Gosh, there are so many threads I want to respond to after reading a lot of them!

However, I thought I'd try posting one myself first since I feel this might be as well as any good place to start for myself considering that I feel that this topic is very relevant to me and perhaps for some other women here.

What do you think/how do you feel about the "homosexual transsexual/transgender" theory postulated at Second Type Woman website (authored by Anne Richards, but actually I believe she cited that theory from another doctor who also discussed the autogynphelic theory behind transsexualism. I think her name was Anne Lawrence.)

I used to be a man who mistakenly self-identified as gay who is transitioning into a straight woman, so I am wondering if there is any validity or "meat" to this "homosexual transsexual/transgender" theory?

A theory so discredited that even the place that paid for that research to be done no longer holds to those ideas (CAMH). Blanchard (the original author of the idiocy) manufactured his ideology by classifying people like me as liars and discarding those results.

I used to be a gay girl who was assigned male and lived as a guy due to an unfortunate birth defect. Now I'm a gay girl who lives as a girl. Thinking about my body with correct physical arrangement makes me depressed, not turned on. So as far as that theory goes - I don't exist.

Quote from: Sarah7 on November 16, 2011, 10:27:09 PM
A theory so discredited that even the place that paid for that research to be done no longer holds to those ideas (CAMH). Blanchard (the original author of the idiocy) manufacture his ideology by classifying people like me as liars and discarding those results.

I used to be a gay girl who was assigned male and lived as a guy due to an unfortunate birth defect. Now I'm a gay girl who lives as a girl. Thinking about my body with correct physical arrangement makes me depressed, not turned on. So as far as that theory goes - I don't exist.

100% this.

This sort of thing is easy enough to address. You've already been told that *Bailey is full of it, so I won't bother accentuating that. Instead, I'm going to give you a tool to assess all future claims made by any research. This is stuff you'll learn in Bio 101, Chem 101, or Phys 101, nothing too complicated. But it's insanely powerful for sorting the truth from the trash.

For any claim that is put forth as scientific, the following criteria must always be met:

1. The argument must be falsifiable. Any claim that can never be disputed and/or simply ignores counter-evidence is not scientific by default.
2. The argument must be based on the results of repeated experimentation. In other words, never interpret the data in a manner slanted toward pre-existing conclusions and DO NOT just make things up.
3. Experiments must be conducted in a manner that minimizes a bias in the results. In other words, make sure your sample is representative and random.
4. Experimental design must be such that the question asked is actually answered by the data. You can't just mash random, irrelevant data in to try to show something is true.

It takes a little bit of practice to master applying these criteria. Here are some key questions you can ask:

-Who conducted the research, and who funded it? (Gets at criteria 2 and 3, since biased parties are most likely to violate these)
-Can the claims made be tested? (Gets at criterion 1, since an unfalsifiable claim is impossible to test)
-Does the evidence examined support the claims made? (This is actually just a different way to say criterion 4)
-Does the language used try to lead the reader to a certain conclusion, or are the arguments genuinely presented interpretations of the data? (Look for key leading words and phrases which try to obviate the claims made.)

Leading Example: "The data obviously show that freshwater fish exhibited a migratory pattern which characteristically evaded areas above 30 degrees Celsius."
Correct Way: "The absence of freshwater species in any nets placed in areas exceeding an average temperature of 30 degrees Celsius suggests that these species' migration
                        patterns may be such that warmer water is avoided."

See how the first one just gives an answer, while the second one suggests a possible interpretation based on collected data without ruling out the possibility that the interpretation may be wrong?

Quote from: Sarah7 on November 16, 2011, 10:27:09 PMI used to be a gay girl who was assigned male and lived as a guy due to an unfortunate birth defect. Now I'm a gay girl who lives as a girl. Thinking about my body with correct physical arrangement makes me depressed, not turned on. So as far as that theory goes - I don't exist.

No, you exist in *Bailey's paradigm. You're a trans activist bent on maintaining a "screen of deception" in front of his "good science" and devoted to tarnishing his reputation as a scientist for political ends. You "just don't like" the results of his research rather than having legitimate criticisms. Honestly, his defenders call themselves scientists? Burn their degrees and ban them from regaining their credentials, I say. Fraud should not be tolerated in the scientific community.

*Both J. Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard could be addressed by this. I just switched the name.

Apart from the fact that it's a discredited theory..

I knew I was a girl/woman from the age of 12.. I became a gay guy simply because I thought it would enable me to 'fit in' somewhere, due to my quite feminine nature.. It seemed a great way to hide.. However, several of my former partners have all informed me that they knew what I really was, even if I wasn't ready/willing to admit it..

Can someone give a link to this study? Now I'm interested. :s

Since this thread is here and being bombed I'd like to ask if I'm explaining transsexuals corrrectly.

When confronted with a bigot I try to ask them to consider AIS and Hermaphrodites.

I ask them to consider a Hermaphrodite child who is born with both male and female sexual organs.   

How would you raise the child?   Which gender would you go with?   I ask them to consider if you had started to raise the child as a male and then the child stated they were a female and wanted to be a female.  Wouldn't you stop and reconsider and then allow the child to transition to the gender with which they identified.

Usually this issue comes up because people freak at the idea of starting hormone blockers at a young age.   To me transsexuals have a body birth defect where they present as the opposite sex than their gender.

It seems pretty straight forward to me.   If AIS can happen and hermaphrodites can happen then it is completely reasonable to understand transsexuals as having a birth defect.

However the argument thrown back is that transsexuals have perfectly healthy bodies.   I argue that so do hermaphrodites if you think about it, it's simply society that pushes people into categories.  However it is important to honor the person's identity.


Am I explaining this in a good way or is this disrespectful to transsexuals?

Quote from: MsDazzler on November 16, 2011, 10:09:34 PMI used to be a man who mistakenly self-identified as gay who is transitioning into a straight woman, so I am . . .

Quote from: kelly_aus on November 17, 2011, 04:15:29 AMI knew I was a girl/woman from the age of 12.. I became a gay guy simply because I thought it would enable me to 'fit in' somewhere, due to my quite feminine nature.. It seemed a great way to hide.. However . . 

Quote from: Sarah7 on November 16, 2011, 10:27:09 PMI used to be a gay girl who was assigned male and lived as a guy due to an unfortunate birth defect. Now I'm a gay girl who lives as a girl.

Listen to yourselves talk! lol The whole problem with the "gay theory" is at one time assuming it's "normal" which it's not - more accepted yes but a benchmark "trait or behavior" on which to gauge yet another condition wholly unrelated? One mistaken premise ie: most "gay guys" are not "feminine" at all. How many here actually engaged and enjoyed as a male "gay sex"? I suspect not too many . . . Another: "Now . . . a gay girl" who yet retained the sexual preference of her former "mistaken male self" ?

To say "birth defect or abnormality" really says, tells us nothing about true causes either while all the time simply outright rejecting every other stumbling explanation that happens along.. ?

I could say when younger (like people here?) "i very much enjoyed the attentions of a particular "boyfriend", real name "Glenn", but the only thing at the time i knew for sure was I WAS NOT GAY (like he turned out and wanted me to be -> a gay male fashion model? No way!). We're ALL products of environments and adjust behavior accordingly to "fit in", survive but when one stops apologizing and viewing TS as a "natural defect" in the first place one realizes that most all women, likewise men, are sexual beings on which subsequent lifetime decisions & behavior are, for most all, normally based.

Is it simply a matter of what cis people take for granted we cannot?

In other words, are we talking about "causes" or "end, desired results" ? "Trans" people have been around for thousands of years and now-a-days it's a condition, like religious "beliefs" (lol), that's relatively easily correctable thru advances in scientific medicine and knowledge. The whole irreconcilable argument behind "trans theory" assumes what ? ?

That WE want to be JUST LIKE THEM?

It's a personal issue, decision of course but in my case I think NOT! Whatever the underlying REASONS, CAUSES and after over 40 years of struggling with this I LIKE BEING TRANS and feel have something different and special to offer and wouldn't have it any other way! For my "validation", excuse and/or reason we feel COMPELLED none-the-less "by society" to have, PASSING can be one important consideration but, when all else fails, all i have to do is look for ACCEPTENCE here:

Quote from: eunuch
[yo̅o̅′nək]
Etymology: Gk, eune, couch, echein, to guard
a male whose testicles have been destroyed or removed. If this occurs before puberty, secondary sex characteristics fail to develop, and symptoms such as a feminine voice and absence of facial hair can result from the reduced level of male hormones in the blood. See also secondary sex characteristic.

noun. Any of various characteristics specific to females or males but not directly concerned with reproduction

"couch, to guard"  . . . what ?
 
•Matthew 19:11-12 (and note context, topic in which speaking because i think very relevent for us today) Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage _{( sub: predefined natural gender "divisions/roles"? )} because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Sound Familiar? Same conclusion -> "why" doesn't matter because . . . ?

Quote from: mixie on November 17, 2011, 07:30:38 AM. . .  it's simply society that pushes people into categories.  However it is important to honor the person's identity.

mixie CORRECT! It's not so simple a "bi-polar" argument, there's much more to it than that and we are here to Challenge their assumptions rather other way around!!

Quote from: MsDazzler on November 16, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Gosh, there are so many threads I want to respond to after reading a lot of them!

However, I thought I'd try posting one myself first since I feel this might be as well as any good place to start for myself considering that I feel that this topic is very relevant to me and perhaps for some other women here.

What do you think/how do you feel about the "homosexual transsexual/transgender" theory postulated at Second Type Woman website (authored by Anne Richards, but actually I believe she cited that theory from another doctor who also discussed the autogynphelic theory behind transsexualism. I think her name was Anne Lawrence.)

I used to be a man who mistakenly self-identified as gay who is transitioning into a straight woman, so I am wondering if there is any validity or "meat" to this "homosexual transsexual/transgender" theory?

Yes and no. No, because the theory- in my opinion-  does not apply for true transsexualism, as true transsexuals basically are people with a brain of the "opposite" assigned sex but with a missmatching body, and not people that wants to become the other sex but simply already are, if you see my point.
Yes, because different transitioners after all have different reasons and motives for transitioning, and not all transitioners are diagnosed transsexuals. Some do it because they want to become the other sex, for various reasons, rather than already are that sex.

Also worth mentioning in this matter, is that there are also those that do not wish to transition to a specific gender at all, but only wishes have, for instance, chestsurgery or SRS. Regarding those that wishes to have SRS, they are often guys that want a Vaginoplasty but do not have any need to actually be females and live a female-role but wants to remain males, and this type would ofcourse more fit the description of "Homosexual", but it would yet not be correct to call them "homosexual transgendered/transsexual", as it is only a small part of their gender identity that could be considered female, but nonetheless a large part enough to make them wish to have a vagina, although that wish is mostly for sexual reasons rather than genderidentical, as these males generally dislike having their male genitals used or even touched during sexual intimacy, and basically only wants a allways "clean hole/pussy", as they sexually are 100% recievers and feelthat their male genitals are in the way.

Much more could ofcourse be said on this topic, for it is quite interesting indeed.

About this "body defect" I hear a lot... I have thought before about whether it really is a body defect.

As much as I hate it, I felt that the best logical conclusion was that if there's anything "wrong", it's likely not the body, but the brain. The body is, in my case, a perfectly working male one. It's just my brain that doesn't accept it. And I hate to say it but if there was a way to somehow change what my brain thinks, changing my brain to think that I'm male would be an excellent solution. (It sucks, because it sounds just like some of those evangelical Christians.) But since that doesn't seem to be the case, I am going through transition too to relieve my dysphoria.

There are some things that are common beliefs amongst trans people that, in my opinion, seem to have become some sort of blind belief, in the same way that Christians believe in some things fairly blindly, accepting ones that fit in with our pre-existing beliefs as fact and rejecting ones that don't resonate with our beliefs as rubbish. I think that's not really a good thing for us.

The theory is absurd.

Quote from: mixie on November 17, 2011, 07:30:38 AM
... it's simply society that pushes people into categories.  However it is important to honor the person's identity.

Exactly.

I find it ignorant when I am fully capable of acknowledging, based off facts, that this theory is indeed invalid, yet regardless it is not suggested, but rather declared that despite my factual rebuttal, I am still incorrect.  There is no controlled variable in such a study as each person is diverse, each transsexual person is diverse and lastly the level of dysphoria in each transsexual person is diverse.

If you want to look at the blunt science of it, I was in fact born with the XY chromosome.  I was raised to be presented as a male and I did so as per the general standards of society.  Though I find sexual orientation irrelevant, it is a major fundamental of the theory so I will allow it to be a variable for this argument.  In that, I found females attractive and did not have an attraction for males.  Despite all this, mentally something was not congruent to the male in which I was presenting myself as.  Scientifically, I cannot state what the cause of my Gender Dysphoria is, however, that is the diagnosis assigned to my mental inconsistency with my male body (I believe it's the other way around being my mind is correct and my body is the inconsistency, however, science does not seem to agree).  As a result, it can be scientifically determined that I am a heterosexual biological male, diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder; Gender Dysphoria; Transsexualism.  Given this, I would fall under the category of "non-homosexual transsexual; autogynephilic" in this theory.  Oh, well damn.  I don't get any jolly's off having a woman's body so, oops - I think I just proved that piece of the theory incorrect or at best, inconclusive.  I think happiness for finally presenting a body congruent with the mind is being mistaken for sexual stimulation.

I'd like to further comment that since beginning HRT, my attraction for woman has substantially faded and my attraction for men has grown; nonetheless, I really have no interest in either, constituting me as asexual.  Doh!  That can't exist in this theory; I'm just classified under non-homosexual transsexual.  That's funny, it's to be claimed I am transitioning into a woman because I'm sexually stimulated by the fact that I have a woman's body, yet I don't find women attractive in a sexual manner...conflicting?  I'd say.  To comment on the "homosexual transsexuals" - I do find men attractive now, but I didn't prior to HRT.  Thus prior to HRT, I was not a homosexual, but now I am to be considered one?  Oh wait, I can't be - because those who were classified as bi-sexual were grouped in with the non-homosexual transsexuals.  I think piece number two to this theory has just been proven (at best) inconclusive.

Theory can suggest all it wants, it doesn't define me.  I cannot say the cause of transsexualism as I do not know, but I can say that this theory does not suggest anything valid.  I am a woman despite what I look like, despite my sexual orientation and despite what anyone else suggests.  Labels are given because people like organization, not because it's in any way necessary to determine a cause, diagnosis or facts.  If you want my opinion, the studies conducted for this theory in no way answer for all transsexuals.  Furthermore, the conclusion was drawn by the doctors, scientists, whatever, conducting the studies; it would appear the majority of transsexuals do not agree with this theory.  This suggests a bit of laziness on the conclusive aspect as a true conclusion would be that there is no conclusion; it's an inconclusive study with too many dynamic variables to accurately give a final result.  Additionally, with the transsexual population seemingly arguing against this theory, I'd say it's a pretty obvious determination that ignorance and opinion has outweighed any facts in relation to supporting the theory.  Though, in the only defense to this theory - it is just that, a theory.

That's my argument and rant.

Quote from: stldrmgrl on November 17, 2011, 11:31:47 AMIf you want to look at the blunt science of it, I was in fact born with the XY chromosome.

I'd prefer to say hard science, since precision is so important and a blunt thing is not very precise (relatively speaking).  Nevertheless, studies have been conducted which point to different numbers of neuron bundles and neuron activity in trans people, meaning that we do in fact have a mental gender identity.  It's not an abstract concept.  It's a physical part of our biological function.  It's just that nobody can say why these things are different.  I need to go back and find the studies, but I believe the primary issue is that it seems the physical development in the brain of the area that determines gender identity occurs when one is in one's early 20's, which implies that we might not be born trans, but nurtured to be.  Considering how many of us had these feelings at a young age, I find that hard to believe, but determining causality with something like this seems nearly impossible.  Are we perhaps predisposed to be transgender because of hormones and as we develop, we develop a particular gender identity?  That still seems a little strange because I'm sure my hormone levels aren't that far off from other people born XY, certainly not near XX levels.

Further, to make note of the social gender differences, common brain activity in males and females tend to follow certain patterns according to sexual orientation.  There are exceptions in all of this, but when you're talking about feminine gay men, you're talking about a legitimate phenomenon in which gay men's brains frequently focus on faces, expression, and emotion, much as heterosexual women's brains do.  It would seem that if hormones developed gender identity, would they not more frequently do so with people who are considered homosexual in their assigned genders?  Then, that makes the notion of homosexual trans people seem impossible, when we're considering hormones as an effective cause.  Plus, homosexual cisgender people seem unlikely to exist in such a situation as well.  Perhaps our gender identity is part of our genetic code in some way, determined in advance, but implemented in a visual way later in development?  Anyway, to me, the notion that there's a sociological basis for many of these concepts seems to ignore a good deal about how our brains work on a physical level.

Quote from: apple pie on November 17, 2011, 11:17:10 AM
About this "body defect" I hear a lot... I have thought before about whether it really is a body defect . . . There are some things that are common beliefs amongst trans people that, in my opinion, seem to have become some sort of blind belief, in the same way that Christians believe . . .

lol Apple, speaking of which, this is a very good description of how democratic, popularity endorsed delusion actually works: Idols Which Beset Man's Mind
( The Tribe, Prejudice and other Fallacies Natural to Humanity in general )

Quote"For man's sense is falsely asserted" (by Progagoras' "Man is the measure of all things") "to be the standard of things: on the contrary, all the perceptions, both of the senses and the mind, bear reference to man and not to the universe; and the human mind resembles those uneven mirrors which impart their own properties to different objects . . . and distort and disfigure them" Novum Organum,i,41. . . . "the human understanding, from its peculiar nature, easily supposes a greater degree of order and regularity in things than it really finds . . . Hence the fiction" Ibid,i,45
. . . the human understanding, when any proposition has been once laid down (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords), forces everything else to add fresh support and confirmation: and although most congent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe, or despises them, or it gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusion.

It was well answered by him who was shown in a temple the votive tablets suspended by such as had escaped the peril of shipwreck, and was pressed as to whether he would then recognize the power of the gods . . . 'But where are the portraits of those that have perished in spite of their vows?' All superstition is much the same, whether it be that of astrology, dreams, omens, retributive judgement, or the like, in all the deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be much more common" Ibid,i,46

"Having first determined the question according to his will, man then resorts to experience; and bending her into conformity with his placets, leads her about like a captive in a procession." Ibid,i.63
_{( source: Novum Organum & Valerius Terminus )}

Blanchard isn't/wasn't trying to discredit what he deemed  ->-bleeped-<-c transsexuals as not being "true" transsexuals, all he was doing was citing the source of the dysphoric thoughts. He also didn't want to imply that " ->-bleeped-<-c" transsexuals are always sexually aroused, because they're not.

To be honest I think Blanchard's reasoning makes perfect sense.

Quote from: Grave Robber 9 (from Outer Space) on November 18, 2011, 01:16:11 PM
Blanchard isn't/wasn't trying to discredit what he deemed  ->-bleeped-<-c transsexuals as not being "true" transsexuals, all he was doing was citing the source of the dysphoric thoughts. He also didn't want to imply that " ->-bleeped-<-c" transsexuals are always sexually aroused, because they're not.

To be honest I think Blanchard's reasoning makes perfect sense.

The entire theory revolves around two different "causes" for the dysphoria based upon whether or not you are "homosexual".  Mind you, this is all speaking from a scientific/biological point of view, because frankly if you are a male-to-female and find only men attractive, that's socially considered (at least in the transgender community) being heterosexual as the transsexual is viewed as a woman.  Therefore, without anything further, I do not agree with the "homosexual transsexual" category.

The claim that " ->-bleeped-<-c non-homosexual transsexuals" are even remotely aroused sexually by the idea or the actual physical changes of having a woman's body, is still a claim at which cannot be implied truthful for all transsexuals.  Why?  I am a male-to-female transsexual and I can tell you without a doubt that I have no sexual arousal from my body or the idea that it's changing in a more feminine nature.  Thus, I alone am the proof it can only be deemed truthful for those who apply to it; the study itself is inconclusive.

The theory itself can remain, as theories are simply an opinionated belief with the believer presenting "evidence" in such a manner to attempt to persuade people into believing it.  I find this amusing, as fact does not require persuasion.

Thee Homosexual/transsexual/transgender theory is not a theory at all, but an hypothesis based on self reports and poorly interpreted data. This nonsensically hypothesis was  put forward by a minority group of psychiatrists, Dr Lawrence (a psychiatrist) is in that minority group.

Most psychiatrists do not agree with Blanchard et.all hypothesis. It is a shame that they have the power to influence the DSM. We had had some other threads discussing this BS before.

My advice, ignore it.

Quote
hy·poth·e·sis
   [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]
noun, plural -ses  [-seez]
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Quote
the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

Synonyms, more or less.

Quote from: stldrmgrl on November 18, 2011, 02:15:07 PM
Synonyms, more or less.

Close but no cigar !

When an hypothesis is prove correct, then the claim is an "established fact."  Theories  are built in established facts. 


"...Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

"... Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I think the Blanchard/Bailey/Lawrence theory of  ->-bleeped-<- is neo-freudian claptrap.  It reduces complex and partially unmeasurable sources of motivation into a sexual one.  That alone should make it obviously inaccurate.

Of course there are numerous other reasons why it's BS but I think this is the main one.

Quote from: Jen61 on November 18, 2011, 02:23:39 PM
Close but no cigar !

When an hypothesis is prove correct, then the claim is an "established fact."  Theories  are built in established facts. 


"...Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

"... Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I stand corrected and I appreciate the explanation.