Mercedes,
I have put on my flack jacket and my Kevlar panties, which I'll need just to read the responses. I can give you a web site where you can order some, if you don't already have them. (giggle) You opened a big enough can of worms here to supply all the fishing lovers in North America for the next 50 years. The Tet Offensive will look like a tea party compared to the responses you'll get here. "'T' anyone?" I'll try and watch your six.

"IN-COMING!"

Huzzah, Monica, I'll be right there with you having some tea.

I have a post that should be done any minute now on Zucker, about the practical applications of his model of transsexuality, specifically when it comes to children. I can't see why this dude is in charge of anything at the APA.

Are there any open trans people on the panel? I haven't read anything about any, but it seems like a big flaw.

[blockquote]Are there any open trans people on the panel? I haven't read anything about any, but it seems like a big flaw.[/blockquote]

No, there aren't. The only transsexual or transgender person close to the panel is Anne Lawrence, who advocates for the Clarke-Northwestern clique and who has her own controversies surrounding her. There was a claim made at one point that she was on an advisory panel to the work group along with J. Michael Bailey, but she has publically stated that she is not (in circumstances which I tend to believe). Their influence, however, due to past work history, is still there.

There is a certain amount of elitism among the medical community about working with advocates with less education. It's a serious obstacle right now, although we do have medical allies.

"those occasional fringe folk who end up in the newspaper, flashing people while dressed in stockings or doing other seriously off-the-wall things."

Applying a bit of Occam's blood-play to this notion, isn't it simpler to assume such people are just common garden variety exhibitionists who happen also to be trans?

Mercedes,

Good posting, but one of the things you failed to address is the horrible implications of the Zucker model being entrenched in the DSM, and its affect on treatment of transsexuals and transgenders. I firmly believe it will lead to a situation analogous to the banning of abortion. It will not prevent transsexuals from getting surgeries, it will lead to them resorting to backroom and downright criminal practitioners if they cannot or will not go to good surgeons out of the country. It will result in more people going underground for their hormones, and doing unsupervised and dangerous self-treatment with hormone therapy which will result in increasing numbers of deaths and injuries.

Mercedes,
As far as HBS is concerned, I see it as nothing more than the tired rehash of radical feminism fashioned into a club to beat other transpeople with.

I also don't like the borderline racism, exclusionarly attitudes and inflammatory rhetoric that many of the WBT's have brought to this blog and others that turn reasonable discourse into a WWE wrestling match. Anybody who questions their worldview is instanly labeled in their Bailey-style counterrattacks as 'a man'

Te HBS advocates act more like fundamentalist Christians that someone who is claiming an identity they feel comfortable with.

Very interesting infromation I head about this guy Dr.Zucker on NPR the other day.Didnt know if I wanted to hurl or what then I was driving in my car.Then im in the calss of folks who are part CD and part Trans because of personal reasons my transition is on the slow path. But thaks for the posting readjusts body armour and helment and ducks back into my hole!

Caty

Trolling?

"Con, this is Sonar. We have a new contact bearing one-two-five. She's traveling at one-five knots at a depth of five-zero-zero feet."

"Sonar, Con. Have you identified the contact?"

"Con, Sonar. Not yet."

"Sonar, Con. Keep tabs on her. Let us know if she opens the torpedo tube doors."

"Con, Sonar, Aye."

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.

News:

Ray Blanchard has issued a press release, which follows. Before it, I'd like to note that we've pointed to Zucker as advocating the reparative therapies, not Blanchard (although as Head of Clinical Sexology Services at the CAMH in Toronto, he has not diapproved of Zucker's therapies). As I've also previously stated here, I do believe that the therapists believe they are helping people. They are not necessarily transphobic by the proper use of the term -- they are, however, a danger in their present position.

The spokesman, Jack Drescher, is also on the APA Work Group for Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders.
_________________________________________

Jack Drescher wrote:
PLEASE CIRCULATE

I am forwarding this response by Dr. Ray Blanchard to the many rumors
and personal attacks circulating the internet.

Jack Drescher, MD
www.jackdreschermd.net

***********************************
Thank you for your e-mail advising me of the great deal of
misinformation that is currently being circulated about my views and
positions on the Internet. I am writing to state the facts regarding
the most serious of these incorrect notions. Please feel free to quote
from this e-mail in whole or in part.

This first notion is that I am transphobic. Nothing could be
further from the truth. In 1983 I published the first of a series of
research studies demonstrating the beneficial effects of gender
transition for transsexuals. I published further research studies
demonstrating the positive effects of social transition, hormone
treatment, and sex reassignment surgery in a second article in 1983,
and then in four more studies between 1985 and 1989. I published
literature reviews arguing that sex reassignment surgery was the most
beneficial treatment for properly diagnosed transsexuals in 1990 and
2000. In 2007, I testified pro bono on behalf of a transsexual
plaintiff who filed suit against the Ontario Ministry of Health in an
attempt to force the Ministry to reinstate public funding of sex
reassignment surgery. In summary, there is a readily accessible,
24-year-long, completely public record of my support for hormonal
treatment and sex reassignment surgery for transsexuals.

The second false notion is that I support reparative therapy
(sometimes called conversion therapy), which is a term that denotes
the attempt to change homosexual orientations to heterosexual
orientations. I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated therapeutic
attempts to alter sexual orientation, either in adults or in minors. I
have never written any document that could possibly be interpreted to
mean that I hold, or previously held, such views. I have never stated
that I think the alteration of sexual orientation is desirable or that
I think it is possible.

On the contrary, my considerable body of work on the origins
of sexual orientation has stressed that sexual orientation in males is
probably determined in prenatal life, a theoretical viewpoint that is
basically incompatible with the notion that therapeutic
interventions could alter basic sexual orientation. My publications on
biological (and, by implication, immutable) influences on sexual
orientation cover a 16-year period from 1992 to 2008.

The foregoing facts are indisputable. Any statements on the
Internet claiming that I am either opposed to sex reassignment surgery
or in favor of reparative therapy are simply erroneous.

Sincerely,
Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.

Head, Clinical Sexology Services
Law and Mental Health Program
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Professor of Psychiatry
Faculty of Medicine
University of Toronto

Notice he is not debunking his support and advocation of autogynephilia. Zucker is a danger because of his reparative therapy beliefs and Blanchard is a danger because of his belief of autogynephilia. He needs to denounce his past crap and denounce Zucker as the head of the work group. Even then, I still wouldn't trust him. The letter is meaningless.

Shannon wrote:
"It will not prevent transsexuals from getting surgeries, it will lead to them resorting to backroom and downright criminal practitioners if they cannot or will not go to good surgeons out of the country. It will result in more people going underground for their hormones, and doing unsupervised and dangerous self-treatment with hormone therapy which will result in increasing numbers of deaths and injuries."

This is a possibility, although it depends on the overall reaction to a DSM-V change and what it specifically declares. What I suspect is that Dr. Cohen-Kettenis will be responsible for a reduced classification of GID which will still allow for surgery. Even if not, I also believe that surgeons like Dr. Brassard in Montreal will continue to do the procedure, despite the stigma from the medical community. It will not be THAT much different from what they experience now.

JustJennifer wrote:
"Trolling?"

In honesty, no, despite the little bit of impulsive attitude I admit to feeling. HBS wanted in on the discussion, and so I decided this was a time that all three models needed to be thrust into the open. Feel free to poke holes in my theory and defend address my criticisms of yours. You are respectfully invited.

battybattybats wrote re: the fringers:
"Applying a bit of Occam's blood-play to this notion, isn't it simpler to assume such people are just common garden variety exhibitionists who happen also to be trans?"

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.

Zoe wrote:
"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..."

Actually, when you remove the bigotry and exclusion, there is a lot of overlap between HBS and (at least my) trans theory, on the surgical-transsexual aspect. And again, I do believe a biological trigger or triggers will be found -- which can address the whole continuum in matters of degree.

(Mercedes = DES child with some evidence of intersex: underformed testes, partially formed ovary, scarring possibly characteristic of CAH -- my birth records no longer exist, so I may never know. However, I don't feel that if intersex it would in anyway "validate" me any differently than I am as "transgender")

She also wrote:
"HBS theory contains within it the prediction that some women will be non-op..."

I have not heard that prediction from the theorists here or at TS-Si, but I appreciate your pointing out the likelihood.

and:
"... operative status is as unreliable a metric as chromosomes."

Thank you. I also believe though, that having resort to medical treatment is not the measuring stick, but rather the strength of need to express gender differently from one's physical sex (and outside sexual-specific expressions). Which is a less tangible measure, I admit.

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.

Harry Benjamin’s entire work, which spanned decades, was based on the premise that there was a group of people who from their earliest cognizant memory identified and felt innately they were born in the wrong body. Benjamin describes three groups of what might be called transgender today. In his words, emphasis mine:
”In previous medical publications, I have divided all transvestites into three groups according to the clinical picture they presented. First there are those who merely want to "dress," go out "dressed," and to be accepted as women. They want to be allowed to do so. Their clash is with society and the law. Most of them feel, live, and work as men and lead normal, heterosexual lives, often as husbands and fathers.
Group 2 constitutes a more severe stage of an emotional disturbance. It could be interpreted as an intermediate stage between transvestism and transsexualism. These patients may waver in their emotions between the two. They need more than merely "dressing" to appease their psychological sex with its commanding and demanding female component. They want to experience some physical changes, bringing their bodies closer to that of the female, although they do shy away from surgery and the alteration of their genitalia. Such a desire, however, can play a part in their fantasies and daydreams. Like those of Group 1, for them the penis is still an organ of pleasure, in most cases for masturbation only. They crave some degree of gynecomastia (breast development) with the help of hormone medication, which affords them an enormous emotional relief. Psychotherapy is indicated but the patients frequently refuse it or fail to benefit from it. Their clash is not only with society and the law, but also with the medical profession. Relatively few doctors are familiar with their problems; most doctors do not know what to do for them except to reject them as patients or to send them to psychiatrists as "Mental cases."
This clash with society, the law, and the medical profession is still more pronounced and tragic in Group 3, which constitutes fully developed transsexualism. The transsexual shows a much greater degree of sex [9] and gender role disorientation and a much deeper emotional disturbance. To him, his sex organs are sources of disgust and hate. So are his male body forms, hair distribution, masculine habits, male dress, and male sexuality. He lives only for the day when his "female soul" is no longer being outraged by his male body, when he can function as a female - socially, legally, and sexually. In the meantime, he is often asexual or masturbates on occasion, imagining himself to be female.”
Benjamin goes on to describe the defining difference between Groups 1 and 2…from Group 3:
The transsexual (TS) male or female is deeply unhappy as a member of the sex (or gender) to which he or she was assigned by the anatomical structure of the body, particularly the genitals. To avoid misunderstanding: this has nothing to do with hermaphroditism. The transsexual is physically normal (although occasionally underdeveloped) [2]. These persons can somewhat appease their unhappiness by dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex, that is to say, by cross-dressing, and they are, therefore, transvestites too. But while "dressing" would satisfy the true transvestite (who is content with his morphological sex), it is only incidental and not more than a partial or temporary help to the transsexual. True transsexuals feel that they belong to the other sex, they want to be and function as members of the opposite sex, not only to appear as such. For them, their sex organs, the primary (testes) as well as the secondary (penis and others) are disgusting deformities that must be changed by the surgeon’s knife. This attitude appears to be the chief differential diagnostic point between the two syndromes (sets of symptoms) - that is, those of transvestism and transsexualism.
For patients of a high degree of transsexualism (the "true and full-fledged transsexual"), a conversion operation is the all-consuming urge, as mentioned earlier and as a later chapter will show still more fully. Cross-dressing is an insufficient help, as aspirin for a brain tumor headache would be (Group 3).
Is the desire for post op status a reliable metric to determine transsexualism? In my view, yes, it is. And, it was to Benjamin as well.
I have had my run-ins with the folks over at TS-Si. All one would have to do is visit and review their reader’s comments to see that. I’ve had disagreements with their approach so broad that I was accused of “thinking” like someone who is transgender rather than simply female. And, the issue was? It was over exactly the point Mercedes makes:
That science, however, is not there yet. We can encourage it, publicize it, but we can't act like it is unmitigatable fact.
TS-Si’s take on the issue is that HBS is indisputable. Like Mercedes and others, though the research is promising, no definitive cause has been discovered for HBS and/or transsexualism.
Nonetheless, Benjamin recognized there was a distinct group of people we might refer to as HBS/classic transsexuals/true transsexuals (take your pick). He described the differences.
The snobbery that some HBS/classic transsexuals/true transsexuals throw at others who do not fall into that group is not right. I have been accused of it numerous times though no one seems to be able to quote me on when I did. Those accusations became so intense that I disavowed any association to those who did hold that view and shut down my blog over it. I know a few post ops…none of us hold the view that some of the more militant HBS folks hold toward others who are no in the true transsexual, Benjamin’s Group 3 category. We all know crossdressers and non ops as friends or acquaintances…same for gay folks. We don’t see ourselves as “better” than anyone else. We do, however, see ourselves as different…much, MUCH different than others who identify as transgender, and, as Zoe said, we really don’t want to be associated “…with much of the TG group.”
As Nexy said in an exchange with me on her blog, “different doesn’t mean better.” I agree. Unfortunately, even saying we are different is more often than not seen to imply “better”.
Just as someone who is a crossdresser can’t empathize with someone who is a Group 3 transsexual…neither can someone who is a true transsexual empathize with a crossdresser. It is an issue of not knowing what one doesn’t know.

This research http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070819213846.htm looks very interesting. I wonder about the epigenetic consequences of activating said gene later in development or subequent life of a normally developing mouse.

Geez...the one time I didn't preview the post...and its all run together. Hopefully the editors will divide the paragraphs.

Oh, well...sorry about that...internal project engineering audit today...I'm tired.

S.

"Just as someone who is a crossdresser can’t empathize with someone who is a Group 3 transsexual…neither can someone who is a true transsexual empathize with a crossdresser. It is an issue of not knowing what one doesn’t know."

There are multiple forms of empathy. Projected empathy, ie they must feel what I feel, that's all covered in theory-of-mind. Relational empathy, ie the way I feel about this must be the way they feel about that. Imaginitive empathy, ie I can't know how that feels but I can listen to them and imagine how it must be for that to be so.

Only the first is inbuilt, that which psychopaths for example lack. The others are learned skills which also require learning about the subject to develop accurate responses and that allows empathy across great differences.

"Con, Sonar, I'm hearing multiple screws. Torpedoes are in the water!"

"Ship, brace for impact!"

"Con, Sonar, wait! They're going to miss their mark."

"Sonar, Con, aye. Carry on."

(Girls just wanna have fun. Oh, girls just wanna have fun.)

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./

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

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.

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.

I find it interesting how Blanchard choses to play games with semantics. First off, the term "transphobic" is kind of silly. It is an attempt to emulate the gay community's use, and sometimes misuse, of homophobic. A more accurate portrayal of Blanchard's views would be to call them what they really are, utter and total contempt for transsexuals.

Blanchard has played games with transsexuals for years. He claims to defend SRS, and yet Clarke has a long standing record of abuse of transsexuals. Only the bare minimum need to maintain funding are actually approved. Patients there are still denied access to sufficient doses of hormones, and then only after an outrageous requirment that they undergo RLT.

Clarke is a perfect example of the dangers a single payer plan can hold for HBS sufferers. Under the system in Canada, Clarke controls access to services for people in certain provinces. If you don't want to pay out of pocket, you play by their rules, and even then, you are probably going to wait a very long time for treatment, and suffer in order to get it.

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. A percentage of males who claim a desire for surgery are clearly autogynephillic in the sense that their motivations have nothing to do with having a brain that is sexually differentiated female, but with a desire to be changed into a female even though emotionally they are essentially male. 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. Put another way, an autogynephile wishes to be a woman, who used to be a man...or perhaps, a man, with the body of a woman. They are clearly not HBS.

My problem with Blanchard, as will Michael Bailey, is that they both exhibit a clear determination to discredit women who are survivors of HBS. If they can't label us as gay men who are just too gay to stay men, they label us as men with a perverse desire to be women. The key word, in both cases, is "men." It has been shown that Bailey's book, for example, was specifically designed to counter the view that women with HBS (though that term is not used) are not really women at all.

To be honest, I am surprised that those who express such hatred for HBS and WBT have a problem with Blanchard. You would think they would be his biggest supporters.

Actually, this is obviously an attempt to control, and censor the debate. That the whole "Zucker/APA" petition move is simply another attempt by transgender activists to force people under their label was a legitimate issue in that forum. You were losing there, so you decided to hide the issue here. Oh well....

As to your comments, you clearly have no understanding of Blanchard's model, which is an attempt to over-simplify the issue, and reduce "transsexuals" or more properly, women with HBS, to simply being "men." His approach is not overly complicated, but is actually overly simple. In fact, it is very much the same as the what the transgender model really says.

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

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

I'll remembere that when I'm having lunch with my biogirlfriends tomorrow.

I was fortunate enough to have done my transition under the auspices of the Rosenberg Clinic in Galveston. It has not only been around since 1970, we who transition there don't get ranked by whether you're a Group One this or a Group 2 that transsexual.

The bottom line with Dr, Collier Cole at Rosenberg is helping you transition, work on whatever issues you have at the time, work through them, become a well-adjusted citizen confident in your gender identity and living an authentic life. Too many people are so wrapped up in theory that they don't take the time to live their lives.

Hi gang

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.

For me this was the case when my female soul kept popping up and when I learned how to use "magic". A door was opened and I knew then that was why I always had felt something wasn't right about me and why I felt more girl than guy. My female soul was dominant in me this time around and I have no problems in letting her out. Yes I am changing but taking it slow as I have said before. So here you go another idea to ponder on .Ducks for cover back into my hole.

Caty

“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.

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.

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

And actually, while there is not a single documented case of a person with HBS (or a true transsexual if you prefer) being cured by any form of psychotherapy, such cases do exist for transvestites and crossdressers. For example, some have responded to drug treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder. And other methods have also worked. But, they are not really needed unless the behavior is so troubling that the patient feels the need for a cure. In any case, comparing that to HBS is a bit absurd.

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.

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.

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

And actually, while there is not a single documented case of a person with HBS (or a true transsexual if you prefer) being cured by any form of psychotherapy, such cases do exist for transvestites and crossdressers. For example, some have responded to drug treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder. And other methods have also worked. But, they are not really needed unless the behavior is so troubling that the patient feels the need for a cure. In any case, comparing that to HBS is a bit absurd.

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.

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.

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