So...
Nicole Massey
recent pissing contest between Willow and Jennifer here, thanks to a long
legacy of such little antisocial (use of this term does not mean to suggest
any sort of diagnosis, BTW) exchange, I find myself wondering if this is
another newsgroup that has gone beyond the pale.
I know we're dealing with some rather interesting transitions in the
community with how our situation (some would call it a disorder while others
would find fault with that word) is being viewed by the psychological
professionals who are tasked to help us deal with it. And of course, we
still have the rash of primary problems that often manifest either with the
situation or as a result of it, thanks to how society deals with it and how
we deal with society, that seem to exacerbate the difficulties. (Like, for
example, problems with relating to others, perhaps)
Since Stonewall, which was a gift to the rest of the GLBT spectrum from a
group of transsexuals, other segments of the broader group have made some
rather substantial strides in gaining support and equality while gender
issues still find themselves being treated as something freakish. And I'm
pretty sure I know why that desparity exists. So I'm going to digress for a
bit to illustrate this.
In the blind community, there are two very strong opposing viewpoints. One
side, probably the majority, feels that blindness is a disability that can
be dealt with with enough skill and some assistance from the community. This
group is strongly supported by the American Council for the Blind, or ACB,
the largest blind advocacy organization in the United States.
On the other side of the coin, there is the National Federation for the
Blind, or NFB, who contends that blindness is not a handicap, society's view
of blindness is the handicap. (sound the least bit familiar to members of
this group who have been around for any length of time?) They are a much
more vocal group that works to "empower" blind people with such things as
fighting auditory cues at traffic stops and talking elevators. They believe
that the pinnacle of functionality for a blind person is someone using a
long "glide" cane without any help from anyone else to get around. (Yes,
they're also anti-guide dog)
When the ADA was being worked out, both organizations were at the table, of
course, and their disagreements caused some rather annoying problems. I'm
sure everyone has seen those curb cutouts for mobility impaired people all
over the place. They're extremely common now. Blind people call them
Wheelchair Ramps of Death, because unless there is any kind of indication,
like a slight curb of an inch or two (still nagivable by a wheelchair) or
some bumps on it, it's extremely easy for a blind person to find themselves
in the middle of a street. Curbs are extremely handy markers for blind folks
in orientation and mobility training and keeping aware of where they are.
This point was completely missed, however, because the mobility impaired
community is rather unified while the blind community is in all but open
warfare on how things are to be done. So as a result, the ADA includes a lot
of provisions for removing the exact types of things blind people require to
function effectively. And it's pretty much because they were more interested
in fighting among themselves instead of finding what common ground they
could to move forward.
I'm pretty tired of all this drama. It does a great job of supporting my
contention that many of the transgendered community have problems that are
not gender based and that they need a lot more than just hormones and SRS to
become functional adults in the community. And this group is a textbook
example, starting at the very beginning with Diane's non-stop harassment of
Laura. (And yes, I know the reasons behind it, both Laura's take on it and
Diane's, and I think both of them need a firm slap across the back of the
head for acting like a couple of children in a public place for so long) I
also find people calling each other "men" as if it was a term of insult to
be quite offensive, (I always have, I know quite a few men who I feel are
great people) and I feel that several other negative terms are used far too
liberally.
There are a lot of gay and lesbian folks who don't like us very much. And
though some of their contentions stem from their issues and a fundamental
difference between how we function and how they do, I don't blame most of
them because they're banding together and trying to force a recalcitrant
society to treat them with dignity and respect while we're mostly busy
bickering, calling names, and showing that we can't even muster any dignity
and respect inside the community. No wonder we're Springer Show fodder so
often.
Willow, do us all a favor, and stop baiting Jennifer and anyone else. I'm
rather sick of it, and since we already have an extremely diminished traffic
level here, (which, with AT&T's dropping of all newsgroup service, will only
diminish further) It makes you stand out like a yankee at a rodeo. And for
anyone who is only still here only to make bitchy comments or throw popcorn
at other people, please do us all a favor and take up knitting instead. (or
some other more productive hobby, like collecting silica gel packets or
rescuing stray paramecia or something)
The DSM-V is going to be a major force in the community, as it will set the
tone for how GID is viewed, if at all, in the community. Surgery on demand,
the complete abolishment of the Benjamin Standards with surgery on demand,
and extreme hoops to get surgery are all possible scenarios at this point.
And what will change the tide toward what we want to happen will not be a
bunch of hens pecking at each other, it'll be a substantial group of
successful post-op transsexuals demonstrating unity and the ability to get
things done to counter the scary parts of this as a group.
I know this is anathema to part of our underlying desire -- few transsexauls
want to be known as trns -- one of the fundamental facets of this situation,
disorder, syndrome, whatever you want to call it, is the ability to be
recognized as our chosen gender, not as someone who is blurring the lines --
most transgendered folks aren't gender benders, after all, they're people
who contend thaty have somethind defective from the factory. And yeah, this
would be a lot easier if our society didn't have a bi-polar view of gender,
but life would be easier in a world without bigots and greed too, but this
is what we've got at the moment unless one of you is holding out on us with
a really old lamp that is the domain of a djinni.
The Benjamin standards are a curb cut. They were foisted upon the
transgender community when Homosexuality was a psychological disorder to
restrict homosexual men from getting SRS to gain acceptance, and they
benefit mostly the people doing the diagnosis, not the people getting the
"treatment." Do we want to live with another one as the DSM-V comes out, one
that will shackle us for a long while, or do we want to get over ourselves
and our resentments and work together to find a way to keep things from
getting much worse than they already are? Look at Iran, where transsexualism
is accepted but homosexuality is not for an example of how messed up things
can get. And I can imagine things even worse than that.
Ruby
> The Benjamin standards are a curb cut. They were foisted upon the
> transgender community when Homosexuality was a psychological disorder
> to restrict homosexual men from getting SRS to gain acceptance, and
> they benefit mostly the people doing the diagnosis, not the people
> getting the "treatment." Do we want to live with another one as the
> DSM-V comes out, one that will shackle us for a long while, or do we
> want to get over ourselves and our resentments and work together to
> find a way to keep things from getting much worse than they already
> are? Look at Iran, where transsexualism is accepted but homosexuality
> is not for an example of how messed up things can get. And I can
> imagine things even worse than that.
First of all, The "Benjamin Standards" were not meant for the "transgendered
community" and although they did not exist when I transitioned, when the
clinics and mental health community later began using them it was only to
treat transsexual people. People who did not truly identify as the gender
opposite their sex were turned away. As far as I can see they do not
"shackle" anyone except those who should be shackled.
Why do you equate homosexuality with transsexualism? There is no connection.
There probably is a close connection between transgenderism and
homosexuality but it appears to me that the Iranians know what they are
doing and I'm sure they have strong psychological requisites before granting
SRS.
Ruby
Nicole Massey
"Ruby" <ru...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:h47uer$an8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
In the 1950's when the standards were imposed, Homosexuality was considered
to be a psychological disorder, and it was thought that homosexual men were
using Transsexualism as a way to gain acceptance for their mental disorder.
It was, of course, deeply flawed thinking on many levels, but it was the
prevailing thought process at the time within the psychological community. A
search on Psych Info for articles from that time period dealing with GID
turn up some rather novel thought processes, many of them laughable if they
weren't so tragically dealing with people's lives.
I don't equate transsexualism with homosexuality -- Homosexuality is a
function of sexual preference, while GID is a function of Gender Itentity,
and those are two different parts of a person's psychological makeup. (This
is also why I feel Blanchard is barking up a false tree -- he is trying to
keep GID in the sexual disorder category when it actualy has no place there)
I also don't consider Transgenderists to be a different creature from a
Transsexual -- I consider the two to be two points on a spectrum. Some
people can get by with crossliving, while others need to take further steps.
I also have no feelings positive or negative toward either group -- though I
would love to see them realize that they share an issue on most of the major
points, SRS being the main differing factor.
Ruby
The "Benjamin Standards" were not "imposed in the 1950s. Look up your
history. Harry Benjamin had not published anything yet.
> I don't equate transsexualism with homosexuality -- Homosexuality is a
> function of sexual preference, while GID is a function of Gender
> Itentity, and those are two different parts of a person's psychological
> makeup. (This is also why I feel Blanchard is barking
> up a false tree -- he is trying to keep GID in the sexual disorder
> category when it actualy has no place there)
> I also don't consider Transgenderists to be a different creature from
> a Transsexual -- I consider the two to be two points on a spectrum.
> Some people can get by with crossliving, while others need to take
> further steps. I also have no feelings positive or negative toward
> either group -- though I would love to see them realize that they
> share an issue on most of the major points, SRS being the main
> differing factor.
A trangenderist does not identify as the gender opposite their sex. If they
did they would do everything possible to align the two which can only mean
SRS. Any man who lives or dresses as a woman but is satisfied with their
male genitals is a man (male gender -male sex) and unless they make a
mistake will always be a man. I see no issues that they "share".
Ruby
Nicole Massey
> A trangenderist does not identify as the gender opposite their sex. If
> they did they would do everything possible to align the two which can only
> mean SRS. Any man who lives or dresses as a woman but is satisfied with
> their male genitals is a man (male gender -male sex) and unless they make
> a mistake will always be a man. I see no issues that they "share".
And here lies the other big problem -- Gender Identity is again a seperate
dynamic from physical gender.
To relegate a transgenderist to the status of a fetishist is quite
problematic. And if a person is not trying to express a female identity by
dressing as someone who appears female, then a fetish is the only option I
can see for it. What makes the TG want to wear women's clothes and act
female? That question is at the heart of the matter.
I know that there is a dividing line between TS and TG in the community.
It's there mostly because the TS's want to segregate themselves from the
people who arent, in their way of thinking, as dedicated to being "all
woman." And though I understand it, I don't even begin to agree with it
from a clinical standpoint. The desire to express a gender image
discongruent with the physical gender is GID, and by physical gender we're
talking basically the body shape at birth. (Let's not cloud this with the
Intersexed, as that is a whole different set of issues)
If you look at the DSM, you'll see that there are differing levels for many
conditions. For example, a reduced form of Bi-polar Disorder is known as
Dysthymic Disorder or syndrome.
My biggest problem with making SRS a watermark for how much this is a
problem and how "woman" someone is is that it once again gets sex into the
mix, and that once again clouds the issue of Gender Identity with Sexual
preference and Biological Gender. Also, it also places undue importance on
SRS, making it something that is something of a Holy Grail, and therefore
provides incentive for people who have no business undergoing it to go for
it anyway. Some people even believe that SRS can cure Transsexualism.
Clinical evidence indicates that it doesn't even come close, it just removes
one area of concern from the patient, but the patient still has some
personality traits of their birth gender. (This group, with the constant
competition to determine who is more woman, is a shining example of this)
A pre-op TS is often physically indistinguishable from a TG. They have the
same issues regarding things like shopping, identification, which bathroom
to use, etc. Those issues are the same, and are a problem. Yes, one of them
is going to go under the knife while the other one isn't, but there's still
a lot of similarity there.
The goal here is to get the sex out of the diagnosis -- that way lies
Blanchard. (And yes, I'm aware that Harry Benjamin wasn't practicing in the
50's, that's just when some of those crackpot theories started up -- sorry
if I wasn't clear on tha. the HBSOC were an attempt to fix that --
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in, IIRC, 1973)
This whole "TG's aren't like us" game reminds me a lot of the attitudes many
gay men have about bisexual men, but they seem to be able to find some
common ground so that they can work together to improve their situation in
this country.
I suspect we're never going to agree on this. I can live with that, as I
understand how embedded these issues are in the community.
Jennifer Usher
"Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote in message
news:h46ug9$78g$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Does anyone have anything substantive to discuss? After seeing the most
> recent pissing contest between Willow and Jennifer here, thanks to a long
> legacy of such little antisocial (use of this term does not mean to
> suggest any sort of diagnosis, BTW) exchange, I find myself wondering if
> this is another newsgroup that has gone beyond the pale.
Actually, I kind of think of it more as Willy Boy marks his territory, and I
come along and wash it all away. But, to answer your specific question...I
would say it is possible, but more likely it you are right...this place,
like much of Usenet, this place has become largely a waste. The real
discussions take place in a few Yahoo groups. Some are very active, some
are flashes in the pan. And they tend to be troll free.
> I know we're dealing with some rather interesting transitions in the
> community with how our situation (some would call it a disorder while
> others would find fault with that word) is being viewed by the
> psychological professionals who are tasked to help us deal with it. And of
> course, we still have the rash of primary problems that often manifest
> either with the situation or as a result of it, thanks to how society
> deals with it and how we deal with society, that seem to exacerbate the
> difficulties. (Like, for example, problems with relating to others,
> perhaps)
Actually, technically the transition is taking place among psychiatrists.
There are two groups that a known as APA. One is the psychologist's group,
which has nothing to do with the DSM. The other group is the psychiatrist's
group, which controls the DSM. But that is a minor point.
> Since Stonewall, which was a gift to the rest of the GLBT spectrum from a
> group of transsexuals, other segments of the broader group have made some
> rather substantial strides in gaining support and equality while gender
> issues still find themselves being treated as something freakish. And I'm
> pretty sure I know why that desparity exists. So I'm going to digress for
> a bit to illustrate this.
Actually, I would question two parts of your assertion. The first is
whether or not there were actually any transsexuals involved with Stonewall.
It seems more likely that they were drag queens, and some
proto-transgenders. The term was not yet termed, but there were some back
then who had no desire to give up their penises. Second, I would argue that
transsexuals are not part of the GLBT spectrum.
Okay, I sort of see where you are going with this. First off, it is
interesting that you bring up Lask and Blake. It appears that Blake has
moved on with his life, and that apparently he has returned to a male role
and dropped all contact with anything here. That can be surmised from the
article that Diane posted a few months ago. It has been some time since
Blake has been heard from. Lask, still obsessed with Blake, apparently has
been obsessively seeking some trace of him. Well, Lask found it in the form
of an article about some dispute Blake (who was identified as a male, and by
his male name) has with his landlord. And yes, it was Blake. The article
include a picture. Lask is a very troubled person. I was warned about this
by several, and I have seen it first hand. But I digress.... Personally, I
honestly don't use "man" as an insult. I use it as an honest statement of
fact. Having your penis inverted does not make you a woman.
> There are a lot of gay and lesbian folks who don't like us very much. And
> though some of their contentions stem from their issues and a fundamental
> difference between how we function and how they do, I don't blame most of
> them because they're banding together and trying to force a recalcitrant
> society to treat them with dignity and respect while we're mostly busy
> bickering, calling names, and showing that we can't even muster any
> dignity and respect inside the community. No wonder we're Springer Show
> fodder so often.
This is why I have no interest in aligning with either the LBG or the T. I
have nothing in common with gays, lesbians, or bisexuals. It could be
argued that I have something of a bisexual history, but I am now a very
straight woman. Sexual orientation is not an issue for me. I have friends
who are gay, lesbian, and in a few rare cases, truly bisexual. But their
issues have no direct impact on me. I also have nothing in common with
those who are transgender, except the unfortunate ignorance of those who
think I do. I am simply a woman.
> Willow, do us all a favor, and stop baiting Jennifer and anyone else. I'm
> rather sick of it, and since we already have an extremely diminished
> traffic level here, (which, with AT&T's dropping of all newsgroup service,
> will only diminish further) It makes you stand out like a yankee at a
> rodeo. And for anyone who is only still here only to make bitchy comments
> or throw popcorn at other people, please do us all a favor and take up
> knitting instead. (or some other more productive hobby, like collecting
> silica gel packets or rescuing stray paramecia or something)
As I said, Arune is an example of someone with an unhealthy obsession. One
of his major goals in life is to see me leave this group. Now, I long ago
gave up trying to start any discussions here. I respond when someone else
makes an honest effort...and I disappoint Arune when he pokes to see if I am
still here.
> The DSM-V is going to be a major force in the community, as it will set
> the tone for how GID is viewed, if at all, in the community. Surgery on
> demand, the complete abolishment of the Benjamin Standards with surgery on
> demand, and extreme hoops to get surgery are all possible scenarios at
> this point. And what will change the tide toward what we want to happen
> will not be a bunch of hens pecking at each other, it'll be a substantial
> group of successful post-op transsexuals demonstrating unity and the
> ability to get things done to counter the scary parts of this as a group.
Yes, and the reason all of those are possibilities is that some of the
forces behind the DSM have a bitter dislike for transsexuals. Surgery on
demand (the second scenario is redundant) would result in surgery being
banned in short order. There would be an explosion of regrets, and action
would be taken to deal with this. As is usual in such cases, the response
would not be reasoned, and would go to an extreme. As to the second, it
depends on what you mean by excessive standards. At present, the main thing
that keeps surgeries in check is not so much the gatekeepers...they usually
screen out the more obvious mistakes, but the cost. Most who should not
have surgery lose interest before they gain enough funds to cover the cost.
Now, if you couple surgery on demand with insurance coverage for SRS...well,
you have a disaster.
> I know this is anathema to part of our underlying desire -- few
> transsexauls want to be known as trns -- one of the fundamental facets of
> this situation, disorder, syndrome, whatever you want to call it, is the
> ability to be recognized as our chosen gender, not as someone who is
> blurring the lines -- most transgendered folks aren't gender benders,
> after all, they're people who contend thaty have somethind defective from
> the factory. And yeah, this would be a lot easier if our society didn't
> have a bi-polar view of gender, but life would be easier in a world
> without bigots and greed too, but this is what we've got at the moment
> unless one of you is holding out on us with a really old lamp that is the
> domain of a djinni.
Well, of course we don't want to be associated with "trans." The
transgender view has become increasingly radical and has lost all touch with
reality. When you have groups like GLAAD asserting that surgery is not
necessary to change SEX (i.e. you say you are a woman, and suddenly your
penis is irrelevant) then something is seriously out of whack. You may not
like the binary gender model, but the same is not true for many of us.
> The Benjamin standards are a curb cut. They were foisted upon the
> transgender community when Homosexuality was a psychological disorder to
> restrict homosexual men from getting SRS to gain acceptance, and they
> benefit mostly the people doing the diagnosis, not the people getting the
> "treatment." Do we want to live with another one as the DSM-V comes out,
> one that will shackle us for a long while, or do we want to get over
> ourselves and our resentments and work together to find a way to keep
> things from getting much worse than they already are? Look at Iran, where
> transsexualism is accepted but homosexuality is not for an example of how
> messed up things can get. And I can imagine things even worse than that.
Preventing ego dystonic homosexuals from making a mistake was one aspect of
the rules, but the main purpose was, and is, to prevent people from having
life changing, and irreversible surgery on a whim. I know of few who
actually needed surgery who have any objections to the SOC. It is only
those who are either, quite properly, screened out, or who fear they will be
screened out, who complain. Of course, a few still slip through the cracks.
But not nearly as many who might.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Why do you equate homosexuality with transsexualism? There is no
> connection. There probably is a close connection between transgenderism
> and homosexuality but it appears to me that the Iranians know what they
> are doing and I'm sure they have strong psychological requisites before
> granting SRS.
The problem with Iran is that they don't know what they are doing. There
are a growing number of gay males who have sacrificed their manhood for
their lives. Many of them are not sure they made the right choice.
Claiming to be a transsexual is often the only way to escape execution
there.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> In the 1950's when the standards were imposed, Homosexuality was
> considered to be a psychological disorder, and it was thought that
> homosexual men were using Transsexualism as a way to gain acceptance for
> their mental disorder. It was, of course, deeply flawed thinking on many
> levels, but it was the prevailing thought process at the time within the
> psychological community. A search on Psych Info for articles from that
> time period dealing with GID turn up some rather novel thought processes,
> many of them laughable if they weren't so tragically dealing with people's
> lives.
There are still cases, in this country, where gay males think becoming a
woman is the answer to their issues. It is rare, since gay is increasingly
acceptable, but some, who have conflicts with their religion, do sometimes
fall into that mistake. Of course, as the religious right increasingly
targets "transgender people" who they mistakenly think includes
transsexuals, this is leading them to even greater problems.
> I don't equate transsexualism with homosexuality -- Homosexuality is a
> function of sexual preference, while GID is a function of Gender Itentity,
> and those are two different parts of a person's psychological makeup.
> (This is also why I feel Blanchard is barking up a false tree -- he is
> trying to keep GID in the sexual disorder category when it actualy has no
> place there)
Actually, Blanchard's ONLY goal is to discredit transsexuals. Blanchard,
who is gay, is one of those who dislikes transsexuals. He does not wish to
accept them as women, and so he has created a model that excludes that
possibility. Granted, keeping transsexualism in the category of sexual
disorder is a part of his effort, but that is a means, not the end.
> I also don't consider Transgenderists to be a different creature from a
> Transsexual -- I consider the two to be two points on a spectrum. Some
> people can get by with crossliving, while others need to take further
> steps. I also have no feelings positive or negative toward either group --
> though I would love to see them realize that they share an issue on most
> of the major points, SRS being the main differing factor.
Sorry, but I disagree. That is based on both on both observation and
research. First off, there is no spectrum, which implies a blending and
overlap. No, there are distinct and unrelated behaviors (i.e transgender)
and those who a very specific physical issue that is best viewed as being a
part of the intersex category (transsexuals). Differentiating between the
two is rarely that difficult, but it does require awareness and the
abandonment of political views as a substitute for facts.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> The "Benjamin Standards" were not "imposed in the 1950s. Look up your
> history. Harry Benjamin had not published anything yet.
As best I can determine, they evolved from standards used by several
clinics, including Benjamin. But I don't think that started until the
Sixties. I remember reading references to things like the Real Life Test in
the mid-Seventies.
> A trangenderist does not identify as the gender opposite their sex. If
> they did they would do everything possible to align the two which can only
> mean SRS. Any man who lives or dresses as a woman but is satisfied with
> their male genitals is a man (male gender -male sex) and unless they make
> a mistake will always be a man. I see no issues that they "share".
Most who are properly considered transgender, including transgenderist, show
a strong identification with their male past. Of course, most of those were
relatively successful as men. That is one of those things that always
puzzles me.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> And here lies the other big problem -- Gender Identity is again a seperate
> dynamic from physical gender.
I find it interesting that, after years of arguing that sex and gender are
separate, the two terms are now conflated. Physical gender, properly, would
refer to the wiring of the brain that determines gender and true gender
identity. Physical sex would refer to what is between the legs. Of course,
this is just another example of what is wrong with the transgender
community. Many are deconstructionists. They have argued that "gender" is
a social construct. That allows them to claim that they are "really women"
even though they are clearly men. After all, gender is effectively
meaningless and pretty much a choice. That, of course, is not a position
that will help in the argument over rights, but what do they care anyway?
Now, they are trying to extend that argument by effectively confusing gender
and sex, and thereby making sex a social construct, equally as meaningless
as "gender." Simply put, call yourself a woman, even if is only for the
moment, and <poof> you are a woman. Sorry, but that is just plain absurd.
> To relegate a transgenderist to the status of a fetishist is quite
> problematic. And if a person is not trying to express a female identity by
> dressing as someone who appears female, then a fetish is the only option
> I can see for it. What makes the TG want to wear women's clothes and act
> female? That question is at the heart of the matter.
There are several reasons for crossdressing besides fetishism. A fetish
does almost always play an early role for those who identify as
transgenderist or the oxymoronic "non-op transsexual." In many cases, the
fetish wears off, but it is replaced by a form of learned behavior. Simply
put, the thill is gone, but the behavior has become habit. In some cases,
it becomes a form of OCD. Some have been successfully treated with SSRI
class drugs, just as other forms of OCD are.
> I know that there is a dividing line between TS and TG in the community.
> It's there mostly because the TS's want to segregate themselves from the
> people who arent, in their way of thinking, as dedicated to being "all
> woman." And though I understand it, I don't even begin to agree with it
> from a clinical standpoint. The desire to express a gender image
> discongruent with the physical gender is GID, and by physical gender
> we're talking basically the body shape at birth. (Let's not cloud this
> with the Intersexed, as that is a whole different set of issues)
BUT, a transsexual (okay, I prefer the term Harry Benjamin Syndrome) does
NOT wish to express a gender image incongruent with the physical sex. They
wish to have a physical sex that is congruent with their physuical gender
(i.e. the sexual differentiation of their brain). Now, interestingly
enough, this is consistent with the vast, overwhelming majority of the human
race. But, as you point out, there are those who DO wish to present a
gender image that is incongruent with their physical sex. (No, I am not
going to call it "physical gender" for reasons already stated.) They do not
want their physical sex and gender presentation to be congruent, and they
also do not want their gender presentation to be consistent with the sexual
differentiation of their brain. That differentiates them from the vast
majority of the human race, INCLUDING transsexuals.
> If you look at the DSM, you'll see that there are differing levels for
> many conditions. For example, a reduced form of Bi-polar Disorder is known
> as Dysthymic Disorder or syndrome.
Apples and oranges. Some schizophrenics are, if you will pardon the
expression, "crazier" than others. Put another way, some are able to
function, others are seriously dangerous. I had a friend, she died of
breast cancer about 2 1/2 yeas ago, who was schizophrenic, but she was also
one of the nicest people I know. She joking refered to herself as "God's
charwoman, and could always be found in the kitchen doing the dishes after
almost any church event." Having a conversation with her was an adventure,
but once I realized you just had to jump in, and hold on for the ride, it
was actually kind of fun. She could switch thoughts in a flash, but she was
never boring. Oh the other hand, there are people on the streets who are
seriously in need of treatment.
> My biggest problem with making SRS a watermark for how much this is a
> problem and how "woman" someone is is that it once again gets sex into
> the mix, and that once again clouds the issue of Gender Identity with
> Sexual preference and Biological Gender. Also, it also places undue
> importance on SRS, making it something that is something of a Holy Grail,
> and therefore provides incentive for people who have no business
> undergoing it to go for it anyway. Some people even believe that SRS can
> cure Transsexualism. Clinical evidence indicates that it doesn't even come
> close, it just removes one area of concern from the patient, but the
> patient still has some personality traits of their birth gender. (This
> group, with the constant competition to determine who is more woman, is a
> shining example of this)
Okay, nost of my earlier comments address this, but I do agree that there is
a danger of a few seeing SRS as a Holy Grail. Now, as I have said many
times, the idea that someone might be "more woman" is absurd. I mean
really, what is the base unit of womanhood? If womanhood is quantifiable,
and some here do clearly think it is, then we need a standard measurement
(The womon perhaps? Sort of like the electron, proton, or neutron? Or
perhaps we could follow the example of the ohm, the ampere, or the watt and
name it the jorgensen. Of course, then we would have to decide how many
jorgensens make one 100% woman. If we go metric, it would have be a factor
of 10 of course. And how fine would our measure be? Would we have
millijorgensens? Or even microjorgensens? And would we not need a measure
of manhood? Actually, this WOULD make a perfect submission that would
probably win me the coveted Ig Nobel Prize.) No, simply put, as women have
known for a long time, you either are one of us, or you aren't.
> A pre-op TS is often physically indistinguishable from a TG. They have the
> same issues regarding things like shopping, identification, which bathroom
> to use, etc. Those issues are the same, and are a problem. Yes, one of
> them is going to go under the knife while the other one isn't, but there's
> still a lot of similarity there.
Yes, but for the pre-op TS these things are real issues. For a TG, they are
a delightful part of the game. The pre-op TS sees them as something to be
dealt with, and then they move on. For a TG they can become a source of
endless drama, excessive obsession, and are often a chance to garner as much
attention as possible. No, they really are not the same.
> The goal here is to get the sex out of the diagnosis -- that way lies
> Blanchard. (And yes, I'm aware that Harry Benjamin wasn't practicing in
> the 50's, that's just when some of those crackpot theories started up --
> sorry if I wasn't clear on tha. the HBSOC were an attempt to fix that --
> Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in, IIRC, 1973)
And yet, sex is central to the issue. Not sexual behavior, which is
Blanchard's means of discrediting transsexuals, but physical sex and its
relation with one's self image and how one's brain works.
> This whole "TG's aren't like us" game reminds me a lot of the attitudes
> many gay men have about bisexual men, but they seem to be able to find
> some common ground so that they can work together to improve their
> situation in this country.
Again, apples and oranges. Of course, some, like Michael Bailey go so far
as to claim that bisexual men do not exist. Of course he bases this on his
penis measuring machine, which is, itself, bogus. Now, as to transsexuals
(HBS) and transgender, we really had relatively few problem before the
transgender types started stirring the pot.
> I suspect we're never going to agree on this. I can live with that, as I
> understand how embedded these issues are in the community.
I can live with disagreement. I have no desire to live with someone trying
to force their identity on me. That is a major source of all this rancor.
The TG crowd says "You are one of us, whether you like it or not." And we
say, "We are not transgender, now leave us alone." Think about it.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
"I find myself wondering if this is
another newsgroup that has gone beyond the pale"
Beyond the pale and beneath the salt, many moons ago...
Willow
Ruby
> "Ruby" <ru...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:h480ni$jf6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> The "Benjamin Standards" were not "imposed in the 1950s. Look up your
>> history. Harry Benjamin had not published anything yet.
>
> As best I can determine, they evolved from standards used by several
> clinics, including Benjamin. But I don't think that started until the
> Sixties. I remember reading references to things like the Real Life
> Test in the mid-Seventies.
The "Harry Benjamin standards of care" were not established until 1979.
Before that some clinics did use procedures recommended by him in earlier
writings.
>> A trangenderist does not identify as the gender opposite their sex.
>> If they did they would do everything possible to align the two which
>> can only mean SRS. Any man who lives or dresses as a woman but is
>> satisfied with their male genitals is a man (male gender -male sex)
>> and unless they make a mistake will always be a man. I see no issues
>> that they "share".
>
> Most who are properly considered transgender, including
> transgenderist, show a strong identification with their male past. Of
> course, most of those were relatively successful as men. That is
> one of those things that always puzzles me.
I would guess that the person posting as Nicole Massey is a transgenderist.
Ruby
Jennifer Usher
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:a8b20b53-adef-4edd...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
ROTFL! Of course...and Arune is a primary reason.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> The "Harry Benjamin standards of care" were not established until 1979.
> Before that some clinics did use procedures recommended by him in earlier
> writings.
That is what I assumed. As I say, I know he wrote his book in 1966, and I
remember reading about things like the RLT in the mid-Seventies.
> I would guess that the person posting as Nicole Massey is a
> transgenderist.
I don't know. Perhaps Nicole will let us know.
--
Jennifer Usher
fluffybunnie
The fact remains that in normal, everyday life, "what's down there"
is rarely an acceptable topic of conversation. "Normal" people generally
agree it's no-one's business, while many "transsexuals" (and people who pose
as TS :)) prefer/profess to believe it's *everyone's* business and that it
somehow absolutely defines the induvidual. I suppose in their minds it does,
as almost by definition they suffer an obsession with genitalia. Ironically,
it ends up looking a lot more like autogynephelia than "true transsexualism".
At the end of the day, there are those of us who simply blend in as women
(regardless of genitalia), and there are those who do not (and often
understandably prefer to live in places where visible gender variance is
more generally accepted). All these other designations are pretty much
irrelevant, and mostly people cling to them as a way to rationalize their
desires/urges/natures.
Of course I feel that in a more healthy society, all of it would be irrelevant
anyway. People just are what they are, and should be accepted regardless.
Otherwise we end up with a lot of damaged people running around making big
noises about categories and who is which and why -- like we see here all the
time. Sad, isn't it? And so unnecessary, really.
--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")