Well, if you wanted to get some attention for your first post, this was the way to do it. People respond to someone who tells them that they, as a segment of the community, that they don't exist, that they're just delusional, and that you know more about their desires, identity, and neurology than they or the various organizations that deal with actual medical science do.

I'm sure others will go through your piece in more detail and pose some significant "Um, where's your proof? Like, at all?"s, but I wanted to ask the big one: why? If everyone's deluded about transsexualism/transgenderism (I don't see you making much of a distinction between the two), why? Is the conspiracy for money? Power? Because it seems like quite a vast conspiracy and quite a bit of wasted resources if the only reason it's happening is just to fuck with people's minds.

It reminds of those rumors of the "homosexual conspiracy" (comparisons between "rejecting" transsexuality and "rejecting" homosexuality will probably also appear later in the thread), and I'm always left wondering, if what we're doing is about convincing people we are who we are when they don't think we really are that way, that we're just perverted or whatever, then what's fueling such a conspiracy?

Because as much as you couch your argument in the language of liberation, it's anything but. Consider:

If a man wants to wear a dress or have long hair; if a woman wants short hair and a three-piece suit; if people want romance and sex with their own gender; who says they can’t violate these perfectly arbitrary taboos?

And yet your entire piece is about enforcing arbitrary taboos. There's nothing liberatory about telling a man who was born into a woman's body that he must be referred to with pronouns that deny who he is like "she" or that he can't get the medical attention he needs to live as who he is. Keeping someone from living their lives as they know they should because you have a negative reaction to thoughts of losing your "pecker" doesn't promote freedom. It's quite the opposite.

Oh, and about misgendering Jan Morris... class.

I can see what you're leading to, Ronald, but I don't think you've expressed it very well. Words about "peckers," "mutilation," and "deluded" send a very powerful message of rejection and derision and I don't think that was your point.

I think the basis behind your post is very queer liberation actually and it reminds me of contributor Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore's assertions that gender is too binary and our language isn't fluent enough to handle the vast middle ground between the two poles.

I can see your point that gender identity isn't based on genitalia and gender roles force into an either/or paradigm that should be avoided, but the basic fact that gender identity exists - that human beings tend to identify more with one gender or another - shouldn't be overlooked and dismissed so casually.

To the comments above, I'd just add this: what if "the body they've got," feels so foreign, so absolutely in conflict with who you truly are that it causes major depression and thoughts of suicide? In other words, what if other people's experience isn't the sort of casual conflict with heteronormative gender roles that you describe and is instead a deep anguish caused by the failure of your birth-assigned sex to match up with who you truly are?

What then? Or can you not imagine it because it's different from your own personal experience (which is the main thing I'm taking away from this post)?

Um, err, eh...

Wow.

Mr. Gold,

Thank you for providing an excellent reason why it is that trans issues consistently get overlooked, ignored, and simply avoided.

In one post, although you likely meant well, you managed to demonstrate a particular kind of thought pattern that is common among those who are older.

That its wrong on so many levels, and seeks to oversimplify something that cannot be made any simpler without loss of comprehension or creation of ignorance, is, well, sorta expected.

The conflation of sex and gender, the commingling of what was thought with what is known, past and future colliding here, now, in the ideas and ways you communicate.

I suspect it will get fairly ugly fairly fast -- be aware that the things you've said here are, quite literally, saying that transfolk are simply nuts.

But hey -- cheer up. You just solved an issue I've been having for a couple weeks.

Time to get writing...

Lucky for me, I did play with boys toys and girl toys, took the time to dress in both genders, and in general attempted to compromise and "accept" my cross-gender feelings in a way that let me continue being a man. Believe you me: we don't _try_ to become transgender, nor do we spend our time lauding some long-lost, inept aspect of socialization. My therapist, my doctor, and myself, upon reflection of these issues, decided that transition was a far cry better than suicide.

By your logic I could argue that homosexuality doesn't exist. Thankfully, I don't need to provide an example to prove my point, as NARTH, Love Won Out, and other virulently anti-gay websites have already done it for me: "homosexuals aren't really gay; they just didn't bond with same sex peers!"

Furthermore, I find it offensive, base, and argued from a position lacking logic, credibility, and emotional candor. Lacking any substance, you instead rely on the very model of gendered behavior you attempt to abhor to write off an entire group of people as being guided by psychologists into a gendered role. Your argument of "it's perfectly possible with the body you've got" is not only ignorant, it is transphobic; it is an attack on the very credibility of transgender diagnoses, and one that I take personally. People like you make it hard for people like me to get the care we _need_; despite your lovely pet theories, and despite my numerous attempts to compromise with the body I was born with, I still ended up a woman.

I fear that, excepting that you can provide proof for your posit, your argument simply does not hold water. I have more vibrant, acrid words I'd care to attach to this, but most aren't fit for printing.

Why did Bilerico let this piece run on an trans-inclusive website? Hell, I write for the thing and I _just don't get why we'd publish this._

Lol

Although I whole-heartedly disagree with much of what you wrote, Ronald, I do know what's heading your way now, and I feel for you in that regard!

Just as a preface to the sh*tstorm that will more than likely transpire bellow this comment, let me just say: welcome to Bilerico!

I saw in Bil's introduction of you as a new BP blogger that you were one of the leaders of the fight to remove homsexuality from the DSMs. From this post, I assume you will be leading the fight to keep gender identity in the DSMs. After all, we're delusional.

me thinks maybe ronald needs to read 'coming out straight' and some cuddle therapy to resolve his issues. since he got the answers for the whole 'trans' thing wrapped up, he can listen to another, who has got the 'gay' thing figured.

Wow, Ron! Just what the world needs: yet another person who feels compelled to loudly cry "I know that your experience is invalid (because it's not MY experience)!"

I sensed you were heading down the tubes when you describe the "two types" of transpeople: the "drag cartoons" and the "stuck in the wrong bodies." Believe me when I say that there are a lot of other ways of experiencing being trans.

I get what you're saying about loosening up gender roles so that ALL people might express themselves more freely. But trashing the existing labels/categories entirely is not helpful. It's downright offensive.

Are you sure you're not Janice Raymond in drag?

Wow. Just...wow. Rhetorical question: do you actually know ANY trans people? Did you talk to even one of us in coming up with your proclamation of what our lives mean? Because it's blindingly obvious that you don't get it. Your article's content is 90% stereotypes of trans people, with misrepresentation of our words and lives making up most of the remainder.

Somebody help me, I've been teleported back to 1980!

WOW, and your first post too,
a few more like this and you will quickly become redundant. if you are not already.

I'm curious as to what you'd say to the people who say "I have a penis but I'd like to have sex with my vagina instead." How, exactly, do you propose that this is "perfectly possible with the bodies they've got"?

I'll give you credit for one point: personality and gender are orthogonal. Gender is a social construct, and as such to speak of "transgender" is, at least from one viewpoint, to speak of a social and cultural maladjustment, not a personal one. I can see the arguments in favor of this, and I've been known to make them myself, often as a lead-in towards the deconstruction of the sex-gender connection. So, at least for this much, I can accept your comments.

However, having made the assertion that personality and gender are unlinked, you promptly dive into "transsexuality is an artificial construct" and "surgery is mutilation" without ever stopping to realize that just as personality and gender are unlinked, so too are sex and gender, and you blithely equivocate between the two in your post. A person may not only think, "I am being treated incorrectly in society" but "I am possessed of an incorrect set of physical sex characteristics," and this latter view has shown remarkable resistance to psychological therapy, to be nice about it.

I can't wait to hear how you tackle things like intersexuality, body-integrity identity disorder, and morphological freedom as a sapient right.

I also think that anybody who gave Austen any guff for her posts owes her an apology. This is almost exactly the kind of message that she said prompted her to write her views. From a narrowly-focused political assessment, this is about the worst possible thing that a popular GLBT site ought to be letting on its front page, because it endorses the rationalization of T-marginalization in support of the GLB movement, which is precisely what Austen was trying to call out as wrong, dangerous, and harmful. And now here it is, presented unironically by somebody who was just warmly welcomed to speak his mind in for everyone to see. Uncool.

You know, I'm glad other people above me were polite so I don't have to be.

Mr Gold, I invite you to step right off and confine yourself to topics you actually have an understanding of.

Besides, don't you know being gay was once considered delusional? Oh right, you do. Funny that.

But hey, at least I know I can ignore your "contributions" with impunity.

oh and by the way, 'phony medical model to invent a disease that doesn't exist'.. since when has being Trans a disease? could I be passing this disease to others? should I be quarantined? maybe a face mask?

maybe this disease is so bad my penis will fall off. (one could only hope to save that kinda money.)

Your views on gender are quite similiar to those of UK feminist Julie Bindel.

I am not just how sure that I am as far as accepting your entire decontructionist paradigm, aspecially the sweeping way that you dismiss the medical model on gender and nearly overtly de-legitimise the gender of women of operative history(some of whom are Lesbians and activist colleagues of mine).

You wisely stop short of doing so though, just short enough to maintain some kind of deniability.

Further in your rejection of the clinical sciences you stand proudly alongside of Paul Cameron and some of the more rabid and questionably sane members of the evangelical community.

I am left with the sick feeling that I've just read an arctile reducing the gender identity and legitimacy of women of operative history to play acting or delision, and have done so on an LGBT blog.

I hope that this is not the wave of the future on Bilerico.

A number of issues.

My first reaction was to thank Mr Gold for substituting his ideology for my narrative, so I don't have to form opinions of my own. He knows what I think, and tells me what that is. But to say that is too snarky. Not useful.

The second reaction, looking through the comments, was to be amazed at how few ad-hominem attacks there were. The level of politeness was high, and I hope that this continues.

The third reaction - just because someone's opinion is unpopular doesn't mean it's not true. Mr Gold's queer-theory ideology is an integral part of a substantial proportion of the GLB movement, so yes, Bilerico is justified in publishing it. It's one thing to have a "safe space", another to suppress competing views.

I think it's pretty safe to say that while his opinions may be widely-held in the circle he moves in, they're not shared widely here at Bilerico. And none of the people he's talking about share them. Though of course, by his thesis they're deluded so badly they mutilate themselves, so their opinions can be safely discounted.

The question though is not how popular his opinions are, but how true are they? If they're obviously unsound, we should be able to calmly and matter-of-factly refute them with evidence, not rhetoric.

I think the level of FAIL here is so great that it deserves a full article, rather than just a comment. Heck, it deserves a book.

I'll condense things though and post a separate comment as a preface, if you like. Starting with this comment, not by a psychiatrist, but an MD and professor of urology. An expert in anatomy, biology, and endocrinology:

We spoke for 2 1/2 hours on why cross gender identity was a normal inherited variation of humans. We showed how Transgender Brains think, smell, and hear like the opposite sex.

The fundamental issue is the boundary between the concepts of biological sex, gender role, and gender identity. Medical evidence shows that Gender Identity is part of biological sex based on physical measurements, while Queer theory insists that it must be part of Gender Role for philosophical reasons.

But to logically set out the reasoning to reach those conclusions, and to give the evidence, would, as I said, require a whole article. Not a short one, either.

I'll leave aside the morality of labelling some as "deluded" based on nothing more than a deeply-held philosophical belief system. A Faith-based set of beliefs of what *has* to be so, rather than what is. One thing we all have in common, Mr Gold included, is to be victims of that kind of thinking.

Alright, a few things to say about this.

#1) What you're doing here is inflammatory and horrid. You are completely disregarding and invalidating the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, along with a significant percentage of the readership of this blog.

#2) As a trans woman, I actually have to say that I agree with some of what you're saying. Personality is not male or female, and our arbitrary assignments of what is male and what is female is completely absurd.

But that doesn't mean that transsexuality is absurd as well, nor does it mean that there being male and female experiences in the world is absurd. The transsexuals you're describing here are stereotypes of trans people, and not at all representative of most transgender individuals.

Transgender people are every bit as complicated and nuanced as cis people in expressing and experiencing their genders, if not more so, and your post fails to even acknowledge this complexity. Your post fails to acknowledge feminine trans men and masculine trans women. Where does your analysis consider trans women that are extremely butch? Trans women putting on drag king performances?

You, and everyone else that spouts the nonsense that you've put out there today, are alienating a group of people that could be some of your strongest allies. Many trans people yearn for a world where there is less division between the genders and people are free to be themselves however they want. Every trans woman I've ever met fails to fit into the "I have to be a girly girl" mentality. They're skateboarders and rock climbers and martial artists and engineers and rocket scientists and mechanics and electronics geeks and DJs and on and on.

By your logic, we must have "male personalities," eh? And if that's the case, then what in your crazy-ass theory explains why people like us transitioned from male to female? If we were just going to keep being (or in most cases, start being) all rough and tumble tom boys, what was the point of transitioning? Where your's nice neat cis-privileged theory explaining that away, huh?

You're evaluating a situation from afar, looking only at stereotypes. If you actually ever talked to any of us, you'd find that we agree with a hell of a lot of what you're saying, when you're not completely ignoring our experiences and our realities.

#3) What the hell is a transphobic idiot like this doing posting on a trans-friendly blog?! This is absolutely disgusting drivel, inflammatory, and very very hurtful to a significant portion of your readership. I'm absolutely shocked to find this here. When I first saw it, I was convinced it *had* to be a joke, because there was no way that this site could ever let someone like this speak here.

#4) I really really really really really wish someone would start talking about some of the OP's ideas from a non-transphobic point of view. I think that the idea of gender liberation or post-gender societies or whatever goes hand in hand with transgender experiences and philosophy, and a good discussion where people weren't trying to tell us that our realities aren't real would be quite nice to have at some point.

Oh wow. I couldn't possibly know where to begin.

So I and all I know and have experienced are just silly.

If that's the direction this place wants to go, I can pack up my deluded or non-existent self and leave you to your more intelligent discussions.

Wait until tomorrow, ya'll.

Take the opportunity to educate, not excoriate.

(And ya know if *I* am saying that, then the excoriation is coming along later...)

Y'know, on the one hand, I can see where he's coming from as far as freeing one's physical presentation from culturally-imposed restrictions based on gender, but then he loses me completely because of his indulgence in distasteful, antiquated stereotypes to make his argument.

Mr. Gold, you may or may not have a valid argument to make, sir, but the way you present it is frankly offensive, and I doubt you're going to win many supporters here that way.

"Mutilated"? "Deluded"? Is that what you really think of us, sir? If so, what are you doing here, where we poor deluded and mutilated transsexuals hang out?

I'm sorry, I tried my very best to be objective about this post, but I can't help but find your manner offensive and frankly an example of the some of the very worst kind of anti-transgender bigotry I think I've ever heard from a fellow LGBT community member, and believe me, I've heard plenty.

Not the way to win friends and influence people here at the Bilerico Project, Mr. Gold. I hope your next post will be considerably more thoughtful and considerate than this one. I can't imagine how this one could be any less so.

It is unacceptable that transphobia is presented on any site, particularly a site that sells itself as LBGTQ. Given the policy listed below about "abusive" responses or "personal attacks," I wonder why the authors of these articles are not being held to the same standard. Gold's perspective is transphobic--it doesn't matter whether or not he understands that. The editorial team should monitor posts as it does responses.

In the context of this site, Gold's article is hateful. Imagine a different scenario: On an anti-racist site, if an author were to argue that people of African heritage are intellectually inferior or people of Asian heritage are inherently smarter at math, they would be kicked off the site. On an LGBTQ site, the authors need to demonstrate a keen awareness of the bigotries that their writings should be speaking against instead of being given free reign to articulate perspectives that are part of the systematic oppression of community members.

I request a response from the editorial board so that we can all make a decision whether Bilerico is a site we can continue to support, in whatever ways.

I'm sorry- let me get this straight. You've received awards in the field of journalism?

As someone who began doing freelance writing for my local paper at the age of 14, I'm appalled by your lack of journalistic integrity. Nothing about this entry shows journalistic skill.

See, here's the problem: When you write an article or an opinion piece, it's important to make sure you know what you are talking about. Even if you don't have access to publications, etc. there's this brilliant thing that has made life easier in terms of research; it's called Google.

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing posts from people who do not identify on the trans spectrum or seem to have any knowledge on the subject. You don't see me writing an article invalidating your gay male identity, do you?

I won't even go down the road of addressing your narrow view of your own community ("Isn't it true that those we form mated relationships with are always complementary - even polar opposites - to ourselves?")

Please educate yourself. There are these fantastic things called books which can help you in this endeavor.

I do not defend Mr. Gold's position, as it is based on false premises. More than enough people have stepped forward to refute his claims to make my additional rejection unnecessary.

I think we also need to have some compassion for Mr. Gold.

I would note that Mr. Gold grew up during a time when psychiatrists deemed gay men and lesbian women abnormal, treating them with electroshock and lobotomies to enforce gender stereotypes. All of us are appalled by people such as J. Michael Bailey, but imagine him with a cattle prod and a icepick, and a medical license to use it on you in 1950. Remember that there was a time in this country, within some of our lifetimes, when to be branded as gay meant being an outcast with no job and no home and no family.

The hatred of some of our LGBT rights pioneers for psychiatry has its roots in terrible abuses that were routine, and continue, though in diminished form, to this day. I reference Dylan Scholanski's excellent book, "The Last Time I Wore A Dress" for more recent manifestations. Psychiatry today is generally (though not always) a more benign profession. But I have compassion (though not agreement) for older people like Mr. Gold who remember when psychiatrists pushed some young people into sex reassignment surgery when it was not appropriate just to avoid the stigma, punishment and violence attendant on being gay. There are young people in places like Iran in similar positions even today. In Iran, I would like to set Mr. Gold free with a machine gun to free these prisoners of medical abusers.

I completely disagree with Mr. Gold's position. I question his place in this blog. I doubt his relevance to today's LGBT community. But I have compassion for him, and I hope and pray that he will use this experience to stop and think, and to learn something, about how the world has changed.

Like the Japanese soldiers who hid in the caves of Guam for decades after WWII was over, afraid to come out, Mr. Gold persists in living in a world that no longer exists. At one time it was brave and challenging to the status quo to say that men have the right to be feminine without needing surgery, and that psychiatrists abuse gay men and lesbian women by forcing sex reassignment on them. That time is long past, vanquished in part by Mr. Gold's brave efforts. That is part of what makes deriding Mr. Gold's post so bittersweet. The hero who could not stop saving people, even against their own will.

Come out, come out, wherever you are, Mr. Gold

While I don't normally read Bilerico anymore because of the repeating transphobia (and Bil Browning's appropriation of the Virginia Tech massacre), people should remember that this is the same Ronald Gold who was part of the NGTF/NGLTF whole "We're just like straight people" push and he worked to keep "Drag" (a word that used to include trans people years ago) out of Pride parades in the 1970s. While we could hope that he would have improved since then, it's not like the attitude expressed in this article is new. It's completely consistent with his view of acquiring and recognising the rights of a few "straight-acting" gay people at the expense of others.

When I saw in his introduction Mr. Gold was one of the ones who led the process to remove homosexuality from the DSM, I was encouraged by the thought he might have a unique perspective on the current GID/DSM situation. I could not have been more wrong.

After reading his post and the ensuing comments, two things are painfully obvious: 1) Mr. Gold knows absolutely nothing about transgender issues and 2) Out of 60-odd comments NOT ONE agrees with him (this one included). As someone said, with friends like him, who needs enemies?

Much of what needed to be said has been said before me and it would be redundant of me to repeat it. The fact is Mr. Gold's post appears to be nothing more than an expression of his hateful, negative (and obviously uninformed) feelings about the transgender community in general. It it nothing more than transphobic hate speech and should have never been posted here at Bilerco.

I have never been so insulted and disrespected as a person by an "allegedly" trans-friendly site. The reactions and response will determne whether or not I will continue to read and contribute here. Thank you.

Posts like Mr. Gold's actually make it difficult for people like me to feel like they can contribute to a site like Bilerico. I would urge a hasty repudiation by the Bilerico editorial staff of Mr. Gold's statements. It's one thing to have differing opinions, and I understand that Bilerico is a forum on which we are asked to agree/disagree/debate. But it is also supposed to be a safe space. And that cannot be accomplished with virulently anti-trans language exhibited above.

Posts like Mr. Gold's actually make it difficult for people like me to feel like they can contribute to a site like Bilerico. I would urge a hasty repudiation by the Bilerico editorial staff of Mr. Gold's statements. It's one thing to have differing opinions, and I understand that Bilerico is a forum on which we are asked to agree/disagree/debate. But it is also supposed to be a safe space. And that cannot be accomplished with virulently anti-trans language exhibited above.

For discussion sake I'll assume Mr. Gold is correct in his posting. How does he propose to change the minds of over six billion people on earth who believe people tend to feel they are male or female? He'll also need to ensure laws are revised world-wide to accomodate his beliefs. The major world religions will need to be revised to accomodate his viewpoints also. Every employer on earth will need to be advised to get on board with the new paradigm as well.

Oh wait - reality check: it ain't happening folks! So even if he's right hypothetically Mr. Gold is wrong from a practical viewpoint. Unless he is God. If he is, my apologies.

I want to personally ask everyone here please to not judge the entire site by this one post. You know we value free and frank discussion here, as evidenced by this very discussion and many, many, others.

Regardless of whether you're new here, been around a while, or have come back just to post on this after having been absent for a while, I'd ask of you this one consideration:

We have over seventy different contributors here, posting on a wide variety of topics. This is a single post by a single contributor, albeit a pretty upsetting one to be sure. Please don't judge the entire site and all of us who contribute to the Bilerico Project by this one post.

We want your voices here, both when you're in support of what you read here and when you're enraged by it. To me, it's the wide diversity of voices and opinions that makes TBP great and damned proud to be a contributor here.

This post is getting exactly the reaction it deserves because you are here, right now, reacting to it. Please, keep doing precisely that, and keep coming back and doing it, whenever you have something to add to the discussion and to any discussion we have here.

In short, we need you all and we want you here. Don't allow a single offensive post to harm a great community. Instead, let's use it to make our family here at TBP even stronger.

Please?

Thanks for listening.

You keep believing trans people are delusional and I'll keep believing marriage is only between a straight woman like myself, and a straight man.

Bil,
This makes a lot of fucking sense. You have constantly denied me a chance to be a contributor because I'm too "controversial," but you bring on a transphobic person whose first post trashes the very concept of transgenderism. Great. Compared to Ron, I'm Mary Poppins.

Dear Mr. Gold -

You appear to have, inartfully, and in the most backward way possible, argued that gender is a social construct, and that we ought not to consider transgenderism to be a psychopathology.

These are the only two premises you put forth with which I might agree. For example, if you will follow this link:

http://www.revolutionizeyourgender.com/2009/10/stick-it-to-the-gender-system/

You will find some stickers being sold by a brother of mine, asserting that group think creates gender. Furthermore, just as you yourself pushed to have homosexuality removed as a psychopathology from the DSM, so would many transgender activists such as myself have the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder removed.

That being said, As both a post-operative FtM transsexual, and formerly, an award winning drag king, I must not only assure you that I exist, that the two classes of transgender people that you cite are not mutually exclusive, but that you have actually managed to exclude the majority...and in so doing, revealed your near total ignorance on the subject.

Furthermore, I must point out to you that in placing the word transsexuals in quotes, you have violated the current GLAAD media reference guidelines...of which you yourself wrote the first edition. As such you article comes off not only as bigoted, but as hypocritical.

Yours in the True, Trans, Spirit of Stonewall,
J D "Ox" Freeman
President
Alabama Gender Alliance

Dear Mr. Gold -

You appear to have, inartfully, and in the most backward way possible, argued that gender is a social construct, and that we ought not to consider transgenderism to be a psychopathology.

These are the only two premises you put forth with which I might agree. For example, if you will follow this link:

http://www.revolutionizeyourgender.com/2009/10/stick-it-to-the-gender-system/

You will find some stickers being sold by a brother of mine, asserting that group think creates gender. Furthermore, just as you yourself pushed to have homosexuality removed as a psychopathology from the DSM, so would many transgender activists such as myself have the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder removed.

That being said, As both a post-operative FtM transsexual, and formerly, an award winning drag king, I must not only assure you that I exist, that the two classes of transgender people that you cite are not mutually exclusive, but that you have actually managed to exclude the majority...and in so doing, revealed your near total ignorance on the subject.

Furthermore, I must point out to you that in placing the word transsexuals in quotes, you have violated the current GLAAD media reference guidelines...of which you yourself wrote the first edition. As such you article comes off not only as bigoted, but as hypocritical.

Yours in the True, Trans, Spirit of Stonewall,
J D "Ox" Freeman
President
Alabama Gender Alliance

Mr. Gold, I am struggling to understand many of your points. Your article opens with a question: “what is transgender?” The answer you provide, a dichotomy between drag performers and transsexuals, I think falls far short of the diversity of gender expression within the transgender term (ignoring cross dressers, gender queer, etc). Why did you choose to reduce the discussion to this?

You then ask the question: “What does it mean to be really a man or a woman? “ Immediately, you dismiss the idea that it has to do with genitalia. This is an interesting contention, but you don't explain why you think it is true. Would you be willing to explain this point in more detail?

You then ask: what is a male or a female personality? The answer you provide is that such things don't exist, and quite reasonably point out that gender stereotypes do not explain the diversity of gender expression. But then you claim that transsexuals simply don't feel comfortable within the gender stereotype assigned to them, and that they simply need to be aware that its okay to express gender differently.

I guess that last sentence is the heart of your article, and yet you offer no evidence to support your contention. Your claim is at odds with the statements made by most transsexuals I have read. And, not surprisingly, many here are objecting to what you wrote.

Mr. Gold, I think you will find that a large number of Bilerico readers agree with you that gender stereotypes are unnecessarily constricting and even harmful. And many will agree with the idea of “gender-full” parenting, offering children role models who live a wide variety of gender expression. But I don't understand why you think transsexualism is simply about gender stereotypes. Would you be willing to develop this idea more?

As a scholar and advocate on psychiatric policy defamation of gender diversity, I have cited Mr. Gold's activism on the DSM classification of homosexuality and have admired his contributions in the 1970s. However, words cannot express my disappointment and outrage at the intolerance and contempt for gender transcendent people that he expressed here today.

Bilerico:

The more I think about this post, the more it makes my blood boil. I'm not offended that assholes like "Mr. Gold" exist. I've gotten my fair share of trans haters in my life, treating me like absolute shit because of this stuff. No, I'm offended that you, as supposed transgender allies, would allow someone to come here and post something *THIS* offensive, hurtful, abusive, triggery, disgusting, bigoted, and evil.

Rational and reasoned discourse on the nature of transsexuality and transgender people is valuable and good. Questioning the foundations of gender is good.

But derisively calling us "deluded" and "mutiliated" and everything else. Talking about trans people as two dimensional parodies of gender? I'm sorry, but with how much shit I've had to deal with, I do *not* need this. If you do not retract this post and apologize PROFUSELY for allowing such hate speech to exist here, I will have to stop reading your blog. If only because I really am not interested in hearing my abusers' justifications for the trauma they've heaped on me coming from my so-called "allies."

The Epic Fail of this article can best be illustrated by an analogous quote:

Perhaps it isn't needless to say that a No to the notion of "sexual orientation" does not excuse discrimination against "gays" or "lesbians" in employment, housing and public accommodation; and I strongly support legislation that would forbid it. I would, however, get after the psychiatrists - the ones who say that if you're an effeminate male, you have to be perversely sexually attracted to men, and if you're a butch woman, you have to be sexually attracted to other women.

Such a quote is exactly analogous to the misconceptions, misunderstandings, and completely bogus assumptions embedded in this article.

I find that those who hold to Mr Gold's theory are in general unwilling to try an experiment: try living as the opposite sex, but the same gender. No need to change your gender role in the slightest. Keep exactly the same behaviour patterns as you do now. Just take hormones, and get castrated. It shouldn't make any difference, after all.

Hi there Mr. Gold and welcome. Looks like you stepped in it with your first post and if that was your intent you scored an A+. If it wasn’t opps you failed. As they say with friends like these who needs enemies.

I hear Scott Lively's looking for a podium.

Welcome Mr. Gold.

I'm so glad you posted this. It is a perfect example of the willful ignorance regarding trans experience that some older generation individuals both gay and str8 hold and espouse even today. Thank you for becoming a lightning rod which so aptly illustrates all that is patently wrong with your and similar attitudes. This denial of our reality is one main reason ENDA has not yet passed. It contributes to the reasoning and action behind the denial that refused a young transwoman in Florida a job with McDonalds along with many other job discrimination actions across this fine country. It is the reasoning behind the refusal of so many insurance companies to fund necessary sex reassignment surgeries for transpeople. It is also the reason why so many conflate Trans identity and the GLB experience.
I leave you with this thought, "Ignorance and close-mindedness are not virtues".

Valerie
Post-op and living large.

PS if you would like to learn more about us so you can form a truly open mindset this is one place you can do it.. but first you must be silent and feel the "Force", young padawan.

Who the hell asked you, Ronald?

You don't get to vote or pass judgment about whether or not Gender Identity Disorder exists, or if any individual identifies him/herself as any particular stripe of trans. You would never dare tell anyone else that they weren't entitled to name themself or their identity.

Given your experience with how media works, you knew damned well that calling Ms. Morris "he" would be inflamatory and insulting, yet you did it anyway. Gay men used to be dismissed by bigots who would misname their gender. But I guess as long as it isn't your ox being gored, it's okay. And I'm glad you're happy with your "pecker", but that doesn't mean everyone else has to be happy with his or hers.

Everyone else, please stop citing Gold's age as a reason for his ignorance and his arrogance. I was a gay activist in the 70's and I get it. I literally know 90 year olds who get it. Personally, I thought Gold was long since dead because it's been decades since I heard anything about him contributing to the GLBT equality movement. But that doesn't mean he is so old that he should be given a bye for prejudice.

One good thing about an unintelligible and unsupportable argument - you don't have to support it with any type of thoughtful or sensible argument. Why was this dribble published?

"it's perfectly possible with the bodies they've got. If a man wants to wear a dress or have long hair; if a woman wants short hair and a three-piece suit"

I'm in complete support of men wearing dresses or women wearing three piece suits, and any other deconstruction of the gender binary, however this completely misses the point. I'm not transgender because of the clothes I wear. I'm transgender because of the internal sense of gender I have always felt.

If this type of thinking is promoted at this site, I will seriously question whether I wish to read or contribute here any longer.

This post is backwards. There aren't any cisgender LGBs. All gays are transgender to varying degrees. "Cis gay" is a term coined by trans activists to create a schism amongst gays. There should be a post challenging that. This blog post is just useless crap.

OK, I think Mr Gold has gotten the message that his opinions are not shared by many here.

They are, however, held by a substantial part of the GLB movement. Not a majority, a distinct minority, but not exactly a tiny minority, a very vocal one that has access to media outlets trans people are denied. Unlike similar sentiments uttered by Focus on the Family etc, these groups are relevant to Bilerico's mission, and should not be excluded.

Just because the ideas are unpopular doesn't mean they should not have been expressed. Monocultures where everyone thinks alike are prone to go astray. Our most cherished ideas should be able to withstand a little challenging if they're so very correct.

Maybe I'm so used to being gang-attacked by all other commenters on religious and right-wing political sites that I have some sympathy for Mr Gold here.

The two things in the article though that I think do deserve extreme condemnation, are the deliberate misgendering of Jan Morris, and the reference to the "mutilation" of the "bodies of the deluded". This wasn't expressing a contrarian opinion: this was disrespect. The second might be dismissed as an unfortunate and undiplomatic turn of phrase, with no easy way of expressing the idea in a more palatable fashion.

The first though was the insult direct, and puts the last line in a very different light. The article violated the Bilerico TOS here.

I wish Mr Gold well with his future contributions. Look at it this way, there's nowhere to go but up from here. And I hope that commenters will evaluate each future article on its merits, and not be overly influenced by their opinion of the author as the result of his.... "violation of the TOS" to put it politely.

Bilerico editors have now added a note claiming that calling us deluded was with "positive intent". Who's deluded now?

Holy shit! What the hell were you thinking when you submitted this?

Mr Gold, where have you been all these years? How have you remained so stuck in your antiquated thinking with all that has been learned and accepted regarding the trans community these past few decades? I am a transsexual woman who tried her damndest to remain in her former body and role until the real possibility of death pushed me to a physical transition. You dare to speak for me? To define me? To negate my very existence?

I'm grateful this blog prominently lists authors with their pictures at the top of their contributions. That'll make it easy to ignore Dr Gold's future blathering. Any and all credibility and respect I may have had for the man because of his past has evaporated with one articel.

Does this mean anything?

Your participation in online communications occurs in real time and is not edited, censored, or otherwise controlled by Bilerico Media, LLC. Bilerico Media, LLC cannot and do not screen content provided by users of the Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Bilerico Media, LLC reserve the right to monitor content on the Service and to remove content which Bilerico Media, LLC, in their sole discretion, determines to be harmful, offensive, or otherwise in violation of these Operating Policies. In order to maintain an informative and valuable service that meets the needs of the users of the Service and avoids the harm that can result from disseminating statements that are false, malicious, violate the rights of others, or otherwise harmful, it is necessary to establish the following rules to protect against abuse:

You may not post or transmit any message which is harmful, threatening, abusive or hateful. It is not the Service's intent to discourage you from taking controversial positions or expressing vigorously what may be unpopular views; however, Bilerico Media, LLC reserve the right to take such action as it deems appropriate in cases where the Service is used to disseminate statements which are deeply and widely offensive and/or harmful.

Gold's views are not "unpopular" or "controversial". They're harmful, deeply and widely offensive, abusive, and hateful.

Why is this allowed to stand? Why is TBP hosting transphobic hate speech?

There is too much to address here, but let me begin with one clear point that has gotten less attention but Ronald should be aware of. Gender non-conforming behavior is different from being trans. Surely we can all see that there is a different between being a woman with short hair and being a man with short hair. And when you want to be recognized as one, the opportunity to be seen as the other is very little comfort.

Secondly, did you honestly post this with positive intentions? This is trite, shows utter ignorance of trans experience, is horribly maliscious and hurtful. Your continued silence in responding to any of the criticisms here also belies the possible intention of engaging in honest dialog.

Third, I too am frustrated at the editorial choice to do the education after this post went up rather then before. If you don't want to censor people, you can still delay the post, have a conversation about the issue, and suggest that they post about a topic they know something about. I am very doubtful that ANYTHING a contributor posts would be put through. What if someone advocated killing the babies of homophobes?

Would a post that was as anti-gay as this post is anti-trans -- such as regurgitating the debunked arguments NARTH makes -- be posted? I somehow doubt it.

I am *literally* feeling sick to my stomach after reading the nonsense defending this disgusting hateful abusive and horrible piece of filth.

Goodbye.

Ronald Gold,

Both as a transsexual and as an experienced writer, I believe that this post shows that you are clearly (and embarrassingly, in my opinion) overstepping the boundaries of your personal experience and education. The thoughts presented in your post are so unfounded, enraging, naive, juvenile, amateurish and hateful that I won't even waste my energy responding to any of them specifically. I just will say that I am deeply disappointed to see your entry on this site and that I am not happy at all to have you aboard as a fellow Bilerico Project blogger.

Also, who the hell are you calling deluded?? Where do you come off talking to me and other trans people like that?

This is the most offensive post I have ever read on the internet.
I request that the editors immediately remove this post, which I believe is Hate Speech. I am concerned that the result of the staying on here even part of one day is another one of my sisters or brothers being murdered or suiciding, if not today, some day soon.

This is not worth discussion. If the editors of Bilerico don't recant their flimsy response that I saw recently, and put up a completely different one, coupled with the removal of this post, I will be likely to never peruse Bilerico Project again.

I am disappointed in humanity tonight.
Do you care what you are doing, editors? Shall we send you the next obituaries of transgender deaths? You are participating by your clearly inappropriate choices here today.

How tragic, and uninformed, dear editors. How about you try substituting words Gay Lesbian Bisexual or Intersex for where Mr. Gold mentioned transexual concepts. Can you really be this stupid? And I don't use that word lightly.

I firmly request that the entire post be eliminated, and a sensitive apology and educational piece on hate speech be substituted.

Allowing this type of psychologically violent speech on your site is beyond a difference of opinion, it's beyond tragic. yes these are strong statements, why do I worry that you aren't smart enough to understand your mistakes, editors and Mr. Gold?

Editors, I am waiting for Mr. Gold's piece to be removed and replaced with the most accurate and respectful piece on hate speech in the LGBTIQ communities that you can muster.... and FAST. This is not appropriate or acceptable use of your site.

Clearly, the editors of this blog, and Mr. Gold have not truly loved someone who is transgender before. It would be impossible to love transgender people, and accept this article.

Got therapy? And some smart mentors?

My personal thoughts on the matter:

http://www.dyssonance.com/?p=894

I want to make it clear:

The editorial team here is still very much trans friendly and affirming and tolerating and accepting and all the other stuff we talk about. They get it -- as they indicate in the earliest comments here (Alex's in particular).

Bilerico has more trans contributors -- members of the site who post as a part of the team -- than any other site out there.

Mr. Gold's post certainly doesn't reflect the team's ideas, since the team here includes a lot of transfolks.

Including me.

As for Mr. Gold, in the morning, there's going to be a post to help you understand that your need for education is a lot greater than you realize.

I have spent the day defending you because I'm aware you were trying to do something positive. You likely aren't very aware of me, so you don't know just how hard that was for me.

That was your one time, sir. Please don't screw up this badly again.

And please take the time to learn before you speak to a subject you are uninformed on.

I found Ronald Gold's comments to be rather boring and not surprising. Until I did a little research I wondered if he was a Scientologist due to his extreme dislike of Psychiatrists.

What really gets my blood boiling though is not his post- but the repeated comments of people on this site trying to silence him and call Bilerico anti-trans because of this post.

Whenever I hear someone try to shut down a conversation by saying "I'm offended" that's when I get angry. Safe conversations rarely lead anywhere- its only when we get beyond the safe and dig down into the weeds and really hear where people are coming from that we can all learn something.

There are times when I have been offended by what people say and sometimes I can't take it- so I leave the room, or close the computer down.

But to try and silence a conversation because you are offended, doesn't mean the ideas or substance disappear.

This post was rather timely for me, as I was at a holiday party over the weekend, where transgender issues came up and someone brought up the "mutilation" comment. A really open-conversation happened, where I think some real listening and learning happened- if someone in that situation had said, "I'm offended" the conversation would have been shut down- and no dialogue would have happened and no attitudes would have changed.

Whether we want to believe it or not, there are folks out there who believe that GRS is mutilation. To me having that conversation is important- I've never seen a mind change when it was closed.

I don't believe Ronald is in the place unfortunately to move beyond where he is - but maybe there are other people reading this that have similar thoughts - who would benefit from a place to have that conversation.

Instead we are seeing a predictable, I'm offended take this post down comments from people - shutting down a conversation.

There are plenty of times I come to this blog and read stuff that offends me - and if every time I demanded a post be taken down because it offended me, well there wouldn't be much here.

LOL, how manyy licks of Bilerico does it take until you get to the center of the issue? Bilerico isn't transphobic, they're concerned with comments/visits! Bang! They win... and really, you know you'll be back tomorrow.

I don't want to pile on Ronald for a flawed and offensive post or the editors for questionable judgment, so I won't add fuel to the fire.

Perhaps this is a good time to take a deep breath and remember that we cannot see into the depths of anyone's heart to judge, and none of us were ever born completely and perfectly sensitive to every injustice in society.

We are all allies.

If you want to know where changing cultural views leave transsexuality, ASK A TRANS PERSON!

Speaking for us, with your uneducated opinion, us reeks of privilege and intolerance.

I was raised by liberal parents who emphasised to me that guys can be feminine, and girls can be tough. So why am I trans? Please, allow me, the trans person, to answer that.

For whatever reason (my dr suspects xx/xy chimerism but we've not been able to test it), my brain "knows" I am the other sex... just as, with my eyes closed, it "knows" that I have two arms and two legs, it "knows" what's between my legs... only it wasn't at birth. As a child, I came across a PBS show about War vets suffering from "Phantom Limb Syndrome". *THAT* is what I identified with, much to my confusion, in grade school. I could care less about the stereotypes associated with the other gender and no degree of fluidity in gender expression could even resolve it.

I found Mr. Gold's highly ignorant comments no more highly ignorant than another recent post at Bilerico (also by a gay cisperson) which positively glowed about Simon LeVay, a "scientist" who also has some absurdly unfounded opinions about transwomen. And as I recall, some of the people who run Bilerico actually wanted to approach LeVay to write for them, even though they could have found out in 5 seconds how horrific his relationship with transpeople has been. Just because one has been an activist in one part of "the movement" doesn't mean you have any entitlement to spout nonsense about something you're of which you're woefully ignorant. It reminds me of William Shockley, a brilliant physicist who was known for inventing the transistor. Unfortunately, he thought this somehow qualified him as a commentator on the subject of eugenics and racial intelligence (with some incredibly racist opinions). Before you open your mouth again Mr. Gold (or some of the other cis "trans" experts at Bilerico) I suggest remembering WIlliam Shockley.

Saying "no" to the notion of Gay!

We've seen scientiic evidence of cross-sex neurology in Gays and Lesbians and Transsexuals. This was not just relating to brain functions in sex acts.

Therfore there is no such thing as gay or lesbian! Merely different kinds of Intersex just like Transsexuals. And when the rest of transgender gets tested, not just drag but also crossdressers genderqueer and others of us you seem totally ignorant of, they expect the pattern will remain.

Like that mate? I just rendered your entire identity an illusion, a lie. Hurt? Then don't do it to others!

But see it gets worse, cause I didn't make up that stuff i just wrote. There really is evidence of cross-sex neurology in gays and lesbians.

I personally am a MtF bi-gender/genderqueer/crossdresser. My girl/boyfriend is a FtM bi-gender/genderqueer/crossdresser and neither of are cartoonish parodies. And I have friends who are transsexuals. And definately not deluded (didn't you hear they've found one gene more common amongst TS than the general community btw?).

Rebecca, you claim with over 70 contributers, there is going to be a diversity in point of view and not everyone will agree but can you point to even one of those 70 who EVER posted that gay men are deluded straight men who have just been brainwashed into being gay?

Which one of those 70 folks who is a lesbian claim to know what types of gay men there are and who are the real ones? Can't remember ever seeing those articles. Will Mr. Gold next tell us that Queer POCs aren't really POC or colour because he know that that's just a social construct.

Finally, I am a straight non-transgender women and even I know that just as the range of gender expression and presentation varies hugely with both straight and queer people so too does that same variety and range exist with transgender people.

The only one that seems caught up is stereotypical gender behavior is you. There are butch transexual women, genderqueer androgynes, high femme gay transgender men and so many genders and lack of genders that you can't even imagine. They all exist and will continue to exist no matter how many fearful people spread lies and hate about them under the guise of discussion and discourse.

The only person who is delusion is Mr. Gold if he thinks he has even the smallest understanding of transgender expression and identity and even less that he thinks that as non transgender guy he has any right to pass judgment or have any validity.

Mr. Gold, shame on you. you sully your own name and history with your own fear based behavior. You do know that while you claim transgender people do not exist, every day transgender people even those who identify as being straight are being murdered because people who think like you, think they are gay men or women. These transgender people are dying as much from straight hate as from the hate from within community that claim to call them brothers and sisters.

Bilerico, shame on you for having zero tolerance for gay hate speech but allowing trans hate speech. Check your privlege. you can not claim to be a safe space for all LGBT people and then publish hate speech and if you can't figure out telling someone they don't exist and delusion, then your english is even worse than mine.

sorry if my english is not best but my passion is true.

QUOTE: Editors' Note: All posts published on Bilerico Project do not reflect the opinions of nor any endorsement by the Editorial Team. Many Bilerico readers and contributors have found Ronald Gold's op-ed offensive or needlessly coarse. The idea behind Bilerico Project is to encourage dialogue among different facets of the LGBT community that might normally never interact this intimately. We encourage all readers to continue responding to Mr. Gold in the same spirit his post was written - with positive intent while bluntly stating your own opinion and experiences. UNQUOTE

Sounds like a cop-out to me; also I fail to see the 'positive intent' behind this post, as I'm sure no one here would defend a family disowning a gay son because they claim to 'have the best of intentions' for doing so. If the 'positive intent' is to allow this rotter to denounce and make slurs at an already repressed minority group, then congratulations Bilerico! We look forward to more shite posts from Mr Gold and absolutely no apologies from either the writer or the people who allowed this to be posted (as I'm sure that's how this is going to go..)

It's so typical for gay males with the privilege of blending into straight society to paint themselves as woeful victims in an oppressive system; all the while our legitimacy as a transgender community is put into question-- why I wonder, to further the gay movement by distancing yourself from us? All of the arguments made against having a transgender identity are the same arguments made by those opposed to homosexuality. They are all pathetic and unfounded.

I knew at age five that I was a boy despite my birth certificate saying 'female'-- I referred to myself as a boy, peed standing up, was only friends with boys, interested in action figures, hot wheels, etc. Not typical little girl behaviour if you ask me. It has always been obvious to myself, my family, my friends, to everyone that I am more masculine; I faced resistance for that but it didn't change the fact. Sure my parents bought me dresses and Barbies, signed me up for ballet and that like, but I hated those things. At age fourteen I came out as transsexual and began to see LEGITIMATE, COLLEGE-EDUCATED therapists who told me that what I was feeling was the result of a genuine physiological problem. I have since had bloodwork done which shows that I have MALE chromosomes, not the female ones which you hypocrites and the conservative right tell me I am supposed to have by nature. I knew I was a male long before I knew I had male chromosomes, yet Mr Gold has the gall to tell me that I am delusional for being transgender? Ah sweet hypocrisy! This is as legitimate a form of being as 'gay' or 'lesbian' is- in my case there is even a clear, obvious medical reason to show this.

What it basically came down to for me was "make society happy but be miserable, play a societal role into which you have never fit, ignore the fact that you have breasts" OR I could be honest and admit that socially and physically I am happier and better adjusted as a male. By-the-way I have never identified as a lesbian, I have an awesome boyfriend (not trans, so he must be a sicko for being with me) and my boyfriend is the one who wears the eyeliner in the relationship! So much for you and 70% of idiot society's rigid stereotyping of all transgender people. We're all either perverts trying to get into the women's restroom or confused gays ashamed of our natural sexualities, make up your minds people! Nevermind that you have zero medical training or real knowledge on the subject, nevermind that all of your opinions come from whatever you just gone done absorbing from an ill-informed media.. we transsexuals have all got this grand scheme going to confuse you into believing we're the opposite gender so we can either coerce you into sex or get attention for ourselves; truly the arguments against the 'notion of transgender' are getting stale and weak fast, what with all the contradictions and short-comings where evidence is concerned.

I agree with everyone else who posted that on a supposedly LGBT-friendly blog never in a million years would anti-GAY posts spouting rubbish to defame THEIR cause be allowed to be posted. Such is life, let's cater to the free-speech of such bigots as Ronald Gold instead of considering the feelings of an easy-to-target minority. I don't believe in blocking a discussion, but I do believe that with just about every other 'news' source making a target or a joke of trans people it is very inappropriate for a 'trans friendly' blog to even permit this.

Note from Bil: Please see my post about this op-ed - My Responsibility: The difference between "challenging" and "offensive"

Can we PLEASE get Logo or some such to make a truly COMPREHENSIVE Transgender-for-dummies documentary with all the trimmings and production values and graps and play it regularly and make it's viewing particularly compulsary for having any position on any GLBT media, org or any other position of power and responsibility involving Trans people?

Cause this level of ignorance when the answers have existed for years, where supporting evidence is constantly accumulating from science and where TG folk have been burning out in our attempts to educate through the morass of unfounded baseless hate.

That any organisation or media outlet old media or new media can continue with this ignorance is an unacceptable negligence on the part of GLBT media and orgs let alone mainstream media.

It's time the people in a position of power over information flow.. and thats the editors of papers and blogs and the producers of tv and film etc.. take up THEIR responsibility for accurately bringing the evidence-supported information to the public!

They need to know what the facts are, where the evidence came from and what the conclusions we are forced to draw from that evidence is and what is still unknown and what the possibilities may be.

And that will TOTALLY be on the side of sex and gender diverse people. From explaining the neurological discoveries to the Yogyakarta Principles on our human rights to the outrage over Zucker and Co's Unethical and Scientifically Invalid hogwash.

You know, if I wanted to read bigoted crap from somebody who obviously has no idea about what he's talking about, there are many websites I could go to. Newsmax for example or freerepublic. Maybe Mr. Gold would be more comfortable at Americablog where an equally bigoted, ignorant individual named John Aravosis believes the same tripe.

This is my opinion, restated from the comments section of Helen Boyd's facebook note in response to Ronald Gold's post, which is what brought my attention to it originally. I haven't read all the comments posted here, but from skimming them, I recognize that the opinion I am about to express may be regarded as ignorant and offensive. My hope is that those who will be offended will be able to get past that reaction and think about the intersection of the two important issues that are colliding here: gender norms and transsexual rights. I'd like to see people begin to move out of their comfort zones and try to meet others who have differing opinions in a DMZ where some dialogue can take place. It is in that spirit that I offer my own commentary:

If I may: it seems that what Ronald Gold is saying in his piece is that people SHOULDN’T be pathologized. He’s taking a position against the hierarchical power of a medical model that puts a sacrosanct stamp of approval on certain people who either 1) meet the requirements that the medical community has developed, 2) manipulate the system to achieve a correct “diagnosis”, or 3) willingly jump through the hoops of this medical model.

To me, Ronald Gold is suggesting that the individuals take power into their own hands and not surrender to the “professionals” who have been rubber-stamp approved by the arbiters of culture and civilization.

Where Helen and I may yet agree is on the following point: Ronald’s stance makes it extremely difficult for those individuals who do want to pursue surgical solutions to their gender dysphoria. In his dismissal of medical solutions, he in effect sentences trans people who want to pursue sexual reassignment surgery to the same fate that women who want to pursue abortions face in societies that disallow medical professionals from treating them with their specialized skills and technology. And while some legendary herbal concoctions may serve to induce abortions outside of the medical mainstream without resorting to coat-hanger solutions, I’m not aware of any similar magical plant-based potion that could polymorph a trans person into their preferred gender. But I think Ronald makes some interesting points; he is arguing against the culture of gender norms. His approach is challenging and problematic–tacky and offensive to some–because he has dared to make a speech about gender norms at the intersection where they meet transgender issues. He’s deliberately stirring a volatile pot, but I think we should thank him for it.

You know, if I wanted to read bigoted crap from somebody who obviously has no idea about what he's talking about, there are many websites I could go to. Newsmax for example or freerepublic. Maybe Mr. Gold would be more comfortable at Americablog where an equally bigoted, ignorant individual named John Aravosis believes the same tripe.

Okay, care to explain why a chronic depression that began at puberty (10) ended once I started to transition?
"Pecker" be damned.
My body was never meant to run on testosterone.

Okay, care to explain why a chronic depression that began at puberty (10) ended once I started to transition?
"Pecker" be damned.
My body was never meant to run on testosterone.

Ronald Gold's article was doing fairly well about halfway through. No, there is no such thing as a "male" or "female" personality. Personalities don't have genitals, and neither do many of the attributes that we associate with genitals. Thirty years or so of being in and around the lesbian and gay communities taught me that there are people with penises who want to be their partner's "wife", where "wife" is assigned all of those attributes stereotypically assigned to the female partner of a heterosexual relationship, and there are women who want to be the "husband". Again, "husband" is a sex-based stereotype.

And he's correct -- these are stereotypes and they have no basis in reality or fact. Women can open doors, fix the car, kill spiders and mow the lawn just fine. They can do this whether they are lesbians or straight. They can do this in or out of a relationship with a member of the same or opposite sex. Men can cook, clean, care for children and do the laundry just fine as well. And the same holds true for all of the myriad and sundry things that Society has taught so many of us are associated with genitals.

And I would agree with Ron -- if someone is transitioning so they can wear dresses or fix cars, they are doing so for the wrong reason and they ARE deluded and they DO need to avoid psychologists.

About 12 years ago I received a phone call from a friend. It was the night before she was to have SRS and she was concerned about making a mistake. Her issue? After a year or so of being "Susan", she'd fallen into the same pattern as so many other professional women her age. She (gasp) wore blue jeans and no makeup when she wasn't dressed up in power suits and full-on makeup. I spent an hour or more talking to her and explaining that clothes aren't what makes her who she is any more than SRS is going to make her someone different.

What I'd tell Ron is that superficially he's almost right. But that it's probably the kinds of people, in the places there are, at the times of the life they are in those places, that is grossly misinforming him, because even in his follow-up piece that's what he uses -- sex stereotypes -- as part of what informs his attitude towards trans people.

Fourteen years ago, when I was starting transition, the absolute MOST important thing in my ENTIRE life was verbalizing how I'd felt growing up. And telling everyone I could bore to TEARS about playing "tea party" with the girls in my neighborhood, or wanting to take ballet instead of play football, or thinking I'd grow up to be more like Mom and less like Dad. And the emphasis, over and over and over again, was all about the ways in which STEREOTYPES informed me that my body was wrong and it just needed a really good fixing. Because at that time of my life, and for a couple of years afterward, it was important. It was important because people like Ron don't have the experience of being through-and-through entirely and completely wrongly gendered.

But something changed for me that changes for many trans people, but not (unfortunately) for all trans people -- I pass well enough that I was able to carve out a corner of the world in which I could be "Me" without having to explain, justify, rationalize, cite science journal articles, scream, yell and call people "transphobes". And that is when I got down to the business of the REAL purpose of transition -- living MY life in a spontaneous, natural and free-flowing manner.

So, twelve years ago next week, I had SRS in Neenah, WI with a little old man. I changed apartments so none of my neighbors had ever seen the "male" version of me, then saved my money and a year later moved into my current house in a nice neighborhood with nice people who all thought I was a woman and was born that way.

Where Ronald Gold goes horribly and miserably wrong is that the body itself is "the enemy" on levels that are far more numerous than just my ability to wear a dress several times a year, or to bake, or sew or do cross-stitch. And my ability to work on my car, and house and mow the lawn isn't validation that I've got XY chromosomes that are the "real" indication of my sex.

Like so many other transsexual women, I wrestled with what it meant to have these "feelings" I've got. I confided in a friend back when we were in college that I thought I might be gay, because how I felt wasn't "straight". And yet, I liked the way a naked woman's body feels and smells and tastes. So I couldn't possibly really be a gay man. I processed that. I processed how I felt about gender stereotypes. I processed how I felt about my body. In short, I processed and process and self-examined and wasted a lot of my life doing exactly what Gold wants us to do. In the end, it was a waste of time. Useful, learned a lot about myself, but it didn't change a damned thing.

Gold doesn't need to be lectured at. He doesn't need to be told about brain studies. He doesn't need to be given a science lesson. He =needs= to spend time with transsexual men and women NOT doing anything trans. I don't know where he lives but I invite him to come to where I live and to spend time with me, doing things I enjoy that he might also enjoy. He needs to experience me in all my dykey queerness. He needs to experience the way in which I'm not some femmie straight guy who went crazy and had "his" penis cut off. I am, for whatever reasons, a dyke who was born into a male body.

Gender is a many spendored thing, and Gold probably has very useful insights. Sex stereotypes are sexist crap made up to keep women in line and police male behavior and declare as "not-men" sissies, fairies and fags. Very true. It it's perfectly okay if straight men are feminine and straight women are masculine and queers of all sorts are however queer they are.

But there is something about the body or else gay men who are attracted more to feminine men than masculine men would just partner with straight women. After all, more women than men are feminine, larger field to pursue, much easier time of it. But they don't. And the same holds true for lesbians. I like butch women. I'm attracted to masculinity. But not masculinity-as-masculinity, it's masculinity in the female form. Butch women would be a sad and lonely bunch if lesbians who are attracted to masculinity took the easy way out and dated straight men. And it is this truth -- that bodies-as-bodies have meanings that transcend sexual stereotypes -- that is the proof of transsexuality and transgenderism. Bodies =have= meaning.

This is what takes so many trans people years to learn, after all the "I like dresses" and "I like trucks" talk by my sisters and brothers in the trans community is said and done. I am me, and my body has a meaning, and it was only by changing my body that the full, complete and total meaning of who I AM comes through.

This was what it took my transphobic relatives to see -- that I really am my mother's daughter, that I'm not some deluded freak. That when they interacted with me, knowing my mother as she was, that they saw that who I AM is the same person as had I been born with a vagina in the first place. And people who knew her, and never knew me as her son, knew that surely I was my mother's daughter. And people who knew me, and met her, knew that as well. That what sounds like delusion -- "When I was little, I thought I'd grow up to be just like my mother" -- suddenly doesn't seem all that deluded.

Wow 173 messages and all but a handfull from here took me awhile to read it all.Ronnie I hope you have learned that the T is not silent any more and Tony dont waste time calling for postings to be closed till everyone gets to have there say.
So there you go a good duscussion and hot tempers and mixed with well written comments thats what I love about this site.

Personal info im CD/TG and btw kiddies im going to be 55 in January so drop the your to old nonsense now as you will be my age one day way to soon to.Oh yeah strated dressing at 13 in the dark ages. Side bar Ronnie nobody uses "pecker" any more so update baby!

love ya
Caty

Because of the sheer number of comments, and the fact that what I've wished to say has been rendered more eloquently by previous posters, and the fact that any comment I make will quickly be lost in all the other comments, I've refrained from commenting until now.

I thought the article might be useful to share with some old and dear friends who have stood by me and my transition, but still don't get why I'm 'too sensitive' about the offhand, thoughtless slights I get on a regular basis from the cis-het majority -- and often from those same friends who otherwise stood and stand by me.

I went to copy the URL to paste into the e-mail--

and saw the name of the file for this article--

transgender_a_disease_that_doesnt_exist.php

Right there in the URL box (go ahead, look...)

Bill Cosby once said that as a man, he could never really grok childbirth. He said he tried, though, by imagining grabbing his lower lip and pulling it up over his head.

At least he tried...

Why Bilerco? Why? I like some of your thought provoking articles even when I don't agree, but this isn't thought provoking it's thought numbing. This article serves no real purpose other than to drive away some of your readers. Obviously, with all the comments (which I just don't have the time to read) I'm sure this was said before and far better. His article is a bland oversimplification. It would be like me saying well.. for instance.. if being gay is just a sexual fetish for men and men like to stick their peckers into holes, why does it have to be a butt instead of a vagina? A hole is a hole right? So all gay people are just misunderstood straight people that just prefer one hole over another.
I'm not used to seeing such immature and poorly thought out articles here. Perhaps this article was just some strange figment of the imagination. I guess I'll just ignore Bilerco posts this weekend, and when I wake up on Monday, perhaps I'll find this was all some sort of aberration.

In History we learn to avoid anachronistic thinking. It seems to me that a similar model can be applied to the work of "understanding" someone else. Our way of thinking, believing or being is not applicable to anyone else. How does one come to the place where it is permissible to say, "Because you don't think like I do you can't be real"?

One way this happens is by internalizing the oppression experienced in one's life. When the input to a life has been one of "not conforming" one sees from that perspective. Then, when the same person achieves some state of privilege, it becomes easy to use that privilege to make sure there is someone below -- in order to maintain the new status. (For reference, see Boston in the 70s.)

Finally, the idea that a transgender person is some sort of "cosmological mistake." What if the "mis" is in our understanding of the universe? I met an 11-year-old girl who said to me, "God made a mistake with me." How does one move progressively through life when the belief is that one is a mistake? It can't be done. It's not a mistake to be transgender; it's another way of being.

I hope that Mr. Gold reads these comments and thinks. I look forward to reading his next piece.

To Ronald Gold! You know opinions are like a**holes about everyone has one, and most stink. Such is where I place the opinion of Mr.Gold. Mr. Gold, go join the Bailey's and Blanchard's of the world. As for me, I have spent years sorting this out about myself, and someone who does not have a clue as to what they are talking about is not going to change my mind. I would not even justify the comments made in the article further except for the fact someone might actually believe the statements above for something other than the crap it is.

I am a man with breasts, a vagina and a uterus. My being a man has nothing to do with personality, i.e. my personality has not changed since openly "coming out" as a transgender. I dress the way I do because I do, but in no way am I a drag king or imitating anyone.

Honestly I really don't know where to begin since this post has offended me on so many levels; as a lesbian, a person with transgender friends, a political blogger and blog owner. As a blog owner let me say if this "op-ed" was published to run the numbers up during the slowest weeks of the year...shame on you! If on the other hand, this was published to incite a riot you have succeeded. Bilerico's decision to run this piece and then defend it is astonishing. This is not a devils advocate op-ed; this is an op-ed of ignorance and backwards thinking from within our community. Shameful!

Mr. Gold, I am stunned at the level of ignorance that you have exhibited in this op-ed. I could not stop thinking how archaic and simplistic your views are. You state that you have been published in New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc; one would think that research and a solid understanding of your topic would be paramount.

As a lesbian and blog owner who has trans gender friends, I would never consider writing on such a complex topic, especially without doing my research. Your cavalier attitude and lack of knowledge is a disservice to our community.

Your Statement:
"So, parents of such little boys and girls, do not take them to the psychiatrist and treat them like they're suffering from some sort of illness. Explain to them that, whatever the other kids say, real little girls do like to play with trucks and wear grimy jeans, and real little boys like to prance around in dresses and play with dolls. And make sure the teachers are on the same page."

Where do I begin? Do you actually think a sit down with Susie or Johnnie’s teacher is going to make the world easier to live in for these children? What a simplistic view you have of the complicated world trans children live in.

Your Statement:
"So where does that put the concept of transgender? In my view, down the tubes! And that leaves the further questions of how transsexuals got to think the way they do, and what to do to resolve their dilemmas. I hope I'll be forgiven for rejecting as just plain silly the idea that some cosmic accident just turned these people into changelings. What happened, more than likely, is that, from an early age, when they discovered that their personalities didn't jibe with what little boys and girls are supposed to want and do and feel, they just assumed they mustn't be real little boys and girls."

I'm stunned! Cosmic accident, changelings…..this is not a scfi movie. This is reality involving real people. “Their personalities didn't jibe”...well then it's settled, everyone can stop the research, their reading and discussion because Mr. Gold has resolved the trans gender issue. Yes my trans gender friends it’s solved “you are not in sync.” Good heavens...how did you arrive at this?

If your point of this op-ed was to get people thinking then you succeeded. Unfortunately, I’m thinking if someone from our community thinks in this dismissive simplistic way than how in the heck do we expect heterosexuals to understand.

OMG I have to stop here before my head explodes from this ignorant op-ed.

First, I wouldn't call 95% of the people on the planet "heterosexuals". They are human just like you, and I doubt people here want to be called "homosexuals". This is part of the reason that the GLBT has become so alienated from society, and therefore ineffective.

The attitudes demonstrated in Mr Gold's post are a big part of the reason why I am far more comfortable among straight people than around gays. My straight friends "get it".

I didn't read all of the original article as it has been taken off, but I heard about it from a friend's FB post. My gender identity is irrelevant to the conversation but suffice it to say I consider myself an ally - for anyone marginalized, dismissed, attacked because of who they are.
I was very disappointed to read what I did and to discover that Ron was a major force in the NGLTF, especially since I just signed up to receive their emails and information.
I am also working w/other organzations who address issues for all LGBTQ kids. Long story - but agains, suffice it to say that as a prospective foster parent, particularly concerned about the kids who are rejected by their families of origin, foster & adoptive families because of their gender identity, I cannot fathom how anyone who has had the experiences that I assume Ron to have had, could write what he wrote.
Please know, all of you who have had to wrestle w/the issues that are part of your particular journey, this mom & pastor is a voice from the perspective of love and hope. Please remember there are those of us, who may not understand every nuance of the issues but are horrified by what appears to be a very ignorant approach to this matter.
May you find a peace that passes understanding in the chaos of this storm.

OK, at the time I'm typing this out, there are already 310+ comments, so this is probably going to fall on deaf ears. That said, while it's true that many, possibly most TS/TG persons are "gender normative" (Trans men who are into "masculine" activities; trans women into "feminine", hetero-identified/het-preference bisexual, etc...), there are still a fair about of said who simply aren't and never were.

I'm a TS man and like the two other TS men who I can stand enough to call my friends, I was never "a tomboy", I now own more hair styling products than I ever did in my pre-transition years combined, I have enough houseplants to fill a subway terminal, and among my favourite bands are included Army of Lovers. By many people's standards, especially those of most other TS men, I'm pretty "femme, in personality". My therapist, Dr Sandra L. Sammons (who has had over twenty-five years experience with TS patients) has even so much as stated that "personality" is such a small part of the average TS person's internal gender identity that it's hardly a factor in diagnosis.

Basically, the current science feeds the hypothesis that gender identity is neurological, thus being TS is a neurological disorder -- and, alongside fibromyalgia (a condition of inexplicable, chronic, physical pain which can only be "proved" through EEG scans) is one of only two neurological disorders best treated through physical means.

History also provides plenty of examples of TS/TG persons, one of the earliest possibly being even Roman Emperor Elagabalus (though it's really difficult to diagnose historical figures, especially ancient ones, with any condition, neurological or otherwise; for starters, the Romans were no stranger to exaggerating or inventing pecularities in those they wished to defame politically, so any accusations of transgenderism levelled toward Elagabalus by his contemporaries must be taken with a grain of salt). The phenomenon of TS/TG person's isn't new -- only the current methods of treatment are, but there are also many new and modern methods of treating other neurological disorders, from autism and epilepsy to schizo-affective disorders and fibromyalgia, that (when compared to TS treatments) almost never get any outspoken opponents. The only reason that opponents speak up against TS persons is simply because gender identity is such an integral and comfortable part of the opponents' lives that they simply can't imagine why anybody would "want to" have an incongruent and uncomfortable gender identity. The reality is, though, that if TS persons could just stop "wanting to" have this neurological quirk, then wouldn't autists just "want to" have typical emotional reactions to the world? Or wouldn't people with fibro- just "want to" stop being in pain with no physical cause?

At this current point in time, there are very few restrictions on what a woman or a man can or cannot be or do or take interest in, and these barriers are only weakening with time. Yet TS persons still happen, right? If it were all about "personality", then wouldn't this be the era where we begin to see a sharp decline is TS occurrences? And yet prominent TS woman activist, Lynn Conway, has estimated that the TS population is 1 in 500, based on current population data:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html

While I can applaud the idea of tearing down gender stereotypes and making the world more inviting to persons who prefer atypical gender expressions, and indeed many TS/TG persons are promoting these ideas, that potential future will not make TS persons go away.

I was raised in a home where, while my parents were told "it's a girl", I was encouraged in my interests in science -- far more so than my interests in literature and the arts. I was expected to be a doctor of some variety. I may have been sent to Catholic school and made to wear a uniform with a skirt, but almost never wore them at home or anywhere else, nor was I expected to "dress like a girl". I had three sisters, one of whom was a "tomboy" even into adulthood, and the other two who were encouraged in their more "feminine" interests. By the logic presented in Mr Gold's post, due to the encouraging environment I was raised in, I should have been perfectly capable and happy to life my life as a quirky "soft butch' heterosexual woman -- but unfortunately, this was not how it turned out. My mother raised me with a great disdain for society, so what "everybody else" may have thought hardly ever factored in to my thinking, with regards to transitioning. Ultimately, I transitioned because I could not cope, on a deep and instinctive level, with this neurological atypicality through any other means. It had nothing to do with how I was raised or any interests I took on or personal preferences in how I dress.

The concept of "gender identity" as a real, tangible thing is outmoded. It's a philosophical construct, and trying to overlay it onto biology is deceptive and destructive.

There's an elephant in the room! It's the fact that transsexuals (in particular) insist that their bodies (as born) were deformed.

Gay people have been fighting for at least two generations for it to be recognized that being gay is NOT a disability -- nor is it in any way a semblance of deformity or dysfunction!

I happen to believe it would be far wiser to recognize that being gay is a choice -- as was my experience during a (far better and saner) time when experimentation with sexuality and drugs was accepted and gender boundaries were in the process of being discarded. My experience was that being gay is a choice -- made as a result of experimentation -- one for which a person can and should be proud! Enough of "I can't help it, I was born this way." I believe that's a major factor in how we've reached this impasse.

From issues of "disclosure" (vs. the closet) to those of deformity, gay and trans identities are implicitly somewhat opposing viewpoints. One can be a gay person who's supportive of rights for trans people on human rights or disability grounds, but we're only a single community in the eyes of our enemies.

As for terms like "mutilation" or "delusion," that's obviously someone's perception, and they (as much as those who take issue -- both, incidentally for experiential reasons) have a right to express themselves accordingly. There's an old statement attributed to Voltaire and beloved by civil libertarians: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

The attempt to stifle certain forms of expression is hurtful, too. Who decided that one should be silenced because expressing a particular view is "hurtful"? Life (from birth trauma onward) can be hurtful, and it's not necessarily because of malice; sometimes it's the result of a genuine difference in lived realities. One such genuine difference involves whether one accepts the reality of a mind/body duality itself -- which is pivotal in accepting the very notion of transsexuality or transitioning.

Deal with it. There is no real "LGBT community." That's life.

Given that the president himself just appointed a transgender woman to an administration post, perhaps it went without saying that, no, the federal government won't discriminate against potential employees based on gender identity. Okay, that's a stretch. But now USAJobs.gov, the official entry point for anyone looking for a government job, has updated its anti-discrimination policies to specifically prohibit such disqualification, and the gay groups are happy!

Stuart
Writing Jobs