A Clarification about my views on transsexualism....
Caitlin Martin
In article <slrn5o73h...@127.0.0.1>, ro...@tundra.net-link.net
(Psychodad) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 1997 17:21:22 GMT, Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Hi everyone,
>>Lately a number of people have taken the position that I am hateful
towards
>>transsexuals. Let me assure you this is absolutely not the case.
>>
>>It is true that I am very unhappy about the way transsexuals are treated
by
>>both society and medicine. It is also true that I don't buy into a lot of
>>the political correctness of transsexuals. It is even true that I believe
>>transsexualism is a socially created disorder, the result of desperation
to
>>fit into a world that does not accept.
>
>You're the best Laura!
>
>Its also easy to understand why many TSs are so uncomfortable with TG
>people, afterall they want to fit in and become 'normal', while we're
>the gender rebels, who openly reject gender toles imposed on us by the
opressive
>bi-polar gender system.
> Society created conditions like 'gender dydphoria' and 'trannsexulism'
>in attempt to quiet the gender rebels.
> Trannsexualism IS not a medical conditon, and the so called gender
dysphoria
>is nothing but internalised guilt resulting from being diffrent.
> So, Julie, we're are going to continue our struggle for recognition of TG
>rights even if it means it that it will be harder for "TSs" to get genital
mutulation
>(SRS) .
Vlad and Laura,
Let me clue you in on a couple of news items you might have missed. In a
recent article in the LA Times they discussed the story of a boy who was so
bady disfigured during a circumcision that the parents and doctor decided
that it might be best to perform "genital mutilation" as you put it. The
boy was raised from birth as a girl. Received female hormones as he grew
older, etc. Socially he was accepted as a girl and looked like a girl. To
make a long story short as he grew older he took on the traits of boys.
Didn't want to wear dresses, etc. When he was in his early teens he finally
approached his parents for answers. They finally broke down and told him
what had happened. Society was unable to alter what was inside, a boy, even
though he was to all outward appearances a girl. What does that do to your
socially created disorder?
Additionally, research completed last year at Stanford University has shown
the brain stems of transexual MtF and FtM more closely resembles the gender
they identify with than their genetic sex. These studies were performed
before hormone therapy so they did not come into the equation. Another
interesting counterpoint to the "socially created disorder theory"!
So, perhaps you both might wish to do a little more research on the matter
of gender identification and its origins.
I personally do not care if you are TV, TG, TS, Gay, Lesbian, or straight.
All I ask is that you treat me with the same respect that I treat you. Let
me live my life the way I see fit, as long as it does no harm to you or
yours!
Caitlin Martin
Psychodad
On Wed, 21 May 1997 17:21:22 GMT, Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>Lately a number of people have taken the position that I am hateful towards
>transsexuals. Let me assure you this is absolutely not the case.
>
>It is true that I am very unhappy about the way transsexuals are treated by
>both society and medicine. It is also true that I don't buy into a lot of
>the political correctness of transsexuals. It is even true that I believe
>transsexualism is a socially created disorder, the result of desperation to
>fit into a world that does not accept.
You're the best Laura!
Its also easy to understand why many TSs are so uncomfortable with TG
people, afterall they want to fit in and become 'normal', while we're
the gender rebels, who openly reject gender toles imposed on us by the opressive
bi-polar gender system.
Society created conditions like 'gender dydphoria' and 'trannsexulism'
in attempt to quiet the gender rebels.
Trannsexualism IS not a medical conditon, and the so called gender dysphoria
is nothing but internalised guilt resulting from being diffrent.
So, Julie, we're are going to continue our struggle for recognition of TG
rights even if it means it that it will be harder for "TSs" to get genital mutulation
(SRS) .
Oh, yeah Juloe, I'm sorry I deprived you of the pleasure of finding my
male name and then taunting me with it.
Vlad.
:Stacey Maxwell:
"Caitlin Martin" <cai...@xtech.net> wrote:
>Additionally, research completed last year at Stanford University has shown
>the brain stems of transexual MtF and FtM more closely resembles the gender
>they identify with than their genetic sex. These studies were performed
>before hormone therapy so they did not come into the equation.
A recent brain study also showed the same results but it did include
those who had hormones (I believe), are we talking about a different
study?
If these people had not had any hormone therapy, then what other
physical evidence made them any different than a crossdresser or
transgenderist, other than perhaps the subjective criteria of a
shrink?
Although such data is interesting and it may point out there is a
unique characteristic marker for gender identity, it would not proove
there is a physical difference at birth between any of the different
Tg subcultures. There may be little difference between a CD and a TS
in terms of brains, who knows? If there is any differnce it probably
has something to do with the courage to express to others the true
identity in all aspects of relationships, whether people accept you or
not. So if there is a difference in brain structure between the TG
subcultures it may be found in the rebellion center rather than the
sexual area.
>I personally do not care if you are TV, TG, TS, Gay, Lesbian, or straight.
>All I ask is that you treat me with the same respect that I treat you. Let
>me live my life the way I see fit, as long as it does no harm to you or
>yours!
It makes it easier for me not to not care what label a person is when
I accept that person as like myself TG, then any harm to them or the
community effects me too....
Psychodad
On Fri, 23 May 1997 02:04:56 GMT, Karen Ann A. <k...@world.std.com> wrote:
>I have not been reading this thread closely till now so I don't know
>it's history but I could not let the content of this post go unanswered.
>
>Just so my biases are out front - I'm a TS who is about to transition
>and who (finances willing) plan to have surgury in about a years time.
>I've been in therapy for 2 and a half years on these issues, on hormones
>almost 1.5 years. I have not come to these decisions either quickly or
>easily. BTW I dont't pass that well even with the hormones - and never
>will. I'm not happy about that but I'm not going to deny reality either.
>
>Psychodad <ro...@tundra.net-link.net> wrote:
>
>> >both society and medicine. It is also true that I don't buy into a lot
>> >of the political correctness of transsexuals. It is even true that I
>> >believe transsexualism is a socially created disorder, the result of
>> >desperation to fit into a world that does not accept.
>>
>> You're the best Laura!
>
>for *YOU* and *HER*. Neither of you are transsexuals so *OF COURSE* you
>have not experienced the wrongness of your bodies and it is thus easy to
>ascribe that feeling to societal pressure.
>
But do you understand why you feel you have the 'wrong' body? Why you hate it?
You see, noone is born hating their body, its just not so, you hate your
body because you want to be accpeted as a woman, and to be a woman you
must be female, right? So you see your male body as something that would prevent you
from becoming a woamn, so thats why you hate it.
Well, congatulatins, the bi-polar gender system did a good job with putting
all these junk into your head.
The truth it that you dont need to be female in order to be a woman, bobs and
vagina doent make you a woman, just ask any of the f2m TGs out there, and neither
do clothes and make-up.
Unfortunetly most TSs are not able to separate primary and secondary sexual
characteristcs from gender indentity, and that leads them to geeting srs and hrt
dani richard
Psychodad wrote:
<snip>
> But do you understand why you feel you have the 'wrong' body? Why you hate it?
> You see, noone is born hating their body, its just not so, you hate your
> body because you want to be accpeted as a woman, and to be a woman you
> must be female, right? So you see your male body as something that would prevent you
> from becoming a woamn, so thats why you hate it.
> Well, congatulatins, the bi-polar gender system did a good job with putting
> all these junk into your head.
> The truth it that you dont need to be female in order to be a woman, bobs and
> vagina doent make you a woman, just ask any of the f2m TGs out there, and neither
> do clothes and make-up.
> Unfortunetly most TSs are not able to separate primary and secondary sexual
> characteristcs from gender indentity, and that leads them to geeting srs and hrt
>
I wish to address these statments with the last paragraph in more
detail.
1. Consider myself to be "transsexual" and wish (and currently) living
"as a woman".
2. I did not hate my body. I was indifferent to it and basically ignored
it. ("The oppositice of love is not hate. It is apathy!" -- John
Bradshaw) From an early age I simple did not recogize the body I was in
as "mine". It belonged to "someone else". I never ever learend to "hate
my body". I just never learned to "recognize it as mine." Until I
started seeing a female face in there mirror, I never recogined the
image as "me".
3. I found I was a social "woman" long before I even consider any
changes in my clothes or body. I found I mixed well with women in
women's groups. I was their "token male". I was honored by having the
title of "honary woman". One women said, "It is so nice to have a man
listen to what I say and
understand what I say." I was already a "social woman amoung women" long
before I considered my gender issues.
4. I found that as I started eletrolysis my level of peace and joy
increasted. The eletrolysis
allowed me a level of peace I never new before. I took more intrest in
my body.
5. I found that as I started hormones new level of peace and joy was
attained.
6. After about six months of living full time, I discovered "life is
sweet". I am very intrested in the mataince and preservation of my body.
I love the way I look in a dress. I am proud of the
woman-woman realtionships I have.
7. I will soon have SRS. I know from past experience that it too will
bring a level a internal
joy and peace I would have not known before.
In conclusion:
1. My gender Identity has always been "female". That has never changed.
2. My function as a "social woman" has always been here. That
"beingness" has never changed.
3. I never recogined me as "me" until I saw a female in the mirror.
As I have made changes in my body to make the "physical outside" match
the social "outside and spritial inside," I have removed pain and
suffering from my life and replaced it with joy and peace. I have
achived a please of oneness with my body that was not possiable before.
As my general parctictioner noted on my first visit after going full
time, "It must feel good to be home in your body!" I had to pause, think
and reply, "Your right. Does it show?"
The word my wife likes is "congruent" (1. corresponding; harmonious. 2.
in gemoetry, conciding exactly in all parts). HRT, living full time and
SRS are all process of being in harmony with myself. I don't belive this
to be a case of "not able to separate primary and secondary sexual
characteristcs from gender identity, ".
This is a process of self recognition.
I can't claim as mine what I don't recognize as mine.
Dani Richard
Psychodad
On Thu, 22 May 1997 22:30:24 -0700, Michelle Steiner <ste...@antispamm.best.com> wrote:
>Someone wrote me email about these two newsgroups, so I dropped in to see
>if it had changed in the month I was gone.
>
>I see that any possible changes have been for the worse, so after this
>message, I am out of here again.
>
>In article <19970522220456423825@[10.0.2.15]>, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann
>A.) wrote:
>
>>> Its also easy to understand why many TSs are so uncomfortable with TG
>>> people, afterall they want to fit in and become 'normal', while we're the
>>> gender rebels, who openly reject gender toles imposed on us by the
>>> opressive bi-polar gender system.
>>
>>prevent you from being able to acknowledge that TS's exist and their
>>feelings are, not only vaild, but also are not are result of "the
>>opressive bi-polar gender system". It would distroy your world view.
>>Your existance does not threaten my beliefs - I *KNOW* how I feel. Why
>>should TS's threaten yours?
>>
>>Because of that philosophy some TG's have a tendancy to want to speak
>>for *ALL* transgendered people - and what thet say tends to invalidate
>>TRANSSEXUALS. That is *YOUR* brand of political correctness and *THAT*
>>is what gets me angry. I truely do respect non TS transgenderd people
>>and in my mind there is no hierarchy. It needs to be recognized that,
>>while we do have much in common, there are significant differences in
>>motivation and goals (and possibly root cause), IMO. Please recognize
>>that.
>>
>>> Trannsexualism IS not a medical conditon, and the so called gender
>>> dysphoria is nothing but internalised guilt resulting from being
>>> diffrent.
>>transphobia... Now where have I heard THAT before - Talk about trying to
>>invalidate people!!!!
>>
>>> So, Julie, we're are going to continue our struggle for recognition of TG
>>> rights even if it means it that it will be harder for "TSs" to get
>>> genital mutulation (SRS) .
>>This stuff can not go unchallenged. It hurts and further confuses thoses
>>who are truely TS and having trouble acceting their own feelings - and
>>that can kill people. This garbage should not be posted to a SUPPORT
>>group. If you MUST spew this trash then do it on alt.tg ONLY. Real
>>people are hurting out there very badly over these issues.
>>
>>> Oh, yeah Juloe, I'm sorry I deprived you of the pleasure of finding my
>>> male name and then taunting me with it.
>>
>>Please take this kind of personal stuff to Email if you *MUST* engage in
>>it.
>
>Oh, bigots like Vlad won't do that. He needs a public forum to spew his
>hate--just like Robertson, Buchanan, Helms, the Klan, etc. He has to
>attack and put down others in order to cover up his own base insecurities
>and fears; and like them, he is the scum of the earth--a mean, vicious,
>emotional retard who can interact with other people only by attempting to
>tear them down in order to make himself look superior.
I'm starting to think that hormones you're taking not only damaged your
critical thinking but also leaked into your puny little brain.
Its obvious that you can not take the truth, but fortunetly there
many TSs who may still be able to realise that they have been
tricked by the opresive gender system.
i>
>I call him "him" because he has given us only male references to himself;
>his handle "psychodad" and his name "Vlad" are both male.
I'm bi-gendered, not a man or a wokan, so why should I take a male or
female name, but just so you knoe I'm looking for an androgynous name
I can be confortable with.
And, btw I dont give a shit about your insults, I'v been said worse things
to my face in REAL life and survived, in fact I'm doing quite well, unlie you
you insecure shit.
Vlad.
Giulia
Psychodad wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 May 1997 02:04:56 GMT, Karen Ann A. <k...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >I have not been reading this thread closely till now so I don't know
> >it's history but I could not let the content of this post go unanswered.
> >
> >Just so my biases are out front - I'm a TS who is about to transition
> >and who (finances willing) plan to have surgury in about a years time.
> >I've been in therapy for 2 and a half years on these issues, on hormones
> >almost 1.5 years. I have not come to these decisions either quickly or
> >easily. BTW I dont't pass that well even with the hormones - and never
> >will. I'm not happy about that but I'm not going to deny reality either.
> >
> >Psychodad <ro...@tundra.net-link.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >both society and medicine. It is also true that I don't buy into a lot
> >> >of the political correctness of transsexuals. It is even true that I
> >> >believe transsexualism is a socially created disorder, the result of
> >> >desperation to fit into a world that does not accept.
> >>
> >> You're the best Laura!
> >
> >You and Laura are speaking from your own experience - which is valid
> >for *YOU* and *HER*. Neither of you are transsexuals so *OF COURSE* you
> >have not experienced the wrongness of your bodies and it is thus easy to
> >ascribe that feeling to societal pressure.
> >
>
This is a completely invalid assumption. I may have the "wrong" body, but it is
MY body and I DO NOT hate it. If I hated it, why would I take good care of it?
Technology today makes things possible that didn't used to be. It gives me a
chance to, god willing, make my body into what I want. SRS is NOT genital
mutilation or self mutilation, and this thread is not the first place I've heard
it stated as such. People out there, people whom you thought you knew, say this
and it hurts like hell. They don't understand. (now I start crying)
> You see, noone is born hating their body, its just not so, you hate your
> body because you want to be accpeted as a woman, and to be a woman you
> must be female, right? So you see your male body as something that would prevent you from becoming a woamn, so thats why you hate it.
I don't recall seeing anything about hating her body in her post. Yes the body
prevents one from expressing ones innermost feelings in an outward fashion and
sharing these with the rest of the world. I may seem to be oversimplifying this
to some people, but it really IS simple. About the only thing that is a
roadblock now are those that the rest of society (yes this includes family) put
up, that and financial considerations -- SRS ain't cheap.
> Well, congatulatins, the bi-polar gender system did a good job with putting
> all these junk into your head.
You have no idea how some of us feel.
> The truth it that you dont need to be female in order to be a woman, bobs and
> vagina doent make you a woman, just ask any of the f2m TGs out there, and neither
> do clothes and make-up.
I never disputed this. Speaking from the TS point of view here, it is
absolutely necessary for us to make the outward conform with the inward. It
needs to be a TOTAL experience. It is the way we choose to have it.
> Unfortunetly most TSs are not able to separate primary and secondary sexual
> characteristcs from gender indentity, and that leads them to geeting srs and hrt
Some people still want to impose their standards, regulations, and wills on
others, and invalidate the approach of others simply to boost their own sense of
righteousness. This issue is not for you to decide.
Giulia
(who is still wearing her asbestos skirt, and like Karen A will probably regret
writing this)
>
m...@dimensional.com
On Fri, 23 May 1997 02:04:56 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
> true transsexuals (those that would want surgury reguardless
>of what society was like)
I normally cringe when I hear the expression 'true transsexual'. It
seems too many times be used as a religious term and a means of
invalidating the observations of anyone who is not a 'true
transsexual' (in the same way religions invalidate anyone who
questions the religion by labeling them as not true believers).
But I *liked* the fact that you tried to define what you meant by
'true transsexual'. Just defining it encourages communication and
discussion.
But it does bring up a couple of questions.
How do we know who meets this definition? Who is a 'true transsexual'
and who is a 'untrue transsexual'? Scientist have been disputing
nurture vs nature for centuries and never gotten anywhere. Self
observation is notoriously inadequate. It is impossible to remove the
individual from society so it is impossible to objectively separate
nurture from nature.
In other words, whether one is or is not a true transsexual or not is
utterly unprovable with today's knowledge of homo sapiens.
So we have no way of knowing who is really a 'true transsexual'.
More importantly, why do we care?
In what way is this division of 'true' form 'untrue' of any
importance?
Are the emotions and needs of the 'untrue transsexual' any less than
the true transsexual' because those needs partly came from society?
Is the 'untrue transsexual' any less deserving of respect,
consideration, care and the right to SRS because hir needs partly came
from society?
If there is no objective way to tell the difference, if both have
similar needs and have the same right to control their own body and
life, isn't the label 'true transsexual' and using it as a we/them
divider rather moot from the practical point of view?
----
>> (Psychodad)
>> So, Julie, we're are going to continue our struggle for recognition of TG
>> rights even if it means it that it will be harder for "TSs" to get
>> genital mutulation (SRS) .
>
>OK , enough is enough. Are you TRYING to start a flame war?
Karen,
I agree, the above was totally uncalled for.
Hugs, Marla
************************************************
* Marla Louise
* EMail: m...@dimensional.com, marl...@aol.com
* Homepage: http://www.dimensional.com/~mb/
************************************************
m...@dimensional.com
On Thu, 22 May 1997 12:36:31 GMT, in alt.transgendered you wrote:
>So if there is a difference in brain structure between the TG
>subcultures it may be found in the rebellion center rather than the
>sexual area.
Interesting. I want to think about this. Would you care to expound
on it anymore?
m...@dimensional.com
On Fri, 23 May 1997 08:16:58 -0500, dani richard <ric...@capmed.com>
wrote:
[An insightful and communicative self description.]
Dani,
Thanks for the communication of your self and self image. It's things
like this I think are important.
Danielle
>Psychodad <ro...@tundra.net-link.net> wrote:
> But do you understand why you feel you have the 'wrong' body? Why you
hate it?
> You see, noone is born hating their body, its just not so, you hate your
> body because you want to be accpeted as a woman................"
There are a lot of "You, You, You's in your post. Are you telling people
what they feel?
Danielle
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
Psychodad wrote:
>
> The truth it that you dont need to be female in order to be a >woman, bobs {sic} and vagina doent make you a woman, just ask any of the >f2m TGs out there, and neither do clothes and make-up.
> Unfortunetly most TSs are not able to separate primary and >secondary sexual characteristcs from gender indentity, and that leads >them to geeting srs and hrt
>
No, and I didn't need glasses to be one of the other kids at school, but
with then I could see what they saw. Later I could expereince life anew
with contacts, it was like stepping outside from behind the plate glass
of my existence. (I am rather prone to hyperbole I am told) Yes I can
(and do) "feel" like a woman sitting here at my computer, but I want
more, I want to go out and play with the other kids. I want to be one of
them not someone who feels like one of them.
(another view that may resonate. I can imagine how nice it would feel to
be driving a convertible while tooling down the road in my 4 door
Plymouth Sundance, but it is not the same as driving in a convertible)
3rd try: Feeling does not equal being. Some girls just want to be.
Joy!
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Joy
Psychodad wrote
> I'm bi-gendered, not a man or a wokan, so why should I take a male or
> female name, but just so you knoe I'm looking for an androgynous name
> I can be confortable with.
>
> And, btw I dont give a shit about your insults, I'v been said worse things
> to my face in REAL life and survived, in fact I'm doing quite well, unlie you
> you insecure shit.
>
> Vlad.
You could try Pat, Robin, or even Jean. But really, Vlad? Vlad the
Impaler the original Dracula. This is a gender neutral (sorry
androgynous) name? (Anyone else notice a highly erotic image, dare I say
it, sticking its head up here?)
Joy?
dani richard
Laura Blake wrote:
>
<snip>./..
>
> Why is it that everytime someone dares to look a little deeper than this
> bubble headed "I have birth defect and need the operation to fix it..."
> stuff, they are suddenly either a bigot or a hypocrite?
>
> Vlad isn't hateful, I am not a hypocrite... Like me, Vlad seems willing to
> dig a little deeper and look into some of the darker corners in search of
> the truth. In all my years at this he is the first transgendered person
> brave enough to go beyond the communal pale and delve into this topic. Even
> I have held back on raising this within our peerage.
>
> But let me give you a news flash... these discussions about "social
> influences" and "depth of oppression" have been common currency in almost
> all the human rights and social policy work I've done for the entire time
> I've been involved in it. THESE are the discussions that opened the door to
> our rights in Canada...
>
> These discussions are nothing new outside our community... why are they
> heresy within?
>
> Tell me... if we do not look deeper, and we do not understand more, and we
> do not seek better, where do we make our progress? What changes? How do
> things get better? How do we grow and improve as people? How do we get
> beyond the oppression?
>
> When I see responses like yours, I am inspired to look even deeper. These
> disproportionate responses leave me with two questions to be answered:
>
> 1) What are these people so afraid of?
> 2) What are these people trying to hide?
>
> -----
> Laura Blake
>
> Being the first to climb the mountain
> also means you must find your own way down.
> -------
My experience in understaning and exploring wish "to live as a woman" is
motiviated
by the concept: "Do what improves my ability to function and don't do
what doesn't."
This concept was derived by my wife and I realized my desire
(complusion?) to cross-dress.
As an external assisement we used "how well I was doing my job" are the
primary
barometer as to my "level of function". We took the input of therapist
as a secondary
evaluation. On the home front, how much clutter I was living in was
another
indicator of my level of emotional pain. The more clutter I lived in (ie
not putting
away dirty dishes or clothes) the more emotional pain I was in. The more
I time and
energy I had for cleaning up and taking care of my enviroment, the less
emotional pain
I lived in.
We found that the greater time I spend cross dressed, the better I
functioned.
Talk therapy helped but it gave only temporary relief.
When I started eletrolysis, my job and personal ability to function took
a quantum leap!
As electrolysis wound down, my level of function started to drop some.
Starting hormones give me another bost in performance.
When I started living "full time", I exprience a level of peace and joy
I had
never experience before. My job performance was outstanding.
I find that my joy/performance levels have some cycles independent of my
actions.
But the steps I take have had a profound improvment in my ability to
cope and function.
I have become one that works and enjoys in being neet (ie no clutter).
My wife points out that "I have real realationships with people." Before
living as a women
my relationships were very one dimentional. She feels that I am a more
"real" person
than when I was living as a "male".
We tested and debated ever step I took.
Our questions were:
Is this going to help?
What is lost if I do this?
What is going to happen to me if I don't do this?
We have grived our losses and celibrated our gains.
Dani Richard
Jane
lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake) writes:
> On Wed, 21 May 1997 18:11:29 -0500, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
> >In May 1996 I had finally had it with your lies and decption. The
> >first thing I attacked was your notion that sexual reassignment is some
> >newly created process. At that time I provided crude documentation of
> >historical acts of sexual reassignment.
>
> Tell me, oh wise one... How can sex-reassignment possibly pre-date the
> technical capacity to surgically re-construct the genitals? And how can
> transsexualism possibly pre-date the ability to perform a sex-change?
>
> Lopping it off, as some ancient cultures did, is not sex-reassignment,
> it is neutering, at best.
That is the best they could do at the time.
> >There simply is no scientific evidence which supports the repeated
> >claim that SRS is sought to please or conform to society.
>
> True enough... but if you care to look, there is also no scientific proof
> that transsexualism is even a disorder. The truth is that almost very
> credible researcher openly admits they don't understand it at all.
Just because reserarchers in the field do not understand a phenomenon
does not mean it doesn't exist. Only in the last 300 years have humans
understood the laws of physics to a great extent, that does not mean
that 300 years ago the laws of physics did not exist.
Reality exists. It does not need confirmation of its existance by researchers.
> In point of fact, almost everything having anything to do with transsexuals
> is based upon supposition and transphobia. This alone renders all of it
> suspect, simply because of the morality that hatched it. Surely you don't
> think that someone given a big old research grant to investigate the
> etiology of "gender identity disorders" is likely to return with a finding
> that "This is not a disorder at all...", now do you? The whole damned
> sex-change industry has a vested financial interest in the treatment of
> something about which they admittedly know absolutely nothing... do you
> really think they are going to give that up, by telling you the truth?
Transexuals appeared before the research was done. That the research is
of poor quality is tangential to the issue of whether transexualism
actually exists.
[snip]
> Does it surprise you to learn that Dr. Money, one of the most published
> authors in the field of transsexualism, thinks TSs are the result of social
> dysfunction, and not innately women at all?
No. The field is filled with quacks. Before modern medicine was invented
quacks were about the only thing a sick person had to turn to. That does
not mean people never got sick.
> In his mind you are little more than "A man with a problem"; do you
> really expect to learn the truth from people who make huge salaries
> by not accepting you?
No.
I am a transexual. I have to deal with quacks, I have to deal with people
simply denying that my condition exists, I have to deal with forfeiting
some of my human rights, I have to deal with morons labelling thier latest
biased laden musings as new research.
That stuff does not affect the fact that I am a transexual.
Jane
Karen Ann A.
I have not been reading this thread closely till now so I don't know
it's history but I could not let the content of this post go unanswered.
Just so my biases are out front - I'm a TS who is about to transition
and who (finances willing) plan to have surgury in about a years time.
I've been in therapy for 2 and a half years on these issues, on hormones
almost 1.5 years. I have not come to these decisions either quickly or
easily. BTW I dont't pass that well even with the hormones - and never
will. I'm not happy about that but I'm not going to deny reality either.
Psychodad <ro...@tundra.net-link.net> wrote:
> >both society and medicine. It is also true that I don't buy into a lot
> >of the political correctness of transsexuals. It is even true that I
> >believe transsexualism is a socially created disorder, the result of
> >desperation to fit into a world that does not accept.
>
> You're the best Laura!
You and Laura are speaking from your own experience - which is valid
for *YOU* and *HER*. Neither of you are transsexuals so *OF COURSE* you
have not experienced the wrongness of your bodies and it is thus easy to
ascribe that feeling to societal pressure.
I *KNOW* that is *NOT* the case for me. You may not believe that but you
have no right to tell *ANYONE* how they feel - only how you feel. Who do
you (or Laura) think you are?!!! Define yourselves - not others. Some
who think they are TS and seek surgery may actually be TG but can't
accept it because of society.I'm sure it happens BUT that does not mean
that that true transsexuals (those that would want surgury reguardless
of what society was like) do not exist. To believe that is faulty logic
in the extreem.
> Its also easy to understand why many TSs are so uncomfortable with TG
> people, afterall they want to fit in and become 'normal', while we're the
> gender rebels, who openly reject gender toles imposed on us by the
> opressive bi-polar gender system.
Uncomfortable no - angry with - YES! Your philisophical underpinings
prevent you from being able to acknowledge that TS's exist and their
feelings are, not only vaild, but also are not are result of "the
opressive bi-polar gender system". It would distroy your world view.
Your existance does not threaten my beliefs - I *KNOW* how I feel. Why
should TS's threaten yours?
Because of that philosophy some TG's have a tendancy to want to speak
for *ALL* transgendered people - and what thet say tends to invalidate
TRANSSEXUALS. That is *YOUR* brand of political correctness and *THAT*
is what gets me angry. I truely do respect non TS transgenderd people
and in my mind there is no hierarchy. It needs to be recognized that,
while we do have much in common, there are significant differences in
motivation and goals (and possibly root cause), IMO. Please recognize
that.
> Trannsexualism IS not a medical conditon, and the so called gender
> dysphoria is nothing but internalised guilt resulting from being
> diffrent.
Hmmm.. sounds like another way to say internalized
transphobia... Now where have I heard THAT before - Talk about trying to
invalidate people!!!!
> So, Julie, we're are going to continue our struggle for recognition of TG
> rights even if it means it that it will be harder for "TSs" to get
> genital mutulation (SRS) .
OK , enough is enough. Are you TRYING to start a flame war?
This stuff can not go unchallenged. It hurts and further confuses thoses
who are truely TS and having trouble acceting their own feelings - and
that can kill people. This garbage should not be posted to a SUPPORT
group. If you MUST spew this trash then do it on alt.tg ONLY. Real
people are hurting out there very badly over these issues.
> Oh, yeah Juloe, I'm sorry I deprived you of the pleasure of finding my
> male name and then taunting me with it.
Please take this kind of personal stuff to Email if you *MUST* engage in
it.
Angrily,
-Karen A.
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ==================================
> NOTE: Before the word twisters out there freak out all over me... let me
> tell you flatly that I DO believe there are people for whom sex-change is
> exactly the right thing to do... I do not, however, see any convincing
> evidence that transsexuals understand the mechanisms of oppression that are
> at work upon them as they grow up transgendered in a cisgender-only world.
>
Only because they don't feel oppressed by them. Again, for some (Most?)
TS's, being transgendered is not an identity but a state to be dealt
with. I am physically transgendered but my spirit is not. That is not
the case for you and some others. I can accept that. Why do I have to be
blind or dumb to want SRS? Your statement sounds awfuly elitist to me.
Why do you think you are better or smarter the me (or TS's in general)?
You are denegrating my (and most other TS's) intellegence with that
statement - don't you realize it? <sigh>
Best Wishes
-Karen A.
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Why is it that everytime someone dares to look a little deeper than this
> bubble headed "I have birth defect and need the operation to fix it..."
> stuff, they are suddenly either a bigot or a hypocrite?
that people are different and YOU and Vlad need to recognize that.
For some, the sense of trangenderness comes from the fact that their
personality does not fit what society has deemed proper for their
physical sex - they do not feel physically incongruent. For these people
having surgery is 100% the wrong thing and they (a much larger group
then TS's BTW) do need to know that despite all they see and hear around
them, that cross living without surgery is indeed a valid choice.
BUT for some there is also a feeling of physical inconguenty which is
independant of societial prerssures. These people are called
transsexuals and, for them, SRS is a very appropriate choice.
> Vlad isn't hateful, I am not a hypocrite...
No - you both are gulity of believing that everone who has transgendered
feeling does so for the same reasons as you do.
> Like me, Vlad seems willing to
> dig a little deeper and look into some of the darker corners in search of
> the truth.
Out side of the physical sciences - truth is a very subjective word.
Everyone has their own individual truth who no one has the right to
deny. Speak of your own truths and SOME others will find they share them
with you. Speak of ABSOLUTE truth in this matter and you will be
justifably mocked. Do you think you are God and can see into everyone's
heart and know their motivations?
> But let me give you a news flash... these discussions about "social
> influences" and "depth of oppression" have been common currency in almost
> all the human rights and social policy work I've done for the entire time
> I've been involved in it. THESE are the discussions that opened the door
> to our rights in Canada...
I immediately recognized the retoric from other human rights struggles.
I never said that they have no validity - only that they don't always
apply to those that are TS. You may think I'm so deluded or brainwashed
that I can't see how I'm being forced down the path towards SRS - but
you are dead wrong. I know that I don't need SRS to live as a woman -
after all few will ever see my genitals but I do need it FOR MYSELF.
> These discussions are nothing new outside our community... why are they
> heresy within?
They are not and are valuble -as long as no one insists that everone is
motivated by the things.
> When I see responses like yours, I am inspired to look even deeper. These
> disproportionate responses leave me with two questions to be answered:
They are not disproportionate to the way you and Vlad try to invalidate
transsexuals.
> 1) What are these people so afraid of?
Nothing. It's you who seem to be unable to accept the diversity that
TRUELY makes up the transgendered spectrum.
> 2) What are these people trying to hide?
Nothing. The discussion is not wrong but it does not apply universally -
no matter how striongly it applies to you personally.
Laura, you have a LOT of good things to say that need saying. Why do you
have to destroy all that good work by insisting that your view is THE
TRUTH for ALL transgendered people. You would do much better by letting
the arguments stand for themselves.
For those for whom they resonate you will have done a great service.
They way you approach things you shoot yourself in the foot and limit
your effectiveness.
-Karen A
Karen Ann A.
Dear Marla,
<m...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 1997 02:04:56 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
> wrote:
>
> > true transsexuals (those that would want surgury reguardless
> >of what society was like)
>
> I normally cringe when I hear the expression 'true transsexual'. It
> seems too many times be used as a religious term and a means of
> invalidating the observations of anyone who is not a 'true
> transsexual' (in the same way religions invalidate anyone who
> questions the religion by labeling them as not true believers).
>
> But I *liked* the fact that you tried to define what you meant by
> 'true transsexual'. Just defining it encourages communication and
> discussion.
I actually cringed when I wrote it too. I feel the same way which is why
I defined what I meant by it. Laura is right that many aspire to SRS for
the wrong reasons - that was just my way of saying that it's not wrong
for everyone an there is a group for whom it is VERY right.
> But it does bring up a couple of questions.
>
> How do we know who meets this definition? Who is a 'true transsexual'
> and who is a 'untrue transsexual'? Scientist have been disputing
> nurture vs nature for centuries and never gotten anywhere.
> Self observation is notoriously inadequate. It is impossible to remove
> the individual from society so it is impossible to objectively separate
> nurture from nature.
Self observation and a deep examimation of one's motives is in order.
That's why it's taken me so long to sort out my path (2.5 years of
therapy and several decades of self questioning before that). As to it
not being possible to remove the person from society - while it is true
one can conduct thought experiments and examine how one feels about
them. Objective - no but helpful - yes.
BTW I am a scientist (chemist - not that it matters in this discussion)
> In other words, whether one is or is not a true transsexual or not is
> utterly unprovable with today's knowledge of homo sapiens.
In an absolute physical sense - yes but there is some evidence
supporting the notion that most of recieve SRS are happier for it.
Whatever the reason for that, it is enough justification in and of
itself. This world is a harsh place and life is short - anything (that
does not hurt others) that makes life better for someone is worth it. In
once sence the only objective "evidence" (and yes I know it can STILL be
ascribed to societal pressure - BUT SO WHAT!) that an individual is a
"true" transsexual is how they feel about theselves and their life after
sugery.
> So we have no way of knowing who is really a 'true transsexual'.
If it's true of someone besides oneself - yes! For oneself, while
absolute certainty is not possible I believe it can be known to a high
probability.
> More importantly, why do we care?
> In what way is this division of 'true' form 'untrue' of any
> importance?
Because the path to fufilment is significantly different for each.
People who read this group and are just starting to sort out who they
really are, need to understand that there is no one solution to gender
dysphoria that fits all and that it can have different origins.
They need to understand that just because they, in their hearts, know
they need surgery that it's NOT because they are dupes. They need to
know thoses feelings can be valid.
Conversly they also need to know that being gender disphoria does not
mean that surgery (the transessexual path) is the only right thing for
them.
> Are the emotions and needs of the 'untrue transsexual' any less than
> the true transsexual' because those needs partly came from society?
No - just different,
> Is the 'untrue transsexual' any less deserving of respect,
> consideration, care and the right to SRS because hir needs partly came
> from society?
Not at all. I've never said that or implied that. Yet it seems that some
who are not transessexual feel that the EXISTANCE of transsexuals
invalidates their choices and deny TS's the respect (to stupid to to
know we are being pushed by society) their feelings deserve.
> If there is no objective way to tell the difference, if both have
> similar needs and have the same right to control their own body and
> life, isn't the label 'true transsexual' and using it as a we/them
> divider rather moot from the practical point of view?
Not in my opinion. The objectives, motivations, needs and overall lives
of the two groups are very different. There is a lot of overlap but the
differences are substanial as well.
The reason the differentiation needs to be made (IN SOME ARENAS - not
all) is that non-TS TG people outnumber TS's by a good bit and tend to
want to speak for all TG's (including TS's) when they push their agenda.
I believe most of what Laura is fighting for is the "RIGHT" thing (Hell
not being passable I need all the protection and tolerance I can get)
but I have no desire to follow the life path she (or you) espouses -
It's simply not me.
Hope I've made myself clear.
Take Care
-Karen A
Laura Blake
On 23 May 1997 21:50:11 -0400, anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Jane) wrote:
>I am a transexual. I have to deal with quacks, I have to deal with people
>simply denying that my condition exists, I have to deal with forfeiting
>some of my human rights, I have to deal with morons labelling thier latest
>biased laden musings as new research.
>That stuff does not affect the fact that I am a transexual.
Hello Jane,
This is what I find so utterly hilarious about this whole damned community.
Every time someone goes beyond the pale of the psychiatric bullshit about
transsexualism, the immediate cry from all involved is that the questioner
(Vlad an I in this case) is seeking to invalidate transsexualism. But, at
the same time as they screech against the probings, they try to claim that
the shrinks are quacks.
If someone probes into the causality issues, the response is almost always
not "this isn't how it works" the response is "I am so a transsexual".
If someone probes into the social influences upon our community the response
isn't "and we should consider this too" the response is "I am so a
transseuxual"
If someone asks about the validity of the disorder model the response is not
"It is valid/invalid upon this basis" the respose is "I am so a transsexual"
All discussion of value has been utterly lost because everyone out there is
so goddamned busy trying to validate their transsexualism all the time that
they simply are incapable of broader or more in-depth discussion.
There is much more to this community than sex-change... CD, TG, BG people
have real and important issues as well. Look at Deja News, take an ad-hoc
survey of the contents of these newsgroups for the past couple of years...
Where are the discussions about legal strategy for overcoming unemployment,
false eviction, discrimination in services, etc.
Where are the expressions of concern for those of us who end up homeless,
disenfranchised, drug addicted, HIV positive and/or on the stroll?
Where are the discussions of the social milieu within which the
transgendered must live?
Where are the discussions about anything to do with crossliving or
crossdressing?
For a very long time, this community has been stuck on three basic issues:
Passing, Surgery, and Validation. But in the practicalities of day to day
life none of these are very important, especially when you find yourself
unemployed, homeless, and turning tricks to survive.
If it weren't so pathetic I would find the reaction to TransEqual's work
laughable. We went to the Canadian human rights arena where we dealt with
issues like equal rights in employment, in housing, in acquistion of
services goods and facilities, and fair treatment in prisons, medical care,
and public accomodations. The subject of sex-change hardly ever came up,
yet we were widely demonized for being anti-transsexual -- so much so that
we eventually closed down our operations to have some peace and quiet.
Here in the groups... I don't even try to discuss the "getting along in this
world" issues with people because every time I stray off of the three
acceptable topics --passing, validation, surgery-- I get screeched at by a
bunch of fools who think I am trying to shoot down their sex-changes.
Understanding the social mileau surrounding transgendered people,
challenging our oppression, is the key to our future legal and social
equality... but y'all are just so busy defending the drawbridge to your
pretty little crenelated kingdoms to form a society of success within them.
Our community as it stands right now is nothing more than an assortment of
scared people who have accepted their own oppression to the point where they
ambitiously fight against anyone who will seek to give them a more free and
autnomous life. Like cows we are quite content to stand in our stanchons
chewing quietly on whatever is put in front of us, while somebody makes a
ton of money off of our very life juices. We have given up our freedoms and
equality in favour of being cared for by people who abuse us with complete
immunity from question.
So I ask you... when do you think anyone here might actually be ready to go
beyond "I am so a transsexual" and talk about some of the real issues?
Jane
lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake) writes:
> But, at the same time as they screech against the probings, they try to
> claim that the shrinks are quacks.
The shrinks are quacks. They follow a quack philosophy created by a quack.
> If someone probes into the causality issues, the response is almost always
> not "this isn't how it works" the response is "I am so a transsexual".
Transexuals do not ignore the causality issues, but we usually tend
to one conclusion, that that was they way we were born. Maybe others
hold that view for pragmatic reasons but that is genuinely what I
believe has happened in my case.
> If someone probes into the social influences upon our community the
> response isn't "and we should consider this too" the response is "I am
> so a transseuxual"
For what it's worth I know that I tend to ignore social influences I
don't agree with.
> If someone asks about the validity of the disorder model the response is
> not "It is valid/invalid upon this basis" the respose is "I am so a
> transsexual"
I don't know quite what you are trying to get at with this point, but
it seems to me that if a person is going to go to all the bother of
changing sex it would seem that there must have been a problem initially
that was solved by changing sex.
> All discussion of value has been utterly lost because everyone out there
> is so goddamned busy trying to validate their transsexualism all the time
> that they simply are incapable of broader or more in-depth discussion.
Maybe your style of discussion goes over better in person, but here it
seems quite abrasive, I think that is part of the problem. If only you
could choose a less abrasive style I am sure people would feel more
inclined to discuss with you the topics that interest you.
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
this is primarily for Julie, I tried to post it but couldn't get through:
> Psychodad wrote:
> > But do you understand why you feel you have the 'wrong' body? Why you
>hate it?
>
> Because a penis has no business on this body?
>
> > You see, noone is born hating their body, its just not so, you hate your
> > body because you want to be accpeted as a woman, and to be a woman you
> > must be female, right? So you see your male body as something that
>would prevent you
> > from becoming a woamn, so thats why you hate it.
>
> Thanks for telling all of us how we think and feel. Sorry, but those of
> us you live full-time female eventually figure out that society =has=
> accepted us as women long before SRS. Many people will assume we've
> already =had= SRS.
>
> > Well, congatulatins, the bi-polar gender system did a good job with putting
> > all these junk into your head.
>
> Well, congatulatins, your stereotyping of transsexuals as confused children
> who are incapable of freely making decisions on there own has come thru.
>
> > The truth it that you dont need to be female in order to be a woman,
>bobs and
> > vagina doent make you a woman, just ask any of the f2m TGs out there,
>and neither
> > do clothes and make-up.
>
> Yup. I certainly know that having a penis doesn't make me a man.
>
> Surprised? Of course you are -- your ignorance of our feelings
> =requires= that you make stupid statements.
>
> > Unfortunetly most TSs are not able to separate primary and secondary sexual
> > characteristcs from gender indentity, and that leads them to geeting
>srs and hrt
>
> No, most TSes know that they wish to have a body which is as close
> to female as possible (or male -- sorry guys).
> --
> Julianne Frances Haugh Feminism:
> mailto:j...@tab.com The belief (considered radical by
> http://www.tab.com/~jfh some) that women are people, too.
I hope this message gets to you, I would post it but frankly what
purpose would it serve? I may not know where life will take me, what
ultimate decisions I will make over my phuysical appearance, but I do
know that I wasn't told that I should want to be a woman rather I have
discovered who I am. I You already know that and I dare say that our
friends are either no longer interested in listening, or are unable to hear.
Either way they have a tremendous need to be right which means that they
have already "won" the flame war for they will be burning (and boring)
on long after the rest of us have forgotten it.
That is too bad, for Laura seems to have something to say. It is too bad
that she thinks that the right to say something is equivalent to the
world's need to believe it.
Oh well, c'est la vie, non?
Joy
Becky Allison
Laura Blake wrote:
> It is indeed the ongoing exposure to Cisgendered imagery, morality, and
> dictates that program transies to believe their body has to be changed in
> order for them to have the exercise of their innate identity as a man or a
> woman. This is the very thing my mentors helped me to see before I jumped
> off the surgery track.
>
> Think about it... cisgendered imagery is _everywhere_ It is in the movies,
> on television, in advertising, in our churches, on every street you walk,
> and in every store you visit. The only thing you ever see is masculine
> males and feminine females... where are the transies?
>
> There is even an enforcement structure at work... parents correct their
> children's play choices, friends and family chastize bad behaviour, and
> psychiatry can be called in to intervene. Act like a transie, and you
> suffer for it.
>
...
>
> As a child this leads to masking of your womanhood (or manhood), and a
> facade of manliness (or femininity) that is enacted for no greater purpose
> than avoiding social reprisals. Later the messages start getting to you and
> you begin believing them, changing that youthful avoidance into a state of
> full blown denial. Afterall nobody _wants_ to be part of something they
> believe is wrong or bad.
>
> Much later the denial cannot be sustained and you end up finding yourself
> right in the middle of something that every event in your life has told you
> is not right... What is the most natural reaction? Seek escape!
>
> But you can't go back, you know that in that direction lies denial and
> misery... so you leap back into the cisgendered world on the only other safe
> ground you know... as the opposite sex.
>
> You don't ever get to simply be yourself... a transgendered person.
>
> We are given both our identities and our bodies as a state of birth, we are
> taught the need to change sex by social experience.
I think this is an intelligent line of reasoning and on a theoretical
basis I can agree with it. Perhaps in a perfect world I could have made
known in early childhood my desire to live as a girl, and be accepted by
peers and authorities. Perhaps the changes of puberty and adult
maleness would not have bothered me or anyone else, because women would
have the prerogative of being bald and bearded also.
Perhaps there would have been no media emphasizing polarized stereotypes
of femininity and masculinity and pressuring me to fit into one or the
other. Perhaps I could have become a parent and remained in a
relationship with a female with society's blessing.
> ==================================
> NOTE: Before the word twisters out there freak out all over me... let me
> tell you flatly that I DO believe there are people for whom sex-change is
> exactly the right thing to do... I do not, however, see any convincing
> evidence that transsexuals understand the mechanisms of oppression that are
> at work upon them as they grow up transgendered in a cisgender-only world.
I understand and recognize that cisgender remains society's norm and
expectation. How do I deal with society? After all, I don't live in
the perfect world I described above; I live in _this_ world. I see at
least three paths I can follow.
1. I can live in that state of full blown denial Laura describes,
jumping back into society as cisgendered, trying desperately for the
rest of my life to keep anyone from finding out my past. As long as I
keep my secrets I can belong to the "club". But if "this subterfuge
does not last" (quoting Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction) my world crumbles
and I become a post-op regret case on Sally Jessy - or worse. This to
me is a perpetuation of the shame imposed upon transgendered people by a
cisgendered world, just as Laura says, and I reject this option.
Interestingly, this option has been advocated by may therapists and
gender clinics. Perhaps, as Laura says, their unspoken goal is to make
everyone fit in a cisgendered pattern, either a pink or a blue, and woe
to us purple people.
2. I can accept myself as a transgendered person and live openly in
freedom and truth. Wow, that sounds wonderful. Surgery? Who needs it?
Save my money. Hormones? Nah, Vlad says I don't need those either, I'm
just being sold a bill of goods by the cisgender establishment. I won't
let them control me! Hey, I don't even need to spend money on
electrolysis. I'll be a pioneer. Future generations will bask in the
light of freedom I made possible with my courageous nonsurgical
transgendered life. (Gosh, sorry, I don't do hyperbole well.)
But - I don't WANT to live like that... let's split a few hairs here.
Do I WANT hormones and electrolysis and surgery because it's been
programmed into me from infancy to be cisgendered? How can I say yes or
no? Maybe that's true. What of it? I WANT what I WANT (quoting another
much older movie - remember Anne Heywood as Roy/Wendy?) and I like very
much the body modifications I have attained. I like myself so much
better now. Does my happiness, my contentment, count for anything? I
am capable of making choices, and I choose to modify my body. Am I a
pawn of the cisgender establishment? Did the devil make me do it? Am I
responsible for my own actions?
3. I can accept reality. Reality says: every cell in my body has a Y
chromosome. I may not like it but that's the way it is. I am an XY
woman. But I choose to make the operative word in that sentence
"woman", not "XY". Whatever the reason, I WANTED these bodily changes.
I have always wanted them. I really don't care if the world I live in
told me I'm supposed to want them. I have found I can live and function
in this world, the only world I know, much better by choosing to have
these changes.
I am enjoying a very full and rewarding professional and personal life.
The majority of my friends and acquaintances are aware I have completed
a male to female transition. It is a part of my life, just as going to
college and medical school, having a child, being divorced, learning
Spanish, changing from Baptist to Episcopalian - it's just Becky and
they not only accept it, they think I'm a pretty neat person. Except a
few back in Mississippi who still think I'm really weird. When I've
felt it was proper to share my history with someone, they have accepted
me and gained a new perspective of tolerance for all transgendered
people. I am changing my world one person at a time.
I admire Laura and I respect the way she has chosen to live her life.
She is helping a great many people and I certainly benefit from knowing
her. I also admire Andrea Bennett, Kristin Hayward, Diedre McCloskey,
Michelle Steiner and, well, me, and everyone else on this group who have
had the courage to say "I WANT this in my life" and choose their path.
I don't think we are mindless or controlled by society. I think we have
taken control of our own lives and by being open about ourselves we are
doing our part to change society to be more accepting of transgendered
people. People like Julie, Karen, Giulia, and Caitlin-squared (I know,
they spell it differently) have spent a lot of time analyzing their
needs and motives. They know they can choose to make these changes or
not to make them, and they are choosing their future peace and
contentment. I respect their choice.
Let none of us think our way is the One True Way. Therein lies elitism
in any direction.
Becky
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Karen,
> You are utterly amazing... you went right past the entire meat of a long and
> carefully worded post, to attack the cotasil at the end...
Because it illustrates where you are coming from and puts the rst of the
post in it's proper perspective. I don't want to argue on your turf
under your ground rules. I think your basic assumption upon which you
build your entire framework is sightly flawed when it comes to
transsexuals.
You have much to say that is valid and needs to be said - as long as it
is understood not to apply universally.
> On Sat, 24 May 1997 01:30:06 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.) wrote:
> >You are denegrating my (and most other TS's) intellegence with that
> >statement - don't you realize it? <sigh>
>
> Why can't you understand that I have done no such thing?
I could quote from a number of your posts in the last week to
illustatrate the point. You continually insinuate that any insighful
enlightened person would never consider surgery and that those who
decide not to have it have reached a higher plain of understanding. If
I'm wrong about that please correct me but that is the impression that
your recent postings, taken as a whole, leave - at least for me.
> I've not told you that being transsexual is stupid... but you are trying to
> tell me that is what I meant. Why?
As I said that what it sounds like to me, and I'm sure others.
> I have not told you that being transsexual is invalid... but you are trying
> to tell me that is what I meant. Why?
You seem to be saying that TS's in general have not come to your stage
of "enlightement". If thats not invalidating and casting dispersons on
the intellegence of TS's please explain to me what it IS?
I understand what you are saying, believe it has validity for some but
not all. I also don't believe that anyone's path is more enlightened
then anyone elses.
You once you believed you needed surgery and eventually realized it was
not for you and that societial pressure was the reason you wanted it.
That does not mean that your path is superior to those that choose
surgery or that their reason for wanting it is the same as yours was.
> Do you want me to believe that you are stupid?
I wonder if I'm not seeing what you are saying (in-between the lines)
clearer then you are. I think there is a reason for your blindness in
this area but I'm not about to play armchair psychiatrist on line.
> Just keep going down this road and I'll have all the evidence I need.
Just because I don't buy into your way of thinking I'm stupid <sigh>.
That is in your opinion - and *I* don't consider you to be God.
I do consider you to be a thoughtful person who is simply too wraped up
in these issues emotionally to see the implications of what you say.
Why do you believe that whenever a transsexual disagrees with you it's
because they just don't understand? Can't you comprehend that
intellegent people can hear and understand what you say and still not
agree? Is that so inconcievable to you?
If it is, then I feel sorry for you because your are going through life
carring an unbearable self inflicted burden - always having to be right-
and that is why you have run into so much resistance to the good work
you try to do.
I do wish you all the best in spite of my disagreements with you.
Believe it or not, I do think you would be an intersting and worthwhile
person to know in 3D.
Take care,
-Karen A.
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 1997 06:13:13 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.) wrote:
> >> Vlad isn't hateful, I am not a hypocrite...
> >No - you both are gulity of believing that everone who has transgendered
> >feeling does so for the same reasons as you do.
>
> Y'know what Karen... this isn't continuing this discussion one inch. You
> are not discussing the topic, you are merely trying to shut me up.
No I'm not, truely. And I'm simply ont focusing on the aspects of the
topic that you would like and IMO (see below) for good reson.
> Are you capable of discussing anything except your own need for sex-change?
Certainly, once the validity of that need is not being challanged.
For myself I don't care because I know who I am and what I need - NOW.
The reason I'm trying to make this point is for those just trying to
come to terms with themselves. I had a hard time feeling good about my
need for surgery because logically I came to the conclusion it was not
needed BUT I was not factoring in how I felt about by body. I spent too
many years trying to ignore it (which is why I was at 360lbs before I
started therapy - now at 250). The need for congruence is powerful and
comes from within (at least for me).
> Are you able to think far enough beyond your own crotch to understand that
> the same social influences that drive many of us to want sex-changes are
> also keeping us unemployed, homeless, and disenfranchised?
Don't be insulting. Yes I understand the issues and yes, I've said
before there is validity to your argument - it just that thoses forces
are not the primary reason all who do want SRS. If you can agree with
that then we have no disagreement. Except for your insistance upon that
issue I am behind your efforts 100%. I've been trying to tell you that
the type of reaction you are showing here is exactly why your efforts
blow up in your face and so many TS's oppose you. <sigh>
> If there is one thing ---one single thing--- that will provide transsexuals
> with 100% total and unchallengable validation it is the discovery of the
> causality and course of the condition... and here you are fighting like hell
> to prevent it's discovery, while at the same time screeching at me for
> trying to invalidate you.
1) I'm not screeching (at least I don't think so).
2) You believe you have the answer already and not doing objective
research into the question.
3) You assume that there is only one basis for transsexualism - highly
unlikely.
Again I agree with your many of your points and we are not as far apart
as you seem think.
The problem is the issue we do disagree on is a very important one to
transsexuals.
Look I'm not one of those who will be able to blend into society
seemlessly. My physical attributes simply will not allow it. My life
experience (once I transition in July) will be more like yours then, for
instance, that of Karen Ross. I know that. I'm not happy about it but I
know that's how it's most likely to go so the issue of TG rights and
discrimiantion are germaine to me.
If you can accept that my desire for SRS is not a delusion forced on me
by society and my desire to conform then we have common cause. If not I
(and most other TS) can not work with you as your ARE invalidating us.
THAT is why I ignored the rest of your arguments and concentrated on
that one point.
One reason that I am spending the time on this (I can't type at a
resonable speed BTW) is that I think you are worth the effort.
Karen A
Laura Blake
On 24 May 1997 21:43:47 -0400, anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Jane) wrote:
>> If someone probes into the causality issues, the response is almost always
>> not "this isn't how it works" the response is "I am so a transsexual".
>
>Transexuals do not ignore the causality issues, but we usually tend
>to one conclusion, that that was they way we were born. Maybe others
>hold that view for pragmatic reasons but that is genuinely what I
>believe has happened in my case.
You see, Jane, you have just done exactly what I was talking about. You
missed the whole point of the message, and lept right into defending your
transsexualism...
The point was that everytime anyone strays off of the politically correct
lines of discussion in our community they wind up listening to someone
proclaiming the validity of their transsexualism. I wasn't discussing
causality (etc.) at all... I was discussing the uselessness of the political
correctness extant within our community.
:Stacey Maxwell:
m...@dimensional.com replied about the idea that being a rebel with
courage is a bilogical difference between the transgender subcultures:
>Would you care to expound on it anymore?
In my recent reply to Katy (the true Color post) you will find more
ideas about a seperate trait in the transgender person which has
nothing to do with gender yet is common in all of us, courage .
Futhermore I have posted before on this subject such as in the
following re-print of Stacey's greatest hits (gee it's so wonderfull
to be a star):
Subject: Subject: Re: Two ages of dressing
From: (:Stacey Maxwell:)
Date: 1996/04/26
Newsgroups: alt.transgendered
dkroop <dck968@.erols.com> wrote:
>I think the mid lifers are less fanatical and for the most part
>are satisfied as crossdressers rather than going for SRS.
>The lifers may cross over to SRS at a later point in
>life. It may have to do with time in dress and the desire for more
>fulfillment?
Count me in as from childhood not being satisfied that I was a boy.
Am I more fanatical and need more fulfillment, than those who started
in mid-life to have these feelings? Not sure, since the TGist route
seems like a reasonable option, instead of genital surgery. However,
some would think the hormones, or my electrolysis is fanatic and a
form of medical intervention, so depends on the point of view..
I have always, from childhood, WANTED to be the other sex instead of
thinking I WAS the other sex. Following the rules, and not
questioning my peers on how I should present myself had little to do
with gender or sex. It was more dependent on my subservient nature.
Could it be this discussion, may lead to the fact that fanaticism and
gender are two unrelated characteristic's? It takes someone with
courage to express both these traits. Perhaps it is the courage of
those who are alternate gender aware which makes them more of a
candidate.
Stacey (Who adds the story about the machine powered arm wrestler,
which justified many young mens courage, by breaking their arms)
.
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> No, Karen, it's because you keep writing messages that have absolutely
> nothing to do with what I'm saying.
They have a lot to do with what you are saying IMO. I guess I just don't
have good enough communucation skills to convince you of it. OK I'll
give up trying - I don't particuarly like bashing my head against a
wall.
There is a post by Andrea Bennett in this thread which summarizes what I
have been trying to tell you nicely. I was too lazy to put it all
together as she did. Maybe what she wrote can get through to you. I
certainly can't.
Good luck and have a good life,
-Karen A.
m...@dimensional.com
Dear Karen,
I think we missed a little on the communications. I wasn't comparing
the 'true transsexual' to the 'non-transsexual' but instead the 'true
transsexual' to the 'non-true transsexuals'. It seems like toward the
end of your message, you were comparing the former, not the latter.
In other words, let us assume that transsexuals can be divided into
two groups. The first group would have the need for SRS in all
cultures and societies. This group we call the 'true transsexual'.
The second group would have the need for SRS only in some societies
including our own. This group we call the 'non-true transsexuals'. (I
wish we had a better label here, the use of the word 'true' has a
tendency to subtly invalidate any alternative)
Remember, both groups are transsexual', i.e. have the need/desire' to
have had SRS. We are only dividing them based on 'source' of that
need. We make no other basic presumptions about the groups.
Intensity of need. Happiness and success after SRS. Level of
womanness (or manness). Other factors are not intrinsic to this
division.
If there is a difference in need or success between the two groups, it
has yet to be established.
This leads to certain discussion questions...
- Can one presume the 'needs' of the true transsexual' are different
or more 'real' than the non-true transsexual'? If so, why?
- Can one presume the 'true transsexual' will be more/less successful
than the 'non-ture transsexual' after SRS? If so, why?
- If we found an objective way to divide true transsexuals from
non-true transsexuals, should non-ture transsexuals be treated
differently than true transsexuals?
- You mentioned self examination (something I strongly like and
encourage) as a means to define yourself as a 'true transsexual'. If
after examination, you defined yourself instead as a non-true
transsexual, how would that have changed your life if any? And why?
- If self determination is the only means of dividing the true
transsexual from the non-true transsexual, what does that mean from a
third persons point of view? I mean, if the third person can't make
that divisional judgment, should that person ignore the division? If
not, in what way does the third person treat a 'true transsexual'
differently from a 'non-true transsexual' ? And again why <g>?
--------------------
On Sat, 24 May 1997 15:35:44 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
>In an absolute physical sense - yes but there is some evidence
>supporting the notion that most of recieve SRS are happier for it.
But we don't know which of that group are 'true' and which of that
group are 'non-true'.
>> [Marla]
>> More importantly, why do we care?
>> In what way is this division of 'true' form 'untrue' of any
>> importance?
>Because the path to fufilment is significantly different for each.
That's the presumption I'm questioning. WHY is it significantly
different for each? I don't see any basis for that presumption in
your definition..
Again, we are dividing the two grouped based on 'source' of the need
(nurture vs nature), not the need itself. If the need is the 'same',
the results should be the same irrespective of the source unless we
have an objective reason or evidence to believe otherwise.
>They need to understand that just because they, in their hearts, know
>they need surgery that it's NOT because they are dupes. They need to
>know thoses feelings can be valid.
I think in this sentence there is the foundation of the difference in
our view points.
To me, I am just as valid a person irrespective of the source of my
needs and values. My needs are just as real, just as powerful, just
as important, irrespective of the source.
And if my needs are totally a result of nurture, it does not mean I am
a dupe, it just means that I am a social animal. Something that I
think is already presumed in my humanity.
As such, I also presume anyone else's needs are valid irrespective of
the source. In other words, it seems to me that the need for SRS is
equally valid for the true transsexual and the non-ture transsexual'.
And the results of SRS should be equally effective for the true
transsexual and the non-true transsexual.
Actually, I don't really divide nurture and nature in this way. I
actually think it's impossible to do so. I look at human beings as
being a rich mixture of both nurture and nature, and to divide the two
is meaningless. Each effects the other, and therefore cannot exist in
isolation.
When I paint, the work that results is both a function of my raw
materials (the canvas, the oils, the light, the subject) and my
creative energies. If I take away the raw materials I have no work.
If I take away my creative energies, I still have no work. To say my
'art' (? <g>) is a result only of my raw materials or my creative
energies is an utterly meaningless statement. It cannot be done.
I look at humans in the same way. We are the rich interaction of
nurture and nature, and to attribute cause to only one source is a
meaningless for it ignores the interaction of the two.
I'm reading from your sentence above a different perspective than mine
about nurture vs nature. A presumption that the effects of nurture
are somehow less valid or less real than the effects of nature. To be
influenced by nurture is somehow demeaning but to be influenced by
nature is not. Am I right in that presumption?
Hugs, Marla
************************************************
* Marla Louise
* EMail: m...@dimensional.com, marl...@aol.com
* Homepage: http://www.dimensional.com/~mb/
************************************************
Joan Tine
Julie Haugh (j...@tab.com) wrote:
> > But, WHY do you think that?
> Because it is very rudely occupying the space where I'd like a
> vagina to be?
All the theorizing (and you've read my rants: the professionals are
more guilty than the wannabes, since there _is_ no scientific theory
for either personality or identity, nor is there likely to be one
before serious strides are made in AI) seems to ignore the facts of my
own experience: when I was small, I _knew_ that that penis was wrong
for me, it had no place on my body. This was a source of deep
discomfort throughout my childhood.
One more data point, tho: I _didn't_ know, at that time, that women
didn't have them. I just naturally assumed that Mom and Dad were
built the same...except for the bust.
One fashion in psychological theory is the "no spontaneous ideation"
one, which is tracable directly to the writings of Karl Marx (!) and
insists that "reality" is purely a social construct, and learned. I
don't think this has been demonstrated...or even tested with
appropriate scientific creativity yet.
Until the psychological establishment can conceptualize something
corresponding to autostart ROM in addition to the "higher self" which
they've seemingly fled from dealing with ("behaviorism"), they will be
using a model which is inferior to the design of a calculator to
describe self-aware beings. Maybe candidates for pshrink could be
required to pass a course in Chaos Theory, so that we can be sure they
aren't too stupid at the outset to play with what they're playing
with....
J
Psychodad
On Sat, 24 May 1997 14:47:09 -0500, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
>Laura Blake wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 23 May 1997 08:28:27 -0500, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
>> >Is it possible that instead of us transsexuals not understanding the
>> >forces which make us run to SRS that it is transgenderists which don't
>> >understand us?
>>
>> Is it possible for you to understand that examining "the forces" does not
>> invalidate your surgical wish? It only helps us all understand our
>> transgender blessings a little better.
>
>Yes -- but Laura, in all honesty, your presentation of this discussion
>is not directed at "Julie, what are your desires", but rather "Julie,
>I found self-acceptance of being woman/male, why can't you?"
So, why can't you? Do you want to be woman or do you want to be female?
Make up your mind.
Vlad.
Psychodad
On Sun, 25 May 1997 12:53:23 -0500, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
>m...@dimensional.com wrote:
>>
>> Dear Karen,
>>
>> I think we missed a little on the communications. I wasn't comparing
>> the 'true transsexual' to the 'non-transsexual' but instead the 'true
>> transsexual' to the 'non-true transsexuals'. It seems like toward the
>> end of your message, you were comparing the former, not the latter.
>
>states of gender identity inversion, that's all. On a scale of zero to
>six, transsexuals are 4 thru 6 -- meaning essentially that their gender
>identity is inverted more than half way.
>
You missed the point Julie.
I personally believe that there're no TRUE TSs, only TGs who have
been programmed by society to believe that they have the need for SRS
and HRT, but I'm going to givre you benifit of the doungt, and say that
you're what we call a true TS, someone who has already beena ccepted as a woman
and only wants to get SRS to satishy their own, uknown to science inner need to be female, but there also 'non-tue TS' those people who dpnt really want to be female, but
feel that they would not be accepted by society as women unless they also change
their sex to female, they never felt like they were born intoa wrong body, and
they never hated their male genetalia, but they lie to their therapists about it,
after all we all knwo the RIGHT thing to say to out therapists in order to get
green light for SRS.
So these non-true TSs are the real victims od the opressive bi-polar gender system
as they have absolutely no-place on the surgeons opreating table.
Vlad.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4403/sos.html
m...@dimensional.com
On Sun, 25 May 1997 17:08:09 GMT, lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake)
wrote:
>THAT my dear is not your judgement to make. One of the most difficult
>aspects of human rights work, certainly the one I struggled with the most,
>is the concept that in a truly free society people are allowed to decide
>their own lives... including making their own stupid mistakes. We may try
>to educate people away from mistakes, but we cannot tell them not to choose
>their own path, even if that choice is utterly disastrous for them.
----
This statement got somewhat lost in a lot of other discussion. Yet, I
believe it to be a very important philosophy. It's the right of each
individual to follow their own path, irrespective of the opinions of
others whether that path is good or bad.
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So far all you have done is claim that I am trying to invalidate you. You
> have yet to post a single sentence on the topic of social influences of any
> other comment about the topic of the lead post in this thread.
I've said I MOSTLY agree with agree with you that these forces exist,
are powerful and cause some people to make decisions for the wrong
reason and unjustly repress transgenedered people.
All I asked of you is to admit the possibility that for some people the
primary motivating force for SRS is not societal pressure and that we
are not dups who simply can't see what you do who, if we did, would
choose to forsake surgery.
> Go there... talk about the subject matter, instead of reacting to it
> defensively and I will be happy to talk to you.
Laura, not not speak of that which you do not know...
I was not reacting in a defensive manner. I do not need to defend my
decsions to you or anyone. I got involved after Vlad's obnoxious remarks
and your support of them. I did not feel attacked personally. I replied
because people who are just trying to find themselves are reading this
group and they need to know that the desire for surgery CAN be valid
and may (not always) simply spring from who they are. That progessed to
an honest desire to make you understand how I feel and why I and other
find your remarks offensive (again - not for the reasons you assume).
Once again I'll tell you I believe you are doing valuble work but that
your dogmatic insistance that EVERYONE has the same motivations as you ,
but just don't realize it, cripples your effectiveness.
Best Wishes,
-Karen A
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I will contend (and I rather suspect Vlad will too) that no "incongruency"
> is possible because gender identity (man or woman) and body sex (male and
> female) are simply two separate and unrelated characteristics of our
> existence.
Well you said you wanted me to comment so I will give you some of my
answers to the questions you pose to Dani.
Separate yes, unrelated - no. I went down this path years ago woth Marla
on CI$. The social construct of woman developed in large part (but not
completely) because of the physical diferences in the sexes. Without
male and female masculine and feminine would be meaninless term. In
addition there is an undeniably high correlation between gender identity
and physical sex. High correlation - not absolutes - are all you ever
get in complicated biological systems.
In addition there has been conjecture that exposure to unusually high
levels of estrogenic compounds in utero during the 3rd trimester may
cause the brain to develop im a "female' pattern - note I did not say
feminine. In support of this notion is the observation that other brain
disorders that are conjectured to have their origin in the third
trimester (such as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) - which I have been
diagnosed with) are disproportinally higher in TS's then the general
population - All this according to my therapist so I don't have
references.
Thus a strong, possibly biochemically based, feeling of incongruence is
possible.
I don't have conclusive proof of this just as you don't have conclusive
proof that your theories are the only explanation for transgendered
behavior.
> As I have repeatedly explained here, in the past few days, there
> are demonstrably 4 not 2 basic kinds of people --woman-female, woman-male,
> man-male, man-female-- but only two, the cisgendered pair (woman-female and
> man-male), are tolerated in our society.
In biological systems things are not that simple. Where do the
physically intersexed fit into your classification? And, since thay
unarguably exist how can you exclude a more subtle biolgical influence
that can cause feelings of physical incongruity?
> I will contend, as I have all along
> that we are _taught_ to associate sex with gender by our life's experiences,
> and will maintain that the "incongruency" felt by so many transsexuals is
> simply not there in basic human reality; it is instead a socially imposed
> concoction designed to ensure that we all conform to the "cisgendered
> ideal".
And I contend, as I stated above that gender identity and sex are
related and in fact the gender identities of masculine and feminine in
large part derived in response to the physical characteristics of male
and female and the difference in world view these caused.
What has evolved is not the only possible response to these differences
- and certainly the the optimal one. In addition and some of these
differences are no longer relavent in a technological society as well.
To illustrate how your theories brake down on the individual level let
me tell you about someone I know. All her life she felt physically
incongrous and wanted surgery (which she achieved) but had (and still
has) no desire to be feminine in the conventional sense. I think that
makes life her life very difficult - but that is who she is. Societal
pressure had little to do with her desire for surgery.
> Moreover, I will tell you that this cisgendered ideal (dictating that all
> men are male and all women are female) is dangerous to the transgendered
> because it creates such desperation to fit in, and such a profound lack of
> self-worth that a simple lack of financial resources, needed to change the
> body, becomes life-threatening.
While this is true in some cases, I would argue that it's not always so
- or at least the sole cause of the desperation - that a feeling of
physical incongruity (again I reject that your reasoning which "proves"
that incongruety can not exist) - not societally - induced contributes
to it. That is why SRS should be covered under medical insurance.
> If we can understand the influences working
> upon us, and understand how to live comfortably outside the cisgender ideal
> --to accept ourselves and live as transgendered people-- we considerably
> reduce the level of discomfort we suffer both as individuals and as a
> community.
True, If we consider it from a societal view there is no question that
gender diversity should be acceptable and that it would make life easier
for thoses who's gender identity does not conform with the norms for
their physical gender for whatever reason.
> Absent this discomfort, SRS becomes a question of personal
> choice, not an act of blood burning desperation, and most certainly not the
> cure for a disorder.
From the individual view (not public policy) there are those who's
gender identity is not transgendered (note difference betwwen identity
and physical state) but simply in alignment with that opposite their
sex. In addition some of these people will have a strong feeling of
incongruity with their body. For them it is a cure for a disorder. Being
transgendered physically is not ALWAYS a physical disorder but it CAN
be. It does remain a personal choice reguardless - as Christian
Scientists well know.
>
> So Dani, I would ask you: Is "congruency" just another way of saying
> "cisgender ideal"?
Sometimes, for some people, but not always IMO. More reasearch needs to
be done before that can be stated conclusively
-Karen A
Karen Ann A.
<m...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> - Can one presume the 'needs' of the true transsexual' are different
> or more 'real' than the non-true transsexual'? If so, why?
Needs are needs but in one case therapy and understanding of the
underlying reasons for the need can eliminate it (Laura'a stance) and in
the other it can not. BTW the groups overlap IMO.
> - Can one presume the 'true transsexual' will be more/less successful
> than the 'non-ture transsexual' after SRS? If so, why?
No, Even ift it as not an intrisic need they may find happiness doen
that route. Conversly a "true" transsexual may not have the strength to
deal with the barriers that this society throws up and "fail". Neither
guarentees "success" (Happines?)
> - If we found an objective way to divide true transsexuals from
> non-true transsexuals, should non-ture transsexuals be treated
> differently than true transsexuals?
Yes in terms of dealing with many issues. For example the direction of
therapy (if the individual fet the need for it) would be different.
> - You mentioned self examination (something I strongly like and
> encourage) as a means to define yourself as a 'true transsexual'. If
> after examination, you defined yourself instead as a non-true
> transsexual, how would that have changed your life if any? And why?
If I believed that I could find inner peace without physical congruence
I would not consider SRS. If living a Bi-gendered life provided me what
I needed I would not transition - would be much more likly to keep my
marriage intact (something I want very much). In other words it would
have a profound impact on how my life proceeds.
Why? - Simply because that is me. I can not find comfort in anything
other then full transition and SRS. I came to that conclusion after a
lot of soul seaching. It would be simpler if it were not so - but it is.
> - If self determination is the only means of dividing the true
> transsexual from the non-true transsexual, what does that mean from a
> third persons point of view? I mean, if the third person can't make
> that divisional judgment, should that person ignore the division?
Depends on the relationship. In most cases no distinction should be
drawn. In a theraputic situation the distinction is vital.
If there is a physical/biochemical cause for TSism and the two groups
could be divided most of the time no division should be drawn.
> If
> not, in what way does the third person treat a 'true transsexual'
> differently from a 'non-true transsexual' ? And again why <g>?
I think I answered that already.
Take Care
-Karen A.
Pollychrome
On 26 May 1997, Psychodad wrote:
| I personally believe that there're no TRUE TSs, only TGs who have been
| programmed by society to believe that they have the need for SRS and
| HRT.
Interesting. Of course it could be argued that we are ALL "mis-programmed"
by society into cross-gendered patterns anyway.
| but feel that they would not be accepted by society as women unless they
| also change their sex to female, they never felt like they were born
| intoa wrong body, and they never hated their male genetalia, but they
| lie to their therapists about it, after all we all knwo the RIGHT thing
| to say to out therapists in order to get green light for SRS.
But isn't that just the difference between being transgendered, and being
transsexual. I class myself (if and when I need to) as a transsexual
woman, solely on the grounds that I DO want the SRS (but not until after
uni). But, being transsexual is, then a subset of being transgendered,
which is where one's apparent gender differs from that assigned (by
doctors and parents) at birth.
| So these non-true TSs are the real victims od the opressive bi-polar
| gender system as they have absolutely no-place on the surgeons opreating
| table.
Agreed. Isn't that what the medical "gatekeepers" do, regardless of how
despised and resented they are?
Cheers,
-Laura Anne Seabrook | c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au
| http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/6633
m...@dimensional.com
On Mon, 26 May 1997 20:19:27 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
>I've said I MOSTLY agree with agree with you that these forces exist,
>are powerful and cause some people to make decisions for the wrong
>reason and unjustly repress transgenedered people.
>
>All I asked of you is to admit the possibility that for some people the
>primary motivating force for SRS is not societal pressure and that we
>are not dups who simply can't see what you do who, if we did, would
>choose to forsake surgery.
Karen,
May I ask something?
Please cease with painting those that are influenced by nurture, i.e.
society, in a negative manner. Please quit with referring to such
individuals as 'dupes'.
They are not dupes and I find it insulting to imply that if one finds
one's values in society, one is a dupe.
The fact that I and others get our values from society and make our
life decisions based on those values has nothing to do with being a
'dupe'. It has everything to do with being a social animal and a
human being.
m...@dimensional.com
Karen,
Much of your response was predicated on an assumption for which I see
no evidence. And that was the conclusion that those who's 'needs'
have their source in nurture can eliminate those needs through therapy
while those that have their needs come from nature cannot.
This is an assumption that seems utterly unprovable.
You are a chemist, you know about the experimental process. As such,
you know that if one cannot objectively tell the difference between
two substances, one cannot objectively make any conclusions about how
they will respond differently under various stimuli.
We cannot objectively tell which human needs come from nature and
which come from nurture. Therefore it is impossible to conclude that
the needs will respond differently to therapy.
To conclude otherwise is pure supposition.
In the case of transgendered needs though, we do have some evidence of
how they respond to therapy. They don't <BG>! Therapy seemingly
cannot eliminate your transsexual needs any more than they can
eliminate my bigendered needs.
And therefore, it is utterly irrelevant if our needs come from
nurture, nature, a mix of the two, or different sources for each of
us. The source does not change the need. The source (as far as we
are capable of knowing) does not modify our ability to
respond/not-respond to therapy.
So again, I find no value in the adjective 'true' whether applied to
transsexuals or even bigendereds like myself. If I am a 'true
bigendered' (i.e. my needs come from nature) or not, I find utterly
irrelevant. Today, now, in this society, my 'needs' are real.
The source of that need, whether I am 'true' or 'not-true' has no
meaning. As such, I still find the division has no meaning.
--------
On Mon, 26 May 1997 20:22:19 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
>> {Marla}
>> - Can one presume the 'true transsexual' will be more/less successful
>> than the 'non-ture transsexual' after SRS? If so, why?
>No, Even ift it as not an intrisic need they may find happiness doen
>that route. Conversly a "true" transsexual may not have the strength to
>deal with the barriers that this society throws up and "fail". Neither
>guarentees "success" (Happines?)
I think this is the important point. In making a decision on SRS or
not, the fact that a TS may or may not be 'true' seems to have no
important value. Both may 'succeed', and unfortunately both may fail.
>> {Marla}
>> - You mentioned self examination (something I strongly like and
>> encourage) as a means to define yourself as a 'true transsexual'. If
>> after examination, you defined yourself instead as a non-true
>> transsexual, how would that have changed your life if any? And why?
>
>If I believed that I could find inner peace without physical congruence
>I would not consider SRS. If living a Bi-gendered life provided me what
>I needed I would not transition - would be much more likly to keep my
>marriage intact (something I want very much). In other words it would
>have a profound impact on how my life proceeds.
But you are not bigendered! You are transsexual. And whether 'true'
or not, transsexual is still the primary adjective. How would
concluding that your needs are a result of nurture make an alternate
path (like bigendered or transgenderist) any easier for you?
>Why? - Simply because that is me. I can not find comfort in anything
>other then full transition and SRS. I came to that conclusion after a
>lot of soul seaching. It would be simpler if it were not so - but it is.
I understand this. What I don't understand is what it has to do with
'true' and 'not-true', i.e. whether your needs come from nurture or
nature. This statement would be just as true for a 'not-true
transsexual' as it would for a 'true transsexual'.
As far as simplicity is concerned. IMHO, it is always simpler to be
true to your own self, and follow that path whatever it may be.
Exploring the reasons why we must walk a path help with that journey,
but they do not change the need to walk the path.
>> - If self determination is the only means of dividing the true
>> transsexual from the non-true transsexual, what does that mean from a
>> third persons point of view? I mean, if the third person can't make
>> that divisional judgment, should that person ignore the division?
>Depends on the relationship. In most cases no distinction should be
>drawn. In a theraputic situation the distinction is vital.
>
>If there is a physical/biochemical cause for TSism and the two groups
>could be divided most of the time no division should be drawn.
In this I think we are of agreement <g>. And probably that is all
that is important. I and others and by presumption, society, should
not differentiate between the 'true transsexual' and the 'not-true
transsexual.
Our disagreement seems to be only in the region of therapy. And I
made my comments on this at the top :-)
dani richard
Laura Blake wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 May 1997 08:16:29 -0500, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
>
> >Psychodad wrote:
> >> But do you understand why you feel you have the 'wrong' body? Why you hate it?
> >
> >Because a penis has no business on this body?
>
>
> Laura Blake
>
> Being the first to climb the mountain
> also means you must find your own way down.
> -------
I KNOW by emperical experience that having a penis causes me disfunction
and disease
(disease: 2a an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or
plant body that affects the peformance of vital functions: SICKNESS b: a
particular instance or kind of such impairment: MALADY from Webster's
Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary).
I have have this knowledge confirmed by therapist that have studied and
treated this dis-ease. I am glad there is a field of study to help me to
have 1. the proper diagnosis, 2. proven and effective treatments and 3.
results (risk/benifits) studies in the treatment of this dis-ease.
When I try to live "as a man" I was not able to hold down a job due to
inability to concentrate and depression. Living as a woman have reduced
the disfunction to where I can work. I look to the next step to continue
my recovery.
Dani Richard
Sherry
Joan Tine <jo...@cts.com> wrote in article
<86457877...@optional.cts.com>...
> One fashion in psychological theory is the "no spontaneous ideation"
> one, which is tracable directly to the writings of Karl Marx (!) and
> insists that "reality" is purely a social construct, and learned. I
> don't think this has been demonstrated...or even tested with
> appropriate scientific creativity yet.
Blah...blah....blah.....zzzzzzzzzz....
> Until the psychological establishment can conceptualize something
> corresponding to autostart ROM in addition to the "higher self" which
> they've seemingly fled from dealing with ("behaviorism"), they will be
> using a model which is inferior to the design of a calculator to
> describe self-aware beings. Maybe candidates for pshrink could be
> required to pass a course in Chaos Theory, so that we can be sure they
> aren't too stupid at the outset to play with what they're playing
> with....
>
> J
Joan, I'd wish you lighten up on the psyc crap & type like a normal person
would. We know your smart, just ease up on the lingo....jingo....geezzzz...
Sherry babes...
she...@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~sherryg
>
Kristin Rachael Hayward
In article <01bc6b09$89158d60$995f...@sherryg.interlog.com> "Sherry "
<she...@interlog.com> writes:
:Joan Tine <jo...@cts.com> wrote in article
:<86457877...@optional.cts.com>...
:
:> One fashion in psychological theory is the "no spontaneous ideation"
:> one, which is tracable directly to the writings of Karl Marx (!) and
:> insists that "reality" is purely a social construct, and learned. I
:> don't think this has been demonstrated...or even tested with
:> appropriate scientific creativity yet.
:
:Blah...blah....blah.....zzzzzzzzzz....
:
:
:Joan, I'd wish you lighten up on the psyc crap & type like a normal person
:would. We know your smart, just ease up on the lingo....jingo....geezzzz...
^^^^
:
:Sherry babes...
:
:she...@interlog.com
:http://www.interlog.com/~sherryg
:
<real Kristin mode on>
With all of the off-target, inflamatory posts, personal attacks, endless
"you said, he/she said, I said" posting on these two groups, I personally
don't find Joan's theses to be inappropriate.
Rather than respond as you have, just add
to your KILL file and you wouldn't see anything else from Theoni, while
the rest of us can enjoy her posts in peace.
</real Kristin mode on>
Kristin Rachael Hayward
http://www.khayward.com/krh.html
Joan Tine
Sherry (she...@interlog.com) wrote:
> Joan Tine <jo...@cts.com> wrote in article
> <86457877...@optional.cts.com>...
> > One fashion in psychological theory is the "no spontaneous ideation"
> > one, which is tracable directly to the writings of Karl Marx (!) and
> > insists that "reality" is purely a social construct, and learned. I
> > don't think this has been demonstrated...or even tested with
> > appropriate scientific creativity yet.
> Blah...blah....blah.....zzzzzzzzzz....
> > Until the psychological establishment can conceptualize something
> > corresponding to autostart ROM in addition to the "higher self" which
> > they've seemingly fled from dealing with ("behaviorism"), they will be
> > using a model which is inferior to the design of a calculator to
> > describe self-aware beings. Maybe candidates for pshrink could be
> > required to pass a course in Chaos Theory, so that we can be sure they
> > aren't too stupid at the outset to play with what they're playing
> > with....
> > J
> Joan, I'd wish you lighten up on the psyc crap & type like a normal
> person would. We know your smart, just ease up on the
> lingo....jingo....geezzzz...
It is true that those who have something between their ears often
reveal that fact when they have something to say...the correlary is
that those who _don't_ reveal _that_ at other times. Q.E.D.
Yours in Christ,
Joan
--
=+=+=329th ASA Co+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Wombat! Transexual Menace! Vicus Lusorum! Curry! Request public key.
Theoni Srith Nanklaren/Bubblegum Crisis/Rollerblade Macro EQ/Stego
Quare tristis es anima mea, et quare conturbas me?
Jennifer Lynn
m...@dimensional.com wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 1997 17:08:09 GMT, lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake)
> wrote:
>
> >is the concept that in a truly free society people are allowed to decide
> >their own lives... including making their own stupid mistakes. We may try
> >to educate people away from mistakes, but we cannot tell them not to choose
> >their own path, even if that choice is utterly disastrous for them.
>
> believe it to be a very important philosophy. It's the right of each
> individual to follow their own path, irrespective of the opinions of
> others whether that path is good or bad.
> Hugs, Marla
And it makes me crazy every single time, i see someone I care
about making the same type of stupid mistake, that hurt me
big time, and I'm not allowed to forbid them from making that move.
I hate respecting other peoples rights in that case, but i do
but it still sucks, to watch someone do something that will
cause them to crash and burn.
but I'm always there to pick up the pieces,
and help rebuild the person again
hugs
Yenta Jen
Karen Ann A.
<m...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> Karen,
>
> Much of your response was predicated on an assumption for which I see
> no evidence. And that was the conclusion that those who's 'needs'
> have their source in nurture can eliminate those needs through therapy
> while those that have their needs come from nature cannot.
Quite simply, I believe that if the need is from an external force
understanding the motivation *MAY* alleviate the need. Also, IMO, if it
is external then post SRS regrets are more likely (not definite) as that
understyanding may come after the fact. Again, IMO, these are important
issues for therapy.
>
> You are a chemist, you know about the experimental process. As such,
> you know that if one cannot objectively tell the difference between
> two substances, one cannot objectively make any conclusions about how
> they will respond differently under various stimuli.
Just because the difference is not obvious does not mean there is none.
often times, even in a physical science, things can not be determined
uambiguously with the resources at at hand (state of the art, time,
equipment, budget, personnel, etc.). In that case, in doing development,
one proceeds on hints - data which is indicative but not conclusive.
Doing a good job (being right significantly more often the being wrong)
takes talent. I have seem people find real differences that had huge
effect on the success on projects from data from which most could find
"no difference". They knew where to look.
Likewise (all IMO again) a good therapist, working with someone who is
being honest about their feelings and in their responses, can discern
the difference - Not always, and not with absolute certainty in the case
of any individual, but often enough that it is obvious that the
differences in kind exist.
> In the case of transgendered needs though, we do have some evidence of
> how they respond to therapy. They don't <BG>! Therapy seemingly
> cannot eliminate your transsexual needs any more than they can
> eliminate my bigendered needs.
But understanding her motivations seems to have "cured" Laura's need for
SRS. At one time she wanted it badly if I remember things she has
written correctly.
What is therapy but help with understanding ourselves? When looked at
that way, Laura's arguments imply good therapy can rid a transgendered
person of the need for SRS - IMO assuming they are not transsexual - but
not of being transgendered.
BTW, Have you experienced therapy for any issue?
> And therefore, it is utterly irrelevant if our needs come from
> nurture, nature, a mix of the two, or different sources for each of
> us. The source does not change the need. The source (as far as we
> are capable of knowing) does not modify our ability to
> respond/not-respond to therapy.
I simply don't agree.
Take Care
-Karen A.
m...@dimensional.com
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997 04:34:49 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
> [A lot of interesting stuff].
I think we've hashed out most of these points, and I'm not sure I can
add anything more to my point view. I'd just be repeating myself. Is
there anything specific in your comments you would like me to respond
to?
Big Dog
Pollychrome <c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.970527...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>...
> On 26 May 1997, Psychodad wrote:
>
> But isn't that just the difference between being transgendered, and being
> transsexual. I class myself (if and when I need to) as a transsexual
> woman, solely on the grounds that I DO want the SRS (but not until after
> uni). But, being transsexual is, then a subset of being transgendered,
> which is where one's apparent gender differs from that assigned (by
> doctors and parents) at birth.
I am transgendered Butch female. I want to add that being transgendered is
also at odds with the biological sex for many of us which is neither
assigned by doctors or parents at birth. Of course, I do not believe in a
bi-polar gender system. While I am not a "woman" I still do not wish to be
a "man".
C
--
*You can never be too Butch*
Caitlyn M. Martin
[alt.transgendered deleted]
Julie Haugh wrote:
>
>
> First, there are "true transsexuals" and "transsexuals". There are
> no such thing as "non-true transsexuals". "True" is simply an
> adjective, like "Surgery-tracked". I'm "Surgery-tracked", and based
> on my own self-understanding am probably a Type V "Moderate Intensity
> True Transsexual". I could say "Hey, I'm 6 1/2 months pre-op", which
> is kinda meaningless to a therapist who understands gender crud. But
> if I said "Julie Haugh is a High Intensity True Transsexual" and I
> was a therapist speaking to another therapist, it's kinda likely that
> a =huge= amount of information has just been conveyed.
Hi, Julie,
I've heard the words "high intensity" used in reference to myself, but I
really don't know the definition. Also, how do you define "true"?
Please enlighten the ignorant, such as me.
(At least I know what "surgery-tracked" means... Yep, I fit into that
one.)
>
> Next, there are "transsexuals (types 4 thru 6) ..." and "people who
> are very confused because something else is going on and they just
> aren't transsexual at all." THOSE people =can= be helped by therapy
> to the extent that their underlying psychopathology =is= treatable
> with either medicine or therapy. It would be a mistake to allow
> someone who is severely mentally ill to have sex reassignment surgery.
Explain types 4 thru 6. What happened to 1 thru 3.
Oh goody, more labels... Just what we needed...
Curious,
Katy
Caitlyn M. Martin
Julie Haugh wrote:
>
Believe it or not, I never read Dr. Benjamin's work. I guess I should
have done. I always concentrated on the books by transsexuals
describing their experiences. I guess they were writing things I could
relate to.
>
> A high intensity true transsexual is a person whose gender identity
> is =completely= inverted. The scale is 0 to 6 -- 0 means "normal"
> where males have a masculine sense of geneder and females a feminine
> sense. Harry Benjamin described 7 (with 0 not being very interesting
> from his perspective) different category, much like the Kinsey scale
> of sexual orientation. His experience was the types 5 and 6 on his
> scale desired sexual reassignment and type 4 (which is "low intensity
> transsexual (non-op)" generally didn't. The adjective "true" comes
> from the observation by Dr. Benjamin that the individual =did= want
> to have SRS. It doesn't mean that a non-op isn't transsexual, just
> that a non-op doesn't wish to actually change their genital sex.
>
This explained it well. Now, I'm trying to figure out why someone
described me as high intensity (I'd guess a 6 on the scale) as opposed
to medium (5). What criteria would be used? Not knowing the
measurement, I could make arguments for either based on my life. This
is particularly interesting considering where the comment came from.
I'm now guessing that a former therapist whom I thought never could see
me for what I was really may have done all along, which would make her
actions even more questionable than before. If she saw me as "high
intensity", why the **** did she set so many road blocks in front of
me???
BTW, I wasn't supposed to hear the comment at the time.
Katy
Kristin Rachael Hayward
Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> writes:
:Laura Blake wrote:
:>
:> On Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:53:04 -0700, ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle
:> Steiner) wrote:
:> >I get the impression that you believe that those of us who fall into
:> >category five are in the smallest minority.
:>
:> Can't say as I really know the proportions, Michelle....
:>
:> But I do know this much: Most transsexuals spend so much effort
:> rationalizing and justifying, that I am convinced they would all _claim_ #5
:> just to be with the "correct" crowd, or to enhance their chances of getting
:> operated on.
:
:Oh, but of =course= you know our true motivations. <yawn>
:
:Most of the surgery-tracked transsexuals that I've known all have the
:same realization about 6 to 9 months into living full-time. Having a
:penis does NOT make them a man (anymore than having a vagina makes an
:F2M a woman).
Yes, that certainly happened to me; I recall writing that in my journal
at the time (reprinted as a chapter of Rani's book, BTW).
:
:If I were to give two benefits of RLT for the individual, I'd say that
:giving people the time to reach this conclusion is the greatest, followed
:by giving people time to adjust socially to living as the opposite sex.
Continuing on the topic of realization, I will never forget waking up
after the operation in Neenah and the realization I had -- a feeling
of complete and utter peacefulness, of rightness, finally, with the
world.
After 42 years of wanting, praying to be female, I now had biological
congruence. I remember looking around at the room, and everything
seemed new and fresh, like a Spring morning when flowers are coming
up, the song birds have returned after a long hard winter, and the sky
is perfectly blue.
During those next 6 days in bed, even when I received negative phone
calls from my SO and *no* communication fro my family, I still knew
how right it was.
A few weeks ago marked three years since the operation, July 6 will
mark 4 years since the beginning of the RLT, it is now over 4 1/2
years since that fateful day I made the decision to transition, and I
can say I have never had a moment when I didn't know the decision to
transition was right, but perhaps more important to this thread, not
one moment since the surgery when I wished I had not had the surgery.
At the oddest times, I continue to feel that same feeling I did upon
waking after the surgery, a feeling that life is new, that something
is now right with the world and not just with myself.
As I have posted repeatedly, surgery is not for everyone. But it was
right for me. I deeply respect the choice made by fulltime TGs; and it
seems to me that there life is harder than mine, for they cannot
easily don a female bathing suit, change in a women's locker room,
etc.
And surgery is not without its risk. Certainly we have discussed ad
nauseum here whether most or (some argue) anyone every feels sexual
pleasure after surgery. Clearly, for the fulltime TGs, most chemically
castrated by the high hormone dosages, sexual pleasure must be very
minimal. Thus, another reason to respect their choice.
Yes, Julie put it well, at least as far as my case: the RLT was a time
to adjust to new behavior patterns, for some, to make the decision
whether transitioning was right and for all, to evaluate completely
whether they will have surgery.
Kris
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.970527...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>,
c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au says...
>
>On 26 May 1997, Psychodad wrote:
>
>| programmed by society to believe that they have the need for SRS and
>| HRT.
>
>Interesting. Of course it could be argued that we are ALL "mis-programmed"
>by society into cross-gendered patterns anyway.
Or, that we are programmed to deny our abilities, our feelings, our thoughts -
in essence, our individuality and even our very humanity, when these run
counter to the local "norm". After all, if in a culture that values power and
violence and brute force, the gentle, or the intelligent, or the creative
person is seen as expendable, disposable.
This goes way beyond gender identities and roles - all we have to do is look
at the way mob rule at any point in history has treated exceptional (i.e.
non-average) people.
>| but feel that they would not be accepted by society as women unless they
>| also change their sex to female, they never felt like they were born
>| intoa wrong body, and they never hated their male genetalia, but they
>| lie to their therapists about it, after all we all knwo the RIGHT thing
>| to say to out therapists in order to get green light for SRS.
>
>But isn't that just the difference between being transgendered, and being
>transsexual. I class myself (if and when I need to) as a transsexual
>woman, solely on the grounds that I DO want the SRS (but not until after
>uni). But, being transsexual is, then a subset of being transgendered,
>which is where one's apparent gender differs from that assigned (by
>doctors and parents) at birth.
And, there is more to it than seeking social acceptance. After all, there are
T* people who -are- accepted socially without SRS. Few social sitiations,
after all, demand that one be naked. Even re: sex, there are some people who
can accept the non-op MTF or FTM.
IMO it is a matter of SELF acceptance - the unalterable shock when one looks
in the mirror, or reaches about to wash in the shower, and feels those various
-alien- things on one's body. And, for some, it's a need to make love as one
was meant to.
Even in lab animals, certain in-utero hormonal manipulations have led to
animals who, after birth, consistantly behave like the opposite sex, because
their gender belongs to that sex. This certainly isn't just social.
Kris
In article <199706032334492478874@[10.0.2.15]>, k...@world.std.com says...
>
><m...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>> In the case of transgendered needs though, we do have some evidence of
>> how they respond to therapy. They don't <BG>! Therapy seemingly
>> cannot eliminate your transsexual needs any more than they can
>> eliminate my bigendered needs.
>But understanding her motivations seems to have "cured" Laura's need for
>SRS. At one time she wanted it badly if I remember things she has
>written correctly.
Hmm... Well, I cannot comment on Laura's life, but I'd like to add that,
although I =want= SRS, I make comprimises because my need to maintain my
relationship is stronger than my need for SRS.
This is different from being "cured". It's more a case of choosing between
two mutually-exclusive conditions.
As you said:
>What is therapy but help with understanding ourselves? When looked at
>that way, Laura's arguments imply good therapy can rid a transgendered
>person of the need for SRS - IMO assuming they are not transsexual - but
>not of being transgendered.
I agree up to a point. Sometimes, it's just a matter of discerning which
needs take precdence, because one cannot always have it all. When I bonded, I
bonded for life. That bond, -for me-, takes precedence - even though it means
living with a certain, continued level of suffering. In the end, it's alot
like my arthritic wrist; sometimes I don't notice it, other times it hurts
like bloody hell.
I can work around the pain - but other people can't. This is whay I say I'm
"TG"; to me, a "true" or "high intensity" TS can't or won't live this way.
>> And therefore, it is utterly irrelevant if our needs come from
>> nurture, nature, a mix of the two, or different sources for each of
>> us. The source does not change the need. The source (as far as we
>> are capable of knowing) does not modify our ability to
>> respond/not-respond to therapy.
>I simply don't agree.
I think it's part right, -depending upon the individual-. There might be some
people who are happy and comfortable transitioning, whether the cause be
intrinsic or extrinsic. There are, sadly, a few people who have gotten SRS
when it wasn't what was really best for them.
I think good therapy is important in helping a person look into and learn
about the Self, help them learn what is best -for them-. Unfortunately, not
all therapists deserve the name...
Kris
In article <5mvmul$16me$1...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, j...@austin.ibm.com says...
>Next, there are "transsexuals (types 4 thru 6) ..." and "people who
>are very confused because something else is going on and they just
>aren't transsexual at all." THOSE people =can= be helped by therapy
>to the extent that their underlying psychopathology =is= treatable
>with either medicine or therapy. It would be a mistake to allow
>someone who is severely mentally ill to have sex reassignment surgery.
I have to add that there are some individuals who are actually dealing with
issues of soem type of abuse, who try to dissociate themselves from the
abuser(s) to the extent of believing themselves (if of the same sex as the
abuser) of the opposite gender. But, even in this, the source of the identity
can be so deeply ingrained that it is impossible to pinpoint its origin. All
I can say is that, for myself, it has caused me anguish, all my life, to
continually be forced to deny my personality and my abilities and my dreams,
simply because they were punished (via abuse as a child, and via censure and
ostracism in later years) as being "gender inappropriate".
One can speculate 'till the cows come home as to whether one would have been
T* if raisd in a society/culture that didn't force people into such denial.
In the end, each -individual- responds differently to therapy, and the
classifications and scales and lists and whatnot are only loose guides, or
more precisely, an attempt to describe a particular individual's expereince in
one area.