Hello everyone. I am doing an inquiry into the terminology currently being used to describe the situation we are in.  The current words used are transsexual, transgender, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), and Gender Identity Dysphoria (also known as GID).  The terms transsexual and transgender are used interchangebly  but their definitions are not. According to my therapist gender refers to the brain and sex to ones anatomy. The prefix trans means to cross. My view is that I am not crossing to anything but correcting what was not done by biological events. GID  is a term found in the DSM to describe a mental condition. Guys we are not mental. The term I would like to see used is Gender Sex Misalignment or GSM for short. The reason for this is to get us out of the DSM and into the medical books so that insurance would cover what needs to be done. I would like your input on this. Thank you for your help. M777a

From my very limited experience I've just came to the conclusion that it's hard to give a name to a group of people whose main characteristic is driveled from identity confusion.

Ultimately they are just words used to group us together, and aren't really important beyond that, We all just want to be happy x3 and the road to that leads everyone to a different but sometimes similar place.

Terminology is whatever you want it to be. There is no ultimate authority on the meanings of words in the english language.

So I say as long as you can understand them and they you, use whatever words work.

Thanks for your reply. What I am trying to do is not to just label someone, but to help us and the general public to better understand our reality. I would also like to see GSM in the medical books so that all insurance would cover the cost of the medical procedures nessicary to make one whole, whatever the individual feels that may entail. The current terminology creates confusion not only for GSM person but with the very people whose support we need. GSM is not about expression or ones orientation, but the base of ones self actualisation.

I guess it could be argued that I'm not transgender, as my gender is woman. It could be argued that since I am pre-op, I am transsexual as eventually I will be changing (crossing) from male anatomy to female anatomy.

Conversations can become very confusing if you don't agree on terminilogy.

^^

Language only works when everyone agrees to follow the same definitions. When there is no agreement on a word, it becomes meaningless.

Currently the trans* (speaking of new words...) community is going through quite a rapid shift in form. The words are changing. In another 20 years or so things will probably start to settle down.

Right now it's kind of fascinating though. Trans* folk have created and defined dozens of new words in the last decade. Some of them even have legal status. It's pretty cool. At least when people aren't yelling at each other about it.

To the topic though... That's not really how it works. If the medical community decides that transsexualism is a medical condition, they'll come up with their own word in their own time - possibly named after whoever eventually proves it's a medical condition, if that ever happens. (I've always found that tradition to be a bit odd, who wants a disease or genetic disorder or whatever named after them?) Same as the psychiatrists came up with Gender Identity Disorder. We don't really get much input into those.

 Thank you Connie Anne, Sarah Louise, and Sarah7 for taking the time to respond. For Connie Anne my response to you is that metaphorically you may be crossing, but you are a woman and fixing what nature didn't provide. Sarah Louise you are so very correct. Sarah7 the words do matter their just not the right ones. You are correct  that there is a lack of agreement of the words but no real discussion.  This confusion may have played a part in the responses from a survey I had read where the 92 identified trans people responded, 75% had said they had attempted or had thoughts of suicide. My conclusion is based on my own experience. The terminology made no sense to me. I am not crossing over to anything.  I was born female nature just didn't get it right. Understanding ones self  and being able to explain it others is very important. The terminology we use does matter. We know who we are and having a doctor study it or a shrink determine the terms makes us in advertant victims. If you had a mole or tumor  that needed to be removed you would get the diagnosis  and the proper medical treatment. So what is the difference with us. The answer is none. The therapist are there to help us deal with it. The doctors to fix it. As long as the words stay in the DSM and the terminology confusing, the general public will view us as mental. We are not. GSM can cause mental conditions due to lack of understanding ones self but a consensus of terms will alleviate some of those mental conditions.

The terms I would like to see used are male and female, he and she.  For instance, "This lady has a medical condition, she was born with a penis and testicles, I recommend surgery and hormone replacement therapy."  If people talked about us like we were males and females then maybe more of Society would begin to accept us as our target sex instead of hearing strange words and then having to make a decision what we are in their heads when they can't even begin to grasp the situation.

Also being lumped in with GLB may seem helpful at times, but generally only to people who are okay with being "othered".  If we could just be who we are and if people talked about us like we were what  we really are then I think it would not only help Society's perception of us but it would aid in our perception of ourselves.

A consensus of terms might be good in theory for people going through it, and the medical establishment, but the question I have is: how does it enable the general public to understand better when all the other terminology is already out there in the public consciousness? If the current terminology makes no sense to even the people who are dealing with it, would it not just cause more confusion for everyone who isn't, and make them have to come to terms with yet another acronym / descriptor being thrown in the mix?

Rather than simplifying everything, might it not cause even more complexity by having to explain how GSM is different to all the other terminology, and why it should be used instead of something else? Or even worse - add another subdivision to an already very subdivided community? Just from reading threads here, some people are okay with it being called GID, and even with it being in the DSM. Their experiences and feelings about themselves may be no different to your own.

The trouble with semantics is that everyone applies their own perceptions to the meanings of a word, or words. And getting 100% consensus on what something means, doesn't mean, or should mean is nigh on impossible. For example, you don't agree with the 'trans' prefix, whereas Connie sees it as something relevant to the process she's undergoing to change her physical attributes to match her mental state of mind and self-image. And that's kinda the point of it. The more you try to make someone see things your way, the more it becomes the immovable force meeting the irresistable object because how one person sees their condition is no more and no less valid than how someone else sees theirs.

It becomes an endless degree of complexity; those who think it should be GSM, those who think it should be Transsexual, those who think it should be in the DSM, those who think it shouldn't, those who think it should be Transgendered, those who think it should just be male and female... and all of these subdivisions end up at each others throats because the very existence of the other groups is considered a threat to their own validity.

Quote from: M777a on May 23, 2012, 04:37:31 PM
As long as the words stay in the DSM and the terminology confusing, the general public will view us as mental.

Just as an aside, I've had dealings with lots of people who think we're mental anyway, and they think the DSM is somewhere you go to take driving lessons. So I don't know that it would make as big a difference as you think. In those cases it's not knowledge of the psychiatrical handbook which leads to that assumption, it's total ignorance of it.

Quote from: Noey Nooneson on May 23, 2012, 04:48:28 PM
The terms I would like to see used are male and female, he and she.  For instance, "This lady has a medical condition, she was born with a penis and testicles, I recommend surgery and hormone replacement therapy."  If people talked about us like we were males and females then maybe more of Society would begin to accept us as our target sex instead of hearing strange words and then having to make a decision what we are in their heads when they can't even begin to grasp the situation.

That would be nice, however I'm not sure it's quite as simple as being born with the wrong genetalia. It affects a lot more than that because of the genetic problem of having the wrong chromosomes. They don't just affect which parts you're born with down below.

Great response. I agree with what you said.  Unfortunately for insurance purposes they need a term for the paperwork otherwise it could become plastic surgery and not be covered. That in turn could cause problems for those who can't afford the treatment. After looking at some of the other posts on the site on self medication these people can cause great  harm to themselves, most likely due to lack of insurance coverage and proper medical supervision. Also what someone who gets desperate might do to get the money for surgery. Not to mention what a person might do if  those options aren't within their will to do. A regular job with insurance benefits will make this better if the proper terminology was used by the medical profession to better treat the community.

This post was for the one from nooey

I tend to agree with Sephirah. There are already too many different terms with even more viewpoints on their correctness. If we are confused and conflicted over them imagine how a layperson feels. Especially when you factor in all the negative or derogatory names that have been applied throughout the ages and still often used by those that do not suffer from the gender issues that we do..

Over almost 50 years now I've seen a lot of changes in terms. There is a very slowly building consensus over the language usage. What is growing at a far far slower pace is general acceptance, understanding, and lowered bigoted and hateful attacks. If there is anything to fret over, it is that.

Quote from: Sephirah on May 23, 2012, 05:39:42 PM
A consensus of terms might be good in theory for people going through it, and the medical establishment, but the question I have is: how does it enable the general public to understand better when all the other terminology is already out there in the public consciousness? If the current terminology makes no sense to even the people who are dealing with it, would it not just cause more confusion for everyone who isn't, and make them have to come to terms with yet another acronym / descriptor being thrown in the mix?

[response]
My hope is for this terminology to make it easier for us and the general public to understand. Iam not asking you or anyone else to give up old terminology. The current terms are in the DSM and have prevented people from getting the care that they need. I trying to end the confusion and get us out of the DSM.

Quote
Rather than simplifying everything, might it not cause even more complexity by having to explain how GSM is different to all the other terminology, and why it should be used instead of something else? Or even worse - add another subdivision to an already very subdivided community? Just from reading threads here, some people are okay with it being called GID, and even with it being in the DSM. Their experiences and feelings about themselves may be no different to your own.

[response]
What is wrong with simplicity. GSM is a base term. Let us take a look at the word cancer. Does it discribe all the different types of cancer? No of course not, but it does bring instant meaning to those who suffer from it. I am not adding a new subdivision but trying to help people better readily understand ones situation with minimal confusion. I find it hard to believe that people are okay with the terms in the DSM since mental illines has such stigma attached to it. Your settling when you don't need to.

[quote}
The trouble with semantics is that everyone applies their own perceptions to the meanings of a word, or words. And getting 100% consensus on what something means, doesn't mean, or should mean is nigh on impossible. For example, you don't agree with the 'trans' prefix, whereas Connie sees it as something relevant to the process she's undergoing to change her physical attributes to match her mental state of mind and self-image. And that's kinda the point of it. The more you try to make someone see things your way, the more it becomes the immovable force meeting the irresistable object because how one person sees their condition is no more and no less valid than how someone else sees theirs.

[response}
Perceptions are not definitions. We can make words confusing because we choose to, but if you had cancer i wouldn't think you would want to confused about what it entails. Why should that be any different for us? Your reference to Connie and how you phrased it gives the impression you think she is mental. She is not crossing over to anything she is becoming who she is. This is biological not psychological. She didn't think herself this way she is female. The point of the term GSM is to get it out of the DSM (mental) and into the medical books (biological) so that all insurance will cover the cost for whatever a person feels they need to do medically.

Quote
It becomes an endless degree of complexity; those who think it should be GSM, those who think it should be Transsexual, those who think it should be in the DSM, those who think it shouldn't, those who think it should be Transgendered, those who think it should just be male and female... and all of these subdivisions end up at each others throats because the very existence of the other groups is considered a threat to their own validity.

[response]
Who are these people and why would they want that? This isn't a turf war, this is trying to help us and those who help us and those we love better understand what we are about. Don't confuse ones expression or orientation with GSM. This is about the base core of ones self.

Quote
Just as an aside, I've had dealings with lots of people who think we're mental anyway, and they think the DSM is somewhere you go to take driving lessons. So I don't know that it would make as big a difference as you think. In those cases it's not knowledge of the psychiatrical handbook which leads to that assumption, it's total ignorance of it.

[response]
There was a documentary made that was exclusively about getting us out of the DSM. These people knew as well as most of you we are not mental. If the people you speak of think your mental now, what do you think will happen when they find the DSM?  WE ARE NOT MENTAL. Just plain old human variation.

Quote
That would be nice, however I'm not sure it's quite as simple as being born with the wrong genetalia. It affects a lot more than that because of the genetic problem of having the wrong chromosomes. They don't just affect which parts you're born with down below.

[response]
Of course there is more to it. As I have said before what I am trying to is find a way to help us, those who support us and the professions that help better understand who we are. The brain determines gender and the body the sex. You don't get to chose, but deal with it when its misaligned.

This is in response to to JoanneB's post.
      What started me on this was a survey done by the University of Nebraksa Medical Center. In the survey of the LGBT community, of 92 trans repondents, 75% had thought of or attempted suicide. My experience, because of the confusion in terminology, also lead me down that path. If that percentage was maintained to include a survey of the size of the US, harm from others wouldn't seem as important. I am not dismissing what has happened to our brothers and sisters at the hands of others, but you need to see that you are more likely to harm yourself than be harmed by someone else. While terminology confusion may not be the sole cause of this I think it plays a major role. Especially when you are trying to understand yourself and explaining it to others.

Quote from: M777a on May 23, 2012, 10:15:10 PM
What is wrong with simplicity. GSM is a base term. Let us take a look at the word cancer. Does it discribe all the different types of cancer? No of course not, but it does bring instant meaning to those who suffer from it. I am not adding a new subdivision but trying to help people better readily understand ones situation with minimal confusion. I find it hard to believe that people are okay with the terms in the DSM since mental illines has such stigma attached to it. Your settling when you don't need to.

There's nothing wrong with simplicity. Hon, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just posing questions based on how practical it would be to achieve. But with regard to the stigma you speak of, here's another question: would it not be equally beneficial to work towards removing the stigma instead, rather than just disassociating oneself with it because of how you think other people will see you?

Quote
Perceptions are not definitions. We can make words confusing because we choose to, but if you had cancer i wouldn't think you would want to confused about what it entails. Why should that be any different for us? Your reference to Connie and how you phrased it gives the impression you think she is mental. She is not crossing over to anything she is becoming who she is. This is biological not psychological. She didn't think herself this way she is female. The point of the term GSM is to get it out of the DSM (mental) and into the medical books (biological) so that all insurance will cover the cost for whatever a person feels they need to do medically.

That's rather putting words in my mouth. I wasn't actually talking about the DSM at all, or whether anything is or isn't mental. I was speaking about the 'trans' prefix and how, in this instance, it's seen as relevant. Based on this post:

Quote from: Connie Anne on May 23, 2012, 11:54:56 AM
I guess it could be argued that I'm not transgender, as my gender is woman. It could be argued that since I am pre-op, I am transsexual as eventually I will be changing (crossing) from male anatomy to female anatomy.

If someone sees themselves that way, and the word has relevance, who is anyone to say that they can't?

Interestingly, some organisations and authorities don't see Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness, or recognise it as such. For example, the NHS in the UK. Here's how they see it:

From: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_097168.pdf

QuoteWhat is gender dysphoria?

Occasionally, however, a few individuals find that the way they look on the outside doesn't fit how they feel inside. Also, the way they are expected to behave may be quite different from the way they actually want to behave. This causes a feeling of discomfort that is sometimes described as gender dysphoria (dysphoria means unhappiness). However, this is not a mental illness. Gender dysphoria is a recognised condition for which medical treatment is appropriate in some cases.

So since more and more places are starting to use the term GD (Gender Dysphoria) instead, is there really any need to call it something else?

The psychological is biological. The former cannot exist without the latter. In fact, the psychological is a subset of the biological. One demonstration of this is how HRT has changed my emotional responses. Emotions are little more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Change the chemicals (reduce testosterone, increase estrogen and progesterone) and the emotions change.

I am indeed crossing over something as I become who I am supposed to be.

Quote from: M777a on May 23, 2012, 10:38:15 PM
This is in response to to JoanneB's post.
      What started me on this was a survey done by the University of Nebraksa Medical Center. In the survey of the LGBT community, of 92 trans repondents, 75% had thought of or attempted suicide. My experience, because of the confusion in terminology, also lead me down that path. If that percentage was maintained to include a survey of the size of the US, harm from others wouldn't seem as important. I am not dismissing what has happened to our brothers and sisters at the hands of others, but you need to see that you are more likely to harm yourself than be harmed by someone else. While terminology confusion may not be the sole cause of this I think it plays a major role. Especially when you are trying to understand yourself and explaining it to others.

I don't want to go off into the woods on this point. Perspective changes everything. Yes, suicide rates are horrific, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Substance abuse, self mutilation etc. is quite common. I am certainly part of that self hate percentage. However, our numbers are but a tiny, according to some even fractional, percentage of the population. While we may hate ourselves for who we are, there is an overwhelming number of people standing in the hate line in front of us. My wife's greatest fear is getting that 2:00 AM phone call about my mutilated body being found, followed by me loosing my job because someone read me and it got back to my employer.

As someone mentioned earlier, we do not get much of a vote when it comes to choosing a name. "The Powers That Be" have that privilege. After some critical mass is reached, a more friendly term can be floated. In some ways that is currently happening with the updates to the DSM and WPATH. Until the academic, medical and political elites are totally onboard, we are subservient to their whims. They are the ones writing the rules, defining the language, and setting the direction of public discourse. It takes a long time for them to reach any sort of consensus amongst themselves.  Lobbying for yet another name/term however "better sounding" may ultimately disenfranchise those sitting on the sidelines just barely able to grasp what is going on.

The best example of this I can put forward harkens back to 60's or 70's. On American tele was a show with a character called Archie Bunker. Race, religion, cultural, societal, and sex norms, stereotypes, "truths" were examined in a totally un-PC manner by today's standards. In regards to race Archie always complained about not knowing which term out of Colored, Blacks, Negro, African-American, etc.. he should use that week as it always seemed to be a moving target. At the end of the day Archie was not going to accept them, or even make the effort to. His mind was made up. It doesn't matter what new name you want to try using. You aren't going to fool him or change his mind. That mindset is exactly what we need to keep in mind.

Perhaps it is because of my chameleon nature, living part-time, being born into a lower middle class blue collar immigrant world, and now upper middle and at times doing sales has given me a lot of experience dealing with the average person in many diverse areas of the USA.The words of P.T. Barnum are just as true today as when they were first spoken nearly a century ago. Especially when you peel away the societal pressure to be PC when the situation calls for it.

As much as a friendlier term without disease, disorder, syndrome, dysphoria, etc. may make us feel a little better about ourselves, at this point in history it will nothing to change the vast majority of peoples impressions that we are sick. Especially when the negative stereotypes sensationalized in the media, and confusion between long established like sounding names goes well beyond their immediate grasp. The founder of The Guardian Angels and sometime NYC radio Host Curtis Sliwa would refer to us as "Transvestites, transsexuals, transformers, or whatever".  Anytime a TG rights bill is put forward, the "Bathroom Nuts" are out there in full force talking about all those sex crazed men that will be lurking in bathrooms and showers just waiting to rape some unsuspecting woman or young girl. Facts have nothing to do with their arguments. From listening to the testimony given for Maryland's SB212 a few months back I can guarantee there is no changing their minds about TG people in this lifetime. 

From reading the last three posts status quo seems to be the predominate idea here. Change can not happen without effort to make something better. It is easy to find the reasons not to try something, but if the truth were to be found that we stood a higher chance of dying by our own hand than I feel the status quo has to change. Our numbers may be small but it shouldn't be a death sentence. We can make a difference. Sometimes the medical and psychological professions have to be made to see the suffering being caused by their lack of attention. Giving up gives them the power. The subdivisions that have been refered to are nothing more than self segragation. We seek inclusion but settle for exclusion due to the fact working togather seems to hard. That is a shame. The people who responed to my posts are not sideliners, they are people who have the guts to engage the dialogue and speak up. With that kind of energy being used here imagine what could be done to better help the community and society has a whole to better understanding. I reall y respect you guys for taking the time to respond. Don't let the haters win. There is no courage with out fear. I feel it everyday, but I am not going to quit. You have put a lot of time in energy to nay say what I am trying to do, but how about give some ideas on how to make it better that I haven't thought of. There is always a better way. There may not be many but we can make a difference. Thank you guys for taking the time to respond I really appreciate it, you're the best.

I always felt gyped for being born a few years too late to really be part of the anti-war movement in the 60's (Still got to love the music. Misplaced my draft card  ). Attending the Maryland State Senate's hearing for SB212 the TG rights bill to provide moral support for my fellow group members giving testimony really struck an emotional chord deep within. By the time the opposition was 1/4 of the way through I was regretting being from out of state and unable to give testimony in spite of the risk to my job that being outed would bring. I was deeply upset over the brutal beating video of Chrissie Lee Polis as it was.

I found my anti-war movement. I'll be back again next year, even if it is to read a statement from another in-state group member. I may be in red neck WV but they are dealing with a Jersey girl born and raised in the shadow of NYC. There is always an angle 

I'd like to note that at least one of us has a lot of power to fix the naming issue (hint: me), so if people could put together what they would actually like to see done about the naming, I can start putting the word out and meaningful change WILL happen.

Don't feel powerless. There are those of us with some power, and we're willing to use it, but we need to know what people prefer.

I don't like 'transsexual' to describe me, but it's hard to consider alternatives. What should we use?