Um, we'd be happy to not include you under the term "transgender". No need to show your gratitude as long as you stop demonizing all the trans people who don't match up to your "true transsexual" category. Thanks.

The original issue was a simple one, transgender people need to stop once and for all claiming and "educating" that transgender is an inclusive term that includes women of operate history.

I'm not sure how that's actually possible. Throughout my experience of transition, I've gone through several iterations of identity and need to alter my gender presentation. I began by thinking myself a cross-dresser. Then I considered myself a non-operative transgender woman. I played with a genderqueer identity for a little while, but now I'm working on saving up for my bottom surgery.

At what point do I suddenly get to magically claim my status as a "real woman" as opposed to a mere "man that looks like a woman" or something like that? Who decides this? Making it a little less personal, who decides whether a person is a "true transsexual" and who is just a pretender? How much transition is "enough" in these cases?

I think that a term like "transgender" is necessary for all that were assigned one gender and go on to present as an alternate gender, as the situations and conditions that these folks run into have much in common, both personally and politically. Sure, there are distinctions between various individuals and subgroups within that community, but the people within have very similar needs.

And when will you acknowledge when those of us like myself DO recongise your right to self-identify as I have done repeatedly in the past?

Cause every time we do there is no response to that? Why?

I recognise every humans human right to self-identification. Including post-op TSs who don't reject the TG umbrella for themselves and including people like yourself who do.

So why keep saying none of us do when some of us do?

And what about the report of one of the scientists involved in those studies expecting that related biological causation would be found for the whole gender spectrum?

What about the point that all forms of transgemder have not been given the same tests to rule in or out biological causation for those too?

The gene found so far more commonly in transsexuals is still found in non transsexual people implying multiple genes and/or epigenetics as part of the causation.. which would lead to the probaility of stronger and weaker cases.. oh and that'd mean a probable gender spectrum wouldn't it, just like other neuorological variations like the autism spectrum.

The science isn't finished. And it doesn't go all your way. And only when full comparative studies are done can these probabilities be ruled out.. basic scientific method.

So...you have a penis, and have no desire to get rid of it.

You don't have a vagina, and have no desire for one.

And yet you self-define as a woman, with the support of the transgender political machine behind you.

And you are willing to force your way into women's locker rooms, with the transgender political machine behind you.

There's a bit of legal trouble brewing in my state. Someone like you felt they had the 'right' to decide they were female, and then legally force their way into a woman's locker room, showers and all.

i just can't wait to see what legal backlash is going to result from this, and make it harder for true pre-operative transsexual women like me to get through the process.

You see, understanding the mindset of women is as simple as understanding yourself. If you have one.

The little reality bubble that the transgender political machine has created does not hold water for...well, *anyone* not existing within said reality bubble.

i would be mortified at the idea of being seen, by anyone, pre-operatively. And post-operatively, i would be equally mortified seeing a man or his penis in a locker room with me.

Why do i say 'man' in this hypothetical scenario? Because no woman would do that to another woman.

It's a simple matter of dignity and respect. For yourself as well as others.

And what a surprise. Every leftist, liberal, pro-LGB *cissexual* female friend and relative i have agrees with me. 'Women' with penises that they have no desire to lose + intruding on women's locker and shower rooms = insanity.

Unless you live in your own little reality.

But that's what it's become now. Common sense equals 'hate'.

Er Phil, your lack of experience here is showing.

Prior to the spread of "non- op transsexual", transgender as an umbrella term (one coined btw by a absolutely rabid transsexual hater)....if you were outed the automatic assumption was you were post corrected or on your way. Today, thanks to the colonization and then erasure of transsexuality, the automatic assumption is you are a "chick with a dick". Prior to the "education" that women have penises, no less a religious nutcase than Pat Robertson himself considered post corrected women to be women without question.....he said that in on his tv show. Islamic mullahs "get" transsexuality. I had zero problem explaining it to republican congresscritters, less actually than I did to liberals (and I am about as far from a conservative as it gets before you jump conclusions)

That's real harm Phil, life threatening harm, major difference in how you are treated...and I witnessed it happening.

every single classic transsexual woman I ever met felt exactly the same way and I've met hundreds.
So let me get this straight. It doesn't matter that I'm accepted by everyone that I interact with as female. It doesn't matter that I appear female to everyone, to the point where doctors ask me about my latest period. It doesn't matter that most cis people I run into tell me I'm the most "genuine" trans woman they've ever met. It doesn't matter that cis women accept me as a cis woman, even when they know I'm trans. It doesn't matter that I've identified as a female since I was 3 years old. It doesn't matter that I've gone through incredible pain and hardship to transition my appearance from that of a male to that of a female. It doesn't matter that, in a few years, I will have a vagina. It doesn't even matter that I feel uncomfortable in the gym because of the contstant fear of being exposed, but have decided not to let that stop me from doing the things I want to do.

...

ALL of that gets trumped by the fact that I don't feel *uncomfortable ENOUGH* at the locker room. Therefore I'm not *really* a woman and am just a man cross dressing as a female.

*blinks*

I really think that my comfort level at the gym should be less of a consideration in evaluating my gender than some of the other things, honestly... Your definition of what makes a "real" transsexual woman seems rather limited and not at all correct.

Hell, by your definition, I know a few cis females that wouldn't qualify as women in your book, since they really wish they had penises. Or does that make them men now, too?

A post op autogynophile is not.

I have no problem with how you label people, to be honest. If you want to say that I'm a cross dresser or an autogynophile or whatever you want to call me, I really could give a shit. Your definitions of who I am and who others like me are really is your business. I won't deny you your right to say anything you like about your beliefs about who people are.

What pisses me off about your posts, and what seems to piss a lot of other people off, is what you say has to occur because of your strict definition of a "true transsexual."

Example: I'm a transgender woman that passes almost 100% of the time as female. As part of this, I am not welcome in male spaces, and I frankly have no interest in being in male spaces since I identify as female.

However, by your definitions, I am not female (apparently because I'm insufficiently uncomfortable in the locker room, but I talked about that in my other comment) and because of that, I should not be allowed access to the women's locker room or other women's facilities.

And thus begins my issue with your position. I need a place to change when I use the gym, and I need a bathroom to pee in when I need to pee. The men's room would be absurd of me to go into, since I am perceived 100% as female. If you would bar me from the women's room, then I would have absolutely no place to go to the bathroom or to get changed. You are forcing me to be a second class citizen by refusing to allow me to participate fully in society.

You can think I'm sick or a festishist or whatever else you want, but when you start saying that I don't have a right to a normal life, then we have a problem.

Does that make sense to you?

It's neurology that makes you a woman or not and a female neurology will eventually reject a male anatomy

Can you point to some studies that back up a claim like this? My anecdotal evidence shows that both cis and transgender women sometimes have an interest in having "a male anatomy." This probably conflicts with your anecdotal evidence. Now, I've run into hundreds of trans and cis people, and I suppose you have too. So perhaps our anecdotal evidence is insufficient to prove these claims of yours.

Therefore, I'd like to ask you what studies back up your claim that there is such a thing as "female neurology" such that it "rejects a male anatomy." Can you provide some links or titles of papers on the topic?

Too bad you lied, RB

Seven times in the second paragraph, which undermines your first.

You are not those things because you seek to remove yourself from such.

You are those things because you erase the identities of others in your quest to do so; you are such because you choose to do all of that in a manner which is, in fact, all those things.

Stop doing it in that manner -- and in fairness, you do somewhat less of it than many others -- and you might have an argument.

You don't, you can't (because you, too, are trapped by the rules of identity), and, sadly, you won't.

Most know exactly what their gender is regardless of body somatics they are born with, some have to fight like hell to have that recognized.

Studies and evidence, pls?

If you define yourself as transgender (a third sex category) you have defined yourself out of the binary.

Most "transgender" identified people I know identify as part of the binary. I think that you are misrepresenting these individuals as being a "third sec category."

I have a deep background in sociology, psychology, anthropology (both physical and cultural) and a genius level IQ who has access to and spent thousands of hours in discussion with some of the best minds in the psych profession.

And yet you seem to lack some basic understandings of evidence, statistics, and related data.

I hang with a lot of really smart people. Most of them don't talk about their IQs...

And I've met hundreds... :P

The model I developed independently for separating autogynophiles from classic transsexuals has been tested and found almost 100% accurate by top level psychiatrists. It predicts post surgical satisfaction which is why it's valuable.

What scientific journals were these studies posted in? Where did you publish your results? What third party organizations independently verified your information?

all coupled with a Luddite denial that the growing body of clear scientific evidence doesn't exist.

Perhaps because we can't seem to find any of it. Care to help us out? It would very much help your position and give us more to talk about.

If you define yourself as transgender (a third sex category) you have defined yourself out of the binary.....seems simple enough. If you tell me that with a female neurology, a corrected female norm body, hell, in my case even genetics that are more organ systems XX than XY....if you tell me I am not a woman or female, that I never will be, that I am some third gender/sex forever when I know differently I am not the bigot, the one defining others. Deconstruct your own gender to your heart's content....deconstruct mine and you are way the hell out of line.

Since you seem to be replying to me, I don't really understand your saying this. Who is saying you are not a woman or female? If you want to define yourself as not "trans" that's your own perogative. How is my own view of my own gender stepping on yours? Because it overshadows your own in the media? You can be as binary as you want babe, that doesn't mean my own fight isn't worth fighting. Do you simply want people like me to not exist? What do you want?

Radical Bitch said:

If you define yourself as transgender (a third sex category) you have defined yourself out of the binary.....seems simple enough. If you tell me that with a female neurology, a corrected female norm body, hell, in my case even genetics that are more organ systems XX than XY....if you tell me I am not a woman or female, that I never will be, that I am some third gender/sex forever when I know differently I am not the bigot, the one defining others. Deconstruct your own gender to your heart's content....deconstruct mine and you are way the hell out of line.

I don’t think you understand—or perhaps you do not wish to acknowledge—what the meaning of the term transgender really is. Transgender is not a third sex category. At it’s core, the term is about coalition. The term transgender embodies a coalition of many people of many different gender identities, many different forms of gender expression, and many different forms of bodily expression. It includes people like myself who identify firmly on one side of the gender binary. It also includes people who identify as existing at both ends of the binary simultaneously, people who identify as existing somewhere between the two ends of the binary, or people who identify as existing nowhere on the binary at all. What we all have in common is that our existence violates society’s common understanding of what male and female, woman and man, or boy and girl mean. This violation of the norm leaves us in a position of less power than those who exist within society’s common understanding of gender and sex. That is, we who fall under the umbrella term transgender share common roots of oppression. Outside of that single common circumstance, our personas and ways of being are as varied as the wind.

Now, some might object that transsexuals who firmly conform to one side of the gender binary do not violate society’s understanding of sex and gender. I would posit that if you believe this, you are deeply in error.

The common understanding of sex and gender is that they are one and the same, they are established at birth, and they are immutable. If you are born with a penis, you are inescapably male and are destined to grow into a man. If you are raised properly, you will embrace your natural, born masculinity, and take your place in society as a man. If you are born with a vagina, you are female and are destined to grow into a woman. If you are raised properly, you will embrace your natural, born femininity. If you violate this understanding in any way, there is no established place for you in polite society. At best, you are an aberration who will be uncomfortably tolerated. At worst, you are an unspeakable freak who is to be hidden away, ostracized, and possibly sentenced to poverty or death.

Guess what? If you are a transsexual woman, it doesn’t matter how stunningly beautiful and womanly you are. If you are a transsexual man, it doesn’t matter how rugged, manly and handsome you are. Woman or man, it does not matter how many surgeries you have had. Your existence violates the common understanding of woman and man.

Inevitably, you must contend with the hard reality of other’s prejudice and fear.

Make yourself a nest of safety, if you will. Surround yourself with the most liberal, understanding friends in the world. Burn your child hood documents, jump through a maze of legal barriers, and erase your past. Live in complete stealth. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. If the wrong person finds out about your past, if you let the veil of stealth slip at the wrong time, or if rumors about you spread to the wrong person, there’s a bullet quietly awaiting your untimely demise in the chamber of a gun somewhere. That’s the cold, bitter reality of our lives.

So, you have a choice:
a) You can recognize the common cause that binds our fates together and challenge the injustice and prejudice that surrounds us.
b) You can pretend that all of this simply doesn’t exist and stick your head in the sand.
c) You can band together with other likeminded, binary-conforming transsexuals and plead with polite society that you deserve special consideration over the rest of us freaks.

Make no mistake about it: you are considered to be a freak by much of society. The question is, will you hang out with the rest of us freaks and work together, or will you strive to establish a hierarchy among the freaks with yourself on top, in the hope of being granted special privileges?

Oh right, I forgot. You aren’t considered to be a freak. You are formerly transsexual and are completely a woman, and because of this, you are honored and respected by the good people of the world. You have been granted the full mantle of personhood by the people of the land because of you are born of superior stock. You are the worthy, the few, the proud. The rest of us are the unwashed masses of fetishistic gender dysfunction who refuse to bow our heads in the presence of our betters.

If you wake up from your dream, the rest of us will still be here dealing with reality. Perhaps then, you’ll deign to join us. Perhaps not…

Until then my liege, I pray that your crown does not tarnish.

RB,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying there is a definitive medical test to determine true transsexuality and you and hundreds of others in the psychiatric field know of this test and it's validity?

Since your question makes no sense as written, clarification is needed.

1 - What is this "Gender theory identity" nonsense you ask about?

2 - What makes you think that *that* is the reason for being dismissed?

3 - What makes you think that surgery magically grants extra powers of expertise?

Well, not for most of us.

For you, however, there certainly seems to be such.

Bad timing or deliberate act?

It is difficult to ask others to be respectful when in their ignorance and misguided bigotry, they refuse to be such.

There is not a shred of evidence that transsexuality is not a condition that one either has or does not. You cannot be a little bit or part pregnant, you either have hiv or you do not, your appendix bursts or it doesn't.....you are attempting medical word games to deliberately give an impression something with zero evidence to support is true.

Dishonest.....Trying to redefine a condition with specific parameters to colonize it is the problem here......there is no non op transsexual by choice, only by circumstances.

Birth defect? What about the kin-selection argument that it could in fact be selected for in evolution to give advantage to siblings?

Doesn't the gene discovery of a gene more common in TS than average support that?

Don't the sex neurology brain variations found in gays and lesbians, particularly the FMRI scans, suggest that in fact many gays and lesbians are in fact neurologically intersex merely in different parts of the brain to TS?

Doesn't the fact these brain variations are often specific to particular brain regions including behaviour and emotional processing areas bring behaviour into the equation?

All based on studies and links from Zoe's blog.
Doesn't the very science usued to claim TS as biologically caused actually support connections between these phenomena still in the infancy of their biological exploration?

Isn't that what the still incomplete science says?

Classic Transsexuals" cannot bear to see themselves naked, let alone be seen by anyone else. The abhorrence of gentitalia is that intense.

Have you done or found a study that confirms this assertion? Without that study, you're making a claim based purely on anecdotal evidence, one that is contradicted by other anecdotal evidence in those that declare themselves to be transsexuals.

I myself find myself uncomfortable with my genitalia, but I don't really hate it. In fact, I have been working on increasing my comfort with nudity over the past few years since I began transition. 4 years into transition, I am more comfortable being naked now than I ever was before. I can even have sex with people without major discomfort now. Yet I'm still looking forward to fixing the discomfort that still exists.

Your unsubstantiated claim here directly denies my experience of being a "transsexual" woman. After declaring people like myself to be "not transsexual, but transgender," you go on to say that we are perpetuating an illusion of legitimacy for our condition.

I pray ask you what is illegitimate about my experience of being transgender. What could possibly motivate me to take actions that would result in incredible hardship and pain for me, yet still be "illegitimate" experiences?

oh wow, a whole hour.

Congratulations -- you'v done what society in general sees as an error of false authority. Worse, you've not noted the time when you did this, which raises interesting TOS questions about the use of the name.

Think I don't have the intellect to back up my assertions, try me :)

That you've gone around and actively violated the ethics clause of licensure isn't a big deal to me -- but may to others.

It is *your* opinion -- a minority one, held in direct opposition to reality -- that transsexualism is an absolute of the sort and in the manner you describe it.

You may want it to be different, as Sophia recently suggested and Aria wants, but that does not change how it is, now, at this time, and how it is likely to stay for at least 15 years.

Fear is your element, afforded by ignorance, and I am neither in this arena.

Stop lying, and stop trying to dictate to others their identity.

No, not always.

What? Are you saying it's bigotry to ask you to back up your assertions with proof beyond super-secret psychiatrist societies?

Defining who you are is your human right which i repeatedly defend.
Defining who others are is not your right. Everyone gets the dame right to define who they themselves are. Thats how human rights work.

To be consistent you dont get to define who others are and yet complain about others defining who you are.

I do not and never have denied the right of transgender to define themselves however they like.

Unless, of course, they define themselves as their "target gender," in which case you get really pissed off at them for "lying" to people and "misrepresenting transsexuality."

. What you all are doing to us here and elsewhere is mysogyny

It's misogyny to ask you to stop telling us transgender women that we're not women? It's misogyny to ask you to stop denying us our right to access basic facilities like locker rooms and bathrooms based on the gender we identify with? It's misogyny to ask you to stop misrepresenting us as fetishists? It's misogyny to ask you to accept that some of us transgender women are also identifiable as transsexuals?

This is not misogyny. This is a minority group demanding the right to its identification, which you are trying to deny us in telling us that we are not who we say we are.

You reject that it has gradiations, and yet, for 85 years it's been recognized as such.

On what basis do you reject this? What foundational evidence?

Javier, no disrespect meant. You notice I said, "most of us," not "all of us." In my experience, regarding lower surgery, "most" is true. As surgery improves, and if insurance ever covers the procedure in a majority of jurisdictions, that may change.

Remember that by sex being immutable, any person who has ever been assigned male at birth and now lives as a female is still male.

Until you factor in gender, when they become a woman.

Gender is mutable, sex isn't.

I did not “idenitfy as the female I am, anymore than I “identified” as the arm I broke when I seven.

I'd like to ask. If you don't "identify" as the woman you are, then how were you able to determine and identify that you might possibly have this "medical issue" of transsexuality or whatever? What lead you down the path of recognizing that you had a genuine issue and weren't just suffering from some sort of mental delusion or illness? What lead to you seeking treatment?

For many trans* people, we start out by trying out different identities until we reach the point where we recognize that we identify as the gender that we actually are. We recognize that our internal gender identification does not math our body, and we take steps to change that. I'm curious to hear how the TS/HBS/classic transsexual experience works through this period of self-discovery.

Susan Taylor "asked" the same question, Maura.

Nothing.

IT is based in an issue of inclusive versus exclusive models, and that's not something that will ever be readily solved or accommodated.

IT's akin to asking cisLGB folks and their bigoted opponents when their fight will end.

Things that would help would be to recognize that identity politics, when applied within a small community, serve to fracture it. They only work on the broadest of scales, and at that scale, these differences are invisible.

Well I'm after universal human rights, including the right of self-identification.

That includes the right of those TSs who say they aren't transgender to identify as not transgender.. and the ones who are fine with the umbrella being able to stay under it.

In other words a consistent principle. Based on a recognised human right.

I think we've been fairly straightforward from our side. We want people who were not born with this issue to stop speaking for us, and acknowledge that they don't have it. What do you think it will take for that to happen?

I think we've been fairly straightforward from our side. We want people who were not born with this issue to stop speaking for us, and acknowledge that they don't have it. What do you think it will take for that to happen?

not harder. Just hard in a different way, javier :)

Soooo, why are they here? Why are they part of this discussion?

It's an excellent question. If they genuinely believe their medical condition has been fixed, they are not transgendered, and they are no longer transsexual, why do they care what we trannies are doing or saying?

The only answer I can surmise is that they don't really believe their own rhetoric and are not addressing what is really bothering them. Which I've gone into in a bit more detail in another comment higher up.

Do I really need to repeat why it's bad for people who aren't part of a group to speak for that group?

Transgender is not transsexual. Transgender is a political choice, transsexual is a birth defect.

Don't speak for me, and I won't speak for you. If you don't like it, you can certainly distance yourself from us. You have feet too.

What about wearing jeans and a t-shirt and acknowledging our internally identified gender that is also acknowledged by medical professionals, therapists, co-workers, friends, people at the gym, etc?

Awesome! A great point and an H.G. Wells reference always goes well with me.

There are lots of seemingly nonsensical and irrational divides in our communities. Most seem to me to stem from holding other common prejudices. Like the homophobia amongst some crossdresser groups for example.

I'm dating a FtM crossdresser.. something some TS guys were stunned by as they thought there were none. But then some crossdressers are stunned to discover gay crossdressers even exist so busy are they constantly shouting "we're not gay" they don't realise how they often drive those who consider they are gay out of their communities and so render them invisible... well many don't.. some do deliberatly drive them out to ensure that invisibility. Same with TS. There are TS haters amongst the CDs like the CD haters amongst the TS... and they usually use near-identical arguments but inverted. 'people think we are like them' 'we don't get acceptance because of them' 'they make us look bad' etc.

Often the reason given amongst the discriminatory CD groups is to calm the fears of wives of MtF CDs who fear their husband will transition and/or is gay. Even though some are gay and some do transition. Sacrificing some for the benefit of others.. of Cis concerns.

Invisibility, intolerence, defending inequality for selfish reasons. These are threats to genuine equality and to our own integrity.

More lies.

to appropriate a medical condition you have no legitimate claim to.

It is this part that I cannot abide. Because you are telling me that I have no right to the term "transsexual," a term that, according to every definition I've ever heard of it, applies to me.

Too late, Leigh.

My side, Leigh?
I am a Lesbian activist. I simply think that the cause f human rights would be better served by the two sides of the discussion finding some commonality of purpose as a basis to disengage and disperse.

No egg upon my face nor upon the faces of any of my Lesbian colleagues, unless enda fails.

Not any more. Now they're making personal attacks on people that are unrelated to this discussion and threatening to take away our right to live our lives, albeit through mysterious secret psychiatrist cabals...

um, no, not really.

with the domain name being tgnonsense, of course.

Very well said, dyssonance.

Good Bleeping bleep, Cathryn -- *more lies*.

"overrun by "feel good therapists" -- well, excluding the fact that therapist is *supposed* to make you feel good, technically, here's the site where they listthe people in charge, and surprise! IT's mostly Sociologists and medical professionals.

http://www.wpath.org/committees_transgender.cfm

D'oh!

Some women *do* have and like having penises. As much as a surprise as that may be to the average man or woman on the street, it's a reality.

No one here is saying you are a hater for objecting to people "defining a term any way they wish (which is another lie).

That's your own imagination at work. Unless you have some othe explanation for the lie.

As a note, while you may consider transgenddr to be an insult, *it is still applicable to you*.

Correctly, no less, under any and all style guides. s both a noun and an adjective. So, you transgender you, Stop using what you admittedly consider an insult.

Or feel it applied to you. Accurately so. Regrdless of what I amy *feel* about that, it's still accurate, and n the wider wold, someone calling any of us a transgender is not doing so innacurately and all you'll do is make tem roll their eyes and patronize you if you complain.

I call horseshit on your secret cabal of bullshittians.

Thats the other lie that finally pissed me off. Now they are *stealth subversives* who have thrown in the towel.

"penis people"? Oh FFS! Essentialism much?

Penis people? DO you have any f'ing idea how freaking sexist that is?

I have a friend, her name is Millie. She transitioned before you were born, Cathryn. She has a saying -- surgery makes some gals go mad.

I'm hard pressed to argue with her...

Until I see one shred of evidence that your secret cabal of "post corrected psych and medical professionals" exist, I'm calling bullshit on you.

You're lying to all of us. And your lies are now sounding quite extreme and insane.

You criticize our "antics," but all I ask, time and again, is for your supporting research. Your supporting studies. Your data. I get nothing but crickets time and again.

If your unverified and unsubstantiated information is what the psychiatric community considers "logical and salient," then I really have lost faith in the scientific rigor of the psychiatric community.

No one is going to listen to you or anyone else if you can't back your information up with proof. And you ignore every single request for such.

Well, now that you've shown up, you are being called:

"Helms is a monster, a vicious sociopathic monster with severe bipolar problems (not my diagnosis, one from an actual psychiatrist)"

and apparently your comment was made to

"...provoke a personal retort from me that will allow Bil to ban me."

by "radical Bitch" elsewhere.

Bat's gets it even worse.

Me, I get the same stuff she's used before.

Finally, a *little* honesty.

There cannot be "peace".

After that, it's more the same bs.

If you don't want an actual female body, don't tell me you are a woman.

And yet you deny the experiences of those of us that match your definition of "transsexual" and "woman" when they don't agree with your own experiences.

You're ignoring those that would challenge your viewpoint here.

What. The. Fuck.

So now you're going from taking an argument about these issues to making completely unrelated personal attacks on someone?

You've lost all of your credibility at this point, if you had any to begin with.

What BS?

And no, no clocking today. Only once in the last 18 months -- and ya'll have made it abundantly clear that one happened.

Yes, I left, but I wouldn't call the house a hutch, myself.

But thanks for the thought :)

Wow. That's a low blow, and completely inappropriate.

I went over to their website, but I don't even know where to begin over there.

I have this irrational hope that I would be able to get them to engage in rational discourse with me, perhaps being able to discuss the merits of various studies, papers, philsophies, etc. But if this thread here is indication, their position is based on irrational fears, not logic and reason.

As I think more about this, I'm offended by their behavior in the same way they claim to be offended by ours. They are taking my class of individuals, i.e. transsexuals, and claiming that they are the arbiters of defining that term and what that experience is like.

As a transsexual, I do not like the idea of someone else speaking for me when that contradicts my own experiences. It's the same issue that they yell at us for.

It seems that we're fighting over these terms. We both want to define "woman" and "transsexual." They want those terms to be limited to those with their exact experiences and beliefs. I want those terms to be defined based on definable metrics that allow for a wide variety of experiences of those terms. These two positions cannot stand together.

And based on this thread, their position seems based in fear, not reason.

I gave the location of two separate websites that archive most of the abstracts. If you cannot be bothered to go there and look them up why should I spoon feed you? Instead you deny they exist? And that makes my position bankrupt?

I ignore people who openly insult me or are impossible to talk to.....my quality of life improves that way. Your replies to me indicated someone who would not listen, someone who's attitudes towards women I find offensive in the extreme. So I didn't answer you and never will again.

You asked, I answered, you ignored. Then you demanded.

Who are you responding to?

someone please explain to me how this isn't a total violation of the TOS here? I'm named by name as a hateful batshitter and compared to the insane birthers......and that's just the opening sentence.

And for what it's worth, my "pathetic" petition doubled in size in just the past couple of months.

Again a suggestion. Sign it if you are willing to set us free from the transgender umbrella. Those that don't but claim they are setting us free are the liars. 'Tis a simple test really.

If I saw any hint of your male genital status in my locker room Paradox I'd run you out so fast your head would spin.

I find it reassuring that my cisgender female coworkers that know my surgical status don't run me out of the bathroom, even when we both use it at the same time.

I'm glad they're less transphobic than you.

Well articulated and said, timberwraith! (Really wish the advice would be taken.)

Seconded. This kind of war of words, laden with dramatics, is serving no purpose.

Fault is to be found on both sides.

I am so very tired of this erupting every single time that the prefix trans is attatched to anything on LGBT blogs.

You've been through a lot because of this garbage. But you aren't alone, and never were. It just took time for people to speak up.

I and a growing number of others intend to see this through, no matter how long it takes. We are going to shove that misogynistic, gynophobic, sociopathic bootheel off of our lives and our bodies.

Count on it.

1 - The medical condition explicitly allows for non surgery tracked persons.

See WPATH SoC v6. ICD or DSM-IV as well.

2 - Fear based and unfounded assumption. THe same argument is being used nearly verbatim of "death panels" in the current debate, and there is absolutely no evidence of such.

3 - If you have studies, *identify them*. Not all that hard. What you fail to see is that the studies are not attacked on the basis of legitimacy, but your interpretation of the findings is what's attacked. Given the already established lack of understanding for the scientific method, this is no surprise.

4 - The only appropriation is when someone is informed they are not a transsexual. That is you appropriating their care and medical diagnosis.

5 - There are more world class surgeons in the US now than there were 15 years ago. Two of them transwomen themselves. Your definition of world class is lacking.

The reason you have such trouble is not because you are defending yourself, but because you are attacking others -- and doing so in bigoted, sexist, vile ways and with nasty language.

Your facts are not facts. They are your opinions. You keep saying how you will "go away", but you want to keep the term transsexual just for a portion of the total transsexual population that has the same narrative history and objectives.

Sorry. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Take your fear mongering elsewhere. So long as *I* have breath, I will indeed be speaking to it for what it is.

After all, what was it ya'll labeled me? Oh yeah -- a transvestite DC hooker. I'm pretty sure that was Sara's point.

Ya'll ain't seen *nothing* yet.

Radical Bitch,

This new comment addresses some of my question, was it meant as a response to me?

It helps make sense of some things for me, but I was asking about non-transsexual transgender folks. I understand the concerns around appropriation of transsexuality, but what about folks who aren't doing that? You speak very negatively of transgender folks in general. Is that just about those who attack transsexuals and appropriate transsexuality? Because they way you've framed things much of your comments seems to apply just as easily to transgender folks who haven't done any of that.

Interesting thing is, they can let *you* (plural) go.

The shame is yours.

But, at this point, you'll never let it go.

I can not only let you go, but I can show you the door, give you a going away gift - of MY choosing - and break out champagne when you are just 6 inches from the door.

Basically, what Barney Frank said to the woman at his town hall meeting seems to be VERY appropriate right about now.

We are legitimised by the basic universal human right of freedom of expression and self determination. See what those mean for sex and gender by looking up the yogyakarta principles. They arent hard to find.

Besides it takes only one single TS in all the world to legitimise including some TS under the umbrella.

Besides i prefer the umbrella term: Sex and Gender Diversity. S&GD. Thats the one being used by the Australian Human Rights Comission and many others. It includes Intersex and Transsexual and Genderqueer and Crossdressers etc.

With the diversity in the very term. Not colonising, not erasing. Just people with related intersecting and interacting human rights and legislation issues.

and yet originally that was the meaning of the "t", I fought hard to get it added and now regret that greatly.

havasumoma you don't know me but the first and most egregious case of a child being abused by the system was the Aurora Lipscomb case. The child and her mother are still in hiding. They are dear dear friends of mine and I fought almost two years to get that child from children's services. They are regular guests in my home. (different last name now)

But then I'm a monster still right?

Assumptions, so much fun and games.

Nah, just the last couple weeks.

My love goes out to you. Thank you for sharing this hard story.

This is one of the most important and useful links I've ever found. http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1172.htm An article on Internalised oppression, it's effects on oppressed groups and most importantly on healing it.

Something I think every GLBT person could find useful in understanding others and themselves and in making the community and the world a better place.

If by progressive you mean "pushy", "condescending", and "abusive" then yes, this blog qualifies.

By the way, thanks for your "advice", I'm sure it will do us a world of good in dealing with men and others that push us around. What was that advice again? Oh yes, surrender.

So many women just love it when men tell us who we are, don't we sister?

Some notes:

First -- not bad.

1 - the brain development studies indicate a high probablity of such, but it is not uniform enough to be able to cast out as specific to all, and it happens to indicate that there is a high correlataion between transsexuals and other gender varinat folk.

You can determine that by studyng the samples used across the general set of studies involved. THey include d crossdressers, transvestites, and transsexuals of both sexes in differnet studies testing the general theory.

So its raely argued that this evidence isn't satisfactory for a physiological correlation. Indeed, in sum, it says that about the entire transgender spectrum.

2 - the so called "classic" transsexuals are not the only ones who suffer from that genital loathing. That's a general transsexual issue as a whole, including for people who are intentionally non-op (which is explicitly noted by Diamond, I should point out). I happen to be a strong proponenet of sex identity being used in favor over gender idnetity in general terminlogy (and am not alone if you reference the most recent IJT publication).

3 - It's not Money's Gender Identity theory that is criticized (indeed, he only contributed to it and most of the work came from other sources). It is his theory that its existence was formed in early childhood that has been consistently challenged and proven false -- not the gender identity hypothesis itself.

That is, Money was saying it was caused by how you were raised. That was the point the of the John/Joan case (Reimer).

So what was changed and challenged was not the notion of gender identity (which he, btw, called gender identity/role, and note was based in how other are expected to see one), but the notion of how it was formed.

Sorry, but its an important distinction and you misrepresented the work.

4 - The application of GIDNOS to IS folks is unrelated to the use of DSD as currently structured, and the horrifically cruel practice of involuntary infantaile assignment is an ongoing and separate issue.

5 - You are in for a rude awakening come the DSM-V -- it's not only still there, it's being reworked using a lot of the data you've discussed so far. And, again, GID, as described in the DSM and ICD, is NOT Money's idea nor his work.

6 - Again with the Arnold Lowman use. By the time that Prince was using the term, that was not the name, and thus you are speaking a falsehood that is disrespectful, unless you'd like to be referred to under your birth name as well.

I've already commented on the actual shift in the term's meaning.

Also, Hirshfield did not coin the word transvestite -- it has historical ue inthe same meaning long before he even was born. Also, remember that the conception of transsexual as it is today (inclusive of the distinctive varietals being discussed herein) is derived from his work, and he and Benjamin worked together for a while.

Had World War Two not been so bad for him, things may well have been significantly improved for us all today.

Note, as well, that it is not fair to say that transgender is a gay paradigm -- indeed, that's intellectually dishonest and downright decietful.

7 - No one other than the uninformed considers transsexualism (In any vareital) or even transgenderism as being a "homosexual issue". Or even a gay one.

The problem, of course, is the uninformed.

8 - As I said, not bad. Not bad at all.

javier,
Your disagreement with me were still respectful, unlike others. I have no problems with you.

It usually works that way, as well. After the big rush of personal attacks, the cooler heads come back in and it gets down to brass tacks.

One of the hardest things is actually sorta working out here right now, and that's allowing enough time and attention to get the entire "sides" thing talking to each other.

Its a lot of posturing and stuff, and there will continue to be flareups, but slowly at surely the two sides will begin to see a little bit more about each other -- and the good faith question will prove itself.

A huge amount of this is based in the interpersonal conflicts, but that's really secondary to the political aspects of the identity politics in play here.

AN excellent example of what I mean there is the use of the "but no one asked me" argument -- it ignores a fundamental aspect of identity politics, which is that the only people who will ascribe to an identity are those who fit it.

Of course they didn't get a letter asking them -- it's not an organized structure, is a collective movement that was formed by people who thought similarly getting together.

They don't understand that -- and the letter argument is an example of the kind of straw man that is used when people feel that a particular movement they are sensing an attachment to doesn't address their needs.

Once they feel like acting in good faith, there may actually be some movement.

But that is asking a lot of them.

And us, as well.

Even if they begin to act in good faith, their language and understanding of issues is narrowly focused and limited -- they mean something very different from their opponents when each side says transgender.

Those on "our" side need to be able to take some of those insults as they are delivered, and that's pretty hard to do when you are essentially being called an icky thing.

I've pointed out several times before that if one attends to the issues of transsexuals, one will solve a lot of the issues of the rest of the gender variant spectrum. Not all, but the most critical ones.

On the other hand, a few of them are excited in the mistaken notion that Gender expression "appears" to have been removed from the ENDA.

That they don't realize this is untrue is a whole 'nother ballgame.

LOL -- no need to explain it -- I also go by my birth name as written on my birth certificate.

I rarely get out of my regional area because of my disability so having met offline is unlikely unless you've been in New England Australia. And if you are ever in the area let me know.

But I've been very active online all over the place. You and anyone else here are welcome on my blog to discuss stuff or say hi.

Well now Evangelina, that's just it -- if you weren't displayig such traits, I would say it.

Try it sometime. Really.

The point you say is escaping everyone is, in fact, not true.

THere is an affinity.

And 25 years ago there were still three types of transsexual and three types of transvestite. All on a specturm *organized my Benjamin himself*. Years before.

I know, that's hard to believe that such was the rule in 1984, but there ya go.

So please, try to stay factual, if you don't mind.

Bevause sying there's no factual or medical affnity is a lie.

Thank you, however, for correctng your use of name. I may not have liked the person very much, but there's no cause to be that rude.

There were two forms of primary transsexual in Benjamin's book. Would you like the page numbers?

So what we really have are three generations of transsexuals who have no clue what they are talking about.

The flaw in your point is that I am a primary transsexual. And I am opposed to removing transsexual from beneath the umbrella. BEcause it was placed there by the same transsexual who took the term Prince coined and repurposed it.

You were aware of that, right?

So how do you propose to achieve that?

Your definition of classic transsexual is *narrower* than the medical defiition, and with no basis in current science -- nor previous, in fact.

I don't have a problem wiht how you identify -- but I will use adjectives to describe you when possible -- accurately even.

Here, on this blog, they are not speaking to you except when you are here -- they are quite content to let you speak to the issue on your own, while they speak for those who do not have a problem with it.

That's not why you are accused of bigotry and hate and transphobia, though, and saying that is deceptive falsehood.

You are accusd of such because the manner in which you do so also happens to demean those, such as myself, who disagree with you and are, indeed, still transsexuals, and even classically so.

Stop doing that, and you won't run into the issue.

And not just here. At your blogs as well, and in those forums. Because some of us read them and know what you are really thinking.

Cathryn (catkisser, Radical Bitch) has also lied through her teeth in the same way you have here.

And, again, she wasn't labeled such for that. Oh, and she's Bisexual, btw, which she notes here in this very thread.

Surprisingly common among transfolk, oddly enough.

Jasper is a unique individual, and I've not placed as much distance as I could -- indeed, I've gone so far as to comment on his blog. Which he even approved (though that was a bit of a surprise to me). SO a saved page is going to merely affirm my approach and sentiments (especially since they are right there on my own blog, a forum thread, and his blog, among other places).

Lastly, transgender, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, etc are adjectives. Transgender is not an insult. It is not an identity being foisted on you because identity cannot be foisted on anyone.

Bigot can be used insultingly, and may have been thusly, but not by me -- if you weren't being a bigot, you wouldn't be called one.

The same with the rest.

The dialog has already begun, as well. This is it.

Where it goes from here is up to all of us.

If there are no lies, I won't call them as such, If there is no bigotry displayed or similar issues, I won't note it as such. I'm exceedingly clear and consistent on that point.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with me or anyone else here, either.

But it does mean that you will treat us with the courtesy you would like in return, first.

And you will find, then, that I, for one, will grant you the same courtesy.

And here we have more lies from you.

You do not merely say you are different, Cathryn. That's a bald faced lie and extremely cowardly.

You say that you are different from all those other people, AND that anyone who differs from you is one of those other people; even people who are the same as you but hold differing views or differing life experiences.

You say that You are the authority on what is and what isn't X, and *that* is why you are called a bigot.

We have told you time and time again, you can go off and define yourself however you choose, and we are fine with it.

It's when you define us that we get all "uppity" with you. Because it is in the defining of us -- in your words and methods, that we can see that you do so out of such self loathing.

So that's another lie you tell.

You want the "some of us" -- which, let's face facts, is predominantly me, and you and I both know we are equally bitchy -- to stop calling you a liar, well you have two choices:

1 - Prove you aren't to the satisfaction of most folks

2 - stop lying.

Take your pick.

You've fought a ghost then -- there has been no colonization, only your own emotional state of mind.

You can find it offensive, Catherine -- but be aware that it can be correctly applied to you, and there's nothing that any of us can do about that right now -- write the MSM and the writers of the media guides if you want to change that. IT's more than merely an identity, more than merely a political tool. It is a noun and an adjective within the language of more people than merely the trans community.

I've come to dislike the term myself, and do not find that it is an effective identity -- but then, I've given identity up, and mostly because ya'll have helped to show me the weaknesses inherent in it.

Tranny is offensive to not merely a few folks -- even with in the community, and it's changed dramatically from just a few years ago -- don't whine that times change while we stand still.

I still call myself a tranny. But apply it to, say, ATG, and she'll have your heart on a plate with extra tabasco.

The only one saying you are identical to a crossdresser, Cathryn, is *you*. Which, if you had done a bit more effort in keeping up on your CE's would have told you lot's about your state of mind.

Your recap is fairly accurate to a point -- but hey, obviously it's always the worst possible result with you. After all, as you do elsewhere and Leigh's done here, my ASD is what pouts me on the same scale as the local mass murderer and, in your eyes, eliminates any validity to my words.

The fact that the major executives of the world's companies today also have it is irrelevant.

So your take away is of your own building, and doesn't accurately reflect the facts of the matter, but rather your own preconceptions on it.

And if you think arguing with radfems is more productive, go on and have at the AROOO gals.

You've got a lot in common.

You want respect -- I have a great deal of it for you, and haven't been reticent in pointing that out. But respect does not stop me from calling you out when you engage in such stuff as is here.

Indeed, I'm probably one of the few who opposes you so strongly herein that actually has any respect for you.

And unlike all of your allies who have posted here save one, I've not misgendered any of you. You have always all been women to me.

And yet, I can go to only two different blogs -- one of them my own -- and my own email to find many instances of ya'll doing such to me, and others.

And that's not even getting into Jennifer.

I wouldn't even care, either, if ya just observed some basic truths.

But then, I am reminded that in the eyes of your cohorts, I can't handle the truth -- indeed, you even said as much yourself in the whole secret stealth cabal of test havers.

So from one lone gal supporting a dying religion to another gal who's trying to get one reborn:

Have a great life.

and why on earth would I "debate" someone who's only tool in the tool box is continued baiting bordering on abuse?

At the point I call you such and you *don't* lie.

Well then, have a good day :)

That was a really great wrap-up, Phil. Thank you.

Thanks too for sticking you neck out on this issue.

It's a nice try, and go ahead and comment. But don't expect that your opinion carries more weight than those of the minority group you write about.

Now consider this hypothetical.

IF as other neurological variations like Autism suggest we should exoect and going by things on Zoe's blog one or more scientists studying TS predict, there are degrees of the neurological intersex phenomenon THEN how would that fit into your definitions and model? What symptoms would we expect to see from degrees of this?

What would someone with partial neurological intersex be like? Like a non-classical transsexual?

Would someone with a mild degree, or having it centred in a different brain region be like genderqueer people or crossdressers?

And what do you say to the neurological evidence that says gays and lesbians have cross-sex neurology but in different brain areas to transsexuals?

Are there studies on zoe's blog that you havent totally factored into your understanding of this phenomena?

I was so uncomfortable with my body that I remained a virgin until after I had SRS. Heck, I didn't even date until after SRS. I had surgery when I was 25. How many people wait until after their twenty-fifth birthday to date or have sex?

Dysphoric imperative? Yes, I experienced that.

Even so, I'm more than happy to join together with non-transsexual people to struggle for the right to live our lives unmolested by the prejudices of those who would happily do away with the lot of us. I embrace the moniker of transgender without the least hesitation because I value the notion of forming a coalition with a great diversity of people and sharing in a common struggle.

Many transsexual men and women share a similar perspective with me... as do many non-transsexual folk. That's something that you are just going to have to live with. There are men and women who know and understand transsexuality as deeply as you do and yet, they have chosen to embrace a common struggle with people whom you wish to remain politically and communally isolated from.

If you do not wish to join us, then do not do so. If you do not wish to work with a diverse group of people and think that such action is the heart of folly, then do not participate. It's as simple as that. We don't expect you to join. Go on your life's way, seek like-minded souls, and do what you think is right.

*raises a hand.*

I like this idea.

Aye.

It is a good idea.

That sounds reasonable to me.

I am a bigender, genderqueer, crossdresser. I'm Transgender.

I do not claim to be a woman or a man exclusively.

I do not claim to be transsexual. Nor do I claim everyone who is transgender is like me either. Nor do i claim that of everyone wh is transsexual.

I'm in a loving relationship with someone who is also like myself though whose birth genital anatomy is the opposite of mine, and thats totally incidental to why we are together. We are together because we love each other.

I'm accepted by my friends. My family. Even though for some its been a slow road for them. Heck the other day I came out on a miniature wargaming forum and was accepted, and found there was another transgender person there too. More and more peoples reactions are 'oh cool'. Or from many ciswomen lately 'I think transgender people are hot'.

I am a human being. With all the consequential human rights. None of which require me to fit other peoples classification of being a man or a woman.

Dyssonance gives direct quotes to back her point. Could you do the same for your own?

An etext link to specific pages would be ideal if possible from each side.

Holding to a personal belief as truth irrespective of evidence is fine in (some) theology, but useless in science and is totally unethical as the basis of a judgement of other people.

Refusing to reassess what you believe to be true and ignoring new evidence and new reasoning because it opposes what you have already decided on isn't bigotry as such (though often may result in it, e.g. the belief in the inherant superiority of white males etc) but it is definately willfull ignorance.

If what you believed was true yesterday is actually true today then it will survive the new data and new arguments intact without needing to be protected by dismissing them or brushing them under the carpet or blanketly refusing to take a second lopk.

Evaneglina,

It's fairly certain we wouldn't get along.

Check a current dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender

note that it is both an adjective and a noun, please.

My replies are not *always* a series of assertions. They often also include a series a questions -- always is rahter absolutist.

The questions are ignored, or dismissed. Avoidace in discourse is typically a sign of not wanting to really get into something.

As a clinician, you raise good points on the day and time of his creation of that scale -- but you misrpesent it when I demonstrate that

1 - there were three kinds of transsexuals, not two, in two groups -- one of which is nonsurgical, the other of which is two types, one of which may be non surgical

2 - That the same idea has held forth even today of there being a correlative linkage and similar source causation

At no point have I disagreed that there is a physiological causation.

What you may not have noticed is that I will defend your identity as a classic transsexual.

I will not defend, and in fact will oppose, your willingness to reserve that term from others who also identify as such.

When you step up and say "that person is not a transsexual", and they say they are, you cross the line.

You can say "I am a transsexual" and modify it by any adjectival modifier you want, and I have no problem with that.

ITs when you begin deciding for others that I have a problem -- and as a clinician, you are aware of the ethical issues surrounding doing that online or from a few moments of video as they are not representative.

Bigotry is not truthful, Evangelina.

And truth can withstand questioning, can provide answers.

Ah, of course, at this point, after I showed you exactly and precisely what he said, you still have to say he didn't. Even when it comes from your own source.

Reminds me precisely of some arguments using the Bible.

Gee, Aria, sour grapes much?

Thanks for proving my point about willful ignorance.

Then can you provide in-context quotes that say just that or statements to that effect?

All of which came from the *same* section I pulled my quotes from.

Indeed, mine *prefaced* it.

SO I'm not "reading into it" anything not already there.

And, furthermore, you admit that you cannot pull out such a quotation, and instead make an unprovable claim regarding the book as a whole.

This is a great synopsis Susan. I hope this clears everything up.

Your quotes back his definitition of one of his classes of transsexual. They are not saying they are unrelated to the other catagories!

As for genetics, the gene found so far to be more common in transsexuals still exists in the general population. Leading to the likelyhood that a combination of genes are involved and therefore a likelihood of DEGREES of the condition.

And then the Dick Swaab article.. but can you confirm or discredit the claim by a commenter of an interview with the same Dick Swaab mentioned on Zoe's Blog in the comments here http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/05/it-all-depends-where-you-are.html

Some quotes here:" "We only, by accident, hit on a little bit of it"

He also explicitly supported the idea that there is a biological causation for the whole range of gender identity variations:

"I think we talked about a scale like the Kinsey scale for sexual orientation – we should also have a gender identity scale. It is not either this or that; there is also something in between. The distribution will not be simple, but here will be people somewhere in the middle."

"So it is not the entire brain that is switching, it is some systems, and that may also be the explanation for the [gender identity] scale. Some systems do switch and others don’t and it depends on which systems have switched where you enter on the scale."
"

So, can these quotes be confirmed or discredited?

Can quotes be found where Harry Benjamin says there is no connection between his catagories?

Harry Benjamin had a point about people with no idea of biological sciences.

What about the evidence for cross-sexed brain variations in gays and lesbians? Does that not suggest that TS and GLB are variations of the same or related phenomena? And back to Zoe's blog for the links http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/06/brains-and-sexual-orientation.html

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/03/gay-chimerality.html

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/06/bigender-and-brain.html

So then whats the biological science and the biological scientists say again?

And where can it be clearly found direct evidence that Harry Benjamin held the views claimed for him, that these catagories were unrelated, as Dyssonances quotes say otherwise and the quotes you've given dont refute her claims thus far.

Because so far its sounding like his views are being missrepresented, presumably totally unintentionally. If he said what its being claimed he said then there should be sentences that can be quoted that makes that clear yes?

Although not germane to the questions that have been asked, it is an excellent overall examination of the book itself, although I find that since the dividing line as described in his book is inclusive of transsexuals (as he describes them) who do not have surgery, I am more inclined to say that the actual dividing line is hormones.

We have a quote attributed to Dick Swaab, not yet discredited as valid, that suggests the current science supports the notion. So we can't blame an old book for that.

And weren't non-ops included in the studies that came up with evidence FOR biological causation?

What this means if true is that the GRS (and i use that as the genital reconstructive surgery acronym) imperative is simply the strongest or one varient subset of those with a biological cause for being transsexual. And going by the non-op inclusion and Dick Swaabs attributed quote the rest of Transgender too.

Leigh, I have a probably terminal condition which makes GRS difficult. I have to weigh up the chances of 1. dying in surgery or
2. rapid decrease in health or
3. successful outcome.
And then find a cooperative surgeon.
Now, I'm a big girl,I know shit when I smell it, and whether or not your coterie want to label me a fetishist isn't going to affect my choices. Those without benefit of my advanced years may be more easily influenced in their surgical choices. 'Give me GRS or give me death' may make for a good rallying cry, but you're not the one who might be doing the dying.

And again with the ad hominems that do not prove any aspect of anything other than you found it distasteful.

It's a fallacy that any video I might produce, say, for example, the one here: http://www.dyssonance.com/?p=756 would have any direct bearing on the substantive arguments here, unless the argument was, in fact, that I am not a woman, or even a transsexual.

Since my Birth certificate does indeed state I am, unless you'd like the challenge the authority of the State of Arizona, you'd have a hard time proving it as anything more than strictly your opinion.

And, since it is opinion, you are quite entitled to such -- it does not, however, prove that I am not a woman, merely that you have the opinion I am not.

It might also prove that my opinion of the particular breakaway sect that has recently been said to be embarrassing to the general HBS movement (and to which you belong), is rather poor, and that I have personal issues involved.

It does not however, discredit the statements I've made here thus far, in terms of their truth or other factual concerns, and does not, in fact, directly address such.

Indeed, one could make the point that since I do have such evidence, I could turn to you, personally, and request that you provide evidence of a like kind.

At which point, things would unfair, and the primary conversation would be lost once again is series of interpersonal conflicts.

Ad hominems?

Seriously i thought we'd already established that those kind of logical fallacies were signs of lacking a real credible argument?

If your side can actually raise some valid arguments it might be a good idea to try rather than making your side look bad by just mudflinging in response to cogent reason.

Is your side of this so without evidence, so without integrity, so without validity that the only way it can be defended is with invective?

"it really has nothing whatever to do with gay issues"

Hello? Science has found cross-sexed neurology found in gays and lesbians. It's all on Zoe's blog let alone New Scientist and the like.

That means that being gay or lesbian are at least sister-conditions. Possibly even varients of the same cause!

Making the transsexual phenomena totally a gay issue and vice versa.

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/06/bigender-and-brain.html

"Striking similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women have been discovered by neuroscientists, offering fresh evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into our neural circuitry."

Science is revealing the connections. They exist. Deal with it.

In what way do they threaten you, Leigh?
Are you so insecure in your identity as a woman that their mere existence, their claim to the espirit feminine somehow cheapens your own?

Is this why a certain number of post ops are so threatened by women of any kind of history who fail to adhere to the old rigid caricature of a woman that Dr Benjamin defined decades ago?

Can you all please disengage? This whole incessant battle seems predicated upon inescurities that drive everything yet are never discussed.

Being respectful means things like not making ad hominem attacks right? But it doesn't mean letting fallacious arguments pass. There is a difference between the two.

As for doctors and scientists.. we have a quote attributed to one of the CURRENT experts who provides us with the measurable biological evidence for the Transsexual phenomena being biologically caused saying that the ENTIRE Gender Spectrum is likely biologically caused.

With the Australian 'Transsexual Gene' discovery and all the biological evidence thus far accrued including the cross-sex brain difference evidence found in Cissexual GAYS and LESBIANS (Just how does your side deal with that?) just applying the same tests on the broader transgender population in comparison to transsexual and totally cis groups in a decent comparative study will determine whether the same phenomena cause the lot. Proper EVIDENCE is what convinces scientists, and any doctor worthy of their title... sorry psychology but neuroscience always trumps you.

And as for the public, acceptance is spreading quickly. There is a generational tsunami heading for society. With support on such 'controvertial' issues like same-sex marriage in Australia at 75% of the new generation and it's even higher on federal GLBT antidiscrimination legislation. With indiginous people reclaiming the sexuality and sex and gender diverse traditions, with the human-rights principles totally in favour of S&GD rights (see the Yogyakarta Principles http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/ ) change is coming. And not predicated on co-opting transsexuals or neuroscience but on the new generation increasingly valuing personal truth and the freedom to be yourself.