Quote from: Kelly J. P. on January 17, 2012, 12:58:30 AM
That sounds a bit elitist to me. Whether one's struggles are simple or difficult should not dictate the validity of a condition, especially one that is so broad.

By technical definition, transsexuality appears to be an intersex condition, however I would concede that by the popular definition, it is not. So, by all means, change your views depending on who you're addressing... perhaps there is more than one solution to this problem of classification.

I don't look at it as elitist whatsoever.

Imagine if you suffered through some type of painful sickness. Then you saw someone was exaggerating that same sickness to get others to accept them easier.

I compare it because I had a similiar life threatening illness and I knew someone in college who faked it to get extensions in their courses and got caught. Transsexualism is not intersex. It just isn't unless you are a transsexual and intersex...which I explained earlier does happen).

While the two may seem to be extremes, it's how I see it. If you see it as me being elitist then Im sorry you feel that way.

I understand your beliefs that transsexualism can be intersex but to the current leading medical experts on the condition of intersex, they will disagree. And from my own personal experiences living like this, I have to disagree too.

And trust me...I am not being elitist. If I could live without the conditions I did live, I would have gladly accepted that.

Quote from: Kelly J. P. on January 17, 2012, 12:58:30 AM
That sounds a bit elitist to me. Whether one's struggles are simple or difficult should not dictate the validity of a condition, especially one that is so broad.

By technical definition, transsexuality appears to be an intersex condition, however I would concede that by the popular definition, it is not. So, by all means, change your views depending on who you're addressing... perhaps there is more than one solution to this problem of classification.

Very well said.

I'm going to leave this well enough alone now I think, because it's clear we're all just going to have to agree to disagree, but the discussion has been interesting.

Quote from: Annah on January 17, 2012, 01:05:17 AM
Imagine if you suffered through some type of painful sickness. Then you saw someone was exaggerating that same sickness to get others to accept them easier.

Okay, I'll leave it alone right after this. To use my example of cancer again from before, would someone with melanoma be insulted when someone with prostate cancer was diagnosed? No one is saying the two conditions are the same; it doesn't mean they should be treated in the same way, or even by the same doctors or be seen by the medical community to be one and the same thing. But they ARE both cancer.

Quote from: Bishounen on January 16, 2012, 09:35:59 AM
As there are apparently two threads on this, I guess I might just aswell also re-post my answer in both of them.

This is what I wrote in the other duplicate of the Thread;

Funny, I was thinking about this very topic just yesterday.

My opinion, is that Born GID should indeed be included as a Intersex Condition, Not the least, because many HBS-transsexuals do also find themselves to actually have various Intersex Conditions and not seldomly the Klinefelders Condition.

However... As not all transitioners are so called HBS-transsexuals or born transsexuals, then this label could only be applied for a certain type of Transgendersim or Transsexualism, as far from anyone that transitions does it because the person already have a crossgendered Brain, but because they rather are attracted to the idea of living like the desired Sex than already being that Sex, so to speak.

So, as I said, this label could hence not be used as an Umbrella Label for ->-bleeped-<-/Transsexualism, but only for a certain type of Trans, as there would still be transitioners that transitions only because they wish to possess a body of the Opposite Sex, rather than because they are born transsexuals.

Can you provide a reputable reference stating there's a difference? Because, frankly, it seems like a '->-bleeped-<-r-than-thou' attitude.. You keep spouting this idea, but I can't find a reference that supports it..

Quote from: kelly_aus on January 17, 2012, 01:44:16 AM
Because, frankly, it seems like a '->-bleeped-<-r-than-thou' attitude.. You keep spouting this idea, but I can't find a reference that supports it..

I don't think that's what Bishounen is trying to say at all. I believe he's referring to what was once known as a 'true' or 'born' transsexual. This is an irrelevant term now, but once only people who were diagnosed as having this condition were able to access treatment. A 'true' transsexual would mean a person who's gender is binary, but doesn't match their body. As opposed to someone who feels mostly male, or mostly female, but who does not land squarely at one end of the gender continuum or the other.

I've always been of the opinion that intersex and transgender are separate and distinct because, textbook definitions aside, intersex conditions are usually typified by genetic anomalies such as surplus, damaged, or missing chromosomes, that often result in genital ambiguities or dysfunctions, while transgender conditions are usually typified by identity anomalies or hormonal anomalies that are contrary to the body's non-anomalous genetic signature (usual XX or XY pairing).  I'm not saying one is any "worse" than the other, just that they seem to me to be distinct.

I leave the secondary sexual characteristics out of my definition since they do not necessarily correlate well even in cisgender individuals. For example, Ann Coulter has a rather noticeable adam's apple despite being cisgender.

In other words, intersex = genetically anomalous genetic signature usually with a non-ambiguous gender identity, and transgender = genetically normative genetic signature with a mismatch between gender identity and unambiguous genitalia.

That said, I am not a biologist or psychologist so I may just be innocently and unintentionally blowing smoke.

Saying that Transgender = Intersex is dishonest, at least with our current understanding of the causes of transgender 'issues'.. And simply using it in order to avoid the stigma is just wrong and detracts from the often serious issues Intersex people have.

It's up to us to destigmatise the word transgender or transsexual, by getting out in the world and showing people we are just people, not freaks..

Well I'm sticking with my transgender/transsexual status. Right now, the rights we are fighting for is under that banner. And I see being Intersex as another issue that needs just as much public attention simply because there are babies out there who are surgically mutilated and some of them end up like us. Trapped in the wrong body.  Who knows, maybe in time it will be found that the transsexuality is an intersex condition. But in the mean time, I support Annah's thoughts on the matter. 

I've sometimes wondered if I had an IS condition myself. But I'm not sure I really want to know, And I dont know if I would care at this point. That would only open up a new can of worms if I was. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

Quote from: Annah on January 17, 2012, 12:52:41 AM

If you don't have sexual reproduction ambiguity or "abnormal" sex chromosome pattern then you aren't intersex.

I don't know...call it tough love or whatever, but I find it in poor taste to try to get society to accept you as intersex when you are not.

+100 I agree completely.

Quote from: kelly_aus on January 17, 2012, 03:44:57 AM
Saying that Transgender = Intersex is dishonest, at least with our current understanding of the causes of transgender 'issues'.. And simply using it in order to avoid the stigma is just wrong and detracts from the often serious issues Intersex people have.

It's up to us to destigmatise the word transgender or transsexual, by getting out in the world and showing people we are just people, not freaks..

I agree with this also. Combining the two terms just muddies the waters, and does a dis-service to both groups of people.

Quote from: kelly_aus on January 17, 2012, 01:44:16 AM
Can you provide a reputable reference stating there's a difference? Because, frankly, it seems like a '->-bleeped-<-r-than-thou' attitude.. You keep spouting this idea, but I can't find a reference that supports it..

Bane answered it very well.

That said, and if you want to see examples of such from a reputable reference, then you just need to stroll around on Susan's to find many evidences of the difference between Born Transsexuals and transitioners that rather wants to live like a female because they fancy the idea of it(Which there is nothing wrong with at all).

Yes, you have seen it again and again. Everyone have.

Oh and that ->-bleeped-<-r than thou-attidude is my line.   I often use it in my posts simply because I often see examples of that attitude, which I truly loath, as the persons holding the attitude says with their noses in the air that there are only one type of "acceptable" transitioner and people that transitions because of any other reasons, are inappropriate.
In fact, I don't believe that there are a right or wrong reason to transition as every transitioner functions differently and separately from each other and have different needs.
There are merely individuals that have a need to decide for others what to do.

Personally, and as stated many times in other posts, I consider every transitioner just as valid, as long as she/he genuinly transitions to be happier and in harmony with her/himself.
Someone that for instance yearns to merely posses a female body, rather than because s/he already have a female brain and wish to correct the body accordingly as the Born Transsexual, is just as "valid" and rightful to do so, as long as the person do not just want to do so "on a whim".

Sheesh,

* Someone that for instance yearns to merely posses a female body, rather than because s/he already have a female brain and wish to correct the body accordingly as the Born Transsexual, is just as "valid" and rightful to do so, as long as the person do not just want to do so "on a whim". *

I just have no idea how anyone would want to go through all that pain and trouble, just "on whim"... ever.

That is sooo presumptuous... only possible for someone that has not gone through the whole lousy messy process, to immagine.
It makes for these arguments that say, folks do that just so they can have a Man to 'do' them.
O-M-G.

Then how ever just so nice and make it all "valid" in the end. It's just sooo graceful, ain't it, not being considered a freak after all.

Honey, as far as I see it, you are SO way out on a limb.
But then it's your present experience and knowing - so I guess then it's "valid" also, yes?

...
Axélle

Quote from: Axélle-Michélle on January 17, 2012, 10:49:01 AM

That is sooo presumptuous... only possible for someone that has not gone through the whole lousy messy process, to immagine.
It makes for these arguments that say, folks do that just so they can have a Man to 'do' them.
O-M-G.

Then how ever just so nice and make it all "valid" in the end. It's just sooo graceful, ain't it, not being considered a freak after all.

Honey, as far as I see it, you are SO way out on a limb.
But then it's your present experience and knowing - so I guess then it's "valid" also, yes?

...
Axélle

Hello Axelle. Again.
You seem to take this whole issue very personaly, for some reason. How come?
Funny thing is, that you and I have always gotten well along previously at Susan's, and all of the sudden you the last days have been angry and wanted to pick a fight.
Is there something that you want to talk about that I can help you with? If so, then My PM box is always open if you have something saddening your heart that you need to talk with a friend about.



That being said and to go to the matter of your thoughts; Heard of Danielle Berry?

QuoteDespite following the rules and being as honest as I could with the medical folks at each stage, nobody stopped me and said "Are you honest to God absolutely sure this is the ONLY path for you?!" To the contrary, the voices were all cheerfully supportive of my decision. I was fortunate that the web didn't exist then - there are too damn many cheerleaders ready to reassure themselves of their own decision by parading their "successful" surgeries and encouraging others.

Quote
I just have no idea how anyone would want to go through all that pain and trouble, just "on whim"... ever.

From Lynn Conway's site, Transsexual Womens Success;

QuoteThen we have those who "change sex" on a whim and have the financial means to do so, then afterwards have regrets and sue everyone in sight who "did this to them" - while not taking any responsibility whatsoever for their own actions.

If you honestly, truly, believe that all people that all people that transitions are HBS-transsexuals, then you need to open up your mind a bit.

I think what Bishounen might be trying to put forward is that there are people who are not completely one gender or the other, and who decide to take hormone treatment, or go through one form of SRS or another, in order to make their body look or feel more like the opposite sex. I know there are people on this forum who do so already. I believe he's trying to say that these people would not be considered 'true' transsexuals, which is correct by the old definition. That does not make their trans experience any less real, but it must be brought up in this discussion in order to differentiate those people from the group of trans people who might be considered intersex.

There is a statement on the HBS site that says something similar:
People born with Harry Benjamin Syndrome are persons with a binary gender orientation of either Man or Woman, as any other typical person within society. Their identity is woman or man, never "transsexual". Therefore they need a complete physical rehabilitation in order to function sexually and develop socially as any other individual within our society.

What this is saying is that only those who identify as a binary gender, and who feel the need for complete transition can be considered to have HBS.

Note that transsexualism (ICD-10) and transgender are not the same. Transsexualism is about correction of the phenotypic sex to accord with the sex of the brain and a person who has undergone sex affirmation treatment is simply a member of their affirmed sex. Transgenders, on the other hand, are people who have a psychological identification with, and live intermittently or permanently as members of the opposite sex, but do not actually take steps to correct their sexual morphology.

Here the term transsexual is taken to mean someone with HBS (or a 'true' transsexual), and transgender means everyone else under the trans umbrella. In other words, if one does not have that driving, desperate need for complete transition, then they do not have HBS. Obviously, there are a lot of trans people who don't fit into this category of 'true' transsexualism. Again, that does not make them any less trans, or their experiences any less valid.

It seem we degenerate into yet another "label fight" methinks.

So we can chew this thing for ever. The long and the short: just be what you are, go pick your label accordingly - or none at all, if you wish. Fine also.

If intersex blows your audience's hair back, well do your thing then.

If you go to a medical situation, hospital, GP, you may just want to fall in with what they understand intersex is for them (formerly hermaphrodite, yes?).

Why and for what reason would you want to call yourself intersex if you transsexual --- that's your own enquiry.
It does have the flavour of a cop-out to me. Like I had nothing to do with it... – mother nature, you see...

Also I still don't buy into this notion that the time you DO actually something about your condition, makes you some more or some less trans. Hm.
All it does, it makes you DIFFERENT trans, OK --- well and THEN so what?!?

If all are equal in the end --- WHY BOTHER TO GRIND ON WITH THOSE DISTINCTIONS?

Late transitioners by that token are MUCH more 'together' then, as they had so much more time to TRY their darntest to 'overcome', and deal with their condition.
MtF, manning up...until the last nail breaks.

The HBS child on the other hand, will have ALL the early support by granny, parents and sundry - ach shame - and so they now may transition even before puberty.

Good for them - if granny and the rest all had it right then. Not always they do either.

Then how about that? And in the end all are equal - even the ones that turn back and say they been bull-->-bleeped-<-ted by their expert advisers.

Life, hum
Axélle

Quote from: Axélle-Michélle on January 17, 2012, 01:04:38 PM
Why and for what reason would you want to call yourself intersex if you transsexual --- that's your own enquiry.
It does have the flavour of a cop-out to me. Like I had nothing to do with it... – mother nature, you see...

Woah.

Okay I'm sorry, I've been trying to be civil with this whole thing, I really have, and I even said earlier that I would accede and 'agree to disagree' with people on this one, and to back out. But are you actually implying that this is somehow my fault? That I am somehow to blame for my condition, and that by saying I believe myself to be intersex, I am 'copping out'?

Because I'm sorry, but that has just rubbed me completely the wrong way...while I've been here carefully weighing my words to try my best to be respectful of all of the different parties involved in this debate, and trying so very hard to steer clear of a fight, you're coming out with clearly insulting comments like that?

Quite frankly, you can shove your 'flavour' right up your wazoo.

I have to agree with Bane. I don't like to point out at people, but I really feel Axélle-Michélle is being overly aggressive over here.

Technically I am intersexed because I have Kleinfelters (XXY chromosomes), but I don't have any female sexual parts (that I am aware of) except for slight breast development.  The stats I've read state that the majority of people with Kleinfelters are not transexual. 

I have been diagnosed with GID (a necessity if you hope to get HRT and SRS) but I feel that my problem is physical - my body does not match my insides.  I'm not as concerned about what label that makes me, unless it also makes my life easier.

A migraine is not another word for a bad headache. It is a separate medical classification of a specific condition. If you'd had a migraine, you'd know, because you feel like you are going to die. Unfortunately, the world isn't happy with "bad headache" and instead has decided to appropriate "migraine." It's very irritating, and it makes it far more complicated to explain that I was crippled and entirely unable to function for 2 years, while me and my parents desperately hunted for a solution that would enable me to actually have a life - which meant going to half a hundred specialists of various descriptions and enduring some particularly unpleasant treatments.

However, a migraine will never kill you. It's pretend pain from chemical storms in your brain. A bad headache on the other hand could be say... a brain tumour or a blood clot or any other number of fun things. They also have entirely different treatments - some of which can be rather sucky if you use the wrong one. Like say using sumatriptan on a headache will make you feel nauseous and dizzy and like you just replaced your blood with hot lead. Whereas using sumatriptan on a migraine will make you feel nauseous and dizzy and like you just replaced your blood with hot lead, but it will also get rid of the migraine. Would be best to keep the two separate in my personal opinion.

At this point in time intersex and transsexualism are two separate conditions. Until our doctors decide otherwise, I would strongly suggest using the current diagnosis. Or in other words, I agree with what Annah said. Don't appropriate someone else's condition, it's SO not cool.

Quote from: Sarah7 on January 17, 2012, 02:16:17 PM
A migraine is not another word for a bad headache. It is a separate medical classification of a specific condition.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from your post is another analogy similar to the one I made about cancer before? Except what you've done here is take two conditions that seem similar on a base level, and proven that they are completely seperate from one another. My example was taking two things that seem completely seperate, and proving that they are similar on a base level.

I'm afraid I don't see how your analogy is relevant to the discussion at hand, and I mean no disrespect by saying that.

Quote from: Sarah7 on January 17, 2012, 02:16:17 PM
Don't appropriate someone else's condition, it's SO not cool.

As to this, I guess I sort of understand where you're coming from, but I don't think a label as all-encompasing as intersex can really be appropriated in this way. Perhaps if we were trying to claim ownership of a specific form of intersex condition I could understand your anger a little better.

Kia Ora,

  "Transgender = Intersex?"

Whatever rocks ones boat...They are just labels...And to the best of my knowledge I'm not IS, but some people are under the impression I must have been...I don't know and don't care...After all in the long run[the end results the same] it doesn't really matter !

Metta Zenda

Quote from: Bane on January 17, 2012, 02:29:58 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from your post is another analogy similar to the one I made about cancer before? Except what you've done here is take two conditions that seem similar on a base level, and proven that they are completely seperate from one another. My example was taking two things that seem completely seperate, and proving that they are similar on a base level.

I'm afraid I don't see how your analogy is relevant to the discussion at hand, and I mean no disrespect by saying that.

The analogy is relevant because I don't agree that they are both "cancer." We have SOME information about transsexualism, and a few decent theories, but the medical research is in its infancy. We aren't really at the point where we can even say THIS is what transsexualism looks like in the human body with any kind of certainty.

When the situation changes, and personally I believe it will, transsexualism may get reclassified as a type of intersex condition or it may get it's own medical classification. But we aren't at that point yet. And we probably won't get there for at least another 10 years due to the general stigma and lack of interest in investigating transsexualism.

So currently, we are discussing separate classifications, which are diagnosed separately.

QuoteAs to this, I guess I sort of understand where you're coming from, but I don't think a label as all-encompasing as intersex can really be appropriated in this way. Perhaps if we were trying to claim ownership of a specific form of intersex condition I could understand your anger a little better.

Oh I'm not angry, love. I just don't agree. I think "intersex" can be appropriated, in the same way any kind of identity label can be. And I don't feel as if we have sufficient evidence to back up any claim to inclusion at present. It would be different if the intersex folks were welcoming us with open arms or something, but if you want to see some real anger, make this post in an intersex forum.