A cure for crossdressing
Monique Madsen
A cure for crossdressing?
So there is a cure to this remarkable decease. Well, at least according
to some statements I have received directly and indirectly in the recent
past.
Some month ago my wife and I had a serious crisis in our marriage, due
to my transvestism. We decided to give counselling a chance. We made an
appointment with Maj-Britt Bergqstrom -Walan, a sexology counsellor,
well known in Sweden, and considered to be an authority on the subject
of transvestism.
During this first appointment, she _informed_ us that transvestism most
likely can be cured, if the transvestite is willing to undergo
psychotherapy. I declared that I would not accept a treatment like that,
in order to get rid of my transvestism. I also said, that I do not want
to get rid of my transvestism.
By telling us there is a cure to transvestism, she dropped a bomb at us,
since I, in the argumentation with my wife, assured her that there is no
cure to transvestism.
Also heard indirectly from people close to me, that family councellors
in Sweden claims that transvestism can be cured with therapy.
So I am asking you:
- IS THERE AN ACCEPTED CURE TO TRANSVESTISM ??
*** If there is a cure:
1. - What is the name of the cure?
2. - How does it work?
3. - How many people has been cured?
4. - In what written material is this cure described?
5. - Names of accepted authorities (/persons) guaranteeing this cure?
*** If there is NOT a cure:
1. - Names of accepted authorities guaranteeing there is not a cure?
2. - References to modern literature where the issue is penetrated?
Looking forward to the replies of yours, partly or completely covering
the questions above.
Yours sincerely,
Monique Madsen
crossdresser in Sweden
MarlaB 01
Monique,
For there to be a cure, there needs to be a sickness. Can you (or your
wife or therapist) define the sickness? Can your therapist define what
'cure' means in this context?
And once defined, you might ask if you if your wife can be cured of the
same sickness. For what is your sickness? At a guess, it's having and
expressing a feminine self. And if this is a sickness in you, your wife
must equally be afflicted. So will the cure work on her, and is she
willing to take the cure? If not, why should you? If your wife will not
reject her feminity and identity (and would probably be horrified at the
suggestion), then why should they expect you to do the same? Simply
because your reproductive organs are a little different?
But back to your question, is there a cure. Certainly, death or a
lobotamy would cure the 'problem'. And I'd suggest that is the basis of
any 'cure'. To kill your 'person' and replace it with something else.
For your transvestism is just an outward expression of your personality,
to kill the transvestism is to destroy your personaity. It's possible,
but difficult and painful, and IMHO utterly undesirable and possibly
immoral.
So it's not a question of "Is there a cure". It's a question of cure of
what and at what cost.
Hugs, Marla
Bill Stuart
Depends how you define "cure" and "Accepted".
Any behavior can be altered. "Cure" implies disease or disorder.
If your transvestitism is a sexual pleasure, most likely it cannot be
"cured" or changed without drastic measures.
Look around and see what's out there. Keep in mind that a lot of
"counsellors" are christians who are weenies.
--
This post is certified 100 percent Alanis-free
Penni Ashe
In article <318140...@algonet.se>, mon...@algonet.se
says...
>
>A cure for crossdressing?
>
> ...
>During this first appointment, she _informed_ us that
transvestism most
>likely can be cured, if the transvestite is willing to undergo
>psychotherapy. I declared that I would not accept a treatment
like that,
>in order to get rid of my transvestism. I also said, that I do
not want
>to get rid of my transvestism.
A cure for TVism? Hogwash! Don't waste your money paying for
this alleged therapist.
Hugga,
Penni Ashe
--
>>>>>>>>>> pen...@fred45.ultranet.com
Vida: "You know, Pumpkins . . ."
Noxema and Chi-Chi: "What?"
Vida: "Sometimes it just takes a fairy."
Penni Ashe
In article <4ltd1b$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, marl...@aol.com
says...
>
>same sickness. For what is your sickness? At a guess, it's
having and
>expressing a feminine self. And if this is a sickness in you,
your wife
>must equally be afflicted. So will the cure work on her, and
is she
>willing to take the cure? If not, why should you? If your
wife will not
>reject her feminity and identity (and would probably be
horrified at the
>suggestion), then why should they expect you to do the same?
Simply
I think the affliction for the wife would be having a masculine
self. Let's put this "affliction" into imagery; so we have two
bodies standing next to each other: one is feminin, the other is
masculine. As imagined, here, we have expressed multiple
personalities. But the beauty of imagery is that it is
mutable. So let's change it: Let's merge the two selves and
make them two sides of a single self. Now we have what Jung
said both men and women have: a masculine side and a feminine
side. Since Jung argued that this is normal, and it is
abnormal NOT to have both a masculine side and a feminine side,
I fail to see an affliction, or disease, or anything that might
be "cured."
My personal feeling is that this alleged therapist's talking
about "curing" Monique's TVism is counter-transferrance (sp?).
Specifically, the alleged therapist is transferring his/her
discomforting feelings about your TVism onto you, thereby
avoiding the need to confront his or her reasons for being
discomforted by your TVism.
I say this because any time I react to someone, I react because
of something in me. If I dislike someone, it is because I see
in them a part of me that I dislike. If I like someone, it is
because I see in them a part of me that I like (or, more
dysfunctionally, I see in them a part of me that I feel is
missing and that I want or feel I need).
Cheryl Marie Hunter
The only cure I know of for TVism is death...or at least unconsciousness.
I would hope, however, that this isn't an "accepted" cure!
The only (other) cure I know of for general crossdressing is M->F
transitioning. (I omit F->M because women wearing men's clothing isn't
considered to be crossdressing for some reason.)
Cheryl Marie :)
Will Wiehe
Any attempt against one's own free will to cure them of crossdressing is both
immoral & unconstitutional. With all the really disgusting things seeming
legal then like it or not male to female crossdressing should & must be legalized.
As Jesus once said, "Do not worry about what you are to wear like the pagans &
the hipocrates do." male to female transvestism should & MUST be legalized &
moralized NOW!
God & Christ bless the male to female crossdressers. They have REAL STYLE!
--
Will Wiehe
72637,24...@COMPUSERVE.COM
SPC
In article <318140...@algonet.se>,
Monique Madsen <mon...@algonet.se> wrote:
>A cure for crossdressing?
Say what?! *giggle*
Please, cut me a break. You seem to have a good handle on the fact
that there is no "cure".
Your psychological professional on the other hand exhibits dated
and erroneous thought. Tell them to take some continuing education
classes and get with the program.
Get a new councilor. Your current one is obviosly bogus, imo.
Good luck,
Paulette
*************************************************************
* I've always seen my life different somehow... *
* =X:-) *
http://server1.admin.gatech.edu/fac/steve/p-girl/paulette.htm
SPC
In article <31833C...@qns.com>,
Cheryl Marie Hunter <sha...@qns.com> wrote:
>The only (other) cure I know of for general crossdressing is M->F
>transitioning. (I omit F->M because women wearing men's clothing isn't
>considered to be crossdressing for some reason.)
Once a person reaches the point of self realization that clothes
of either sex are appropriate for the individual, then it ceases to
be "crossdressing". Regardless of transition state.
To put it plainer, it is not crossdressing when (for MtF's) you wear
_your clothes_, not the clothing of a woman.
Just a different perspective.
Paulette
S Martin
I agree. "crossdressing", for me, is wearing just my clothes - the cross
part is merely the beard cover and the breasts - things to help me pass.
And I dress to pass mainly when I desire to have people react to me as a
woman - even though my cd hangouts are places where both Steve and
Stephanie show up.
-Steph
Joyce92392
cure for crossdressing?????
I once heard of a shrink in San Diego (mid 70's) who claimed a 100% cure
rate for crossdressing. In speaking with a couple of his cured clients I
discovered both had become alcoholics, one a wife beater and both began to
run around on their wives. Which really needed the cure, the problem(?)
or the cure?
Joyce
Joan Tine
Cheryl Marie Hunter (sha...@qns.com) wrote:
> > Monique Madsen (mon...@algonet.se) writes:
> > > - IS THERE AN ACCEPTED CURE TO TRANSVESTISM ??
> The only cure I know of for TVism is death...or at least unconsciousness.
> I would hope, however, that this isn't an "accepted" cure!
> The only (other) cure I know of for general crossdressing is M->F
> transitioning. (I omit F->M because women wearing men's clothing
> isn't considered to be crossdressing for some reason.)
Not "for some reason", for this reason: women's clothing celebrates
sensuality, which, since it partakes of sexual exhibitionism and
gives/promises pleasure, and is harmless, is therefore sinful by hoary
Puritain standards and dovetails nicely with the overall cultural
repression of the female orgasm and sexuality while simultaneously
forcing women into a continual role of sexual vessel and product for
the brousing thereof. This reduction of half of the race as a
consumer product for the other half is at the heart of sex-specific
fashion. (Read "Moses and Monotheism" and "The Function of the
Orgasm" by Freud for the quintissential male/traditional take.) At
the same time, male clothing offers concealment, the enlargment of the
wearer like a cats fur when erect in rage, and thereby embodies the
ceremonial trappings of power. And the pursuit of power and lust for
control, being male kinks which produce unhappiness and cause death,
are elevated to the status of holy mysteries. In simple terms, women
may be looked at, and men are permitted to look AND TO JUDGE them.
Men may not be so judged, and they are not expected to display
themselves, particularly not when in quest of greater social power.
Nothing about our culture can be understood without a solid grasp of
the slaveholder mentality, and the eternal quest of mankind for
greater control over each other with resulting misery.
Joan
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
the Right Disreputable, Lady Wombat
Priscilla Asagiri Aerobic Fashions in Fiberglass
The Anna Madrigal Endowment for Pathological Forensics, 1967
Penni Ashe
In article <4m2fju$s...@acmez.gatech.edu>, s...@prism.gatech.edu
says...
>
>Once a person reaches the point of self realization that
clothes
>of either sex are appropriate for the individual, then it
ceases to
>be "crossdressing". Regardless of transition state.
>
>To put it plainer, it is not crossdressing when (for MtF's) you
wear
>_your clothes_, not the clothing of a woman.
>
>
>Paulette
. . . and now for yet another perspective . . .
I dress in clothes that are comfortable for me. When I dress
in boy mode, I'm crossdressing, because I'm wearing clothes
that are least comfortable for me.
IMO, it really depends on the definitions we carry around with
us, and WE are in charge of the definitions WE carry in OUR
heads.
As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel
inferior without your consent."
Jenny Sand
Monique Madsen <mon...@algonet.se> wrote:
>A cure for crossdressing?
Over many years, I have only heard of two people giving up
crossdressing completely. I can't use "cured from" since I don't
believe it's a sickness in need to be cured. And my answer to the
hypothetical question: "If there was a pill - taking your
feminine side away - would you swallow it?" - my answer would be
no!
I have no reason to say the two people I heard of wasn't honest
when they told my sources about it, but I don't know if it lasted
for long either. We do now how the purge - binge - purge cycle
works on many of us - but not all do that. I have never purged
myself, and I don't think I ever will. So back to your question
Monique: No there is no "cure" I ever heard of. I don't know what
psychotherapy could do for you - or should I say *to* you - but
what's good with trying to purge a part of your personality
(brain)? Spooky stuff, if you ask me.
I think you should put all the numbered questions to the so
called expert. I would be most interested to hear her response. I
am not surprised over her statement though, seems to me every
professional talking on this subject have their own "twist". And
unfortunately hers is not even the worst.
I don't believe in eternal truths either. Every science (although
I'm a little weary of calling her statements science) is in
constant evolution, along with society. At one time lobotomy was
a recognized and favored treatment for some human behavior, also
in Scandinavia. Now the governments here face to pay damage to
many of those "treated", and it wasn't even long ago. I would
like to see the doctor who dared stand up and defend that
practice today. So everything changes.
The important distinction between abnormal and variation is also
changing in regards to the different aspects of human life. I
think you are a good, caring and social being Monique, if society
has a problem with what you are as *a whole person*, that society
needs to be changed, not you. And stupid therapists aren't
exactly medicin for an ailing marriage either. But that is a
slightly different topic.
Take care,
Jenny Sand
------------------------------------
The Scandinavian Transgender Page:
http://www.sn.no/~jane/
jen...@transgender.org
GAIL STOUT
You mean if a women wears men's clothing and is passing as a man, that's
not crossdressing. I suggest it most certinly is, and I know to people
who do this.
Gail
MarlaB 01
...And now for yet another perspective <BG>...
In article <4m3tbs$q...@decius.ultra.net>, pen...@fred45.ultranet.com
(Penni Ashe) writes:
>I dress in clothes that are comfortable for me. When I dress
>in boy mode, I'm crossdressing, because I'm wearing clothes
>that are least comfortable for me.
I dress in clothes that are comfortable for me as well. When I dress in
boy mode, it's because I'm wearing clothes thar are comfortable for me,
that is who I am.. When I dress in girl mode, I'm wearing clothes that
are equally comfortable for me, that is also who I am!!!.
I call the latter crossdressing simply because society - and my dictionary
- calls it crossdressing. Crossdressing as used by society, and as
defined by the dictionary, has nothing to do with *motive*. Insted, it
has to do with social expression (clothing is a tool of social expression)
when compared with social expectation based on physical sex.
Certainly, my dictionary says nothing about 'motive' with respect to
defining the word. Instead it says:
cross-dress (krôs´drès´, kròs´-) verb, intransitive - To dress in the
clothing characteristic of the opposite sex.
As such, I would suggest almost everyone here is a crossdresser. This
includes even post-op transsexuals *IF* one uses any other definition of
sex other than the defintion based on shape of external genitilia.
Hugs, Marla
Roberta Steel
In a previous article, mon...@algonet.se (Monique Madsen) says:
>
[ snip ]
>
>So I am asking you:
>
>- IS THERE AN ACCEPTED CURE TO TRANSVESTISM ??
>*** If there is a cure:
>1. - What is the name of the cure?
>2. - How does it work?
>3. - How many people has been cured?
>4. - In what written material is this cure described?
>5. - Names of accepted authorities (/persons) guaranteeing this cure?
I came across this book: Case Studies in Abnormal Behavior, by Robert G.
Meyer & Yvonne V. Hardway Osborne, Allyn & Bacon publisher, 1982.
Appropriately enough, it was in a pile of free for the taking books.
These folks got themselves a TV, and set out to cure him. They gave us
useful background information first: TVism is a paraphilia, a kinder word
than sexual deviant, and without the moral baggage attached. Nevertheless,
the guy's a pervert.
With modern science, the therapists can dispense with wearing fur and
feathers and dancing around the open fire. They can finally take those
ridiculous bones out of their noses. They used "thought stopping" followed
by aversion therapy.
First they trained their TV to signal the doc whenever he had a thought about
CDing. The doc then shouted "Stop," and stopped him from thinking about
CDing. The TV then learned to shout "Stop" himself whenever he thought
about CDing. Pretty soon he could stop himself from thinking about CDing.
I suppose other people thought he was some kind of nut, walking around
shouting "Stop" at inappropriate times.
The good part is the aversion therapy, where they wired him up to the
shock machine. They wrapped a rubber tube around his penis to measure
blood flow to it, too. They then showed him a "series of slides, some
of which depicted scenes that would be arousing to a TV. Others were
of normal heterosexual behavior or of a nude person of the other sex,
in this case his wife."
He could look at a slide as long as he wanted, but he would get an electric
shock that increased in intensity with time when viewing a slide that would
arouse a TV. No shock with the other slides. He soon learned to be
aroused by normal, heterosexual behavior, and to be repelled by TV behavior.
All indications were that his treatment was complete and with out regression
to TV behaviors.
As you can see, there is a cure. Is it effective? I doubt it. It sounds
like something from alt.sex.bondage, though, so maybe the therapists had a
good time with it.
Roberta
Penni Ashe
In article <4m5hum$r...@news.ysu.edu>, ae...@yfn.ysu.edu says...
>
>I came across this book: Case Studies in Abnormal Behavior, by
Robert G.
>Meyer & Yvonne V. Hardway Osborne, Allyn & Bacon publisher,
1982.
>Appropriately enough, it was in a pile of free for the taking
books.
>
> . . .
>
>First they trained their TV to signal the doc whenever he had a
thought about
>CDing. The doc then shouted "Stop," and stopped him from
thinking about
>CDing. The TV then learned to shout "Stop" himself whenever he
thought
>about CDing. Pretty soon he could stop himself from thinking
about CDing.
>I suppose other people thought he was some kind of nut, walking
around
>shouting "Stop" at inappropriate times.
So they "cured" this TV by teaching him to suppress his unwanted
thoughts. Suppression is an incredibly powerful tool. Given
enough time, you can suppress yourself out of existence. I
know: I've been nearly there.
mICHAEL tANCYUS
Hi, as a therapist, I thought I would weigh in, from what I hear,
on the net, alot of folks who see therapists are not having very
good experiences with them. IMO no therapist is gonna cure T.*
whatever. The goal should always to help the T* person get rid of
whatever guilt and same they have acquired through feedback from
society at large, so they can be happy and fullfilled as a person.
The second goal is to help family and significant others resolve
any issues that might become problematic in their relationships
with the T* person. This is no a disease or an illness we are
dealing with at all.
Alot of therapists are getting a bum rap here on this news
group, although some of it is deserved. The best way to find out
if an individual therapist will be helpful to you is to check him
or her out in person and get to know what their view on gender
issues are, and then make a decision on whether this therapist can
be helpful to you. There are those of us in the therapy community
who do understand and care!
Michael G. Tancyus, L.C.S.W.
122 South Main Street
Suite 312
Harrisonburg, Va. 22801
(540) 574-6063
Please use the following email address: roll...@cfw.com
Eris114633
Monique--read the scholarly literature, like Vern Bullough's Sexual
Variation and Sandra Bem's Through the Lenses of Gender. To sum up the
views in these books--it seems as if sexual variation is programmed into
the species. More primitive societies accept variations, like say, the
American Indians; or even the Hindu cultural tradition. No matter what, 1
in X number of men will feel their gender is feminine--this has been true
throughout history and in all cultures. But our Western "advanced"
culture imposes a strict model of gender polarities and dogmatically
stigmatizes anyone who doesn't fit in.
My view is that I have lived through living hell, because I internalized
our cultural model of gender--this was killing me literally, causing me to
self-destruct, setting my masculine side against my feminine. At this
point I affirm both aspects of my gender sense--I finally have a sense of
integrated identity, rather than split, at war, at odds. Your happiness
and psychic integrity matter more than anything else in the world; to your
wife offer compromises, but not a death sentence to yourself by trying to
cut off, excise, deny your life-giving femininity.
Like Luther, put your foot down, and claim, here I stand!
Robin Rodman
Monique Madsen wrote:
>
> A cure for crossdressing?
>
> to some statements I have received directly and indirectly in the recent
> past.
Frankly, I hope there isn't a "Cure" because I LOVE dressing up. I
love make-up, I LOVE dresses, and I LOVE FEMININITY!!!!
I'll never take the pill that "cures" my "disease". I love being
"infected".
Sincerely,
Robin
Cheryl Marie Hunter
Well...sort of. I was talking about crossDRESSING and I don't think one
needs to pass as the other sex for people to say you're CDing. If I (as a
male) were to wear a dress with otherwise male clothing, I'd be considered by
most people to be crossdressed, even if it were obvious --at least close up--
that I'm male. If a woman wears a T-shirt and blue jeans (especially
Levi's), she isn't considered to be crossdressed... even though that's
exactly what I, and many other males, typically wear on weekends (unless I'm
en femme, of course).
I do agree, though, that if a woman is passing as a man, she's definitely
crossdressed.
I hope this makes sense. It's almost 2:30 a.m.
Cheryl Marie :)
BreeLiz
>- IS THERE AN ACCEPTED CURE TO TRANSVESTISM ??
YES
>
>*** If there is a cure:
>
>1. - What is the name of the cure?
>
ELECTRIC CATTLE PRODS STRAPPED TO YOUR HEAD
>2. - How does it work?
LARGE DOSES OF HIGH AMPERAGE ELECTRICITY ARE PULSED THROUGH YOUR BRAIN
UNTIL YOUR GREY MATTER BUBBLES... WHEN THE PINK BUBBLES TURN BLUE YOU ARE
CURED.
>
>3. - How many people has been cured?
>
ALL THAT HAVE SURVIVED
>4. - In what written material is this cure described?
The Old Farmer's Almanak
>
>5. - Names of accepted authorities (/persons) guaranteeing this cure?
>
NEWT GINGRICH
JESSE HELMS
>
Monique Madsen
Thanks for the response to my starter: "A cure..."
Being slightly provocative to You, respected readers, I used the words
"cure" and "disease", although these words are, in my own opinion,
definitely not adequate to the issue of transvestism and crossdressing.
I Hereby apologise for any hurt feelings this may have caused.
In my provocative choices of words, I possibly reflected the opinion of
some other people (or even worse, therapists) you might run across as a
TV.
The core-issue in my article consist of an observation and a question:
*** Observation:
Some therapists in Sweden (who might be representative for the
therapists in Your country) claims that as far as the transvestite
himself is motivated, there is a form of psychotherapy available,
leading to the giving up of one´s TV-ism.
The one I met in person (and paying for her advice), Maj-Britt, is by
many people regarded as one of the real experts in Sweden. She is also
one of the three co-authors of the book "Transvestism and The second
self, in the perspective of psychology" (in Swedish language), released
1994 by FPE-S press.
Another therapist, whom I did not meet personally, is supposed to have
said the following, during a session with a friend of my wife (referring
to our TV-related marriage-crisis):
"Transvestism can be cured by psychotherapy. And frankly, if this guy
(referring to me, Monique) is not willing to undergo such a treatment, I
would say: Throw him out!
*** Question
Is it correct, that psychotherapy would enable the motivated TV to give
up his TV-ism?
(When replying to this question, it would certainly be valuable to know
if you are speaking as a member of the transgender/crossdresser
community, or as a professional, therapist, etc..)
************************************
- Why bother?
*************
I, Monique, said that even if there would be a respected cure to
TV-ism, I would reject it, since I do not wish to give up crossdressing,
and I refuse to regard TV-ism as a disease.
By saying so, I take all possible responsibility for my own TV-ism,
instead of just leaning to the ²semi-fact² that it cannot be cured (or
whatever word you would like to use). The latter is, of course, the most
convenient to claim when facing the argumentation of your spouse or
other people around you.
So, why bother? - Because if it is not true that psychotherapy (or
anything else, apart from death) would ²cure² TV-ism, I find it very
alarming that some so called *experts* in Sweden (and possibly in your
own country) says so. If on the other hand these experts are right about
it, we will of course have to accept that there is a ²cure² (even though
it would not make any difference for most of us).
** Motivated ? **
So a TV could be motivated to somehow give up TV-ism. See, ²motivated²
can be applied to different levels.
1) Motivated : - Give up TV-ism, or say goodbye to your marriage. A kind
of ambivalence, since what you might want to have is both the
relationship with your spouse, *and* the TV-ism.
2) Motivated: - You feel from the bottom of your soul, that if only you
could give up this strange desire to crossdress, you would be so much
happier.
In my opinion, only the latter kind of motivation could be the
foundation to start any kind of treatment from. However, I do not think
there is much of a choice: Either you are ²level-2² motivated, or you
are not. And if you are not, you are not. That´s it.
(Earlier, my own wife blamed me for not wanting to give up TV-ism, as it
appeared to her that I deliberately would choose TV-ism, when there
seemed to be an accepted way out of it. I tried to explain that I cannot
control what I want, or do not want.)
Encouraged by Your response, I intend to confront the therapists
involved with the core issue, in order to find out how well-founded
their statements are. And I intend to let you know about the outcome, if
you are interested.
I would be interested to share your own experiences;
- Have you been told by other people, (friends, therapists, etc...) that
TV-ism can be ²cured²? I mean, regardless of the ²truth² or your own
opinion.
Yours sincerely,
Monique Madsen
(Crossdresser in Sweden)
Cheryl Marie Hunter
Monique Madsen wrote:
[huge snip]
> I would be interested to share your own experiences;
> - Have you been told by other people, (friends, therapists, etc...) that
> TV-ism can be ²cured²? I mean, regardless of the ²truth² or your own
> opinion.
Yes. I went to see Virginia Price during her visit to this area a couple
months ago. Virginia, as I understand it, is a full-time TV (and, I believe,
founder of the original TV support group in the U.S.), and claimed that
anyone could give up crossdressing if they wanted to. That comment, among
others, didn't go over all that well with the mostly TS group that was there
that night.
My therapist seems to believe (as I do) that *transsexualism* cannot be
"cured," short of transitioning. I'm not sure what she thinks about
transvestism.
I hope this helps a little, at least.
Cheryl Marie :)
SPC
In article <318794...@algonet.se>,
Monique Madsen <mon...@algonet.se> wrote:
>Is it correct, that psychotherapy would enable the motivated TV to give
>up his TV-ism?
In a word, no.
One must remember this about psychology in general. It is a "black science".
There is no absolute truth as in other sciences. The "truth" in psychological
thought changes over the years. Up until the late 1970's, experts in
psychology held that homosexuality was a mental disease. Now, any
so called psychological expert would be dismissed for promoting such
a thought. Then consider the father of modern psychology, Frued. Most,
if not all of his work, has been discounted today as inaccurate, yet
at his time and beyond, his thoughts were considered absolutely
revolutionary and correct.
History is full of examples of falacious ideas being held as an
absolute truth. Galileo is one of the most obvious examples. He
was totally denegrated, in fact imprissioned if my memory serves
correctly, for holding that the world was round when current scientific
thought was that the world was flat. Is the world flat? No. But
would "experts" admit that they were wrong or that they could
be wrong? No.
The obvious question to ask a psychologist who promotes the theory
that transvestism, indeed all forms of transgenderism, can be "cured"
is to ask them where are their facts and figures. Where is the
research they have done to prove their theory? What are the statistics?
Where are the case histories that prove their theory?
In all likelyhood, they have none of these items.
I would also suspect that if questioned in the manner I propose
that these so called experts would become angered for having their
authority questioned and being asked to prove their theories. If
so, this to me is prooof enough that they do not possess sufficient
information to prove beyond doubt their theory.
And one must remember that in scientific worlds, 95% affirmative
confirmation of a theory is generally required before a theory
is accepted as fact.
SPC
In article <318880...@qns.com>,
Cheryl Marie Hunter <sha...@qns.com> wrote:
>Yes. I went to see Virginia Price during her visit to this area a couple
Oh yes well then, Virginia.
She's dillusional and totally off base anyway, imho. '-)
Now that's a flame, right? *giggle*
Monique Madsen
Hi, Michael.
I wellcome your article and it=B4s content. If I would ever again visit a =
councellor, it should be one practising the solutions you described.
Since you are professionally involved in the field of therapy, you =
probably do have an opinion on where modern science stands now, in the =
issue of transvestism and the possibilities to "cure" it.
You wrote that no therapist is gonna cure T.* whatever. Personally, =
whithout having read all the available scientific reports, I do agree.
BUT... In what degree do your colleges throughout the world agree (or =
disagree) with it? Is there a "common truth"?
Speaking as a crossdresser, I am starting to believe that it would be =
justified for transgender organisations to maintain their own =
directories of "approved/certified" councellors and therapists, who has =
proven to be well informed about the issues of transvestism. The other =
one=B4s, poorly educated in transgender issues, and still claiming they =
know the answers, can cause a lot of damage to T.persons and their =
relationships. Maybe some organisations alreadey has their directories.
Yours sincerely,
Monique Madsen
S Martin
On 2 May 1996, SPC wrote:
> History is full of examples of falacious ideas being held as an
> absolute truth. Galileo is one of the most obvious examples. He
> was totally denegrated, in fact imprissioned if my memory serves
> correctly, for holding that the world was round when current scientific
> thought was that the world was flat. Is the world flat? No. But
> would "experts" admit that they were wrong or that they could
> be wrong? No.
>
I'm going to quibble with this. All the scientif experts of Galileo's
time thought the Earth round - Columbus got into trouble because he
thought the world was far smaller than it actually is, and his mission
was declared suicidally long by the experts. Fortunately, there were
unknown lands in the way.
Galileo (who waited on publication of this until a personal friend (so he
thought) became Pope) got in trouble for the idea that the Earth went
around the sun, an idea that had gotten Bruno (who mixed in a lot of
religious mysticism with his radical science) burned at the stake. Galileo
was sentenced to house arrest for life - he lived well, but his contacts
with others were strictly limited.
And all this killed scientific inquiry in Catholic countries for
centuries.
-Steph
Tina Marie Holmboe
{ s...@prism.gatech.edu (SPC) }
> a thought. Then consider the father of modern psychology, Frued. Most,
> if not all of his work, has been discounted today as inaccurate, yet
> at his time and beyond, his thoughts were considered absolutely
Depending alot on who you ask; Freud is still revered by many;
there are different schools of though within psychology as there is
within other sciences.
> And one must remember that in scientific worlds, 95% affirmative
> confirmation of a theory is generally required before a theory
> is accepted as fact.
Not exactly - it is impossible to prove a theory; in the scientific
community, a theory is *never* accepted as fact, no matter to what
extent is has been proven.
However, even in those cases that psychological research concern
themselves with, ie. fetishistic transvestism, there is no known cure; there
is atleast none reported in the textbooks I've had available to me.
--
< http://www.ifi.uio.no/~tina | ti...@ifi.uio.no | ti...@spirou.uab.ericsson.se >
< >
< " Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? >
< That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. " - Lehrer >
SPC
In article <Pine.A32.3.92.960502...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
S Martin <sma...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>
>On 2 May 1996, SPC wrote:
>
>> History is full of examples of falacious ideas being held as an
>> absolute truth.
Quibble all you want. I've already been corrected via e-mail about
my error.
But, I think eveybody got the point I was getting at. I just had the
particulars my example wrong. :-( But he still got in trouble.
Sorry.
kym...@xconn.com
>Yes. I went to see Virginia Price during her visit to this area a couple
>months ago. Virginia, as I understand it, is a full-time TV (and, I believe,
>founder of the original TV support group in the U.S.), and claimed that
>anyone could give up crossdressing if they wanted to. That comment, among
>others, didn't go over all that well with the mostly TS group that was there
>that night.
Her name is Virginia *Prince*.
Amd if you didn't get her name right, I suspect you didn't hear
everything she said on the subject. (For the record, Virginia told me
about that gathering, and her talk was based upon one of her columns in
"Cross-Talk" ... and I know where she went from the point where you
apparently stopped listening and started getting prematurely upset.)
And a "full-time TV" uses the term "transgenderist" or "TG" to identify
themselves. (This has been the subject of great debate here and in
alt.tg in recent months, which apparently you missed as well ...)
| Kymberleigh Richards [KR260] | For "Cross-Talk" Information |
| System Administrator, Cross Connection | E-mail: arc...@xconn.com |
| Publisher/Managing Editor, "Cross-Talk" | Subject: request xtsubnfo.txt |
||| CROSS CONNECTION Los Angeles || Info: e-mail ARC...@XCONN.COM |||
||| +1.818.786.8887 || subject REQUEST XCINFO.TXT |||
Dallas Denny
In article <318794...@algonet.se> Monique Madsen <mon...@algonet.se> writes:
>From: Monique Madsen <mon...@algonet.se>
>Subject: Re: A cure for crossdressing
>Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 18:42:45 +0200
>Another therapist, whom I did not meet personally, is supposed to have
>said the following, during a session with a friend of my wife (referring
>to our TV-related marriage-crisis):
>"Transvestism can be cured by psychotherapy. And frankly, if this guy
>(referring to me, Monique) is not willing to undergo such a treatment, I
>would say: Throw him out!
The following is a typical example of a psychoanaltic "cure" of
crossdressing. The annotation is taken from my book "Gender Dysphoria: A
Guide to Research" (1994, New York: Garland).
* Bak, R.C., & Stewart, W.A.
(1974). Fetishism, transvestism,and voyeurism: A psychoanalytic approach.
In S. Arieti & E.Brady (Eds.), American Handbook of Psychiatry, (2nd ed.),
Vol.2, pp. 352-363. New York: Basic Books.
This article is most notable for its report of the "rescue," via
psychoanalysis, from "his pathological feminine identification,"
of Richard Raskin, who later became Renee Richards and had sex
reassignment surgery. (17 refs.)
-- Dallas Denny
Dallas Denny
I'm trained and have practiced for some 20 years as an applied behavior
analyst. Several years ago I wrote a critique of early behavioral treatment
of crossdressing and transsexualism. It's called "Behavioral Treatment in
Gender Dysphoria: A Review of the Literature and a Call for Reform" I
presented it at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis
and it was published in Tapestry. It's too long to post here, but I'll e-mail
anyone who wants one a copy (it's probably at our FTP site as well). Please
send your request to AE...@mindspring.com
-- Dallas Denny
Tina Marie Holmboe
{ kym...@xconn.com }
Please state clearly, when you quote, who was the author. That is
not only polite, but also correct.
Secondly:
> Her name is Virginia *Prince*.
Stop picking on spelling errors; that is a very bad habit, and
a sure way to start quarrels on the 'net.
> And a "full-time TV" uses the term "transgenderist" or "TG" to identify
> themselves. (This has been the subject of great debate here and in
> alt.tg in recent months, which apparently you missed as well ...)
Some might do; some might not. Luckily, your comments are, although
you did not bother to mention it, In Your HUMBLE Opinion only.
> | Kymberleigh Richards [KR260] | For "Cross-Talk" Information |
> | System Administrator, Cross Connection | E-mail: arc...@xconn.com |
> | Publisher/Managing Editor, "Cross-Talk" | Subject: request xtsubnfo.txt |
>
>
> ||| CROSS CONNECTION Los Angeles || Info: e-mail ARC...@XCONN.COM |||
> ||| +1.818.786.8887 || subject REQUEST XCINFO.TXT |||
Please remove this long .sig; the first three lines are more than
sufficient, and it doesn't violate Netiquette.
K.D.K.
Well, there might be a cure like there's a cure for cigarette smoking,
you might quit but how many "ex" smokers do we know who still get the
urge for a cigarette...why must we look at ourselves as diseased simply
for having a preference?
Rudie
Monique Madsen
kym...@xconn.com wrote:
>
> Amd if you didn't get her name right, I suspect you didn't hear
> everything she said on the subject. (For the record, Virginia told me
> about that gathering, and her talk was based upon one of her columns in
> "Cross-Talk" ... and I know where she went from the point where you
> apparently stopped listening and started getting prematurely upset.)
Since at the moment, I惴 not enabled to ask Virginia in person what she
said and what she ment, I would certainly appreciate if you would
contribute with your version of Prince愀 speech, in this relevant part.
Especially if you claim that she is incorrectly or carelessly quoted.
Thanks,
Monique Madsen
:Stacey Maxwell:
>*** Question
>Is it correct, that psychotherapy would enable the motivated TV to give
>up his TV-ism?
An Answer:
Being TV means wearing the opposite clothing for ones gender. To give this
up would mean changing clothing style or the desire to wear certain items of
clothing. Suppose hypothetically that it was possible to change peoples
taste in fashion and as a result, a new wardrobe. However, who could say
in the end which items of clothing in the new wardrobe are pertaining to one
gender or the other.
Fashion changes from culture to culture and from season to season therefore
such therapy if it exists, might in some cases change the patient into a
more of an extreme cross-dresser in the eyes of outsiders using gender
standards otherwise unknown to the patient or doctor.
> (When replying to this question, it would certainly be valuable to know
>if you are speaking as a member of the transgender/crossdresser
>community, or as a professional, therapist, etc..)
Yes, it seems more weight should be given to those with expert testimony.
I experience these issues everyday with some people who know my past calling
me TG while others who don't calling me a woman. Since I haven't a degree in
medicine or written any books it has been suggested at times, I see an
"expert" professional so that one of us may become more enlightened...
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
kris
: So there is a cure to this remarkable decease. Well, at least according
: to some statements I have received directly and indirectly in the recent
: past.
: - IS THERE AN ACCEPTED CURE TO TRANSVESTISM ??
i tried to go 'cold turkey', but it didn't work! it takes time to cure
oneself of this dreaded affliction. try shaving only one leg and choose
spicy perfumes over the more feminine floral ones. wear cotton bras and
panties instead of satin or lace. get rid of the garters and stockings
and switch to grocery store pantyhose. ..............ok, i'll stop. i
just find it amazing that there's so much guilt surrounding transvestism
that there are those that would actually considerate it a disease. i think
they're just envious. my $0.02, kris
Monique Madsen
> Monique Madsen <mon...@algonet.se> wrote:
> > (When replying to this question, it would certainly be valuable to know
> >if you are speaking as a member of the transgender/crossdresser
> >community, or as a professional, therapist, etc..)
>:Stacey Maxwell: wrote:
>
> Yes, it seems more weight should be given to those with expert testimony.
> I experience these issues everyday with some people who know my past calling
> me TG while others who don't calling me a woman. Since I haven't a degree in
> medicine or written any books it has been suggested at times, I see an
> "expert" professional so that one of us may become more enlightened...
Hey..Stacey,
I did not intend that the "expert" articles should given more weight. But since the issue of this
very articles is "what do the *experts* really "know", I would say it might be valuable for the
article readers to be informed about the author´s own interests in this debate. Therapists and TV´s
might start their argumentation from different places. Maybe you will agree about this.
Yours,
Monique
kym...@xconn.com
Monique:
>Since at the moment, I´m not enabled to ask Virginia in person what she
>said and what she ment, I would certainly appreciate if you would
>contribute with your version of Prince´s speech, in this relevant part.
>Especially if you claim that she is incorrectly or carelessly quoted.
I will dig through the archives and find the column that I believe was
the basis for her talk and then find the relevant passages.
However, since I *do* have other things to do (like get the next issue
of "Cross-Talk" together), it may be several days.
I do, however, object to the phrase "your version", as if I was putting
words in Virginia's mouth; I don't believe that is an appropriate choice
of words when referring to a column written by her.
kym...@xconn.com
Tina (who apparently thinks *she* is a NetGod, which I find hilarious
since that's what I'm presently being accused of) attempts to once again
define sig netiquette by quoting my entire .sig and then remarking:
>> | Kymberleigh Richards [KR260] | For "Cross-Talk" Information |
>> | System Administrator, Cross Connection | E-mail: arc...@xconn.com |
>> | Publisher/Managing Editor, "Cross-Talk" | Subject: request xtsubnfo.txt |
>>
>>
>> ||| CROSS CONNECTION Los Angeles || Info: e-mail ARC...@XCONN.COM
>|||
>> ||| +1.818.786.8887 || subject REQUEST XCINFO.TXT
>|||
> Please remove this long .sig; the first three lines are more than
>sufficient, and it doesn't violate Netiquette.
I've answered this before. I'll answer it again.
The first three lines are my *personal* .sig; the last three are
automatically appended to *all* outbound usenet traffic by our server.
Takes up just as much space as the complainants, counting blank lines
...
>--
>< http://www.ifi.uio.no/~tina | ti...@ifi.uio.no | ti...@spirou.uab.ericsson.se
>>
><
>>
>< " Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
>>
>< That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. " - Lehrer
>>
(personal sig not attached so you can see that the second one is indeed
automated)
Tina Marie Holmboe
{ kym...@xconn.com }
> Tina (who apparently thinks *she* is a NetGod, which I find hilarious
> since that's what I'm presently being accused of) attempts to once again
> define sig netiquette by quoting my entire .sig and then remarking:
Sorry lady, I am not NetGod - I am not even a sysadm. I am a plain
user of Internet - just like you. A sig is recommended at 4 lines
max. That *your* site happen to double that is unfortunate - for
you. You claim to be System Admin - then change it. If Cross Connection
takes payment for their services, then those added lines can even be
seen as advertizing, which is a further breach of netiquette.
If you can complain about people poetry, ie. their opinions, to
their system administrators, I can complain about your sig. I never
defined .sig netiquette.
> >< http://www.ifi.uio.no/~tina | ti...@ifi.uio.no | ti...@spirou.uab.ericsson.se
> >>
> ><
> >>
> >< " Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
> >>
> >< That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. " - Lehrer
> >>
Let me see... how did you manage to get blank lines in there ? My
sig is exactly 4 lines long, not counting the "--" separator, which
is not part of the sig itself. The lines of the sig are also
exactly 80 characters, thereby falling inside the 'standards' on
both counts.
Follow-up on this is set to alt.transgendered, where it will hopefully
die a swift death. Since Ms. Richards claims to have 'co-founded', or
whichever words she would use, soc.support.transgendered and thus is very
aware of its purpose, it surprises me that she has not done this allready.
kym...@xconn.com
Tina (who apparently thinks *she* is a NetGod, which I find hilarious
since that's what I'm presently being accused of) attempts to once again
define sig netiquette by quoting my entire .sig and then remarking:
>> | Kymberleigh Richards [KR260] | For "Cross-Talk" Information |
>> | System Administrator, Cross Connection | E-mail: arc...@xconn.com |
>> | Publisher/Managing Editor, "Cross-Talk" | Subject: request xtsubnfo.txt |
>>
>>
>> ||| CROSS CONNECTION Los Angeles || Info: e-mail ARC...@XCONN.COM
>|||
>> ||| +1.818.786.8887 || subject REQUEST XCINFO.TXT
>|||
> Please remove this long .sig; the first three lines are more than
>sufficient, and it doesn't violate Netiquette.
I've answered this before. I'll answer it again.
The first three lines are my *personal* .sig; the last three are
automatically appended to *all* outbound usenet traffic by our server.
Takes up just as much space as the complainants, counting blank lines
...
>--
>< http://www.ifi.uio.no/~tina | ti...@ifi.uio.no | ti...@spirou.uab.ericsson.se
>>
><
>>
>< " Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
>>
>< That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. " - Lehrer
>>
(personal sig not attached so you can see that the second one is indeed
kym...@xconn.com
Monique:
>Since at the moment, I´m not enabled to ask Virginia in person what she
>said and what she ment, I would certainly appreciate if you would
>contribute with your version of Prince´s speech, in this relevant part.
>Especially if you claim that she is incorrectly or carelessly quoted.
I will dig through the archives and find the column that I believe was
the basis for her talk and then find the relevant passages.
However, since I *do* have other things to do (like get the next issue
of "Cross-Talk" together), it may be several days.
I do, however, object to the phrase "your version", as if I was putting
words in Virginia's mouth; I don't believe that is an appropriate choice
of words when referring to a column written by her.
| Kymberleigh Richards [KR260] | For "Cross-Talk" Information |
Stephen M. Gardner
>said the following, during a session with a friend of my wife (referring
>to our TV-related marriage-crisis):
>"Transvestism can be cured by psychotherapy. And frankly, if this guy
>(referring to me, Monique) is not willing to undergo such a treatment, I
>would say: Throw him out!
for who you are should be thrown out." I was married for 20 years
to a woman who couldn't accept me for who I am. Fortunately
she ran off with her PhD thesis advisor without even "offering"
the chance to change. It was the best thing that has ever happened
to me. At the time it felt like the worst thing to ever happen but
with time I see how lucky I am. I am rid of someone whose dissapproval
cost me my self-respect and resulted in 20 years of low grade
depression. I know it seems like a very difficult choice to make
but take it from someone who has been through it. Life is MUCH
better without a life partner that makes you feel like a bad
person just for being who you are. You didn't ask to be transgendered
and it won't help to try to be cis-gendered when you are not.
Just accept who you are and what that means to your "relationship".
If you do you will be much happier in the long run.
>Is it correct, that psychotherapy would enable the motivated TV to give
>up his TV-ism?
> (When replying to this question, it would certainly be valuable to know
>if you are speaking as a member of the transgender/crossdresser
>community, or as a professional, therapist, etc..)
I love this term "motivated". It leaves an unscrupulous therapist
an out. Much like the spiritualist charlatans who can blame their
failure on your disbelief. "If only you had had more faith. . ."
"If only you had had better motivation. . . " Don't be fooled.
They can't "cure" you, not JUST because you ain't sick but because
it is a fundamental part of your nature. They'd have better luck
with curing your of being a Swede. ;-) And it would be pretty much
the same thing too.
>So, why bother? - Because if it is not true that psychotherapy (or
>anything else, apart from death) would ²cure² TV-ism, I find it very
>alarming that some so called *experts* in Sweden (and possibly in your
>own country) says so.
The human mind is very poorly understood. As a result there is
much more politics than science in the therapy field. In those
areas of human endeavor where science is not well developed there
is always a lot of charlatanism. I suppose we should be alarmed
but not surprised.
>1) Motivated : - Give up TV-ism, or say goodbye to your marriage. A kind
>of ambivalence, since what you might want to have is both the
>relationship with your spouse, *and* the TV-ism.
I don't think you will ever be happy with a woman who can't
love all of you. Love yourself enough to get this destructive
influence out of your life. It will be hard at first. Probably
the hardest thing you have ever done but it will be much better
for you in the long run.
>2) Motivated: - You feel from the bottom of your soul, that if only you
>could give up this strange desire to crossdress, you would be so much
>happier.
You have to ask yourself *why* you would be happier. Because
you would feel much happier or just less persecuted? Of course
you would feel less persecuted, but would you really feel happier
if you lost a part of yourself to rescue yourself from those
who can't abide your true nature? I don't think so.
>(Earlier, my own wife blamed me for not wanting to give up TV-ism, as it
>appeared to her that I deliberately would choose TV-ism, when there
>seemed to be an accepted way out of it. I tried to explain that I cannot
>control what I want, or do not want.)
Lose her. She is bad for you. She is only contributing to the
cycle of self-hate that destroys too many of us. Lose that woman
she is poison. She is slowly destroying your soul.
>Encouraged by Your response, I intend to confront the therapists
>involved with the core issue, in order to find out how well-founded
>their statements are. And I intend to let you know about the outcome, if
>you are interested.
Give 'em hell honey. Don't take any shit from them.
>Monique Madsen
>(Crossdresser in Sweden)
Good luck to you Monique. My advice: go on the offensive. Stop
being the victim and start putting your own mental health first.
You owe it to yourself. You and your spouse will both be happier
apart. Sorry to be the bearer of what may appear to be bad news
but I've been there and done that.
smg
Joan Tine
Stephen M. Gardner (gar...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
> >So, why bother? - Because if it is not true that psychotherapy (or
> >anything else, apart from death) would ²cure² TV-ism, I find it very
> >alarming that some so called *experts* in Sweden (and possibly in your
> >own country) says so.
> The human mind is very poorly understood. As a result there is
> much more politics than science in the therapy field. In those
> areas of human endeavor where science is not well developed there
> is always a lot of charlatanism. I suppose we should be alarmed
> but not surprised.
I have to unreserveldy agree with Stephen here. The field of mental
health is not science. When I read papers by astrophysicists who
humbly apologize for the poor quality of their measurement instruments
and the limited generalizations which are possible from their work,
then turn around and listen aghast to psychotherapists and
psychologists pontificate, I dispair.
Burn this into your mind: most mental health practitioners are bone
stupid and pig ignorant. They don't understand the difference between
massaging a model and doing science. If they ever met the scientific
method at a party, they'd probably whisper about its bad manners to
anybody who'd listen.
On the positive side, mental health care for the
non-institutionalizable _is_ a dream skate, a primo dodge, and it sure
beats working for a living, with the concommitant need to take a
_hard_ degree and spend your life staying current. I'm considering it
myself, but I'm almost certainly too spoiled (I simply can NOT study
subjects which bore me [after having struggled to an MS in accounting
on sheer will power, and afterward taken stock, with associated
vomiting], and which I can't do anything interesting with) so I'll
likely take my second Masters in software engineering or network
administration.
So also re: Stephen's advice about a wife who has made up her mind
that you must change your nature, or even your strong desires, to suit
her: send her on her way with your best wishes for happiness, unless
you are into some kind of kinky domination/submission stuff. But she
sounds non-consentual to me...If Margo is still reading this group,
she has the education and vocabulary in that subculture to explain
what is and ain't ethical, but even to a casual outsider your wife
sounds like she'd be contemplated with ye Raised Eyebrow.
Nobody has the right to impose rules on another which make them
miserable and call it love. To do so is do violence to the English
Language, and I WON'T HAVE IT. Sorry, sorry, everyone, sorry.
Religious spasm, sorry.
Huggles,
Joan
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
the Right Disreputable, Lady Wombat
Priscilla Asagiri Aerobic Fashions in Fiberglass
The Anna Madrigal Endowment for Pathological Forensics, 1967
Rachel
In article <31833C...@qns.com>,
sha...@qns.com (Cheryl Marie Hunter) wrote:
> The only (other) cure I know of for general crossdressing is M->F
> transitioning. (I omit F->M because women wearing men's clothing isn't
> considered to be crossdressing for some reason.)
Used to be, not so very long ago either. Society has changed since then, and
will hopefully continue to do so.
--
Rachel
Monique Madsen
Stephen M. Gardner wrote:
> [snip]
> I don't think you will ever be happy with a woman who can't
love all of you. Love yourself enough to get this destructive
influence out of your life. It will be hard at first. Probably
the hardest thing you have ever done but it will be much better
for you in the long run.
[snip]
> Lose her. She is bad for you. She is only contributing to the
cycle of self-hate that destroys too many of us. Lose that woman
she is poison. She is slowly destroying your soul.
[snip]
> Good luck to you Monique. My advice: go on the offensive. Stop
being the victim and start putting your own mental health first.
You owe it to yourself. You and your spouse will both be happier
apart. Sorry to be the bearer of what may appear to be bad news
but I've been there and done that.
***end of quote
Start of reply from Monique Madsen:
I do recognize some very important insights in your article, Stephen. I would
put it like:
- Transvestism is a profound part of your personality (not a disease).
- We did not ask for, and was not given an opportunity to decide about our
transvestism (/transgenderism).
- There are (at least two) different ways to handle oneself being a TV (/TS
etc..):
Way 1) Underdog. Guilt. This might lead to trying to give up or suppress your
TV needs, in order to be accepted in the relationship with for example your
spouse.
Way 2) Responsibility and integrity. Not having created who you are, but still
accepting the responsibility for who you are, being proud of yourself and
keeping your integrity also when it might cost you *a lot*, like your marriage,
for instance.
I, myself, until a couple of months ago, lived my life according to the number
1) way. It did cost me personal integrity, self respect, joy, love and
intimacy. I was not entitled to uncensored self expression.
My wife knew I was a TV, but beleived I had given it up, since I promised to do
so (under pressure), some years ago . Well, at least I promised to not get
dressed into any womens clothes, although it was understood my desire would
still remain. After some years, I broke my promise, and did not tell her about
me resuming crossdressing, since I was aware that the consequenses might be
disastrous to our marriage, which I valued *a lot*, despite the CD
restrictions.
I had merely realized, and taken the stand that my wife must be informed about
my present crossdressing, when she by accident got to see, on my
computer-screen, a mail-message that I was composing to an Internet TV-friend,
discussing the issue of informing my wife about me resuming crossdressing.
(This begins my transition into way 2.)
It was a disaster. She was shocked. No wonder. I perceived the situation as the
end of our marriage. I was in severe pain, especially when considering the
consequenses for our children, "loosing" their full-time father. I (and she)
did a lot of crying. Still, I was totally clear about that I would not ever
again try to deny my TV-ism. I would cost me more than a marriage and relations
with my children: IT WOULD POISON *MY LIFE*.
I informed some people, very close to us, like my parents, about my
transvestism, and asked them to support us (and especially my wife). From some
of these persons (especially my parents) we got unlimited support and love.
Still, to me it appeared this would be the end of our marriage.
Slowly, and with repeatedly setbacks, we managed to move in a direction of
hope, understanding and *respect*. I insisted that there is a possibility for
us to live happily together, and allowing me to express myself , also "en
femme". And that we can choose to turn that possibility into reality, or not.
I think my wife did find these discussions slightly frightening, because she
probably had never before seen me act with such a lot of integrity and power,
in our conversations on the topic of our relation.
*** Today, I celebrate my wife as a hero. She has put a tremendous lot of love
and energy into understanding, coping with, and loving the whole person I am.
Our common future now appears as prosperous and happy. Sure there will be
TV-related issues and problems to handle along the way, but nowdays my TV-ism
is more like an asset to *both* of us, instead of being a problem.
So try this on:
***
- The key to our new future was me taking a stand for myself and my integrity.
Before that, I was not myself. And there is no power in not being yourself.
***
And speaking for myself, I believe that telling my parents about my
transvestism was a heavey landmark of my integrity, and has given me a lot of
strength.
(However, this is *not* a general advice to inform parents about ones TV-ism. I
can´t tell what´s best for others.)
Stephen, I recognize a very considering and relevant point in your suggestion
that I should leave my wife, if she could not include my TV-ism in our
relation. Please accept my sincere gratitude for that advice. I would say that
I was mentally already in the divorce process. But things developed better then
I dared to dream. So we will stay together. Forever.
I owed this article to my loved wife, and to you, and to myself.
And I have indicated to other people (maybe confessing to "way 1" above) WHAT
IS POSSIBLE, at a point where most things SEEMS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Yours sincerely,
Monique Madsen
Post Scriptum
My intention with my article-starter "A cure to..." is not to complaint
about me being a victim of my wife or councellors.(And now we do not regard
councelling or therapy as of any value to us.) I am certainly not a victim.
But I am sceptical to the "experts" statements that TV-ism can be
cured.(Regardless of whether it would, or would not be desirable to "cure" it).
And I think a newsgrup like this is a great opportunity to find out whether my
sceptisism is shared by significant parts of the transgender community and
experts, or if it shall stand only for myself. That is why I asked for some
response.
Thanks,
MM
Monique Madsen
kym...@xconn.com wrote:
>
> I will dig through the archives and find the column that I believe was
> the basis for her talk and then find the relevant passages.
Great. Looking forward to it.
> However, since I *do* have other things to do (like get the next issue
> of "Cross-Talk" together), it may be several days.
No rush, Kymberleigh!
> I do, however, object to the phrase "your version", as if I was putting
> words in Virginia's mouth; I don't believe that is an appropriate choice
> of words when referring to a column written by her.
Sorry. No offence. I apologize.
Yours,
Monique Madsen
Val Anderson
Unfortunately, society dictates that only "women"
should openly and outwardly show their femininity.
Anyone who deviates from the norm must have something
wrong with them and therefore must be cured!
I propose the society needs the cure! How can someone
not embrace and care about a person just because he or
she chooses to enjoy expressions of both the feminine
and masculine sides.
I am an extremely feminine woman who is having a
relationship with a wonderful man who is a closet
crossdresser. I appreciate and value all aspects of
who he is.
Others in my life have suggested that perhaps I am
bisexual; because how else could I be crazy about a man
who likes women's clothes etc. So, I examined this.
No, I am not bisexual. I just happen to believe
that our outward packaging is an expression of
ourselves. And, that self is a wonderful gift that can
be shared and valued by another.
No one suggests to women, who choose to crossdress,
that she should enter into therapy and find a cure so
why should it be expected and asked of men?
Just my prospective and opinion.
Val
Jason Tan
Val Anderson wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, society dictates that only "women"
> should openly and outwardly show their femininity.
> Anyone who deviates from the norm must have something
> wrong with them and therefore must be cured!
I agree totally...........why is it that only women are able to dress in whatever way
they like........why can't men???..........If women can wear over sized shirts and pants
and cut their hair short.......dress up like a guy........why can't men do the
opposite??......why is the mancho image of men always there......?????.......
> I propose the society needs the cure! How can someone
> not embrace and care about a person just because he or
> she chooses to enjoy expressions of both the feminine
> and masculine sides.
YESSSS.....it has come to a time for the society to accept crossdressers as normal
people and not a nut case..........crossdressers are also people ........like me.....
I like to crossdress and be feminine....but I can't go out in public...........
> I am an extremely feminine woman who is having a
> relationship with a wonderful man who is a closet
> crossdresser. I appreciate and value all aspects of
> who he is.
I must say you're a an understanding woman............not many women are able to accept
the fact where guys crossdress
> Others in my life have suggested that perhaps I am
> bisexual; because how else could I be crazy about a man
> who likes women's clothes etc. So, I examined this.
> No, I am not bisexual. I just happen to believe
> that our outward packaging is an expression of
> ourselves. And, that self is a wonderful gift that can
> be shared and valued by another.
Cool........it also means that not all crossdressers are gays...............some of us
like myself .........loves to wear female clothes..........but when it's sex
wise.......I'm straight..............
> No one suggests to women, who choose to crossdress,
> that she should enter into therapy and find a cure so
> why should it be expected and asked of men?
Cheers.........I appreicate that.........why don't they give therapy to the society
instead.........so that they learn that crossdressers are not nuts but special ......
> Just my prospective and opinion.
>
> Val
It's a high time for someone to come out and voice their opinions.......
Jason aka Kathy
:Stacey Maxwell:
Cheryl Marie Hunter <sha...@qns.com> wrote:
>Yes. I went to see Virginia Price during her visit to this area a couple
>months ago. Virginia, as I understand it, is a full-time TV (and, I believe,
>founder of the original TV support group in the U.S.), and claimed that
>anyone could give up crossdressing if they wanted to. That comment, among
>others, didn't go over all that well with the mostly TS group that was there
>that night.
I had a chance today to ask Virginia about her views on
giving up gender expression. She did affirm that is her
belief, yet the TS group in question, must in their uproar not
heard the rest of her assertion or only heard the parts they
wanted to hear such as Virginia is out of touch with the
issues or some crazy thing like that.
To paraphrase what she said " Cross dressing has not been
linked to addiction as in chemical dependency of drugs.
Giving up crossedressing can be done without a chemical
withdrawal symptom unlike giving of heroin or cigarettes.
(not to say that there is no strife, just that its is not
uncontrollable chemically). Also , there is no reason to give
up crossdressing anyhow and the issue is nullified by that
fact. " Furthermore she views her expression as
transgenderist and not crossdressing since she lives full time
as a women .
Stacey Maxwell
Stacey Maxwell
It seems that Virginia Prince, who is being quoted as saying
crosdressing can be escaped and Cheryl Marie Hunter are being
misunderstood here. After talking to both in private that has now
become apparent.
Indeed I'm sure there was mention of the fact that gender expression
can be controlled , yet there is no reason to abstain, so we don't
find evidence. However knowing the speaker's usual argumentative tone
and her controversial repetition with some TS's it's not hard to
imagine that both individuals are being misrepresented here by
hearsay. My apologies ....
Stacey
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." Lily Tomlin (Return
of the Portable Curmudgeon)
Cheryl Marie Hunter
Stacey Maxwell wrote:
>
> It seems that Virginia Prince, who is being quoted as saying
> crosdressing can be escaped and Cheryl Marie Hunter are being
> misunderstood here. After talking to both in private that has now
> become apparent.
[some other stuff snipped]
I suppose it's worth mentioning for anyone who might be following this
thread that I was at a critical point in my life when I went to hear
Virginia. After a substantial amount of research, I had just confirmed
(to myself) that I was a TS...and not a TV--which I had previously
thought I might be. Virginia's comments challenged my newfound
self-diagnosis and put me back into major confusion. So anything I've
said about that meeting came out of that very confused state...and I
can't guarantee much accuracy.
By the way...yes...I *am* a TS. (I met my gender therapist at that
meeting, too!)
Cheryl Marie :)
MarlaB 01
In article <3195C2...@qns.com>, Cheryl Marie Hunter <sha...@qns.com>
writes:
>After a substantial amount of research, I had just confirmed
>(to myself) that I was a TS...and not a TV--which I had previously
>thought I might be.
>By the way...yes...I *am* a TS.
Going off into a tangent here for group consideration...
It seems from this post that it is very important to Cheryl to define
herself wrt a label. That there is an implication that her identity comes
from the label. As a general comment for consideration by all, why? Why
is it important to say "I *am* TS"?
The idea seems alien to me. Trying to fit myself to a label seems to be
putting the cart before the horse. Labels to me are *aproximations*
designed to communicate to others some aspect of 'me'. And as such,
there are multiple labels and descriptions I can make of myself to let
others understand me. No one word, no one label has much importance in
that communication.
But labels certainly have no specific value in defining my own self to me.
I am 'me' no matter what label fits me best. And certainly no label will
fit me perfectly, for I am a unique human being - not a round peg to be
fit in a generic round hole. I certainly will not change who I am because
a label does or does not fit - either well or poorly. I certainly will
not change my life and my life decisions because a label does or does not
fit - including such decisions as hormones or SRS or how I live my life
wrt the rest fo society. I certainly will not have a happier or sadder
life because a label does or does nof fit.
So why is the label so imporantant to so many?
For me, the only important label that applies to me is my own personal
label - which I have multiples of anyway.
Just a question to open discussion :-)
Hugs, Marla
(aka Mar, Mark, Morgana, Marlina, Morgur, Hey You, etc. <g>)
P.S. Cheryl, I hope you don't mind my using your post to go off on this
tangent.
Newgirl103
Well, here's my two cents worth on the subject (and I'll probably get a
dollars worth of flaming as a result) ==
Is it important for everyone to use the labels *male* and *female* that
have have been around since Adam and Eve? How about *Adam* or *Eve*? Are
they not labels as well. What if we all had to go around addressing
eachother as "hey you"? Seems to me that that would be quite confusing to
put it mildly.
What's all the fuss about labels for anyway? What difference do they
really make? Humankind (aka Mankind) is also a label as is *ET*
(ExtraTerrestrial).
Labels, and consequently names, are merely descriptors. They are a
necessary part of life. If you don't like them, there's no law that
states that you must use them. And conversely, if you do like them,
there's no law that says you can't use them. So why not just accept that
fact and stop the petty bickering. It's pointless, futile, and really
quite childish. ;-)
DeeDee
MarlaB 01
In article <4n8r91$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, newgi...@aol.com
(Newgirl103) writes:
>Labels, and consequently names, are merely descriptors.
I think that's my point as well. The problems seem to come up when people
want to use them for more than descriptors.
Hugs, Marla
Lerham
>>After a substantial amount of research, I had just confirmed
>>(to myself) that I was a TS...and not a TV--which I had previously
>>thought I might be.
>>By the way...yes...I *am* a TS.
>Going off into a tangent here for group consideration...
>It seems from this post that it is very important to Cheryl to define
>herself wrt a label. That there is an implication that her identity
comes
>from the label. As a general comment for consideration by all, why?
>Why
>is it important to say "I *am* TS"?
To me it seems as though you are making an assumption here. Maybe it is
important that she has found clarification in her life. Some people
genuinely feel that they fit into these categories. Yes, sometimes it's
important to find out where you feel you belong. If you don't belong into
any label and don't want to fit into any label, that is your right also.
If labels make you uncomfortable, don't use them. But, don't assume that
everyone feels the same way. On the other hand, you shouldn't use labels
to identify someone else. This is not your right, unless you know that
this is what they want. Labels can be like shackels to those who don't
feel they fit into them.
>The idea seems alien to me. Trying to fit myself to a label seems to be
>putting the cart before the horse. Labels to me are *aproximations*
>designed to communicate to others some aspect of 'me'. And as such,
>there are multiple labels and descriptions I can make of myself to let
>others understand me. No one word, no one label has much importance in
>that communication.
Labels make you feel uncomfortable. I understand that, but for some they
don't.
What you say here is correct. Labels are just a small aspect of someone,
or maybe, with those who don't fit into labels, no aspect of themselves.
But, as I said before some people genuinely feel that a certain label is
where their identity, in a broad sense, belongs.
>But labels certainly have no specific value in defining my own self to
>me.
That's you. It may be a matter of to what degree do labels define you or
not at all. One label, transsexual defines me, in as far as it can. But,
it's doesn't in anyway describe my personality or much more. If I were a
genetic man who had no gender identity issues. Genetic man would describe
me to a point. It wouldn't even begin to tell you WHO I really was. To
label myself even further, I would be an FTM transsexual. Still, even
though I've made the label more defined, it wouldn't tell you much more
about me other than the bear bones. You still don't know me. I think
what we're, or better yet, I'm beating around the bush at is the terms
transsexual and transgender. The real problem comes with trying to figure
out what transgender means for me. The term has made many changes over
the years. To some it's an umbrella term for transsexuals, crossdressers,
butch lesbians, those who identify as both or neither(male/female),
etc.... To some the term only applys to those who have identity issues,
but don't want to change their bodies in any way. And, I'm sure there are
other definitions for this term. I don't use the term for myself because
I feel transsexual defines me with very little need for going into
details. That's my choice. Until I feel that transgender is not more
confusing than helpful, FOR ME, I won't use it to describe myself. Maybe
that will change in the future, but not now.
This is no way means that I don't feel like I fit in with my transgendered
brothers and sisters. Far from it.
> I am 'me' no matter what label fits me best. And certainly no label
will
>fit me perfectly, for I am a unique human being - not a round peg to be
>fit in a generic round hole. I certainly will not change who I am
because
>a label does or does not fit - either well or poorly. I certainly will
>not change my life and my life decisions because a label does or does not
>fit - including such decisions as hormones or SRS or how I live my life
>wrt the rest fo society. I certainly will not have a happier or sadder
>life because a label does or does nof fit.
>So why is the label so imporantant to so many?
>For me, the only important label that applies to me is my own personal
>label - which I have multiples of anyway.
>Just a question to open discussion :-)
>Hugs, Marla
You've brought up a good subject. I feel that labels are just the
beginning of how I see myself, but I do fit into one label, personally.
Finding a label or not does not deny me my soul or individuality as I
believe you are implying. If that is what you are implying here. There
are labels that make me comfortable and labels that don't.
That's me. Labels can be used as negative, such as if someone uses a
label to describe you to put you down in some way. But, if someone wants
to say, "Hey, I have finally come to the conclusion that I'm TG instead of
TS!" I would feel that there joy is because they have found out that they
may fit into a label or not, but what's most important, they have found
some sort of clarification for themselves. It doesn't mean that they have
negative feelings towards those who identify as TS. Or if someone said as
you have, "Hey, I've discovered that I don't fit into a label!" I would
also say congrats, because you have found clarification for who you are.
Anyone else have a room with a view:-)
Dan
MarlaB 01
Dan,
I think the essense of my exploration is "Why fit one's self to a label
instead of use a label to communicate ones self?"
This may seem to be a minor difference, but what concerns me is two fold.
- The first is "I am [fill in the label] and as such I must make xxxx
life choices because that is what [fill in the label] are suppose to do."
This strikes me as a dangerous trap, for it assumes all individuals with a
label must make the same life choices no matter how well or poorly they
fit the label and no matter how good or bad the life choices might be for
that individual.
Instead I would think it should work in reverse like "I have made xxxxx
life choices because that is best for me and my person and therefore both
my person and the resulting choices implies [fill in the label] best
describes me."
This is what I mean about the cart before the horse, some individuals try
to fit themselves to labels and then use the label to define thier life
choices instead of defining one's life choices, and then seeing what label
fits best (if any).
- The second problem is that of others trying to force and control an
indivudal to conform. i.e. "If you are a [fill in the label] them you
must do or feel xxxxx. If you do not then you are not [fill in the label]
and you cannot feel or do yyyyyy." The problem with this is that it
assumes generalities of a group must apply to all individuals of the
group. This forces indiviudals to conform to the group generalites,
whether that is good for the indivudual or not.
Note, I am not against labels. I find them quite important to
communications. But it is when labels are used past the purpose of
communication, but instead to control, to mold or define choices that I
see traps and dangers.
-------------------------------------
Phrased another way, which of the two below outlooks is 'better' (if
either)...
1) I discovered SRS is the best life path for me, implying I am a
transseuxal.
2) I discovered I am transsexual, implying SRS must be the best life path
for me.
Why is it more important to say "I discovered I am a transseuxal." than it
is to say "I discovered SRS is my best life path."?
Hugs, Marla
S.A.More
ler...@aol.com (Lerham) writes:
------->label myself even further, I would be an FTM transsexual. Still, even
>though I've made the label more defined, it wouldn't tell you much more
>about me other than the bear bones. You still don't know me. I think
>Anyone else have a room with a view:-)
>Dan
>
creating a mini-socity based on gender is difficult. Probably many people
come her just to chat with others who might be similar like them.
So socializing only centered about real T* related issues is difficult and makes
it easy to misunderstand each other. Especially as you don't know most
of them personally.
Sam
>
>
Rosalind Hengeveld
MarlaB 01 (aka Mar, Mark, Morgana, Marlina, Morgur, Hey You, etc. <g>) wrote:
> Going off into a tangent here for group consideration...
Oh, Hey You, this "Why labels?" thread comes back about once a month, so we may as
well promote it to a FAQ, posted around the 15th of each month. :-)
> [Q:] Why is it important to say "I *am* TS"?
A: Because that means making some sort of decision and resolution on what you are
going to do with your transgender feelings: in the case of the TS label, typically
transition and physical adjustments including genital surgery (SRS).
Often, maybe usually, the most agonizing phase of transgenderedness is the
"decision phase", which is characterized by searching for the right label.
The label "transsexual" was coined by one D. Cauldwell in 1949 (he spelled it with
one s). Systematic care for transsexuals is commonly considered to have started
with Christine Jorgenson's hormone treatment and surgery in 1952 (published 1953),
just a few years later. That is (most probably) not a coincidence.
> [Q:] So why is the label so imporantant to so many?
People think in labels. They structure and organize our thought. That is a
normal, healthy and harmless process, as long as we keep the limitations and the
relativeness of our categories and their labels in mind.
For further study, refer to any philosopher (to which label the author of this FAQ
does not reckon herself, but it seems many regulars of this newsgroup do).
Q: Can you name anything of any importance without a label?
A: You name it, we have it.
> Just a question to open discussion :-)
--
Rosalind Hengeveld
prabhat...@gmail.com
All males in this world have xy genetics...i.e...half male half female...we supress it to act as an Alfa male....this leads to a perpetual frustration ...which accumulates as your hidden unclean wishes....
think of your body is made up of two rooms X and Y...and you live in just one room Y...you do not go into other locked one X or clean it...
If you clean room X...you will discover a completeness in you...your consciousness will rize...you will open up your Dimensions. Buddhism suggests you should be close to plants and trees and then meditate.
In India it was called ADHYATMA in ancient times.
Another point is "As above so below".
Gospel of Thomas. Verse 22. Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."
Deuteronomy 22:5 a man is not to wear that which pertains to a woman (...means you should always buy new dress andno should not wear any 2nd hand dress or, worn by women Earlier).
A women do not have Y genetics ...they will never understand your Crossdressing behavious...so ...never disclose to any women.
There is a limit to this crossdressing...strictly stop SRS...we all have two tongues...as above so below...jingle bells...