See post on Brain Intersex for an argument that cross-gendered neurology must exist. If you like, that if HBS didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent it, or at least find a good explanation why it didn't exist, when all the evidence said it should do.

See post on Thoughts on Gender showing how a neurological cause requires that there be different degrees and symptoms.

HBS theory contains within it the prediction that some women will be non-op. They just don't realise that, and artificially make a divide that will exclude people who they see as pretenders and wannabes.

I personally do wish that such a nice, neat divide existed. There are wannabes and fetishists. But operative status is as unreliable a metric as chromosomes. Many unfortunates are stuck in a twilight zone too, unable to either go forward or go back.

As a matter of convenience, a practical matter, a better divide would be between those who need to change their bodies through medical intervention, and those who don't. The distinction is still artificial and arbitrary, but very useful when judging legal and medical issues. So instead of SRS, any surgery of a similar nature, and any HRT would be the line.

Oh for what it's worth, I'm IS, formerly TS, and have had genital reconstruction. I'd qualify as one of the "cool girls" in the HBS club, in fact, one of the elite as I was judged medically female even before surgery. I have no personal interest either way, apart from wishing not to be associated with much of the TG group, contrary to my findings. But I have too much respect for the evidence.

Hi Mercedes!

DES, the gift that keeps on giving.. 1 in 5 male-gened people exposed to DES in the first trimester end up with a female gender identity. They often have other, more easily detectable Intersex conditions too, apart from the cross-gendered brain.

By any definition, you're IS. The combination of ovarian and testicular tissue meets even the most stringent definition.

That means that according to the DSM, you can't suffer from GID, but only GIDNOS. The SOC can't apply. If you're lucky, you can get fast-tracked for any treatment you feel needed, no questions asked. If unlucky, you'll be prevented from getting any treatment at all, not even HRT, as you don't fit the standard model. I was lucky.

If, like me, it's decided you're "over the line", and already female, any genital corrective surgery you might in future decide is best for you might not count as SRS for legal purposes. That can mean being unable to change documentation, a situation I'm in. It would actually be easier legally if you're still on the somatically male side of the arbitrary line, that way it would be counted as SRS, and the legal people know how to handle that.

Yes, my BC will always say Boy because medically, I'm a girl. You get used to things like that in the law.

Good Luck, and thanks for the insightful article and comments. I wish the HBS people, who I generally support as being 95% correct, would just realise that biology is messy, is blurred, and that a fanatical insistence on a sharp divide isn't tenable.

Your measuring stick is based on Human Rights concerns, and that's a powerful argument to make. The only possible counter-argument is based on practical difficulties in implementation, and the sorting out of people who want treatment that would be bad for them, from those who want treatment that would be good for them. I have mixed feelings on this one, and am open to argument. My position is based on what is easily doable, not what is right. I'm not comfortable with that, but still don't see any practical alternative.

"Fringe people who fall under the "Transvestitic Fetishism" category may come from a variety of directions, not just exhibitionism. Although that is the likely explanation of the specific example I gave."

II didn't make my point too well, sorry (posting when I should have been asleep 4 hours before is not wise). What I should have said is that in many (most, perhaps even all) instances the alleged behaviour can be covered by other causes just with Trans added incidentally such as with the exhibitionism.

I know some cis lesbians who have a thing for leather. Is leather fetishism in the DSM? Or perhaps a broader 'vestism' fetish as many people are turned on by wearing specific catagories of clothes. Then transvestic fetishism would be a subset of vestism surrounded by vastly greater numbers of cis folks into silk, satin, leather, nurse outfits, business suits and all the rest. Oh, and lets not forget the furries! Singling out those who allegedly get their turn on from just one catagory of clothes seems bizarre and unscientific especially as they must be insignificant in numbers to some of the other groups.

And then lets not forget that if someone is trans requiring some degree of trans expression to be capable of sexual arousal isn't abberant but instead something easily predicted by being trans or even more likely HBS. Shouldn't logicly lack of arousal when not presenting as much as possible opposite to birth sex be an HBS requirement or common symptom? We should expect to see high degrees of psychosomatic erectile dysfunction amongst pre transition HBS women under that model surely.

Also we know that the bias and discrimination many trans people face is huge. The case was made when homosexuality was being removed from the DSM that this discrimination and attempts to 'cure' the 'condition' was the cause of these problems. Should it be any surprise then that trans people might also suffer from similar higher frequencies of mental illness on this account that would explain the 'fringe behaviour'? That is if such behaviour occurs at a higher frequency than the general population. Cis folk get drunk and stagger round in public in their underwear and do stupid things all the time. It gets more press coverage if a guy in stocking does the same.

Responding to comments from Just Jennifer in the oher discussion that belong here

"And the stuff about the suits of armor sounds like someone seeing what they want to see. I mean really, you cannot base an argument on silliness like that. That's like saying that men in Scotland are really transvestites because they all wear skirts. Tell one of them that, and you are likely to be punched in the nose."

Gender-mixing trends have indeed occured in the past. If you doubt that plate armour fashions included exaggerated busts, excessively narrowed waists and unneccessary decorative skirting to create a deliberatly feminine shape you better bring it up with the historians. Though one historian was laughed at for his alternate explanation, that there was a sudden unreported mass of women taking to the battlefield in those suits of armour that was since covered up. As for kilts thats a spurious comparison. There are distinct mens and womens kilts. I know, I have some, inherited I might add. That is distinctly different from molding a corseted bustline shape onto a breastplate etc. Unfortunately my brother has my copy of arms and armour of medieval and reanissance europe so I can't give you specific referances.

"And yes, I think that gender is primarily binary, and I do believe it is immutable. Otherwise, all that would be needed would be a good talking cure, and all the HBS people would be fixed."

Great argument for the trangender model! Thankyou! Becuase if being a crossdresser etc wasn't immutable all that would be needed would be a good talking cure, and all the transgender people would be fixed. Only the talking cure doesn't fix transgender, not even the crossdressers.

"Now, for some people, who are not HBS (or if you insist, transsexual) the best treatment would probably be intense psychotherapy. Hormones are relatively benign, but surgery is almost certainly not called for."

But the psychotherapy doesn't work. All Zucker seems to do is torture children into submission but his admitted failure rate is what, 20% or so and he's only followed his subjects into what, their early 20's? When many closeted folk of the more repressive baby boomer generation didn't manage to come out untill much later in life than that.

So your calling for unethical treatment known to be inneffectual and likely to cause further harm. Good work Just Jennifer.

"And yes, contrary to the deconstructionist claims, what is commonly called "gender" is rooted in biology, not choice."

I think you are probably right. In which case transgender would be rooted in biology, not choice. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that crossdressing etc may run in families with a number I have spoken too discovering late in life, often after the deaths of family members, that brothers or fathers also secretly crossdressed. It would be an interesting study to see if it is indeed an inheritable characteristic.

Monica, you'll have us all FRAZzled at this rate, and we've been DEMONised enough already.

As for me, on Harry Benjamin's scale, I'd be a 2 point something. It would be 3, but there are enough differences to make that dubious. And I never crossdressed, so 2 is right out too. That description doesn't fit at all.

The testes were my only way of having children, and so I valued them highly. The rest, I hadn't been issued with a standard model anyway, and it was a nuisance that got in the way. Disgusting? Not compared with the rest of the body, the Rugby player body I was issued with. Having a masculinised genitalia was overkill, that's all. To put it crudely, not so much icing on the cake, as a small turd garnishing a shit sandwich.

Of course when the testes became dysfunctional, not only were they no longer an asset, they were a cancer risk. I needed urethral re-plumbing too - that area had really atrophied. The external genitalia had to go.

I suspect any guys reading this are probably gibbering in a corner by now. I don't know how they can feel that way, but it's been my observation that they do. I reckon they must feel about it the way I feel about Mastectomy (EEK!!!)

But still I wasn't disgusted by it all, I just wished I had more raw material available for SRS. What little I had was valuable tissue that could be re-shaped into something almost normal. I could have opted for a Barbie-Doll surgery (the only procedure available in my country for someone with my anatomy), but I wanted to keep my options open, just in case the improbable happened. It was worth the doubled cost and overseas trip. A long-shot, but you only get one chance. Had it not been for the medical issues, I could have lived with the situation.

It all turned out better than I dreamed possible of course. It all matches my body-map image now. I even have a libido and a love-life, neither of which I expected to have. I'd rather thought they had to be partly mythical and grossly over-rated.

They're neither. But I didn't know that when pre-op. So... 2, 3 or neither?

Group down, make revolutions for 5 knots, going below the layer.

Rather biased to suggest a 'debate' when the subject matter has already been defined with particular categories or persons already having been characterized in the negative when compared to other conditions. This is exactly why many of us who identify with HBS would never sign a transgender designed petition. It would insinuate we agree with our inclusion under that banner which we most definitely find demeaning.
In fact I see in Zucker's motives a treatment much connected to that many transsexuals in years past were subject to...electro shock. And please don't tell me that reparative treatments do not work at all since there are some who specifically go to a therapist just for that purpose and for them it works. Talk about forced reparative treatment and you might find me in agreement. Two different issues!
There are not three models of transsexuality. Transgenderism is a term designed to create a non-biological social construct that gives gender variants an inclusive label. It is not part of the transsexual model although perhaps some transgender use it without knowing its 'specific' understanding.
HBS never claimed that non-ops were a specific type of HBS. What was said is that, in very rare cases someone might be HBS born yet because of having a severe medical condition might not be eligible for SAS (sex affirmation surgery). We do not accept non-op as a choice but simply see it as being a non-option as applied to most who use that term and therefore in that sense not at all HBS. Choice is a transgender lexicon usually equated with lifestyle and not at all analogous to those born with a condition that leads to a long driven need to find an avenue that would allow for physical correction.
Diane - http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

Just Jennifer wrote (on another thread: http://www.bilerico.com/2008/05/uh_oh.php#more), “And there are people who have surgery and who then regret it.”

That’s precisely why people should take their time making decisions about their treatment each step of the way, and why no one should feel pressured into getting genital surgery in order to obtain hormones and other surgeries. You clearly recognize this, yet you say that only people who want genital surgery should have access to *any* medical treatment. That’s precisely the approach that leads to regrets.

Just Jennifer wrote, “Now, I have to wonder...why do some, who have absolutely no desire to be rid of their penis (or vagina as the case may be) insist on calling themselves "transsexuals?" What do they gain by this? Are they that ashamed of what they really are?”

I’m not at all ashamed of what I really am, a gay transsexual man. It seems to me that the primary difference between our views is that you think of male and female strictly in terms of genitals. I view them as a combination of primary and secondary sex characteristics, including brain sex, chromosomes and endocrine profile. In that view, genitals have less importance in determining sex because they’re just part of a larger picture. Regardless of where we start before transition, all post-transition transsexuals are intersexed.

This is a sound scientific approach that I’ve found very useful when debating with religious fundies, as well as John and Jane Q. Public.
When attacking us, some of these people define male and female by chromosomes alone. Some define them based on the presence of testis or ovaries. I assume you strongly disagree with these notions, so how can you advance an equally arbitrary construct that sex is defined solely by external genitalia? Gender (man and woman, as opposed to male and female) are social contructs. I have no problem calling myself a man, and you, a woman, despite our intersexed bodies.

I’ve seen a lot of different viewpoints from people all over the transsexual spectrum. One trend I’ve noticed is this: FTMs tend to consider chest reconstruction the most important surgery, and for most MTFs, it’s vaginoplasty. I think the primary reason for that is that both are external physical features that are impossible to ignore. FTMs in general aren’t nearly as passionate about genital surgery for the same reason MTFs aren’t as passionate about breast implants. Both of us, first and foremost, want to get rid of the most prominent sexual body parts. Most FTMs have hysterectomy and oophorectomy as well. So, have you had your prostate removed? Surely you want to get rid of all traces of maleness, no?

Another thing that tends to get ignored in these discussions is the influence of upbringing, life experience, personality, and other factors on our body image. Transsexualism is not the sole defining characteristic of who we are and how we see ourselves and the world. If someone had asked me, when I was younger, if I wanted to get rid of my vagina, I would have said “yes.” But by the time I discovered that transition was possible and chose that path, I had learned to live with and accept a certain amount of “deformity,” learned that every decision we make is a trade-off, and had, within myself, already defined masculinity on my own terms in a way that allows for grey areas within the concept of maleness. What were once coping mechanisms became part of my decision-making process in my own particular approach to treatment, means’ of infusing prudence and careful deliberation with my desire to correct my body. My path is no less valid than yours, only different.

Just Jennifer wrote, “Or do they just desire to muddy the waters...”

I don’t “desire to muddy the waters.” Nature made the waters “muddy,” but what you’re calling “mud,” I call nutrient-rich mineral deposits.

Something tells me that Harry Benjamin didn’t work with many FTMs.

I don’t fit Group 1, since I never cross-dressed before transition, unless jeans and T-shirts are considered “cross-dressing” for female-bodied persons. And I never lived “as a woman,” or got married, or had kids.

Group 2 doesn’t apply, since I don’t waver between “crossdressing” and wanting body alterations, nor do I shy away from surgery (hooterectomy, hysto. and FMS) or want mere breast reduction, which would be analogous to “some degree of gynacomastia.”

Group 3--Well, I don’t want genital surgery in its present state of development, unless the uterus and ovaries count as genitals. The former *was* a source of disgust and hate before the testosterone stopped the monthly bleeding. Now it and the latter are just potential cancer sites, so I fear them more than anything. The boobs have always been a major source of disgust. Are those genitals?

As I've argued before, they could be analogous to penises because of their prominence.

“You are really not in a position to say what the HBS model says, as you are not a part of that group.”

By that argument you will be refraining from any comment on the transgender model, then?

“And the transgender model? Well, it is really just the same silliness as Blanchard.”

Spoke too soon...

Of course we can all speak about all the models. If we’re wrong I’m sure there’ll be someone to tell us. That’s the way debate works - unless you truly want the censorship you say you deplore.

From: battybattybats

Diane> "It would insinuate we agree with our inclusion under that banner which we most definitely find demeaning."

Batty >How is being in the definition demeaning?

It is demeaning to label someone under an identity that is not theirs to begin with. I am talking about those in need of specific medical attention which for me was originally diagnosed as being true transsexual while under Dr Benjamin's care. He also considered true transsexuals as being of a biological nature. If you consider me transgender then you are demeaning me by that terms association with a fetishist, Charles 'Virgina' Prince. And if you don't agree with me then just read one of his 'Transvestia' publications that were published in the 60's, 70's and into the 80's when his transgender promotion came into full bloom.
You have identified yourself as a crossdresser and that is not a problem with me, never was. But to join me under your mix and match identity of transgender is demeaning to me since I do not consider myself as one of the myriad elements under that umbrella social construct, some of which are actually reflective of deviant behavior.
I am not ashamed of being HBS or even having been transsexual for that is how I was born, identified and then treated to a conclusion which brought my physical body into accord with my brain sex. How about you and others simply refer to yourselves as crossdressers if that is basically what you are without adding me to your myopic transgender identity and scorn me for not joining in?
Monica Roberts, I transitioned in the late sixties and had surgery in 1972. During that time it was imperative that we undergo treatment in accord with our actual brain sex, not a, 'I might be, maybe or could be'. I think your doctors are treating you within that process as well as following the guidelines that applied to those like me while under Dr Benjamin's care. I hope so at least.
For those who find repulsion at the therapy advanced by Zucker may I remind you that not only does Zucker promote that treatment but so does Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence (the self identified post-op autogynephile), Dreger and many others who actually believe that all who ask for surgery are what Prince himself called delusional. They give no credence to the research findings and other indications that one is born with a brain in contradiction to body or maybe they really do. Maybe it is because they have seen too many who just want to experiment mentally without any driving need for a solution to correct what has been a part of them long before puberty. I will not address them for they know better than I who they are. But, their numbers besides increasing are becoming so aggressive in demands that either the gender illusionists be weeded out and treated according to what their actual condition is or those in drastic need to bring wholeness to fruition will in the long run suffer...the HBS born.
Diane http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

Has anyone done a broad personality type study on HBS and HBS equivalent transexuals? I suspect we may find that the more outgoing and headstrong the more likely the person will be distictly aware and certain of their cerebral intersex condition and less likely to submit to external conformist pressures conciously or unconciously.

If so those 10-20% of Zuckers conversion failures would be in the more often outgoing and headstrong personality range.

That would have some uinteresting implications.

"Great postings by every one but you know there is one way to find out that yes your Trans that has not been talked about. That is your soul yes it has a gender and some times it inhabits a body not of its gender. For the inter sexed I feel that ths also applies to them as well."

Interesting idea. I am qualified to have a deep theological and philosophical discussion with you on this as I have done courses on comparative theology and eastern metaphysics, for example, which soul are you referring to? As many systems have much more than one soul. There are systems that catagorise every person with having as many as 9 different types of souls each involving different functions within the self, some of these are carried over in reincarnation, some are unique to each individual and end on death and one is the same soul in all humans shared indivisibly. However, the trouble is that that would be a theological discussion, each model being culture/religion/tradition specific and not so easilly applicable outside of specific traditions. We could compare them with conciousness research that with its examinations of the different conflicts between sections of the brain etc unknown to the concious levels of the mind but that is massively complex and controverytial involving cutting-edge neurology worthy of a subject in it's own right.

As for magic etc it's worth noting that gender presentation change has been a practice in animist and occult traditions down through the ages, permanant like castration and temporary like crossdressing. That too is a subject in it's own right. It's worth noting the amount of religions, myths and the like through many cultures that feature permanant and temporary sex changes in mortals, gods and the like.

"As I said, that sort of revisionist history is as valid as saying a kilt proves Scottish men are transvestites."

Oh, so no person in history ever remarked about the latest feminine mens fashion trend huh. Really? Androgyny started with Bowie and Lennox did it? Somehow I suspect your the one being revisionist.

JJ - It's annoying trying to reply to you. A third of the time, you say insightful things I agree with. Another third, insightful things I disagree with, but at least can debate. And the final third I find you just plain obnoxious. That's not to say you are so objectively, just that your phraseology is infelicitous.

Moving right along.

Re Jurassic Clarke - I concur totally.

Autogynephillia is a legitimate concept. It obviously exists. Where Blanchard's views fail is that he holds that all "transsexuals" are either AGP or homosexual. That is absurd.
Couldn't have put it better myself.

A good example of this would be someone who claims to be a woman while retaining a strong connection to his past. Such a person might, for example, make regular references to military service that only a man could have experienced.
Oh that's right, the USA is so backwards and misogynist that they don't have women on submarines. Except for scumbag contractors like me who actually make the sonars and such.
I must convey your views to some of the standard-model 46xx women I've worked with in the 80's. Or the female midshipmen I've taught at the Australian Defence Force Academy in the 90's.
Oh, and when trying to insult people, go for the direct approach next time. Subtlety is not your strong point.

Jennifer, when I was 10 years old, had picked my new name, and thought I'd have a normal, female puberty, I wanted to be a Rocket Scientist. Even though in 1968, "girls didn't do that". Despite all the problems of being TS/IS, my life before transition did not greatly differ from that I would have had had I been standard 46xx. I will not abandon my career, my son, my life, just to fit in with someone else's outdated and stereotyped view of womanhood. Yes, I'm a Feminist in that regard.

In my experience, only those unsure of their own femininity feel the need to jettison all aspects of their previous life. No, that's not quite true, many warped their previous lives so completely to try to be men, so they had nothing worthwhile keeping. I got rid of almost nothing, as I had refused to make concessions just because I was TS. A wife instead of a husband, that was about it. And only one child, since my IS condition made me infertile.

Zoe, your statement about your birth certificate makes no sense at all. If it does not match your anatomy, regardless of the reason, it should not be that difficult to correct it, unless you were born in a place that does not allow correction at all. I cannot imagine putting up with an incorrect birth certificate unless absolutely necessary.

I was born in the UK. The UK Gender Recognition Act has been great for TS people, they can even get their BCs changed even if non-op. But those who are IS cannot, even if they're post-op. I've tried every way I can, but it's no go. It will require a change in UK law. As I live in Australia, mounting any High Court case is tricky.

As to Zucker's therapy with children, it is worthless. A significant percentage of such children will literally outgrow such behavior without intervention while a few might develop into transgender. The rest will either turn out to be gay, or they will turn out to be HBS. But while the therapy might change some who would otherwise develop into transgender, it will do nothing for the ones who are gay or HBS.

Now I'm agreeing with you completely again. But I refer you to one of the 3 "total failures" mentioned in Zucker's paper. 2 of them are Transmen in transition, and the third has been rendered asexual and neuter, with no desire for surgery of any kind. The Boy has been tortured out, but no Girl has grown in to replace it. I agree that that is HBS too, though it doesn't fit your model.

I asked: "How is being in the definition demeaning?
Innaccurate, potentially if your view is right but the science is far from conclusive currently. But how is it demeaning? That implies that you consider being transgender is bad and/or that some of the people also considered transgender is bad."

Diane responded with a lot of stuff including: "some of which are actually reflective of deviant behavior."

Well thanks for validating what seemed to be implied.

Now in what way do you mean 'deviant'?

As in different from the norm? Oh I plead guilty to that, being a goth. I'm very much different from the norm.
Morally and/or ethicly? There are immoral and unethical people and behaviours in all sexes races classes sexualities and the like. Can you please specify what is unethical about any transgender group of people that is caused by or indivisible from their transness? Note I'm requiring a violation of ethics not morality as morality is an unethical set of standards for determining right and wrong beyond the personal using as it does arbitrary variable precepts or just an averaging of popular opinions, slavery for example was moral for many (based on scriptural argument) but nevertheless unethical. Societies 'mores' are not an acceptable standard for judging right and wrong. In that regard morally I'm deviant judging from the more common morals of my society, ethicly I'm an altruistic idealist of a much higher standard of behaviour than the average.

What exactly and specificly do you mean by deviant?

Erin, I suspect like me you were never a boy. You just looked like one. But that's a mere quibbling over semantics.

It would have been nice to be in the Brownies rather than the Cubs, and the Girl Guides rather than the Boy Scouts. I wasn't in any of them, the one because I was wearing the wrong clothes, the other because I just couldn't fit in with the boy stuff that well. Other girls could, and I managed to do lots of boy stuff other girls couldn't, but I had my limits. We all differ in the minor details.

I think there are 4 levels in transition.

Level 1 - you stick with your old habits because it's secure, and in transition, you need all the security you can get in a very uncertain time.

Level 2 - you reject your whole past because of insecurity, you need validation of yourself as a woman. That means rejecting all boy stuff.

Level 3 - you realise that girls can do anything they want. You take your lead from your girlfriends, the 46xx ones, who don't have your insecurities about the past. The bits of your past you reject, you do so because you've outgrown them.

Level 4 - you make a conscious decision to go full stealth, and if that means abandoning things you once had that you value, you gain the full sensation of just being a normal woman.

Some get stuck on level 1, and those are the ones JJ is referring to, if I understand her correctly. Others get stuck on level 2, and there are many like that in the HBS movement. Some like you and I are on level 3, and comfortable with that. And some move on to level 4. I have too much invested in my son to do that, the price is far too high. I value maternity (or as close as I can get to it) higher than femininity (or as close as I can get to it). And it has to be said, I'm a Geek Girl and always was. My 46xx niece is the same.

I've been full stealth overseas, and yes, you do get treated differently. It's good, but what I have now I value more. Others who have less to lose, I advise to move on.

There is no one-size-fits-all, and no One True Way. Even the levels are generalities, and won't apply to everyone. We of all people should never let really good approximations be mistaken for sharp lines with no blurring and no exceptions.

One thing does bother me. I find I have to make a conscious effort to error-correct my memories. I'm putting a lot of things down on paper, as I have real difficulty remembering that I looked male once. It seems inconceivable, improbable, unimaginable.

Batty,
You proved my assumption correct: you ignore what others say and seem to only listen to your own jabberwhocky.
A she-male who advertises to solicit sex often using the description of 'female top, male bottom' and giving size to the bottom lure is one of the elements under the transgender umbrella that I claim as being deviant. Need I repeat it again?
Diane

Zoe,
I was born with very apparent characteristics that led to sexual confusion and still does for medical practitioners. I was always sterile and know the reasons but that is my business which I do not share with others.
Do I consider myself HBS born and why? I am a firm believer that anyone born HBS is born neurologically intersex; no different than those born with other not at all apparent IS conditions. I do not believe the same condition exists for the gay/lesbian/transgender and that belief is in accord with the indicative research many in the TG community denounce for it might just delegitimize their claim of attachment to transsexuals which they seemingly need for validation.
And the only people who can make legitimate claim to being HBS born are those who are HBS, not someone who becomes enlightened by the advent of puberty. Being HBS is something that attends itself to a child's awareness at a young age: the body does not match the sexual mindset of the brain. It is not a category under the transgender umbrella as many accept transsexualism as being.
No, those who are HBS do not relate at all to your categories especially #2. You are talking about transgender/transsexual who find any and all excuses valid in defining themselves.
'Boy stuff', now that is confusing! I pitched softball in college on a male team so might that be 'boy stuff'? Now it seems that only females play fast pitch softball and even in the Olympics which I watch totally engrossed. Wonder how many of them are involved with 'boy stuff'. Sorry for the pun but I just could not ignore its humorous linkage.

Monica,
To refer to someone as HBS born when in truth they are tg, (or ts's with linkage to tg'ism), is more of the same confusion that seems so very much incorporated within the trans mix and match communities.
I was successful pre-surgery and more-so post surgery but never did I think I was mentally a male. That connection I must suppose comes from someone who identified as a male and then changed identities. HBS born are aware from birth their inner identity and that should never be confused with a strength motivated or constructed by maleness. I am strong only because I faced the contradiction of body to brain and did something about it as soon as was possible. I would not be denied and that I was able to do since I knew the truth of my being rather than a response to some perceived delusionary ideal. I did not build my strength on the back of a past life as a male. My strength came from my inner self that was always female.

I will be honest and probably get hammered for it but I cannot understand how a male who succeeded in life not only as an apparent male but one who also functioned totally and satisfactorily as such can claim later in life to have always been a mental female. That I will always wonder about since I always accepted the brain sex as being hardwired before birth, not a malleable binary.
To say otherwise is simply promoting gender as a permanently changeable concept which of course I totally disagree with.
Diane http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

BBB - I'm sure no disrespect was intended. I could have inadvertently used the same phraseology myself.

A better term would be "transgender conglomerate".

I mean that in the Geological sense,

Made up of loosely cemented heterogeneous material.

If that doesn't describe not just TG, but GLBITTQ, I don't know what does.

I refer you to the UK Intersex Organisation's document Intersex and Gender Identity :

There is a growing tendency to assume that all the varieties of phenotype (apparent physical sex), gender identification and sexual orientation are all merely different shades in one large rainbow. It is becoming increasingly common to hear people lump together transsexual, intersexual, transgender, gay and lesbian in the one sentence with the implication that all these issues share a common history or have common interests.

With me so far?

In many respects it is reminiscent of the attempts in Britain in the 80s to create a "Broad Democratic Alliance" of oppressed people consisting of left-wing and liberal political activists, women, gay people, ethnic minorities, disabled people and those who were unemployed, homeless and otherwise socially-disadvantaged. This was based on the presumption that, as all were victims of economic and social discrimination, there could be constructed a shared platform from which they could combine to resist the policies of the somewhat right-wing UK Government of the time.

And this is what the ENDA fiasco etc is all about:

It was unsuccessful for several reasons: it presumed that the experiences of discrimination by these diverse groups were similar in substance; it presumed that these groups all shared a common opposition to the Government; it presumed that the interests of those groups in ending discrimination could result in them all speaking with one voice, under one leadership; it ignored the diversity of views and experiences not just between but within each of these groups and presumed that each was homogeneous.

Can we at least be original in our mistakes, and not repeat ones others have made before us?

Rather than continue quoting, I think it would be useful to read the whole thing. I may not agree with all the conclusions, but the lessons to be learnt are all in there.

Monica wrote:

Why is it always that the HBS people like bringing up Virginia Prince in the year 2008? She is about as relevant as 50 cent gas, and about as far back into history as the same. Her words back a half century ago are meaningless today, to everyone but HBS people.

Di > He is still the one who first attached to the transgender concept. His words directed at me personally, (anyone that wants to change sex is delusional) still carry with them the transgender baggage that HE promoted then and still applies today. And HE will always be HE to me for his insult of me and others made it clear that is what he was and still is: a male who simply crossdresses and has no valid connection with the travails of those who NEED surgery.

The repetitive reference to Virginia Prince by some who identify as HBS/classic transsexual/true transsexual do not represent the mind set of all who see themselves in that way. Making broad statements like "the HBS people" and "everyone but the HBS people" only serves further polarization.

Di > Yes, perhaps so but until you recognise that HBS born are just that without any connection to transgenderism which in fact you previously told me in an email: "You are and always will be transgender whether you like it or not".
Damn it, I refuse to be identified as transgender no matter if subliminally connected to Prince or to those today who seem to still promote his delusion which he carried into all of the facets of his life.
We recognise that others self identify and do not chastise them for doing that. But do it for themselves and not us. In fact we applaud those who make a clear distinction of themselves without the need to link to others identities.

There are tens of thousands of HBS/classic transsexuals/true transsexuals who don't identify as transgender, want no publicity, could care less about the gender debate, and simply want to be left alone to live their life. Though I don't think they like being lumped into the transgender bucket, I would think they could give a rat's rag about Virginia Prince.

Di > Again transgender is a term that came from Hirshfield but was strongly promoted and therefore attached to Prince and his identity which all who knew him then knew also and accepted he was simply a transvestite who changed his label although wore the same fabric.
When the transgender community stops adding those who actually underwent surgery from their sub-set of elements then I for one will stop my reference to transgenders since I will then have no compelling interest in their false inclusions.

Address the person, not the group

Di > If you mean either the person or the group then you lost me since one and the same when the term transgender was offered by Prince to be shared with his like minded followers.
Why would someone ignore the term transsexual which was a valid medical term and then accept their identity as being transgender which is simply a non-biological social construct advanced by a transvestite in the first place? And last time I read about Prince he was still being honored for his work in promoting his transgender concept or is that too 'not relevant'?

Diane, http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

JJJ - one more thing. Monica and I have our differences of opinion. For one thing, I take issue with her statement:

The strenuous jobs they did back then as a man gave them the strength to face the challenges that they have today as a woman

I rather think it's the strength of character required to do the boy act and not go crazy that meant the military stuff was comparatively easy. Well, it was for me.

Oh one very important thing for her, and for me, though others won't see the significance. I'm not entitled to wear the dolphins, and have never pretended to be. I must emphasise that.

My only claim to being a bubblehead is that I've spent some time seariding at depth, and am a member of both the Australian Submarine Association, and the Sankt Petersberg Submariners' Club, the latter for work I did to help the families of those who were on the Kursk.
Some things transcend sex, gender, and even nationality. On average, over 300 submariners lives depend on my not having screwed up at any one time, be they South Africans, Israelis, Greeks, Swedes, Germans, Spaniards, Italians, Chileans, what have you.

We had a little game, a little in-joke to lighten the atmosphere. A custard pie. You curdled it.

Monica and I, as I said, have our differences. Real ones. We're unalike in many ways. But she has earned my respect and admiration for her work, both in the silent service, and afterwards. When you too have done as much in your area as she has with TAVA, you too will have earned equal respect and admiration, despite our significant differences of opinion. That's not to say I don't respect you now, but she's earned my admiration too.

"Can we at least be original in our mistakes, and not repeat ones others have made before us?"

Lol. There's a great Hindu story (discussed in The Power Of Myth series iirc) about the difficulty in making new mistakes and doing new things rather than repeating old ones. Hehehe 'former Vishnu's all' lol. I love that story.

Anyways the difficulty in such alliances i think is that too many folk aren't self concious enough of their own biases as to be able to learn to accept tolerate and relate to those in a simialr boat to them, needing allies like them. I see it in those crossdressers who can't get over their homophobia, those gays who can't get over their mysogyny, those goths who hate emo's. They tend to be minorities but overly vocal ones.

Folks who want to end others prejudice of them but who insist on mainatining their prejudices against others.

I always find it amusing when they blame other groups for it too. 'Those drag queens give us a bad name', say some crossdressers 'people would accept us if they didn't think we were gay'.

'Those camp gays give us a bad name', say some straight-acting gays 'people would accept us if they didn't think we were all like that'.

'Those Emo's give us a bad name' say some goths 'we were just getting acceptance and now everything goth has been taken over by emo and everyone thinks were all suicidally depressed cutters again'.

Those are real quotes. It seems the same equation. The same formula. Just swapping variables around, just a shift of names really. Races, classes, cultures, subcultures, sexualities. It seems to be the same pattern.

“And no, what is properly called transgender is not rooted in biology. It is based on learning and choices. Otherwise, they would be HBS, and there are observable differences.”

This would follow only if the difference between HBS and transgender were a straightforward, all-or-nothing difference – like having a particular blood group or not. But isn’t there more than one kind of biological factor that may have a bearing on gender development, and mayn’t some or all of these may be present in a greater or lesser degree? I can see that, for the practical purpose of diagnosis, a threshold has to be applied (in the DSM it generally seems to be put in terms of ticking a certain number of diagnostic boxes), but in the messier real world things don’t line up so neatly, with HBS=biological on the one side and transgender=psychiatric/social on the other. And there are bound to be borderline cases.

The HBS supporters I have read on this in this and the Uh-oh thread (I’m not in a position to speak of HBS generally) seem heavily invested in identifying precise, non-porous barriers that distinguish them sharply from people who identify as transgender, whether in terms of biology (HBS is biological, transgender is psychiatric/cultural) or of personal history, where the landscape is littered with shibboleths: if you don’t know from a very early age, if you don’t seek transition as your primary life goal, if you don’t deny your past once you’ve achieved it, then you fail the HBS tests. The insistence that there only two genders and that everyone is either essentially male or essentially female (if I’ve got that right?) again militates towards a view where there is as much blue water as possible between HBS and everyone else.

I’m not convinced by any of these attempts, to be honest. The lifestyle tests for instance seem like special pleading. To make an overwhelming desire for surgery part of the medical description of a condition that is (as far as we know) equally distributed amongst all times and cultures, for example, you would have imagine a world where getting SRS is equally conceivable for everyone – which it clearly isn’t.

Actually, though, I’d rather concentrate on the aspect I feel least sure about, in the hope I’ll learn from the rest of you. And that’s the extent to which gender is biological as opposed to cultural. It’s been said by many here (and I’ve no reason to think otherwise) that gender is rooted in biology. But it doesn’t follow from this that gender is wholly determined by biology, or that biology is equipped to give a wholly satisfactory account of gender. That would be an example of the genetic fallacy (genetic in the philosophical sense, not the biological one!) – rather like the insistence that the origins of the word ‘transgender’ must determine every aspect of its use forever, no matter how the linguistic and cultural context changes. Biology may be where gender is rooted, but a plant is more than its root. Environmental factors are bound to have an effect on a person’s gender history, the way they understand and express themselves, and the way they see themselves reflected in the world around them.

Now, I don’t want to leap to the other extreme either. I certainly wouldn’t go down the Money-Zucker route of saying that gender is malleable and can be assigned, either by individuals or their therapists or parents. To continue the plant analogy: what Zucker does is try to turn a rose into a cactus by treating it as if it were a cactus (and roses don’t react well to that). That’s not to say that it can’t be made a more flourishing rose. I also think people have greater powers of self-determination than plants. To reiterate, though: I don’t believe anyone gets to ‘choose’ their own gender, if by that we mean something akin to picking an option from a menu: but that’s not to say that one has no say in one’s own development as a person, the role that gender plays in that, and indeed in the way that gender is understood. This can be related to broader social movements. Feminism, for example, is (amongst other things) a conscious intervention in the definition of what femaleness entails, and a girl’s sense of what it means to be a girl will be different now to what it was 100 years ago as a direct result of that.

So anyway, my conundrum is this. What does (for example) a MtF trannsexual mean when she says “I feel myself to be female?” What exactly is she saying? Partly I guess it’s a biological statement, that her ‘mental’ body image doesn’t fit what she sees her physical body to be. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it’s hardly the whole story. Partly she may be saying that she identifies herself with attitudes, characteristic and activities that are generally considered female or feminine. But these are culturally determined and subject to change (girls’ soccer is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, for example, and no one seems to think that the girls who play it are being boyish: thirty years ago they would have); and of course there is a wide overlap of characteristics between the sexes anyway (there are plenty of nurturing men who think of themselves quite unproblematically as male). Neither a wholly biological statement nor a wholly cultural one seems sufficient, then, though both seem necessary. So, I find myself looking for answers in the ways the two interact, not least in myself – and that’s a constant journey of discovery. The transgender model (as I understand it, anyway) does not offer easy yes/no solutions to these difficulties, but it at least offers a space in which they can be discussed and thought around, and I guess that is one of the reasons I feel comfortable with the transgender label. But I’d welcome other perspectives on this.

“And no, what is properly called transgender is not rooted in biology. It is based on learning and choices. Otherwise, they would be HBS, and there are observable differences.”

This would follow only if the difference between HBS and non-HBS were a straightforward, all-or-nothing difference – like having a particular blood group. But isn’t there more than one kind of biological factor that may have a bearing on gender development, and mayn’t some or all of these may be present in a greater or lesser degree? I can see that, for the practical purpose of diagnosis, a threshold has to be applied (in the DSM it generally seems to be put in terms of ticking a certain number of diagnostic boxes), but in the messier real world things don’t line up so neatly, with HBS=biological on the one side and transgender=psychiatric/social on the other. And there are bound to be borderline cases.

The HBS supporters I have read on this in this and the Uh-oh thread (I’m not in a position to speak of HBS generally) seem heavily invested in identifying precise, non-porous barriers that distinguish them sharply from people who identify as transgender, whether in terms of biology (HBS is biological, transgender is psychiatric/cultural) or of personal history, where the landscape is littered with shibboleths: if you don’t know from a very early age, if you don’t seek transition as your primary life goal, if you don’t deny your past once you’ve achieved it, then you fail the HBS tests. The insistence that there only two genders and that everyone is either essentially male or essentially female (if I’ve got that right?) again militates towards a view where there is as much blue water as possible between HBS and everyone else.

I’m not convinced by any of these attempts, to be honest. The lifestyle ‘tests’ seem like arbitrary special pleading. To make an overwhelming desire for surgery part of the medical description of a condition that is (as far as we know) equally distributed amongst all times and cultures, for example, you would have imagine a world where getting SRS is equally conceivable for everyone – which it clearly isn’t.

Actually, though, I’d rather concentrate on the aspect I feel least sure about, in the hope I’ll learn from the rest of you. And that’s the extent to which gender is biological as opposed to cultural. It’s been said by many here (and I’ve no reason to think otherwise) that gender is rooted in biology. But it doesn’t follow from this that gender is wholly determined by biology, or that biology is equipped to give a wholly satisfactory account of gender. That would be an example of the genetic fallacy (genetic in the philosophical sense, not the biological one!) – rather like the insistence that the origins of the word ‘transgender’ must determine every aspect of its use forever, no matter how the linguistic and cultural context changes. Biology may be where gender is rooted, but a plant is more than its root. Environmental factors are bound to have an effect on a person’s gender history, the way they understand and express themselves, and the way they see themselves reflected in the world around them.

Now, I don’t want to leap to the other extreme either. I certainly wouldn’t go down the Money-Zucker route of saying that gender is malleable and can be assigned, either by individuals or their therapists or parents. To continue the plant analogy: what Zucker does is try to turn a rose into a cactus by treating it as if it were a cactus (and roses don’t react well to that). That’s not to say that it can’t be made a more flourishing rose. I also think people have greater powers of self-determination than plants. To reiterate, though: I don’t believe anyone gets to ‘choose’ their own gender, if by that we mean something akin to picking an option from a menu: but that’s not to say that one has no say in one’s own development as a person, the role that gender plays in that, and indeed in the way that gender is understood. This can be related to broader social movements. Feminism, for example, is (amongst other things) a conscious intervention in the definition of what femaleness entails, and a girl’s sense of what it means to be a girl will be different now to what it was 100 years ago as a direct result of that.

So anyway, my conundrum is this. What does (for example) a MtF trannsexual mean when she says “I feel myself to be female?” What exactly is she saying? Partly I guess it’s a biological statement, that her ‘mental’ body image doesn’t fit what she sees her physical body to be. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it’s hardly the whole story. Partly she may be saying that she identifies herself with attitudes, characteristic and activities that are generally considered female or feminine. But these are culturally determined and subject to change (girls’ soccer is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, for example, and no one seems to think that the girls who play it are being boyish: thirty years ago they would have); and of course there is a wide overlap of characteristics between the sexes anyway (there are plenty of nurturing men who think of themselves quite unproblematically as male). Neither a wholly biological statement nor a wholly cultural one seems sufficient, then, though both seem necessary. So, I find myself looking for answers in the ways the two interact, not least in myself – and that’s a constant journey of discovery. The transgender model (as I understand it, anyway) does not offer easy yes/no solutions to these difficulties, but it at least offers a space in which they can be discussed and thought around, and I guess that is one of the reasons I feel comfortable with the transgender label. But I’d welcome other perspectives on this.

Diane

I will be honest and probably get hammered for it but I cannot understand how a male who succeeded in life not only as an apparent male but one who also functioned totally and satisfactorily as such can claim later in life to have always been a mental female.

I don't either, and I did it, sorta kinda.

I came close to your definition - I was "a female who succeeded in life as an apparent male".

I certainly succeeded in life. My life was pretty close to the one I would have had as 46xx, as I've said before.

"functioned totally and satisfactorily" - well, that depends.

The worse thing was the psychosis. Mild, but there. There were whole chunks of my memory I couldn't access. I studied neurology, but could not perceive anything to do with gender. I'd look at a pretty girl walking down the street, think "Oh God I wish I looked like her!!!", then 10 minutes later, I would have forgotten it. You could have given me a polygraph test, and I would have passed while denying I could ever think such a thing. I was unable to wear anything but a white or blue shirt, no pastels, people might suspect my secret.

To have gone to a cross-dressing party would gave been totally impossible: it would have meant transition, immediately.

I was happy. Really. I'd break down and huddle in a foetal ball in a cupboard every now and then, maybe 3 or 4 times a year at most, but doesn't everyone? (Ok, they don't but I didn't know that).

The closest I ever got to admitting things was that I confided to a good friend once that I could have functioned just as well if I had been born a girl as a boy.

My name I picked in 1968, at age 10. It came from the Dr Who companion, Zoe, and she appeared first in early 68. A Pure Mathematics genius, and everything I wanted to be when I grew up. I really thought I'd have a normal female puberty, you know? It came as a heck of a shock later to find out that boys and girls were born different, I thought it was something arbitrary, and I'd been mistakenly put in the wrong group.

But instead of having a nice, healthy nervous breakdown at 13, and seeking treatment, I just went quietly insane. It was that or die, as transition was impossible. The elastic bands I tried to do a DIY orchy with hurt too much. I stopped when I realised that of course I could never be a mother, but I so needed to have children, they were my only hope.

I was functional, mostly. Enough, anyway. But at age 45, I was soooooo looking forward to dying from heart failure, though I never could figure out exactly why. That part of my mind was not accessible.

There was the bit about being anorgasmic, too. I don't think a guy would call that "satisfactory", but for me it was no big deal. Having a micropenis is not a total disqualification, but when combined with female wiring too, the result was not totally functional. Nothing Viagra could have helped with, it just felt un-natural. The testes were far more important to me, and again, I got short-changed. I was infertile, as opposed to sterile, for maybe 7 years of my life. 1998-2005. After 12 miscarriages, we had a son in 2001. It took technical help, syringes etc to extract the gametes of course.

That is as functional and as satisfactory as you can get under the circumstances. I had it easy compared to, well, everyone else I know in the same kind of situation. No alcoholism, no drug dependancy, no hospitalisation, no suicide attempts, not even any anti-depressants. I was happy. Really I was. I had to be otherwise I would have died.

2 weeks after I was told by the endo that I was sterile, I had my ears pierced, and 4 weeks later, I was fulltime. That was 12 weeks after the first cracks appeared. And that only happened because my body started feminising rapidly.

I was OK'd for HRT a week later, but that was irrelevant. I transitioned immediately because I had to, whether or not HRT was ever sanctioned, and whether or not SRS was ever going to be authorised.

At the endo visit after that, I was told that as the result of the medical tests (MRI, Ultrasound etc) I was actually more F than M anyway. Not a mildly IS male after all, but a severely androgenised female. That was still several months before I could get an appointment to see a shrink. I got my letters 3 months after the first visit, but had already paid my deposit to the surgeon by then.

How the heck did I do it? How the heck did I last 47 freaking years? The cholesterol tests I had at 37 showed I probably wouldn't make 40, for one thing. My endocrine system was a mess, and always had been.

From here, it seems unbelievable. And with all the hormonal weirdness, I even managed to have a child too.

Monica.
I have a degree in Political Science but took my minor in Psychology/Sociology way back when those two disciplines were taught as one. My first employment after college was that of a social worker for the City of New York in a re-hab facility since I did not have the money nor the will to enter law school. One needs not a degree in anything to express an opinion and Jennifer did just that and it is her right just as it is yours to express your own.
I do agree with Jennifer though in her representation of opinion in regard to what is and what is not transgender and how that might affect others. I also resent deeply your attempt to join me and others to your transgender conscript as if for us to deny our inclusion is somehow a betrayal.
I know that I would never forcibly join you to the HBS concept but then I also know you do not fit and would not ask that you belong to something that would be naturally foreign to you.
I also find it typical from past emails you sent to me that when you lose an argument you rebel by attempts at 'outing' another. One episode after your appearance in front of the Vietnam Memorial comes to mind but that is of the past and I will not digress. I know your self serving nature and some things about you I find rather bizarre and would not make it a point of discussion simply because I prefer to debate an issue even though lacking the advantage of the killer instinct which you seem to possess.
Not once did I read someone say they were better than another on these posts. We HBS born do say in a loud voice that we are different and distinct in our medical condition and our identity.
You proclaim yourself as being tolerant but your accusation of another as being a 'trans-person' when you know they feel that label as being non-applicable to them I find rather disparaging and somewhat intolerant of their feelings.
Diane

Zoe,
I can fully understand your narrative and thank you for sharing it.
For some I might suppose it is luck to find a solution young and for others perhaps best to wait. For me it was destiny and a driving nature to be whole so I do not offer myself up as a comparison for others. It was just me but I fully understand what it means to be just me.
But then I can never consider having transitioned in my twenties to be luck. If I was lucky I would have had correction in my teens when I attempted just that. Alas, that is prologue and I must admit to having had a wonderful life with with a man who asked me to be his wife whom I deeply loved and with his passing there now there is an empty void.
Enjoy your life and do not look back for there lies the pain of memory.

Diane

Great questions Lucy.

There have been some interesting reports in the science media on the consequences of FtM transexuals and our philosophical psychological neurological understandings of body self and conciousness with huge consequences in many fields.

This is because of the experience of 'phantom erections'. Someone lacking the anatomy reporting quite strongly and definatly the sensations of a physiological response, often as is the case in those with the actual organs at unexpected occassions.

Now there is the similar seeming 'phantom limb syndrome' where an amputee will have sensations like pain or itching or tickling in a limb that no longer exists. Studies into this brought many benefits as it was discovered that the brain body map is related to the formation of the foetus in first a spherical shape then the foetul position where in our brain body parts quite distant when extended are still considered next to one another and an itch on one part of the body could be missreported by the brain as belonging to a now absent part that lies next to it in the brain map while otherwise distant in anatomy. This has had massive benefis in understanding of the brain and pain, sensation, bio-feedback, motor control and lots more. It has even led to restored sexual pleasures for paraplegics where areas still with sensation that are near the erogenous zones in the brain map while far away anatomicly.

However the common though not universal experience of FtM transexuals cannot be explained thus. From what I've heard FMRI scans have suported that the brain is reporting the same stimulus as with males experiencing the same anatomical sensation.

That means that these transexuals have neural systems set up for producing erections and for experiencing erections. Unless it can be shown that all these transexuals have the HBS definition desperate need for surgery I think we can consider that a falsification of that part of the HBS definition. Those FtM's clearly have a neurological intersex condition. We only need one, just one single FtM who experiences phantom erections who does not have the desperate drive for surgery to rule that factor out of a medical definition of HBS.

Now the fact is not all FtM transexuals experience these phantom erections. Is this evidence for those FtM's being transvestic fetishists and not true transexuals? I would not expect so. Despite attempts to claim otherwise neurological conditions come in degrees and variations. Autism is a good example. Some autistic people are utterly 'locked up' while others are so mild as to be undetectable without extensive testing, many of the latter only being discovered because of children or relatives with more severe symptoms.

That is why I suspect that varying degrees of neurological intersex should be expected rather than considered impossible and thats why I suspect most, maybe even almost all transgender people will have varying degrees of neurological difference. Crossdressers being the equivalent of mild autism or maybe aspergers, HBS level transexuals being the equivalent of 'locked up' Autism.

"Battybattybats...no one is denying you your right to be "deviant." We simply do not wish to be identified with you, and as behaving like you. We really share nothing in common with you, and, as stated, consider it demeaning to be linked to you.

Get over it."

Just Jennifer. Do you have ESL or learning or comprehension difficulties I should be aware of so that I don't misjudge your response and that could help me change my word choice to compensate for any disadvantages you may be challenged by?

Because you have entirely failed to understand the meaning of what I was saying. I never said anyone was denying my right to be deviant. I was in fact questioning which meaning of deviant was being used and why.

This is essential to know whether such deviance would be accuratly considered bad or instead admirable. It is essential to know whether being associated with it is objectively insulting or whether dissassociating from it is objectively insulting. Subjectively people can have all sorts of biases bigotries likes and dislikes but someone of one oppressed minority ethnicity who hates members of another oppressed minority ethnicity and wishes not to associate with them would be no less a racist than one from the oppressing majority, just one in a lesser position of power.

This just gets insane sometimes...

"Though I don't think they like being included with the transgender group, I would think they could give a rat's rag about Virginia Prince."

Oh a bucket now is it. Very respectful of others views that is.

You can disscuss the accuracy or inaccuarcy of the transgender model and/or community without vitriol filled invective or venomous jabs just as we can do the same without using similar negative analogies or phrases for HBS.

Symbolicly buckets are not used to contain many valued things, but are used for scraps, leaks, dirt and manure. Thats uncalled for, offensive and low.

Deliberatly or accidentally that is offensive and unwarrented.

That's an absolutely ridiculous analysis of the statement I made...utterly ludicrous. Get a friggin life, both of you.

If that simple statement I made was so offensive to you, I don't care if either one of you respect me.

Geeeez...

JJ

There are those who are born with a physical birth defect, which causes their brain to be sexually differentiated at odds with their body.

Exactly

They are never comfortable with their body, and they are not successful in their birth sex role, no matter how long, or short, a time they remain there.

Concur 100%, though your definition of "successful" may vary. The degree of discomfort varies too. Some can manage the "mental gymnastics" to function sexually, others can't, to take a simple and easily measurable example of "success".

They might transition very early, or they might be relatively late. But if they transition later in life, they will have a work history that reflects their discomfort with their birth sex and after transition their life will greatly improve. These people are HBS.

I think the work history bit is something of a furphy. It's possible for someone to be so tortured that they throw themselves into a career to try to stop thinking about it. They can appear very successful. The real test is what happens after transition - do they blossom and does their life massively improve, despite the additional difficulties that transition adds? If so, that's a sure sign, and from my observations, a surer sign than desire for particular surgical procedures.

Then there are people who are born without such a physical birth defect. For whatever reason, they develop a learned behavior that leads them to derive pleasure from crossdressing and/or thinking of themselves as a female.

I'm not convinced that such people exist. Biology isn't binary, there are degrees of neural screw-up, and they affect different areas.

I'll take an example. Khadijah Farmer. Female Gender Identity, standard model 46xx female body. But her whole body language screams MALE. Anyone seeing her walking down the street would think her male. She's not, she's as female as I am. But part of her brain is masculinised. Just not the bit(s) to do with gender identity.

I think we all know those unfortunates who look fabulous, but whose general "vibe" matches neither their looks nor their personalities.

Then there are those that look, to put it politely, plain. Lots of masculine tells in their soma, yet no-one questions them, because they "vibe female". Objectively, no way should they "pass" to put it crudely. Yet even if they out themselves, the usual reaction is "I can't believe you ever looked like a man" when according to measurements and numbers, they still do to a large extent. That's because their hindbrain, the bit determining instinctive body language, is feminised. There are lots of subtle tells we are all wired up to recognise to determine someone's sex, and not all can be reduced to numbers (yet).

Such people as you postulate may exist. But there's little evidence they do, as partly cross-gendered neurology in different areas can explain all observed behaviour. This makes me most uncomfortable, and I wish it were not so. But I calls 'em how I sees 'em.

Coming from the direction of Intersex, I deal every day with men who are distressed that their bodies aren't quite the normal model. Women too in the same situation. I find it impossible to believe that the sexually dimorphic brain is somehow privileged and immune from the same kinds of thing that happen to the rest of the body. I also deal with people whose minds are such that the labels "male" and "female" are irrelevant, regardless of the exact mixture of somatic sex they were landed with. That tiny minority, within a small minority, within a larger minority, should not be labelled "paraphilliacs" or forced into someone else's idea of a universal binary that doesn't admit exceptions. We of all people should know what that feels like.

>Now, why should you care that we wish to differentiate ourselves from those who are transgender? Why does this bother you so much? Are you afraid we might be right, and not share some stigma that you feel? What is it about our views that you find so disturbing?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t find them disturbing at all. Nor, for that matter, do I feel any stigma. I think it’s perfectly understandable that you (as a group) should wish to find ways that clearly define yourselves and the ways in which you can be distinguished from other people with whom a largely-indifferent public might confuse you. I’m quite happy to accept (as I’m sure I’ve said before) that HBS is real, and different from other conditions (even if it’s not quite as radically different as you’d like it to be). Where I have less sympathy is with the ways you go about showing this, by assuming that a situation that exists in various degrees is actually all-or-nothing (but Zoe has written more knowledgeably than I about this). Especially problematic is your apparent need to represent the very wide variety of people who identify as transgender quite unrealistically in a one-size-fits-all description, usually couched in – well, demeaning terms (to use the mot du jour) designed to make them seem as different from you as possible. I certainly didn’t recognize myself in your description of the people ‘born without such a physical birth defect’ above, for example, and I doubt many would.

>And I get so tired of non-HBS asking us that silly question. How does any woman know that she feels female? Well, that is how we know. Asking that is just an attempt to discredit our experience. Simply put, I could ask you, how do you know you are a male? If you have to ask, you probably can't understand the answer.

If you don’t want to answer the question, don’t answer it – it’s not a problem. I do know it’s an old one, even if I persist in finding it interesting. The fact is, though, I DON'T know I’m a male – which is part of the reason I’m transgender! I have found that those who are secure in their gender identity (whether cisgendered or transsexual) often find it hard to say why, but also it’s not really an issue for them, at least once they have fixed their body to match. Cisgendered women and men need think about it even less than transsexuals, of course. But for some of us the question is our constant companion, because we live with a dissonance that can’t be solved with the surgeon’s knife. I’m still open to answers/theories, if anyone’s got some to offer!

Just Jennifer. You seem confused as to some of the basics of science and the philosophy of science.

It takes only a single piece of contrary evidence to sink an hypothesis and often near mountains of data from attempts to disprove the hypothesis along with confirmations of predictions made by that hypthesis for it to be considered true.

It would take only one exception to show that the HBS model would need adjusting to be accurate. It would take a great deal of research however to show that it is always accurate.

This is called 'falsifiability'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Note the white-swan example. It only takes a single black swan to disprove the idea 'all swans are white.

Wow though, how could I, apparently a simpleton with an APALLING lack of understanding of science or medicine or debating manage to make such a point?

Guess I just showed several hypothesese are false.

As for your giving me a 'wide berth' and you finding my appearance personally offensive (not that you know what I look like afaik) etc etc. What's your problem with goths? Not that you know what kind of goth I am. Do you have the same intolerance of all goths? New-wave, dark-wave, cyber, romantic, neo-victorian, industrial, metal, diesal, steam, retro, punk, ostro, visi, etc etc? Would it matter to you if i were wearing black vinyl with facial piercings, black leather with tattoos or a top-hat and antique frock-coat?

Lucy Bright

I have found that those who are secure in their gender identity (whether cisgendered or transsexual) often find it hard to say why, but also it’s not really an issue for them, at least once they have fixed their body to match.

Not even when they haven't. It's something you are, regardless of appearance. In fact, those who are TS are so secure in their gender identity that they'll move heaven and earth to make the rest consistant.
.

Cisgendered women and men need think about it even less than transsexuals, of course.

Many of those are less strongly gendered than TS people, and so can't understand why anyone would transition for such a trivial reason as being the wrong shape.
.

But for some of us the question is our constant companion, because we live with a dissonance that can’t be solved with the surgeon’s knife. I’m still open to answers/theories, if anyone’s got some to offer!

The surgery does nothing to affect the gender identity. There's no such thing as a "sex change" in that regard. All it can do is make the mind and body match. To someone who is strongly gendered, and has the wrong shaped body, the discomfort is ... indescribable. I only knew how bad it was when it ended. Had I let myself realise it before, I'd be dead or insane.

My theory (hypothesis actually, more than a conjecture but not enough for a theory), is that it is inevitable that some people will feel as you do. It's an inevitable consequence of gender being set in the neuro-anatomy. Sometimes it's set to mismatch the soma. But sometimes the mismatch is only to a degree. There'll be people who are not particularly female, but certainly not male. Others not particularly male, but certainly not female. Others that are so close to the middle that they can only be described as androgenous. Others where the whole area is underdeveloped, and they are true neuters.

As the brain is slightly malleable, people so close to the middle can sometimes partly normalise. Worse, and this one really weirds me out, for those right on the divide, hormonal variations can take them from feeling just slightly M to just slightly F and back. I suspect my model is wrong there. That's what it predicts, but I've never heard of anyone like that.

This doesn't help you in the slightest, of course. Maybe it might help to say that you're not alone, that people like you have to exist to make nearly everyone else comfy as M or F. You're neccessary to make the binary gendering work. A dirty job, but someone has to do it. Being drafted doesn't diminish your heroism.

If I had any advice, it's the same I give to all the IS and TS people I see as part of the Ally program at the Uni. That is - be yourself. Find out what that is. And blow what anyone else says, me included. I'm working from a very limited data set, and although I'm very confident in the neurological cause, the details are less clear, and too much of that is informed guesswork. Those I'm not confident about at all.

I've been pulled away from my weekend in Paris to moderate this thread, so a few things.

Posting personal information about others' pasts not otherwise disclosed is not cool. Don't do it. It'll get moderated.

If you think a comment should be moderated, use the web-contact form up top. Include a link and the reason why. While just a year ago I was reading every single comment that went up on this site, there's no way I can do that anymore.

Play nice.

Batty,

You continue to amaze me. I don't think I ever met anyone who can expand conjecture to fact as well as you seem to be able to do. You ignore the site: http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./where scietific results are listed and then you argue for proof outlining absolutes before any of the evidence is accepted as being valid. An analogy: I wonder how much proof you might ask for so that you might be convinced a bee is actually able to fly considering its aerodynamics? And please show me one single study that proves without doubt the clear definition of transgenderism. Remember now we are talking about a social construct joined in its meaning with varying elements rather vaguely defined. And, since you take the TG term for yourself might you tell me where I too might find the conclusive evidence of how the support research was obtained to justify one label being attached to so many variants? Please tell!

In the meantime do your own homework on the site provided rather than simply defending your ignorance and making claim that others need to do the resarch for you.

Diane, http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

Geez, Mercedes you've really started an avalanche of responses here! Power On! I never thought I would get all of this read, it's unbelievable the amount of response given here. Well, not totally unbelievable considering the passion that we all feel about the subject of ourselves! I thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth but am deriving to much enjoyment from just following the thread discussion.

Having donned Monica's recommended protective garb, and having added, at my son's recommendation, a helmet with my blood group stencilled upon the strap, I am preparing a lengthy paper on the subject of trans-diagnostics that I will be forwarding to the work group, on the basis of 23 years as a psychiatrist who has always had a sizeable portion of my practice made up of LGBT's. It will include most of the known neurological and neuroanatomical findings, some commonality of case history and outcome info that has occured in the practices of other clinicians, and a breakdown by criteria of most of the diagnostics associated with trans-phenomena.

It will include a recommendtion for a severe tightening of the diagnostic criteria for autogynophilia, but inclusion of AG in the differential.

It will not be limited to Dr. Blanchard's either/or homosexual vs Ag diagnostics, as neither the neuroscientific studies nor most clinicians experiences support such a simplistic view.

It will emphasize the accepted analytical concept of multiple determination, many possible factors affecting ALL observable behavioral outcomes, further arguing against the simplistic either/or approach advocated by Dr's Zucker and Blanchard.

In the view of many of the clinicians treating transsexuals, Autogynophilia exists, though the diagnostic criteria is drawn overly broad and becomes by and large a catch all for everyone not in the homosexual transsexual category to make either/or diagnostics work.

The Homosexual transsexual also exists. Again, the criteria, primarily based upon libidinal issues, is overly broadly drawn and desparately needs narrowed.

There are the neuropsychologically or neuroanatomically based transsexuals, who are neurologically or psychologically intersexed for lack of a better definition.

The number diagnostic sub-groups under the observable phenomena of transsexuality needs to be broadened, not narrowed. I will be arguing that libidinal based diagnostics(the either/or) would represent a step backwards in the face of accumulated case data and known or suspected neuroscience.

Obviously, no one will be happy with this (though included in the subgroups, HBS is described clinically and I simply will NOT use the term as it is overexclusive). Those willing to see AG buried in a crossroads with a stake through it's heart to prevent it's resurrection will not be happy either...I am sorry but I have and many other clinicians have seen patients who clearly meet the dynamics of AG, as opposed to simply falling outside of the Homosexual transsexual subset and thus meeting the current critieria used by Clarke.

Finally, I am arguing that the very reliance of sexual orientation to define diagnostics flies in the face of decades of belief that sexual orientation and gender identity are NOT linked functions.

I am hopeful that other psychiatrists will join in with submissions.

Flame away(ducking to take cover)

Thanks, Zoe. I find your analysis persuasive (given the lack of data – I suppose something else may yet turn up), and your advice is exactly that which I’ve been trying to follow. It’s never less than interesting! And I’m giving a wobbly smile at the thought of being a drafted gender hero(ine) – connotations of military service notwithstanding. ;-)

Oh, and you were right to pick me up on a clumsy expression when I said “it’s not really an issue for them, at least once they have fixed their body to match.” I was conflating “issue” in the sense of a question or matter of doubt with “issue” in the sense of problem that needs to be fixed. Transsexuals do indeed (from all I’ve heard and seen) have a strong sense of their gender, and I wasn’t meaning to imply otherwise.

" I don't think I ever met anyone who can expand conjecture to fact as well as you seem to be able to do. You ignore the site: http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./where scietific results are listed and then you argue for proof outlining absolutes before any of the evidence is accepted as being valid."

What conjecture have I stated as fact? Specificly? Maybe you mistake my use of words like 'perhaps' or 'suspect' for instead stating that a possibility is a certainty? The people making statements of certainty however are not those showing scientific literacy, my basic and Zoe's substantial. We are discussing possibilities based on an understanding of the way science works rather than false certainties.

Firstly I'm ignoring the site because it's clearly biased. Ex-gay sites claim to have 'science' too. If the research is that good it should also be found elsewhere. All I asked for was DEFINITIVE evidence to support DEFINITIVE conclusions at a STANDARD level of scientific evidence to substantiate the claims being made. Show me the peer-reviewed academic journals. Show me the wide-rangeing studies with enough subjects to provide statisticly meaningful conclusions! Small studies don't cut it, you need a large number of subjects to ensure that a proper range has been obtained. With a control group too. Unless you can provide that you have suggestive pilot studies and nothing more. Cold fusion had that much but the taxi I took yesterday still wasn't powered by it was it!

There are scientific standards required to take something from sensible scientific conjecture to scientific conclusion. Either provide stuff that meets all those standards or accept that the evidence you find personally convincing is not yet reached the level sufficient to be scientificly certain.

"I wonder how much proof you might ask for so that you might be convinced a bee is actually able to fly considering its aerodynamics?"

Sigh. You really are behind the times. It's been years, almost a decade in fact, since it was shown that wake capture and the deforming of the wing shape of bees and other insects vastly alters the flow of air opening up huge new avenues of aerodynamics
http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/stories/s103203.htm
http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/ellington/aerodynamics.html
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/insects/evolution/deforming.html
You might also note that the increased variability of bats wings also give them vastly increased manouverability over birds that also sits outside the arhaic old notions of fixed state wing aerodynamics. http://www.livescience.com/animals/070122_bat_flight.html

Engineers are currently working on ways to use these discoveries in exploration robotics for other planets and miliatry spy robotics (where robot insects are really in right now).

It was in fact the example of insects that invalidated the old theories of aerodynamics requiring greater exploration, greater understanding, more discoveries and new theories of aerdodynamics that include the valid parts of the old ones and incorporate new ideas. This will keep happening in all fields as that is how science works.

But as for evidence of flight, sigh. You do like your straw man arguments don't you. No-one is arguing about whether bees fly or whether transexuals exist. Instead the argument is about how and why they fly/exist and how different they might be from other things that fly/exist. Without being able to say what the causation of each is and then work on detailed comparisons all we have is conjecture.

So your not talking proof, your not talking certainty, your talking conjecture with only limited and fragmentary evidence to work on. I'm not saying that the transgender model is proven, it too is conjecture. I didn't say otherwise.

"And, since you take the TG term for yourself might you tell me where I too might find the conclusive evidence of how the support research was obtained to justify one label being attached to so many variants? Please tell!"

I'm not claiming transgender as medical and scientific fact though which you keep ignoring. The only way to be sure of who may or may not be neurologicly intersexed to any degree will be a very large expensive series of studies. Till then we only have conjecture based on fragmentary evidence.

We don't have sufficient scientific evidence to rule who fits into what catagory. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" especially when the requisite studies aren't being done!

"Remember now we are talking about a social construct joined in its meaning with varying elements rather vaguely defined."

Ah well if you insist on considering it only as a social/cultural phenomena you'll have to try and criticise it from a social/cultural point of view then won't you.

So from a social/cultural perspective vague definitions are the norm. Can you tll the difference between an extreme Emo and an Extreme Goth? Sure most people can, but an average Emo and an average Goth? Where does one stop and the other start? There is overlap between the social/cultural groups!

There are arguments in favour of the transgender model when looked at from a cultural, social and political perspective.

Who can say which gender/sex non conformists of history were crossdressers or HBS? Who can say which phenomena gave rise to third sexes in polynesia and southern asia? How could we determine which ones have been the driving forces of which religions or rituals throughout human history? Even by the HBS accepted definition both myst have existed, biological and psychological, before the modern age.

When considering the various biases against such people and practices throughout history we cannot again split one group as distinctive from the other.

In these considerations alone a single catagory recognising substantial diversity within it is neccessary.

Cultures and social groupings are defined essentially by two forces, the views and expressions of those within and those without.

Politicly too there is validation for a transgender alliance whether a variety of causation for the phenomena is found or not. Often the same laws discriminate against all or large portions within the grouping so having allies that work together is valuable.

And Susan, I've never seen a 'bucket of love'. You must explain that one lol. I accept your apology, backhanded or otherwise. Thankyou.

I'm sure if/when you learn more about semiotics (not semantics, that's different. We all know what the word means it's the additional meaning of the symbol that the word represents that is at issue) and it's usage in politics and art I'm sure you'll see why the reaction was how it was. Or maybe your just from a dairy area rather than sheep country and so the symbol has different meanings because of different experience with the symbol. Lets remember that symbols vary substantially and not knowing how a symbol is understood by someone from another region country or heritage can often be a cause of unintended offence, in that some anthropology might help, especially linguistic anthropology.

Caillean - sounds as if you're changing your opinions to match observations, rather than discarding observations that don't match preconceived notions.

I'd be most interested in what you have to say.

The areas of most interest to me are twofold: first, in what areas does my hypothesis fall down? Is it sufficiently falsifiable to be useful? To what extent am I being over-broad?

Second, what about people presenting with "gender issues" who have (other) Intersex conditions? Being excluded by definition from GID in the DSM-IV has severe repercussions when it comes to treatment. The effects of immediately post-natal surgical "normalisation" can be quite awful.

Will you bite the bullet and give a proposed medical definition of male and female? That's what it all comes down to in the end. Fitting a grey, blurry, biological splodge into two neat buckets.

As an aside, one of the better books on the subject IMHO is that of Prof Rachel Heath, the Praeger Handbook of Transsexuality ISBN-13 978-0275991760. I've had a few talks with Prof Heath when she was down in Canberra.

In any event, good luck. I think you'll need it. I know you deserve it. There's been too much Bad Science in this area.

Many of O'Keefe's qualifications came from what can reasonably be described as New Age Diploma Mills.

Having said that... when I met her recently (tuesday), I was most impressed by her abilities as both a clinician and a researcher. The paper that BBB adduced above is typical of her rigour.

It's clear from her hands-on clinical experience that she has a lot more knowledge in the area than I do, with my limited and heavily theoretical background. She learned something from me, but I learnt rather more from her, especially in the area of non-transitioning gender variant clinical cases. When it came to easily diagnosable transitioners, those who meet even the most fanatical and narrow definition of HBS, there was no disagreement. There's less evidence in favour of neurology than I'd like, yet more than for many other commonly treated medical conditions, which have even smaller sample sizes as evidence to back up treatment which we know works. Yes, we need more research, but not of the skewed type prevalent at CAMH, which I'm led to believe at the moment is the only game in town in North America. You can't just reject 90% of cases that don't fit your preconceptions, then coerce the rest to more closely fit.

I ended up defending Zucker against her attacks, would you believe. His science is actually good, and if you read the papers he's co-authored, the results show that his success rate is limited. I suspect he's becoming less and less convinced of his former position, he's too good a scientist not to. Too human to do it quickly though.

It's his ethics that I condemn. As I put it to Tracie, "He's not an Idiot as you say he is, but torturing children is wrong."

Thanks for the link, BBB. I'll bookmark that one.

Please, you must remember, that although I'm a Rocket Scientist and know basic scientific method, I have zero formal training in psychology or medicine. Most of my observations haven't even been face-to-face, and have been exclusively people who are undergoing transition or are Intersexed and with "gender issues". I'm TS/IS, and although that gives me some personal insight, it bollixes my objectivity. That gets even more compromised by hearing so very many tales of inhuman treatment by a neoFreudian establishment - they tear at my heart. Finally, as a computer scientist, I'm biased towards a rather mechanistic approach. I prefer evidence from MRI and other scans rather than the very wishy-washy and terribly open to observer bias soft-science kind, common in psychology. To see why, just read the literature and see how the picture has totally changed over the last 40 years. The inbuilt societal prejudice is obvious in hindsight, and the early work thoroughly discredited by later, more rigorous studies.

Critically examining my own conclusions.... it appears to me that cross-gendered neurology can be taken as a proven fact, at least, as much as anything in Science can be. For it not to be true would mean abandoning much of what we think we know about biology.

That such cross-gendered neurology is causal of the syndrome of Transsexuality is another matter. The rates match, the plausible symptoms match, and as a conjecture, we have enough evidence for it (vs zero against) that it can be considered a well-grounded hypothesis. Certainly enough to base treatment on, because there are other medical conditions that are generally accepted as understood where the evidence is even more scanty.

That is is causal of the variety of gender variance we observe is more conjecture, something that fits, something that is extremely plausible, rather than a well-evidenced conclusion. Occam's razor says it's probably true, but many a beautiful, neat and tidy theory like that has been slain by a single ugly fact.

We need repetition of existing experiments to firm up the hypothesis of transsexual causation - the "weak HBS" hypothesis. We need entirely new experiments to test the "transgender" conjecture.

Lucy Bright

Oh, and you were right to pick me up on a clumsy expression

No big deal. Small stuff remains unsweated.

Anyone who gets offended by something as trivial as that is, in my opinion, being unbearably precious. It merits what it got, a small correction, that's all.

It's not as if we didn't have rather more important (by 3 orders of magnitude) issues to concern us. Nice of you to post that though. Consider yourself hugged.

Caillean,

Having donned Monica's recommended protective garb, and having added, at my son's recommendation, a helmet with my blood group stencilled upon the strap, I am preparing a lengthy paper on the subject of trans-diagnostics that I will be forwarding to the work group, on the basis of 23 years as a psychiatrist who has always had a sizeable portion of my practice made up of LGBT's. It will include most of the known neurological and neuroanatomical findings, some commonality of case history and outcome info that has occured in the practices of other clinicians, and a breakdown by criteria of most of the diagnostics associated with trans-phenomena.

Di > It seems to me then that the, "sizeable portion of my practice made up of LGBT's," lends itself to a bias in favor of those behavioral elements and not truly able to accept the neurological contradictions in uterus as indicated by the research presented in support of BSTc studies and the further genetic research supporting a causative and not a learned or nurtured conclusion. Your proposed paper seems to be transgender positive and transsexual negative at least insofar as HBS is concerned.

It will include a recommendtion for a severe tightening of the diagnostic criteria for autogynophilia, but inclusion of AG in the differential.

Di > Severe tightening in what way? Would it then list autogynephilia simply as a fetish which many analysts have come to realize and as a non-condition for surgery? Or would those admitted AG's like Ann Lawrence and her adherents have their sway?

It will not be limited to Dr. Blanchard's either/or homosexual vs Ag diagnostics, as neither the neuroscientific studies nor most clinicians experiences support such a simplistic view.

Di > Hopefully you might keep to that!

It will emphasize the accepted analytical concept of multiple determination, many possible factors affecting ALL observable behavioral outcomes, further arguing against the simplistic either/or approach advocated by Dr's Zucker and Blanchard.

In the view of many of the clinicians treating transsexuals, Autogynophilia exists, though the diagnostic criteria is drawn overly broad and becomes by and large a catch all for everyone not in the homosexual transsexual category to make either/or diagnostics work.

Di > The low percentile of AG's and homosexuals should not be compared to those who actually are transsexuals, a condition for many that should not be treated as a behavioral psychosis. Many like myself knew from an early age, before puberty, that we needed resolution so that our sex matched our gender. It was not a graduated growth from a behavior to surgery we sought but a correction to that which was inborn. Dr Spack of Boston and Dr Kenntenis of the Netherlands know this only too well in the treatment of pre-adolescent children as does Dr Milton Diamond of Hawaii.

The Homosexual transsexual also exists. Again, the criteria, primarily based upon libidinal issues, is overly broadly drawn and desparately needs narrowed.

Di > Let us understand what this
'Blanchard/Bailey diagnosis' really means. Their categories were limited to only two extreme classes for transsexuals. But then that is probably all they saw since most true transsexuals do not hang out in drag-bars and if they do attend 'gender clinics' they realize they do not fit in with the behaviorists most of whom are looking for validity and not physical correction. And a pre-op male to female transsexual if attracted to males would not be homosexual but instead simply reflecting their brain gender attraction to the opposite sex no different than the majority of other girls.

There are the neuropsychologically or neuroanatomically based transsexuals, who are neurologically or psychologically intersexed for lack of a better definition.

Di > I need to say this as clear as possible. The AG's and homosexual TS's do exist. I know that from my own observations. I also know that the increasing number of those today that are having surgery are autogynephiles; they are not in the real sense transsexuals but I would class them as trans-gender to which they self identify as well (note Lawrence). Nothing in their behavior indicates otherwise. I could be more blunt but in this forum I suppose expulsion is the norm for those in disagreement with the majority. But alas, has that not always been the case in the reflective overwhelming numbers favoring behaviors rather than those declaring their condition in need of a medical resolution rather than being treated as being a gender dysphoric.

The number diagnostic sub-groups under the observable phenomena of transsexuality needs to be broadened, not narrowed. I will be arguing that libidinal based diagnostics(the either/or) would represent a step backwards in the face of accumulated case data and known or suspected neuroscience.

Di > I strongly disagree. The categories of transsexuals need to be clearly defined and narrowed. If you are talking about transgender then perhaps you might be right...that might need to be expanded with a critical and clinical view of obsessive and delusionary behaviors. Perhaps it should be recognized that many of the so-called homosexual transsexuals that Bailey and others seem to accept are not true transsexuals to begin with...they are homosexuals. Period! The confusion generated is ignoring the fact that it is not abnormal for a girl/or boy to be attracted to the opposite sex. Then why if a person born HBS with a body and brain in contradiction should be expected to ignore their basic brain sex and its attraction to the opposite sex and be somehow classed as homosexual? Yes, they are HBS born and not homosexual at all.
Di > I was born with a female brain, neurologically intersex according to Dr Diamond, so my normal attraction would be to males. I was mentally attracted to them although not of the mind-set to explore that attraction since my body was not yet 'repaired' and as a result I rarely behaved other than as an asexual. My brain was in tune but if I had been attracted to females then that might give rise to the question of a homosexual gender if not physical homosexuality would it not?

Obviously, no one will be happy with this (though included in the subgroups, HBS is described clinically and I simply will NOT use the term as it is overexclusive). Those willing to see AG buried in a crossroads with a stake through it's heart to prevent it's resurrection will not be happy either...I am sorry but I have and many other clinicians have seen patients who clearly meet the dynamics of AG, as opposed to simply falling outside of the Homosexual transsexual subset and thus meeting the current critieria used by Clarke.

Di > HBS is not a sub-set and rather insulting to consider it as such when other categories, (junk science), proposed by the Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence's are considered as viable categories but since HBS clearly defines some and not all under the mix and match umbrella of those who take their cues from the GLBTQ it is considered 'overexclusive'. Yes, it is exclusive if you mean applying that concept to those who are true transsexuals rather than those who climb their self constructed ladder of gender rungs to a goal previously imagined but not causative of a biological or neurological nature. A child who knows little about sexual drive and how that might later affect them yet shows through actions of behavior that he/she has a sexual identity brain in contradiction to their body is a candidate for the diagnosis of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. It is not a sub-set but a distinct condition not to be compared with those who after puberty suddenly become aware of, 'I might be,' thoughts and are better left in the treatment rooms of therapists who would serve the patient well with control of behavior methods rather than confuse them by catering to their delusions.

Finally, I am arguing that the very reliance of sexual orientation to define diagnostics flies in the face of decades of belief that sexual orientation and gender identity are NOT linked functions.

Di> Actually in this regard I totally agree with you but with a caveat. Some do have surgery and express themselves before surgery as lesbian or gay when in fact they are heterosexual prior to any surgeries and function normally with their given birth organs. For someone still in an opposite sex relationship to declare themselves homosexual - lesbian in a male body comes to mind - just adds to the confusion which runs rampart in the transgender 'community'.

I am hopeful that other psychiatrists will join in with submissions.

Di > I hope others will see HBS as being something separate and distinct rather than a lower sub-set than even the mischaracterization of transsexuals into two ill defined categories: homosexual and autogynephilic which if examined carefully attaches sexual orientation and/or fetishism to the causative effects of transsexualism; a limitation in the extreme. And please, if writing any submission do not present transsexualism under the heading as a sub-set of transgenderism. But then, I don't expect too much from your paper other than perhaps how you might explain HBS at the bottom of the thesis. That is after-all the glbtq mantra is it not?

Diane http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

"The confusion generated is ignoring the fact that it is not abnormal for a girl/or boy to be attracted to the opposite sex. Then why if a person born HBS with a body and brain in contradiction should be expected to ignore their basic brain sex and its attraction to the opposite sex and be somehow classed as homosexual? Yes, they are HBS born and not homosexual at all."

I largely concur with this part of your point.

I wonder, if it is so traumatic for someone born with a female brain to be born in a male body (Which I don't disagree with) then one should expect it to be equally truamatic for someone with a male brain to change their body to female, unless they had a variant brain to begin with, even if this variation is a different variation to the HBS variation, say a malleable gender/sex identity variation.

This is one of the biggest problems with the HBS argument, that an HBS person needs surgery because existing in the wrong body is terrible to them (which I don't disagree is so) but someone who has a thoroughly normal brain but abnormal psychology could happily do so suggests that something/s is missing from the model.

If this was the case then a psychological treatment for HBS could be devised based on generating in them the abnormal psychology of such a person enabling them to be happy in their bodies just as a 'pseudo transexual' in such a model is with their surgicly altered body.

Thats one of the reasons I reject the notion that such people are psychologicly transexual rather than neurologicly as it would suggest Zucker could be right about using psychological treatment over surgery with children.

If some transexuals who are happy stable people post surgery but who don't fit HBS are purely psychological in causation such causation could be developed upon to treat HBS without surgery. However if they too have a biological causation even if it may vary substantially from HBS causation then this would not be so.

Alternatively HBS could include something much more than merely an intersex condition of the brain and include something which precludes them from such a natural variation found in neurologicly normal but psychologicly abnormal brains, HBS would have intersex brains and something else as well to provide that inflexibility.

Oh and also the argument that only those pre-puberty could have brain intersex conditions ignores the possibility of epigenetic changes occuring at puberty or even later in life! Now these could definately be expected to have lesser results the later in development they are triggered. As the mouse sex development discovery I mentioned in post 17 shows the timing and place a gene is switched on or off in development has a massive impact on what occurs. A genetic cause for example could plausibly in principle cause anatomical and/or neurological intersex in the womb to varying degrees but then the same gene triggered in early childhood could still possibly cause say an HBS level transexual and if the gene isn't triggerred until puberty you could end up with a non-HBS transexual or other transgender condition.

Epigenetics is a fascinating field on the cutting edge. As shown in the mouse discovery it has direct bearing on sexual development and variance. Especially as it's a gene involving both brain development and anatomical sex development!

Diane

For someone still in an opposite sex relationship to declare themselves homosexual - lesbian in a male body comes to mind - just adds to the confusion which runs rampart in the transgender 'community'.

Oh I completely agree. It's most unfortunate that lesbianism exists, as it complicates things so severely. Just ask the CWA :) . Nonetheless, some women are lesbian. And some of those are also transsexual. As sex and gender are distinct (though not completely so, the coupling is loose as we say in systems theory), this is inevitable.

Many of those are probably Bi rather than Lesbian, but with all the lifetime of social conditioning and cross-gendered hormones, have any androphillic tendencies supressed, and the supression may never have been complete. Some, like yourself, outgrow it. That may be due to psychological causation, or neurotransmitters, or a combination. If it happens 6 months +/- 1 month from orchie, then it's probably biological, I believe. Vasopressin is the suspect.

It happened to me too, 7 months after my testes became dysfunctional, and unlike you, I wasn't remotely androphilic. I actually tried to be when young, I thought that that was an essential part of being a girl (GOSH I was green...). The change in sexual orientation is a pity in some ways, as I'm married to another woman, and we're co-parents of a small boy. We love each other very much, but neither of us are sexually attracted to women, so our continuing married relationship is completely sexless.

Of course by BBL theory, I can't exist. Whatever. I find it difficult taking them seriously, and am in danger of missing out on the occasional diamond of insight in the great midden-heap of dross that is AGP theory.

Finally, there have been relatively few cases of women beating, raping and murdering other women when they reveal their transsexual past, at least, compared to men doing that. Gynaphilia is a lot safer for transsexual women, so inate Bisexuality may be expressed as pure same-sex attraction.

Yes, "I wish I wuz a Lesbian, and not a Hetero" is my theme song. I find other women far more sympatico. But it's something you are or are not. I'm not. Darn.

I could be more blunt but in this forum I suppose expulsion is the norm for those in disagreement with the majority.

Only if they violate the Terms of Service, and those apply whether minority or majority opinion. Please continue expressing your views, I've found you give me much food for thought. As the TOS says:

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated

I hope I've adhered to that. I've certainly tried to.

“The simple fact is, people identify as either male or female at their core. Some may affect a bigender identity, but it never rings true. It always comes across as an affectation and is invaribly coupled to a political and social view that clearly drives the claimed identity.”

It’s a rather creepy experience to be told one doesn’t exist, but you’ll have to do a bit better than ‘rings true’ or ‘comes across’ if you want me to disappear in a puff of logic. As it stands, your statement is not so much a simple fact as a dogmatic assertion. Clearly you find the condition hard to imagine: but then a lot of people find the HBS condition hard to imagine – which doesn’t mean *you* don’t exist.

Actually, although in one way it’s very clear what “political and social view” drives your own claim (you want to keep the gender distinctions clear so as to preserve the HBS people from the taint of transgender contamination), in another way your assertion sits oddly with your own assumptions. You believe that gender has a biological basis, and you also accept that intersex conditions exist: given these two premises, why is it hard to accept at least the theoretical possibility that one might be intergendered? (I don’t particularly care for the term ‘bigender’, suggesting as it does two distinct and fully-formed genders cohabiting in one body. That’s not how I at least experience it, though others may.)

defying a few colleagues and friends, including my partner who advised me not to touch the third rail that is trans-politics, here is the outline scheme proposal for diagnostics:

Disorders of Gender Identity and Expression
(sorry, the word disorders has to stay, there is NO way that they will cut it out.)

1. Conditions of suspected or demonstrable chromosomal, neuroanatomical, or neurophysiological intersexuality.
a. History of Transsexuality
b. Conditions Commonly Associated with Transsexuality
1. Chromosomal Variations
(including trisomies and mosaicism)
2. Theory of Failure of Testosterone Wash in Utero
3. Non-differentiated gender(anatomical)
4. Other
c. Diagnostic Criteria
d. exclusiory criteria for diagnosis(not surgery, the APA does NOT set those standards, they are in the SOC.

2, Homosexual Transsexuality
1. discussion of the old "ego dystonic homosexuality" as well as cultural pressures and influences.
2. diagnostic criteria.

3. Autogynophilia
1. History of AG
2. Diagnostic Criteria(new and far narrower)

Again, the APA does NOT define the criteria for surgery. Nor, to be honest, do psychiatrists rigidly adhere to the diagnostic criteria at all, it is not meant to be a chicker collar on clinician independence.

Nor, honestly, are that many even aware of what the SOC standards are; some who are play loose and fast with them anyways.

Three separate diagnostic categories.
Clarke gets their pound of fetish, and the rest of us who disagree with Clarke keep from being strung into an either/or psychodynamic-only model.

Who gets surgery is not up to the APA
This paper is not about surgery, or legitimacy.
It is about diagnostics.
There is no intent to support or decry any one's political positions in the T community.
I am not a part of trans-politics.

Obvously these categories will be flushed out in the paper far more extensively and have subgroups.
The longest section, btw, is under "other"

Diane, btw--you owe me an apology. Some of the others can tell you that I went to court for trans-rights concerning discrimination during transition. My friends, some of whom are LGBT themselves, strongly urged me not to get involved at all in any of this as I am lesbian-identified now and worked painfully hard to get acceptance from a largely second wave group. Some of them who are blog-savvy(I am not; I have posted perhps three times here) told me that I would be walking out into a thunderstorm holding a lightning rod.

As far as my personal identification, I transitioned to female, I am a woman. I was trans in transition. I am doing this paper for my profession, not for LGBT or Trans-politics.

From: battybattybats

Batty > Ooops I forgot part of my point..

Diane > BATTY, THAT SEEMS TO BE CONTINUAL FOR YOU MISSED MY POINT ENTIRELY.

Diane > "The confusion generated is ignoring the fact that it is not abnormal for a girl/or boy to be attracted to the opposite sex."

Batty > Also as it's been deemed not to be abnormal for a girl or boy to be attracted to the same sex either why is it involved at all, what bearing does it have?

Daine > I WAS DIRECTING THE ABOVE QUOTE TO THE
"HOMOSEXUAL TRANSSEXUAL" IMPLICATIONS AS SPEWED OUT BY BLANCHARD AND BAILEY. It had nothing to do with orientation of transsexuals per se. Blanchard and Bailey would have everyone believe that those who did not identify as anything sexual pre-surgery but instead rather asexual should be identified as homosexual simply because they had to fit into one of the BBL limited class of TS since they did not fit into their AG alternate.
Diane > I personally don't care who anyone goes to bed with but I do care about how I and others might be wrongly identified by the BBL trio and their cohorts.
THAT WAS MY POINT!
You have a bad habit of taking out of context and giving it your meaning.
Diane http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

Jennifer, no matter what you say, I'm still a real live transsexual, and I will continue calling myself such. I agree with your statement about hormones though. My brain never ran right on a female hormone balance. Testosterone has turned my life around.

Erin, about that lovely angry rant. Thanks saying what I wanted to, but am too self-restrained to say it myself.

Batty, on the topic of phantom erections in FTMs. I'm not sure where you got that info, but we get real erections, especially after some time on testosterone. The T causes some significant penile growth. It can get quite large when erect.

There was a study recently, on phantom limb syndrome in transsexuals. You might be able to Google it. They found that most FTMs don't experience phantom breasts after mastectomy, while most women do. MTFs don't experience phantom penises and testicles either, while most men who lose theirs do.

Caillean McMahon

Someone who actually knows what they're talking about, at last.

I wish you every success. I think the main difficulty is going to be in the "diagnostic criteria" though, especially for sections 2 and 3.

The differential from 1 is the sticking point.

Are the three mutually exclusive?

I would really appreciate an early view of your work. Bear in mind my amateur status, but possibly I could raise some issues you might wish to consider.

Regardless of the finer details, I think what you have in outline is so vastly superior to anything that has gone before that any minor disagreements I may have are nugatory.

Just Jennifer

The simple fact is, people identify as either male or female at their core.

Counterexample.

JJ, you really should engage in a dialogue with more Intersexed people. The majority do indeed identify as either male or female, and some get very upset indeed at the suggestion that they qualify as neither. There are all sorts of insecurities, but I don't have to tell anyone with a TS past about those, do I?

But some don't fit that neat, bi-gendered model. Neurology is messy, and those whose bodies are mixed have a greater chance of having mixed or cross-gendered neurology too. ~10% vs ~0.1%

Again, I wish it were not so. It complicates things, and makes it all too easy to mix up men wish a fetish and women with a congenital neurological issue, let alone all those who don't fit in either of those two exclusive categories.

From: Caillean McMahon

Diane, btw--you owe me an apology. Some of the others can tell you that I went to court for trans-rights concerning discrimination during
transition. My friends, some of whom are LGBT themselves, strongly urged me not to get involved at all in any of this as I am lesbian-identified
now and worked painfully hard to get acceptance from a largely second wave group. Some of them who are blog-savvy(I am not; I have posted perhps three times here) told me that I would be walking out into a thunderstorm holding a lightning rod.

Diane > I would apologize if I thought I said something in error but my answer was not in regard to what you have done in your private life but in reply to your proposed paper. I have never been on this forum and probably will not be here again as I am not in favor of being trans included. I too am not blog savvy but will at times respond to a subject brought to my attention.
I do claim that you are presenting a paper reflecting your own bias. Our HBS contention
is that the neurological indicators of the Dutch and Swiss studies are more indicative of cause for transsexualism than vague social constructs that seem to be the primary accepted reasoning of transgenderism.
Our suggested SOC is exclusive if you mean separating the wheat from the chaff, those who are and those who are not. We see HBS as not being akin to trans-sexualism but a distinction of that medical diagnosis.
If a person becomes aware of their gender conflict only after puberty then they are
not HBS. If a child is conflicted and feels a contradiction between their brain sexuality
and their physical sex before puberty then they should be classed other than transgender or even transsexual since that term has become rather obscene of late. They instead should be distinctly identified and HBS would rightly apply. We find HBS rather clear and does separate them from those who have no connection with the child's affliction.
With more research in support of a 'brain wash' effect on the hypothalamus adding to the BSTc findings, Amygdala and the hormonal rush of Kesspeptin studies then perhaps we might once and for all move those who select choice as an option from those who respond to an inherent biological need.
Seems that homosexuality as a disorder was cut out so why would 'THEY' not do the same in regard to "Disorders of Gender Identity and Expression?"

To Zoe:
My sexuality for those that seem to be confused never was male gender nor did I ever entertain the lure of lesbian which you seem to invite me to explore. I always liked boys; always felt comfortable with girls but not sexually; was basically asexual before surgery and afterward my body caught up with my brain. Never did I think I might be homosexual or even bi. I was a 'one tracker' and quite happy and sexually responsive
once my body was in league with my brain.
I married the man I loved never once regretting 30 years together ending with his passing
a short time ago. So my dear Zoe where and when did an introduction of hormones play a part in my sexuality? Hormones simply allowed my body to become more female and prepared me for the final surgery and the whole of life I would then live.
Seems I am one of the few in here who is heterosexual and perhaps that is the main
reason why we see things perhaps so differently.
Diane

Something about Gender Role and Gender: it's too easy to confuse the two.

Proponents of the Strong HBS theory seem to me to be doing that.

I don't look upon myself as being particularly feminine, though many objective observers have differed on that, enough for me to question it.

Many traditional gender role behaviours have a weak biological basis, in my view. Those behaviours which start as statistical tendencies become reinforced by social pressure into standard norms. "Girls don't do that" etc.

My role models were never Ursula Andress or Princess Grace. I didn't want to be like Barbie, I wanted to be like Destiny Angel, and fly a Spectrum Interceptor. My heroines weren't Twiggy and Jean Shrimpton, unlike my sister, they were Amelia Earheart, Marie Curie, Jacqueline Cochrane, Grace Hopper and Rosalind Franklin.

I still don't like "my little pony", Kim Possible's more my style. OK, I'd rather look like Hailey Berry than Madelaine Albright, and maybe that makes me AGP, but I ask you, what woman doesn't want to look more like Hailey Berry than Madelaine Albright?

And I'm just like all the other female engineers I know. Some spectacularly stylish, others who make even me look good. Women vary.

I know - or at least that's what my observations lead me to believe - that my brain cannot be completely typically feminine. It is in the area of gender identity, and many other areas too. But not all. In some ways I conform to a more masculine template. I don't like that, but what the heck, it's me, and many other women are like that too. And you know what? Some guys dig chicks like that. :) Nerds, mainly. The kind of guy I like too.

Oh my gosh. I am a religous person but never did I think I would witness a miracle. But surely it must be a miracle when I read and find myself fully agreeing with Wolfgang and his 'phantom' remarks. Good for you!
Diane

‘Actually Lucy, I have emphasized that "transgender" is a meaninglessly broad term. It can hardly be said that I have presented them as "one-size-fits-all." All I have said is that HBS is not transgender, and has nothing in common with it.’

Terms can of course be broad without being meaningless (c.f. ‘human’). Whether they’re meaningful in any particular instance depends on how you use them. It’s true that you’ve acknowledged that there is a range of people with different conditions who call themselves transgender. However, that hasn’t stopped you generalizing about them, as in: ‘By its very nature, transgender implies that one is not "real."’

‘And actually, I did answer your question, but as I said, you are unable to understand the answer. But to repeat, we know the same way any woman does.’

My question was about gender generally: I was using the case of an MtF transsexual only as an example, as I thought I’d made clear. You answered by asking how any woman knows she is female. That’s a bit like describing the colour red by saying that it has an abundance of the quality of redness. It’s a sort of answer, I guess, but not a very useful one.

Hi Monica!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Er... I hadn't noticed... (hangs head in shame).

On the other hand, I'm really good at software in satellites....

BTW I don't have your e-mail addy. I can be contacted via my website. Just google my name.

Of course with a surname like Brain, such a thing probably wouldn't work too well. I'm just as likely to reply "Certainly, Pinky" too.

Um... has the atmosphere been lightened a bit? I hope so. I think it needed it.

And Mercedes, I hope your hiccups get better :)

Mercedes remarks:

I do find the studies (there and elsewhere) to be too limited. They need to be conclusive among human populations (although animal population
studies are good at developing theory and pushing for human population study), and to have repeatability.

That said, the studies only potentially show a biological trigger.
They do not show that said trigger occurs solely to those who need to alter their genitalia at all cost. Which is my primary point of contention.

Diane's answer:

Let us examine the studies I have alluded to in my response to Caillean.
I listed findings not only of the BSTc research but also supportive and separate studies involving genetics and hormone effects previously
unknown and surprising even to the researchers. There are also brain scan studies that indicate a difference in the brains of true transsexuals
as opposed to those whose brain and body are compatible.
In the Dutch studies they determined that MtF transsexuals (it being assumed the same result for FtM's would concur) hypothalamus were equal in measurement with genetic female brains while the gay and transgender males were matching with other males and therefore clearly not in contradiction to their bodies as were the transsexuals. And to add further, the BSTc studies were repeated and found to be in support of the original research.
Understand the Dutch research was done on cadavers simply because not many of us would want to volunteer and add our bodies to said research
it being required for them to open up and explore our brains. For that reason and the main reason were the studies limited in number.
I find it ironic that transgenderism whose coinage goes back to Hirshfield and Prince is accepted as a valid model although no research attaches the variant elements under that label as being anything even remotely connected to a
biological cause; linkage and firm research findings supporting the transsexual in uterus factors are not only simply ignored but denounced. I strongly suspect that is a self protective measure so as to allow the confusion
of so many to avoid the facts that would expose the delusional aspects of their personality.
May I suggest that many diseases are being aggressively treated even though the causes are not fully known and there is limited information on their ability to even spread yet we treat them as distinct maladies. The research findings of a
causative reason for HBS falls into the same sphere I would claim and treatment should not be based on others misconceived notion of there not being enough hard evidence in support. That is poppycock!

I find it so very confusing to imply through the use of 'Gender Reassignment Surgery' usage that one might change their gender since gender is actually hardwired at its core but only changeable on a social scale. Perhaps this is simply another attempt for those who identify as transgender to escape the fact that their gender might be malleable within a limited behavioral understanding whereas it is actually sex that is reassigned or in the case of the born HBS
'Affirmed'.

Mercedes: "I like how you protest any ways in which you perceive that non-HBS people characterize your own theory, and then are perfectly comfortable defining everyone else's for them. It's so sexy."

Oh dear, sexy??? I might understand that coming from Lawrence but you surprise me.
Yes, we do define ourselves and not just as a theory but with actual research findings that give strong if not perfectly complete evidence that we were formed as a contradiction in the womb. Naturally that is a medical indication and except for the stress related effects this might
have on an HBS born, psychological long term treatment is not required after a diagnosis is confirmed. That seems to bother the APA who need to stabilize their members bank accounts by forcing adherence to their 'treatment' of actual transsexuals into the gender 'wobble' category.
We do not define simplistically the transgender lexicon, they do that so well for themselves although I must admit to being often confused by their 'might be, 'could be', 'want to be' unreliable variable identities.
What we do say and we say it loud and clear is that we are not transgender and never were. Our disagreement comes not in our identifying them but by our demand not to be included in the transgender lexicon. If that is the meaning
of how we identify transgender then so be it.

And yes, I must admit to opposing the 'grow into transsexual' assertions of many of the gender confused. I cannot see any reason why a person who
identifies as transgender but is not basically a transsexual should be weaned toward an irrational determination either by their peer group of TG's or even therapists. And I also think that if a person with a male brain were to ask for surgery to be female then that person should be turned
away from the surgeons office and sent instead to the office's of the nearest psychoanalyst. Surgery should never be a matter of choice or a reactionary response to fetishism (AG) but a requirement based upon a long and committed need.
And if a person insists upon labeling themself as a lifelong pre-op and/or an elective non-op (I am not addressing those who have rare but legitimate medical reasons that thwart surgery) then might we simply understand that they have not trans'ed their sex but seem quite comfortable with their birth assigned genitalia which limits them to the
'trans' something category but not HBS born or even transsexual since they would be confirming in the simplest understanding a transgender mind-set.

Diane http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

Diane wrote, "But surely it must be a miracle when I read and find myself fully agreeing with Wolfgang and his 'phantom' remarks. Good for you!"

Thanks, but it may disappoint you to learn that the study also included FTMs who chose not to have genital surgery, strengthening my argument that desire for genital surgery is not an accurate measure of who is transsexual (at least for FTMs). We have the same neurological intersex condition that produces FTMs who do want genital surgery.

Jennifer wrote, "After all, according to their model, we are really all just transgender."

No one here is calling us all "transgender" according to your outdated definition of the word. The current definition of "transgender" is as an umbrella term that includes transsexuals and other groups. If you don't like that definition, take it up with Mirriam-Webster and the American Bar Association.

Jennifer wrote, "...and given that "transgender" is nothing but an artificial social/political construct..."

Aren't *all* labels social/political constructs? That is the primary purpose of a label.

Actually Wolfgang, making any comparison based solely on FTMs "wanting or not wanting" surgery is not a valid option. Given the problems with FTM surgery, many are waiting for improvements in phalloplasty, which is understandable. I have seen photos of results, and in all cases they are less than perfect. I know many who desperately desire a penis, like any man would. But they are hesitant to choose between something that functions, but is relatively tiny, and something closer to normal size, that is essentially useless and may not even last very long. That is quite different from someone simply saying, "I am happy with what I have, and enjoy using it to have sex." Of course, among MTFs, the facts are clearer. While a few try to use the "I want something better," argument that is clearly bogus. Surgery is quite excellent for MTFs, and anyone who claims they are transsexual or HBS, but they want to keep their penis is, well....let's just say their claims are more than a bit hard to swallow. And that alone is one of the clearest differences between true HBS and those who claim to be something they are not.

To comment on several things that Allen has said.... First off, we are not really the ones making anyone the "enemy." We tend to be viciously attacked for not believing in the one true TG paradigm.

Second,yes autogynephila exists. In fact, there are those who actually acknowledged themsevles as such, and identify that way, so to say it does not exist is not valid. Of course, I can understand that some might fear such a label.

As to studies "excluding anything outside of surgical transsexuals," well perhaps that shows that the experts know more than the transgender types wish to give them credit for. As I have observed, there are clear differences that are obvious to those willing to see them. And that said, why should they confuse the possible results?

The use of the term "gender reassignment surgery" seems to either contradict the common transgender assertion that sex and gender are the same, or it really is an attempt to confuse the issue. In any case, it is a highly inaccurate term, and one that many find offensive.

And as to the lack of evidence...no, it does not disprove anything, which is why demanding that someone prove a negative is considered a dishonsest tactic in debating. But, it does seem curious that no such research appears to have been even attempted. Again, perhaps the experts know more than some are willing to admit.

Well Cathryn, you raise some good points. I agree about Blanchard and Bailey. That is pretty much what they do...repeat the same tired claims, with no real evidence, as a theory that is not falsifiable. As I have said, their goal is clearly to discredit transsexuals.

As to the cause of fetishes being biological, and the question of disproving it...well as I have observed, demanding that one prove a negative is considered dishonest. On the other hand, there is no reasonable model for such a claim, but there are certainly quite reasonable ones for the opposite claim. I believe that fetishes are the result of learned behavior. Otherwise, how would one explain the incredibly diverse array? I mean, is there some small bit of brain that if tweaked just so will result in someone who has a thing for rubber cat suits, but tweaked just so another way, and suddenly they are turned on by dead bodies, being defecated on, women smoking, women stomping small animals while wearing high heels, feet, or as we are discussing here, dressing up in the clothing of the opposite sex? What an incredibly silly idea. Gender identity is far more easily explained by brain structures. There are really only two, and the evidence is easily observed. And it can often be shown that people with fetishes can identify what triggered them.

Personally, I think for many transgender activists, all the noise being made about Zucker and DSM-V have little to do with real concern, and much to do with a desire to coopt transsexual space. There has been an increasing move towards separating transsexualism from transgender, and HBS is on the leading edge of this. We are the most vocal group, and have received the brunt of their attention, but others are speaking out as well.

I still remain puzzled as to why those who vehemently refuse surgery have such a strong need to claim the same status as those for whom surgery is an overwhelming desire. They argue that there is no real difference, when anyone can see that there are clearly differences.

I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone here has claimed that fetishes have a biological cause. Battybattybats was, I think, only suggesting that fetishism was not morally wrong, and that ‘fetishist’ (or ‘deviant’, where it’s being used synonymously) should not be used as an insult. There’s also the fact (which is consistent with what you’re arguing, Just Jennifer) that fetishes are defined as such within particular cultural contexts, and that these definitions vary from culture to culture. In the west, it’s considered ‘normal’ for heterosexual men to find women’s breasts erotic, but an erotic fixation with feet may well be labelled a fetish. In China, or so I've been told, a focus on the foot is considered quite usual. This doesn’t mean that the Chinese are a nation of fetishists, of course!

As I understand it, psychiatrists do not consider fetishism a psycho-sexual disorder except in cases where it leads to significant impairment of people’s ability to function well in society. Short of that, it’s just part of life’s rich pattern.

Wolfgang, the source of the phantom erections points I was making was this: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1861116.htm

Diane, not every post i make is adversarial towards you, we both concur about the problems with dragging superfluous catagories of sexuality
into the debate. I was agreeing with your point and discussing it further not attacking it. The questions weren't directed at you but raised in
general and I apologise for any misunderstading from that not being clear.

Diane > And in answer I tried to direct my response to the whole and not to the singular. If my post was thought otherwise I am sorry.

Just Jennifer, what will you do if neurological intersex is proven to be correct however it is found to occur in varying degrees, like most are, and HBS then needs to be redefined to take into account mild HBS, moderate HBS and severe HBS?

Diane > That seems almost like saying the brain is in three sections and only able to act in either/or. Sorry but we are talking about research that deals with a specific physical part of the brain and in that study it was shown that only the actual transsexuals which included those not yet having had surgery as well as those who
had surgery. It also included those who stated they wanted surgery but had never taken hormones as well as some who had been given male hormones but were MtF. That knocked out the post birth hormonal influence on the hypothalamus.
And to add gist to the study it was mentioned that men who were on female hormones for prostate cancer related problems showed no indications or explanation as to why their hypothalamus was not affected by the hormonal influence. This study
obviously gave very strong evidence that the basic design of the hypothalamus was biological and created in the womb, not a result of post birth influence. Next section...the genetic
findings supportive of actual transsexual causes.

And what if those with moderate cases are the transgender transexuals who don't want GRS? And what if the mild cases include most of the
crossdressers you find so offensive?

Diane > May I suggest that they are just what they are...transgender. Never heard of a 'transgender transexual' so must assume that to be someone in the transgender camp who sees GRS as a gender change. Quite normal perhaps for them but as I have stated before I did not change my gender, I simply corrected my sex to conform with my inborn gender. If you meant 'G' to mean genital then you must excuse me for the assumption. I am sometimes confused by evasive terminology especially when used by transgenders.

Variance is found in most conditions including anatomical intersex so as Zoe has pointed out with her suggestion of a 'weak HBS' it should be
expected to be the case with neurological intersex condition/s.

Diane > Sorry but no such thing as a 'weak HBS'. You are either aware of your being different/HBS before puberty or not; that is what HBS explains. Those who might offer the 'weak HBS' as a model might also be those same people who offer up the weakness of the transgender model which has no distinction of its own. Yes????
I am well aware of what the differences are with anatomical intersex as well as some intersex conditions rarely ever mentioned by even specialists in the field.
Believe me on that score.

I'd still like to know what people who have a problem with 'deviants' define as 'deviants'. Because depending on definition anyone going
against the norm of the times is deviant, not just goths but feminists too are devients, anti-slavery advocates were deviants, all reformers are
deviants. Anyone who finds the status quo unjust, almost every artist, every non-conformist and every individualist are deviant.

Diane > I explained clearly what a deviant is under the transgender umbrella...a she-male sex advertiser as an example. I agree with you on your use of the word deviant as you apply it and find no fault with it. But, please accept that I do without doubt think expressing oneself as a sexual object is deviant behavior. But then I may be biased because of my religious upbringing!

However if the argument is made on moral grounds one must identify why such a moral is universally applicaple or upon which precepts it is based. Similarly if it is classed as unethical what school of ethics is used to define it as such.

Diane > Morality is now the issue? OK, I strongly believe anyone who has sex with animals is not only immoral but a deviant. Does that satisfy you? Apply your own ethical standards to that if you will. I will refrain!

Snip>>>>>

On the other hand Just Jennifer, you too have made a personal attack on me, your not using peoples names as they identify themselves here is
also substantially dodgy. Monica Helms is wrong to discuss your outside identity real or mistaken but I don't recall an apology from you for your since-deleted personal attack.

Diane > Wow, now I am flummoxed. I don't know how to address you: Batty or Batty or Bat. Either one might be taken as an insult if I were to use it singularly.
I for one use my legal maiden name that is not only on my birth certificate but also on my baptismal certificate as well as on all of my pre-marriage legal documents. So I fail to see what offense was made in addressing someone who uses a pseudonym by either their first or last name. Or maybe it has to do with wanting to identify as something other than what they really
are? Oh, I forgot, that is what many in the TG community tell me when I refuse to accept their calling me tg. The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.
Diane

That all human behaviour has a neural basis is a truism, but isn't useful. We need to distinguish between lower-level functions that are immutable or nearly so, and much higher-level functions which are utterly changeable as the result of day-to-day experience.

Examples of the first: sexual orientation, eyesight. Examples of the second: whether to vote Republican or Democrat, whether you prefer Techno or Classical music.

And of course, there's no neat binary. We can easily distinguish extremes at both ends, but in the middle it gets blurry.

Even the most basic functions are somewhat mutable. Case in point, a man who has woken up from a multi-decade coma. His neurology differs from any other human on the planet, with parts of the brain re-wired over decades so the speech centre isn't where speech is any more. Then there those who have suffered traumatic brain injury, losing over 40% of their brain mass, and much of the rest being disrupted. Some are still able to think in nearly the same way as they were before.

Against those handful of cases, and the much larger sample where some neural deficits caused by disease and trauma have been "wired around", there are tens of thousands where even small lesions in specific areas have caused devastating and permanent cognitive deficits.

In theory, it may be possible for even some basic injuries at the hypothalamic layer to heal, given time. But as such injuries often stop the patient from breathing, or having a heartbeat, they don't have the decades needed.

So although nearly everything is mutable in some individuals to a tiny extent, in practice, much is not, not at all, not in the slightest.

Gender Identity in those who are strongly gendered is very basic. In those who are weakly gendered, close to the line, whether they appear more F than M or the reverse is determined by progressively higher and higher level functions, and will need progressively less and less heroic measures to change.

Those with classic HBS in the strong sense, it's really basic. You can torture them, psychoanalyse them, give them aversion therapy (the full Clockwork Orange treatment), totally disrupt their neurology with psychotropic drugs, even carve out pieces of their frontal lobes, and you won't do a thing to it. And all have been tried at one time or another, this isn't theoretical, alas.

A good but imperfect metric for HBS is desire for surgery. It's imperfect because although body-image is closely coupled to gender identity, it appears not to be perfectly so, and this is where I differ from proponents of the strong form of HBS theory. Some who desire surgery will do so for legal reasons, or so they can be sexually functional, not because it causes great discomfort.

Others can be quite comfortable with a strongly gendered mind, but an ambiguous or cross-gendered body. They don't care what they have, as long as it works. Many Intersexed people are in this category. I suspect that many "non-ops" are too, but lacking data, this is a mere conjecture, as is much of what I'm saying.

There are people whose general gendering is significantly weaker, yet whose body image is so strongly sexed, they will move heaven and earth to have the right body configuration, one that matches their mind. This can easily be mistaken for AG/AA, but unlike a fetish, it's a product of deep neural processes, not high-level ones. To say that it's akin to apotemnophilia, the desire for limb amputation when the body-image is defective, is technically true, but highly misleading. So misleading, you can treat it as false.

A far more accurate view is to say that it's akin to the desire of an amputee or someone with a congenital defect to have the missing limb restored, so the body images match. It restores function, not removes it.

Whether apotemnophilia or its healthy converse is a low-level or high level function probably varies. A beggar in a 3rd world country may desire amputation in order to beg more effectively ("high level"). One in a modern country may just be psychotic (also "high level" if it's treatable by anti-psychotic drugs etc).

A desire for limb restoral could be not because of any inate discomfort, but because of the practical difficulties of wheelchairs, crutches, and artificial limbs (also "high level").

Many cases though are probably low-level, and in those rare cases of intense low-level apotemnophilia, amputation of a perfectly healthy limb may be justifiable on humane grounds. Some doctors seem to think so.

Those amputees whose intense discomfort with their situation results from low-level mismatch with body image, and who are unable with current technology to regrow limbs, often suicide, despite having an objectively reasonable life in most ways. The comparison with those with HBS is unavoidable.

Fortunately, those cases appear rare. The discomfort can be lived with, and with sufficient therapeutic help to accept the situation, the "higher level" functionality can to some extent mask the "low-level" discomfort, with coping behaviour. Such a conflict causes its own problems though, and again, you get the same kinds of thing happening with those who are not classically transsexual, but have "gender issues" and will never transition.

It all fits in a common pattern of informal clinical observations. But without harder data to back it up, all it's useful for is as the basis for research, or possibly treatment in areas where we don't have the faintest idea what we're doing and lack any other explanation.

About the only area where we do have data hard enough to be useful as the basis of a therapeutic regime is in classical HBS. And even then, some will deny that.

No doubt what I'm saying will be misrepresented or misunderstood as saying that apotemnophilia is like transsexuality, the "Lawrence position". Well, if you actually read what Lawrence has said, I don't think even she adheres to that. There's a tendency to think the worst, a tendency unfortunately quite understandable given the past history of how transsexual people have been persecuted.

Having re-read "Clinical and Theoretical Parallels Between Desire for Limb Amputation and Gender Identity Disorder" it appears that Lawrence does adhere to that, that it's alway a high-level paraphilia based on misdirected sexual objectivisation.

*SIGH*

Jennifer wrote, "Given the problems with FTM surgery, many are waiting for improvements in phalloplasty, which is understandable."

Oh, so now it's okay not to want genital surgery. Make up your mind, woman.

Jennifer wrote, "That is quite different from someone simply saying, "I am happy with what I have, and enjoy using it to have sex.""

I never said I was happy with what I have. I said I learned to accept it because there's no better alternative. If they found a way to use stem cells to grow me a penis and testicles, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I'd still keep my vagina though. I'm still a gay man after all, and why bother with anal sex when I don't have to?

Batty,

You insult every HBS born when you use the
transgender/HBS as an invective. HBS is not, repeat, is not transgender.
I refuse to even answer someone who uses transgender as a comparison to HBS. You want to define yourself that is fine. But do not join me to your identity.
Diane

Actually, when people claim that all "transgender" results from a common cause, and they attempt to include HBS in that group, or when they make claims about people who are so-callled "non-op transsexuals" being the same as true transsexuals, or they talk about things like "mild HBS," they are pretty much claiming that fetishes have a biological cause.

Interestingly enough, what you point out about China versus the United States does, however provide pretty strong evidence that fetishes have a basis that is not biological.

Batty, you and I agree on many levels, but I was surprised to see the following statement, because I was just thinking about the topic the other day:

Batty wrote, "Perhaps the psychological inability to tolerate differences in others should be considered more important in the DSM. After all it is the fundamental component of huge amounts of violence and disruption in society."

Indeed, maybe it should be listed as a psychosis and be subject to medication or hospitalization. The trouble is that a huge swath of the human population is in need of treatment. That would definitely overwhelm the system.

On the other hand, intolerance is a very primative trait. We see it in pecking orders and violence throughout the animal kingdom. Individuals who are "different" are perceived as a threat because they tend to cause change of some kind to the existing order, or they represent an element that the powers that be can't control. Either way, they're a cause of (usually) irrational fear, which leads to violence. So perhaps it should be listed under phobias, except that most phobias don't lead to harm against other people, and this one obviously does.

At any rate, I agree that the DSM should consider intolerance among the most serious of disorders.

Wolfgang, is "cancer" a social/political construct? Is "AIDS" a social/political construct? Not all labels are social/political constructs. Some labels, such as "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" have very specific, objective meanings.

Without commenting on any person in particular, it seems to me that some people, having made a significant mistake such as having sex affirmation surgery (though obviously, it did not actually serve that purpose in their case) and having realized that they have made a tragic mistake for their own self, might, in an effort to deal with their own trauma, come up with bizarre theories as to why others might be motivated to have that surgery. This can actually be observed in several well known persons, who, even though they are "post-op" have become extremely agressive in attacking HBS survivors. Again, I won't name anyone in particular, but there is one person who is affiliated with a certain clinic in Canada who has written some extremely negative things about transsexuals, at least two others who are strongly aligned with certain views expressed by people associated with that clinic (and one of them has even gone so far as to endorse the views of Chiland, the French psychoanalyst who is extremely critical of transsexuals), as well as some others who have shown rather nasty behavior towards any successful HBS survivor.

People who make such a mistake can either turn their anger inward, often resulting in self-destructive behavior. Or they can turn it outward, attacking those who have achieved what they failed to gain.

Any resemblance of this thread to this cartoon is purely coincidental, right?

Actually Wolfgang, you seem to have misundertood what I wrote. There is a signficant difference between unhappy with the current state of the art for FTMs, and not wanting genital surgery. Now, you again state that you would keep your vagina. That is certainly your right, but it is also very hard for me to comprehend such a statement. I know quite a few gay men, and not a single one of them has any desire to have a vagina, with or without a penis along with it. In fact, it has been observed that gay men wish to be males, who are interested in having sex with another, who they see as a male, and who seems them as a male. That is why referring to straight HBS women as "homosexual transsexuals" is so highly offensive. They have NO desire to be seen by their partner as, in any shape, form, or fashion, a male, a former male, or as a woman with a penis. That is something entirely removed from HBS. Now again, I respect your right to choose your own lifestyle, but it does not seem to fit within the definitions of transsexual, and is certainly not within the definition of HBS.

It is not unlike the situation that many HBS women encounter when told by transgender MTFs that even thought the MTF wishes to keep his penis, he is just as much a woman as we are. That is highly disrespectful of our identities, though I imagine many, who identify as transgender, would have trouble seeing that fact.

Actually, as observed a bit earlier, there are more than a few examples of people who had surgery, who should not have. Now, I imagine if you asked any of the people I mentioned, who have clearly turned their anger outward, if they are happy that they had surgery, I imagine everyone of them would state that they are. But at the same time, it is clearly obvious that something is very badly wrong. And it is obvious that whatever is wrong is related to their having had surgery.

And there are also examples of people who have had surgery who become very depressed and even self-destructive. Such cases are, thankfully rare. But they do happen. And in all of the cases where surgery was a mistake, the person clearly should have received some other form of therapy.

And it should be kept in mind that there are cases in England and Australia where the religious right is trying to use people who have regrets about surgery as a means to end all surgeries. It is not something to be taken lightly. It has not happened in the United States, yet.

I must say, I find it disturbing that some seem to be looking to claim personal attacks where clearly none exist. If one can't counter arguments, then one should not fall back on such tactics. Yes, many who call themselves transgender can use very evasive terms. Pointing that out is not an attack, and suggesting that disagreeing with a viewpoint, such as the "transgender paradigm" is an attack seems rather disengenuous to me. It implies that certain views cannot be discussed without being accused of attacking. It seems some wish to find offense in order to avoid having to actually defend their positions. Oh well...

And as to ethics, people differ on what is, and is not ethical. While I believe that morality is absolute, not everyone does. Some go so far as to take an "anything goes..." attitude. Given that we all have free will, that is their privilege. But they should also realize that not everyone will see things their way. I always find it odd that some are quite quick to take offense when someone does not share their view of morality, but they feel perfectly free to totally reject another's view and then expect that person to simply agree. That is, if you want people to respect your right to reject the idea of morality, you have to be prepared to accept their right to have their own idea of morality. You may disagree, but you should extend them the same right. If you don't want them imposing their morality on you, don't impose yours on them.

This goes back to an observation I have made many times. Some seem to demand that people actually "celebrate" their being transgender.

It appears that Allen is trying to coopt HBS into the transgender paradigm. This is not possible since, by definition HBS is exclusive and completely separate from transgender. We have no overlapping interests. This is the sort of thing that has triggered these debates to begin with. Allen is simply trying to declare a peace that is an illusion. First off, this is not a war, at least on our part. We simply wish to be left out of the transgender "community." We simply wish for it to be recognize that we have no "common grounds and communal overlap," no matter how much some wish to invent them. Unfortunately, it appears that anyone who disagrees with Allen is simply dismissed as an "extremist."

If Allen reallys wants to "bury the hatchet," then the place to begin is by respecting our boundaries, and not claiming commonality that is unwelcome.

I don't think the trans movement is ever going to have any credibility until it recognizes that not everyone who calls themselves a woman is a woman. It is very much an insult to women when a forty-five year old husband and father decides to have surgery and call himself a woman.

Mercedes, why on earth would anyone want to spend time with a dragqueen? If the trans movement want credibility acknowledge that dragqueens are also men and tell them to go hangout with the other gay men.

I also appreciated the comments of the HBS people who bothered to go back and look at the definitions of transexual and transvestite. Trangenderists are simply tranvestites. They can go with the dragqueens.

I am deeply offended by those who make me an unwilling member of their trans illusion. When the term transgender came into cloudy use many at that time used the term transgender/transvestite and not one single person that I knew then objected to that linkage. It was after all the same thing but with different packaging. Not one transsexual accepted that label for all knew that it never was intended to include transsexuals. But now some here take HBS and wrongly attach it to transgender/HBS. They are not taken to task by the moderators so I must assume they agree with him. I wonder how far they might agree with me if I could use a label they might find offensive: transgender/crossdresser/transvestite/she-male/ drag-queen (TCTSD) when addressing anyone using either of the included transgender elements therefore connecting them to all of the behaviors under that label. No different than using the linkage of transgender/HBS. But being a lady I would not lower myself to that level.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. Most transgender identifiers are transvestites. That is the majority of the transgender identity. Go to any of the chat rooms and/or tg web forums and there the true tale will be obvious. I never once met a crossdresser/transvestite who did not admit to getting sexual satisfaction from 'dressing up'. I understood them and never looked down upon them. But I did realize quickly that they were different and they never could understand my needs or feelings for we had nothing basically in common or shared. Oh, I have heard that they dress to be like a woman but at the end of the day the thrill brings with it relief from the associated sexual high and more often than not the next morning they go back to their male privileged identity which gawd forbid they should ever be denied. To join HBS born to that pattern of behavior is insulting for it is not us, never was us and never will be us.

Let us stay with the facts and not suppose that someday HBS might also include variations of trans something yet unexplained. The studies done by the Dutch on the hypothalamus concluded that 100% of the brains studied that the transsexual brains hypothalamus were no different than the brains of natal women or men with whom they had identified. On the other hand, concluded or surmised, no evidence was found that the same held true for transgender/transvestites or for gays or lesbians. Those studies were later duplicated and although still limited by number supported and found a distinct and specific cause for transsexualism yet no suspicious link that had anything to do with fetishism or what some have alluded to possibly also including those who are transgender, gay or lesbian. Maybe that is why the transgender attack the studies so vehemently; it clearly excludes them.

I am not suggesting that there might not be a gene that shows a cause for one to be transgender, gay or lesbian. What I am simply showing is that the studies I address dealt with the brain and not genes and showed a physical cause for HBS. Later studies showed the genetic linkage to transsexualism specifically to that which we HBS born claim in addition to BSTc as being valid in supporting our claim of separate and distinct identity which the tg advocates poo poo as not conclusive. Perhaps not inclusive but strongly indicative and it provides more evidence for our HBS identity than any evidence that has been found to explain the causes for those that hide under a masking label.

Fetishism is not to be equated with someone born with a correctable medical condition. Fetishism is not inborn but is reactionary and nurtured by varying triggers. Emelda Marcos was born without shoes yet her fetish was for shoes was it not? (SARCASIM INTENDED)

The issue transferred from the other post group into this one was to discuss transsexualism. I do disagree with the '3 models' though for it surmises that transsexualism is basically no different than transgenderism which as we know has a multitude of models or elements many of whom identify as sexual or fetish. HBS on the other hand, not being a trans model at all, relies on its definition as being medical with research findings that strongly indicate the condition and its causes. That is much, much different than those who identify as either/or under the transgender umbrella. And as we all know, quite a few take on the identity of others in order to hide their own.

Those who deny our right of expression seem to be solidly connected to the illusions that permeate the transgender 'community'. I suggest, not in attack, that they should simply identify as specific what their actual condition is that makes them part of the transgender grouping... cast off their masks. I would not of course be qualified to do that since I was HBS born and never a crossdresser, a she-male, a drag-queen, a CD sex worker, a transvestite or any of the myriad behaviors that find comfort under the transgender umbrella.

I do wonder why a true transsexual would ever allow themselves to be included under that banner and that befuddles me; maybe because they are not transsexuals in fact but might be better identified as a sub-set under the transgender umbrella.

This discussion was supposed to be about transsexual terminology. It has instead become one of robbery. Some of us define our status as being born HBS. The term is clearly outlined but now it seems those who need excuses for their behavior link onto us as if a need to wear another mask. We have seen that before with the adding of transsexualism listed as a sub-set under the transgender label. Almost akin to the overwhelming army taking possession of a minorities home and assets. The Tg mantra I might suppose: = 'I am everything but am without identity except for that which I borrowed'.

Diane http://harrybenjaminsyndrome.org./

Elaine:

It is very much an insult to women when a forty-five year old husband and father decides to have surgery and call himself a woman.

How about one who is 47, not 45? And "herself" rather than "himself"?

How about when before transition, and as the result of a ridiculous number of tests, MRI scans, ultrasounds etc, this husband and father was declared to be more accurately described not as a mildly Intersexed man, but a really, terribly, tragically, severely Intersexed woman? That long before surgery, or even HRT?

I don't claim to be any more of a woman than you are. Gender is between the ears, not between the legs.

The label "husband" doesn't fit now, any more than the label "wife" does. My partner in marriage is my partner. Yes, we remain married. Yes, the love is still there. But it's chaste. I was never issued with normal male parts (unlike yourself, perchance?) so it's not as big a deal as it would be for some. I miss the cuddles, but that's all.

The label "father" fits, and I wear that with pride. My son calls me "Zed" or "Zeddie", but when hurt or scared, "Daddy" too. If in public, I shrug it off. It's a small price to pay, and besides which, everyone thinks he's got it wrong. Sometimes I have to correct them when they tell him that. I out myself, but I never want him to suffer unfair criticism for merely stating a fact, and one I rejoice in.

With all the hormonal mess that is my endocrine system, it was truly miraculous that my gonads were, for a short time, partly functional. With technical help (for intercourse was neither a psychologically not physically possible means of reproduction), I had a child.

Not motherhood, and in a Universe where things were as they should be, I should have carried him. But that was never remotely possible. The male reproductive system is fairly simple: one partly working testis is all that's needed. The female one requires everything to be just right. I didn't come within light-years there. The removal of the "anomalous tissue" from my abdomen when I was 20 means I don't even know how far away. But it was long.

I don't claim to be any more of a woman than you. But when you claim my very existence is an insult to womanhood, implying that you are a woman, and I am not, then you go too far.

Your comment illustrates the problem many of us have with the Fanatic HBS element. The perception, reinforced by statements like yours, that they aren't interested in the science, or the neurology. They don't care to consider the messiness of real biology. It is an excuse for bigotry.

As people who have suffered from that themselves, it is sad and ironic that the pardonable ignorance and less pardonable malice that has inflicted on them so many problems should be so precisely mirrored in their own words.

An apology would be nice. Here, I'll go first.

I'm sorry that you see my existence as a personal affront to your femininity. I can't apologise for existing though, just the offence that causes you, as a woman. For you are one, just as much as I. Even though you were, and continue to be post-surgically, far more male in body than I.

Your brain and mind is female, that's all that matters. Not that I transitioned naturally, while you required hormones. Not that I had "genital reconstruction" while you had "gender reassignment".

It.
Does.
Not.
Matter.

I'm sorry you will never know the joy of motherhood. Neither will I, but I came close enough. I am content. It was worth the 47 years of Hell.

Now pardon me, I have to go look for something. My temper, I appear to have lost it.

Here, temper, temper.... where are you....

Found It!

Elaine, I'm sorry. I rarely bring the exact details of my peculiar metabolism up. I try to shy away even from generalities, except in an educational context. I find it leads to insecurity in others, and accusations of attempting to be "more female than thou".

Let's put it this way: I could have been born the standard model, 46xx, given birth to triplets, had a 36-24-36 figure, and I still wouldn't be more female than you are, not one jot or tittle.

But you see, I've never claimed to be. That, more than anything else, is the difference between us. I hope that difference has been narrowed.

And talking about insecurities, 47 years of doing the Boy Act did take its toll. Otherwise I would have answered you in much the same way, but with less emotion, anger and hurt. You pressed a button, much in the same way Bailey and Co do to you. I ask your forgiveness of that too. We're all human. (though some endocrinologists have their doubts about me there...)

Allen's comment illustrates exactly the sort of thing we are talking about. These are NOT common interests. Those who are not seeking sex affirmation surgery are not going to be affected by Zucker and Blanchard being involved in the DSM process. Those not seeking sex affirmation surgery have no standing to comment on its availability. And most importantly, those who are not seeking sex affirmation surgery have absolutely NO business trying to claim any sort of "legal recognition for their gender." What is being suggested here is that we should have a common interest in obtaining female birth certificates for intact males who simply wish to claim to be women. I, and the others with the Harry Benjamin Group strongly oppose any changes in birth certificates for those who have not changed their sex. For women, that means full genital surgery. Not "just an orchie," or just because a doctor says they are a woman. For a man, that means full upper surgery, removal of the internal female organs, closing the vagina, and at a minimum a meditoidplasty to create a small penis. Not just chest surgery and hormones, or just because the doctor says you are a man.

As to marriage, that issue is up to the individual states, but personally I do not want any marriage I enter into with a man to be labeled as any sort of same sex marriage. While I support the right to marriage, I don't want women with HBS' interests to be linked to same sex marriage, unless they identify as lesbian. The same is true for men with HBS. They should only be labeled as same sex if they are marrying a male.

Again, we do not have common interests. The only rights that HBS survivors need are to be recognized as their correct sex. And then only after corrective surgery. Once that is done, all other rights fall into place. The transgender crowd needs to have rights granted on a completely different basis, and we have no interest in that. So again, please respect our boundaries, or be prepared for us to speak out strongly, and firmly against your efforts.

Jennifer wrote, "Wolfgang, is "cancer" a social/political construct?"

I mistakenly forgot to add that some labels are medical or scientific in nature, but I was referring to the ones we've been throwing around here: Transsexual, HBS, transgender, crossdresser, etc. While I consider both transsexual and HBS to be medical conditions, we are also using them as social/political constructs. If we weren't, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Jennifer wrote, "That is highly disrespectful of our identities,..."

So, what I'm getting from you is that when someone (who doesn't fit your criteria) identitifies as transsexual or HBS, you consider it disrespectful of you. As a result, you cannot respect that person's identity. Sounds like a Catch 22. Personally, I find that being offended by the way other people define themselves is a sign of deeply rooted insecurity. In your case, it also suggests a purely political motive behind your identity, precisely what you accuse others of.

Jennifer wrote, "Again, we do not have common interests. The only rights that HBS survivors need are to be recognized as their correct sex. And then only after corrective surgery."

So, you think an FTM (who has not had genital surgery), but has a full beard, muscles, and appears 100% male to all casual observers should have an F on his driver's license? That's inhumane. But then again, so is denying treatment to everyone who doesn't fit your narrow definition of Transsexualism/HBS. But alas, that's been said repeatedly here.

Also, if the only thing you care about is legal identity, then you couldn't care less about the rights of pre- and mid-transition HBS people, the education of schoolchildren on HBS issues, or efforts to stop the violence against HBS people?

No, we are just tired of people who never had any doubt they were males, until suddenly, later in life, often after very successful careers as men (albeit, perhaps as crossdressers), they suddenly decide that they really want to be a woman, and then declare themselves to actually be a woman. That is not bigotry. It is just being realistic.

And the question has been raised about who is a man, and who is a woman? Well, that can be tough. I know of some cases where people have surgery and it changes nothing except the configuration of their genitals. They go from being an intact male to being a man with a vagina. And the same is true of some females. But it is far rarer. But that is really not the issue. If a man has surgery and becomes a female, he may still be a man, but he is, physically a female. He has to suffer the consequences of that. But as far as legal recognition goes, that should be based SOLELY on the genitals. If you are an innie, you are a female, if you are an outie, you are a male. Period. End of discussion. No playing games. No changing your birth certificate because "you're really a woman, but you just don't feel the need to get rid of your penis." And if you do have surgery, no claiming you are still a male so you can marry your girlfriend, even though you both have vaginas...unless you live somewhere that everyone can do that. Oh, and no claiming you are a "same-sex" couple because you didn't get a divorce before you had surgery, unless, again, you live where such marriages are allowed. The simple bottom line is, you play by the same rules as everyone else.

Jennifer wrote, "Actually, as observed a bit earlier, there are more than a few examples of people who had surgery, who should not have."

Here we go again. You say this, (and I agree that we should all be concerned about regrets), yet you believe that only those who express a desire for genital surgery should undergo any medical transition. This viewpoint is partly responsible for surgeries that should not have been performed on people who later regret them. (I've said this before, but I don't think you ever offered a counter-argument).

The restrictions you want reinstated were loosened precisely because of their negative consequences. According to the Nick Gorton FTM manual-- http://www.nickgorton.org --fewer than 1% of FTMs (of all types) regret the treatments they chose. It also points out that the suicide rate for MTFs post-transition is about 2% (the same as for cis-females), suggesting a rather low regret rate for them as well.

Sorry, but HBS is NOT a social/political construct. Not remotely. Transgender is. And it can be argued that crossdresser is, as it was created to be a bit kinder and gentler than "transvestite." Transsexual wasn't, at least until it was adopted by the porn industry. If you are trying to use HBS as a social/political construct then it just proves my point about disrespecting identities.

Diane wrote, "On the other hand, concluded or surmised, no evidence was found that the same held true for transgender/transvestites or for gays or lesbians."

Which BST study are you referring to? The Swedish study which involved six MTFs also found the BST size in cis-sexed gays and lesbians to be in between male and female, conforming to neither.

Well Cathryn, I do consider it tragic. But then I tend to be rather kind hearted. And I also share your concern for how such people might be used. That is why I get so angry when people call for greater access to treatment. That is a near certain means to end surgery for HBS victims, at least i