic
transsexualism is a manifestation of paraphilic sexuality, but thinking about
->-bleeped-<- as a purely erotic phenomenon is not the most helpful approach for
clinicians who want to achieve a sophisticated understanding of their
nonhomosexual MtF transsexual patients. Thinking about nonhomosexual or
autogynephilic MtF transsexuals as men who "love women and want to become
what they love" offers a more accurate and more richly informative model for
clinicians.

Reading this article does not make me feel good, not in the least.  She makes a statement:

QuoteSome MtF transsexuals object vehemently to Blanchard's  ->-bleeped-<--based
typology and theory of transsexual motivation. Not surprisingly, most of these
objectors are persons who fit the demographic pattern of autogynephilic
transsexualism.

That hits pretty hard, when it is very true for me, I honestly do fit the demographic pattern described by this theory, however I will vehemently deny any insinuation that my transsexuality is some form of "romantic love for women".  She then gears the rest of her article to describing how the theory applies to people like me.  I feel betrayed reading this article by a prominent trans woman, who resides in the world's eye, especially within the academic community.  And I had always wondered how institutions that treat transgendered patients, like the Clark (the nefarious CamH in Toronto) could use these theories, hell, they're embraced by people like Anne Lawrence.  I have a friend that went there recently, and she was actually diagnosed with "Autogynephilic Transsexualism".   She was perturbed with the diagnosis, but didn't fight it, she wanted her HRT.   The same institute, I have heard, actually used shock (aversion) therapy in the past to discourage behavior that followed patterns described by the theory of Autogynephilic Transsexualism. 

Do I feel less a woman if one picks my life apart, and defines exact causal relationships of why I feel like I feel, of who I am?  I'm not sure, but I do feel queasy at the thought of this.    For some reason, it makes me feel stupid, like this is some curable malady, that hitting a 10-step program, a therapist, and a few anti-anxiety medications could fix up.   This theory invalidates my existence as a trans gendered person.  Yuck, back to my regularly unscheduled life, I can't dwell on this anymore.

*huggs*,
Melan

Quote from: Sephirah on February 11, 2009, 11:36:14 AM
That whole site is five years old and doesn't seem to have been touched since then.

Maybe the 'transkids' grew up. I would hope so.

This website is far from 'dead' and yes,

Quote from: 2013 Update:
In the past eight years, a number of the original writers of this website have moved on to other endeavors, as is fitting for young people to do. The site continues to be maintained by Kay Brown (aka: Cloudy) since Kiira Triea died in the fall of 2012

.
There's a whole new 'science' section with extensive essays and, if they seem 'elitist' and 'unrepresentative' of TS in general, perhaps it's because many here have rejected their premises outright and certainly have that right to do so?
 

I'm not offended, but will admit that I found the bit I read about the site and concept hilariously funny.

Numerous fails here. Firstly for the assumption that people are generally so ignorant. Secondly for the assumption that people are so bothered that minor distinctions and labels are necessary. Thirdly for the assumption that they're experts on gender.

These people sound so anally retentive that if you shoved a billiard ball up their backside you'd probably only get a kid's marble back.

Another thing is that if you have to go to great lengths to explain to people who you are, you're probably someone completely different in reality.

But still, I'd give it 3 out of 5 for the dramatics and the comedy effect.

That's crazy. I would think transitioning young would not make us more anything vs someone who transitions later. And the gay comment. That's just silly. It was a good laugh though

I was offended up until the author said "it". Anytime I read an article and "it" is used, I immediately know the author is clearly very hateful. 

From what I understand of the theory, and I use that word loosely here, of autogynephillic transsexualism is that it is outdated, and disregarded by about 98% of the medical community. Those who do believe in the theory are not well respected by the 98%. Personally I find TERFs to be much more offensive since they are essentially a hate group.

This thread was started in 2009, and dormant until today. In the meanwhile,  the site owner has instituted a policy against ->-bleeped-<- topics. I am locking this thread.