I find it strange that they want to make such changes at this point in time.

States are voting on same sex marriage, protection from discrimination, etc.

Somehow there must be a political or finacial reason behind it.

Sarah L.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on April 29, 2009, 04:39:56 PM
I find it strange that they want to make such changes at this point in time.

States are voting on same sex marriage, protection from discrimination, etc.

Somehow there must be a political or finacial reason behind it.

Sarah L.

Astute, Sarah. Yes, if they cannot get the Blanchard theories in this time around they will likely be unable to get them in ever. There's the crux of the matter and, just imo, any transsexual who feels they should be able to do so is cutting her own throat to spite the "transgender."

And yes, there's a good deal of financial wherewithal at stake as well. Both Zucker and Blanchard make good livings through their researches, Zucker's and Blanchard's clinics at CAMH. They also gather speaking engagements and have publication perks as well: Zucker is editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the publication of the International Academy of Sex Research, which gives him and his cronies a highly regarded publishing venue.

They regularly flog their pet notions in its pages, even the rather personal attacks made against Conway and James by Michael Bailey and, of all people, Kiiri Triea, Alice Dreger and Anne Lawrence. That might also be open to change if he and Blanchard cannot get their ideas enshrined in the DSM.

Nichole

Wouldn't it be interesting if it turned out that very effeminate gays were the ones in denial. 

Quote from: Leslie Ann on April 29, 2009, 05:59:53 PM
Wouldn't it be interesting if it turned out that very effeminate gays were the ones in denial. 

I doubt that very much.

Brain scans on a few of them have shown their brain works more closely to women than men.  While I meant it as somewhat of a joke, it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

It also never hurts to have a devils advocate.

Personally I think that what much of the problem is that given the nature of speculative psychology, and this is that, what we should all become acquainted with is something my 11 year old and his friend showed me this afternoon at YouTube.

Hey, I know Jack, and you don't know Schitt.

Sorry, I can't help it.

nice to see ya cathryn

Nice to see you too Natasha...
Nicole, so I'm not a seer?....check out my latest blog entry based on inside information I got just this morning scooping everyone in the battle.  Six months from now I will be regretfully saying "I told you so" once again.

---

Post Merge: May 02, 2009, 08:40:55 PM

---

Just read the "topic banned" thread.  Since it was my blog posts that apparently being linked here that started this and reading that basically I am not wanted here, this will be my last response here.

I would like to point out, however, I was once a major trans-activist, founded or co-founded some of the state and federal level advocacy groups still around today, led the way in trying to provide housing for newly transitioned women, reclaimed the only major religion in the history of the world that was transsexual welcoming and to this day devote a lot of time to personal counseling others starting out........of course the fact I find the label "transgender" personally offensive applied to myself negates all that.

And what major religion was that? Buddhism? Maybe in Thailand to a very small extent, but elsewhere?