We often wonder just why society has a skewed and screwed take on transsexuality. Why is that?
Because of utterly and completely ridiculous definitions such as THIS ONE:
OK, so what is transsexuality?
Simply, having a gender identity that differs from societal perceptions of the body’s gender.
Now, under that reasoning, think of all the gender screws who just became instant transsexuals.
More Non-Sense…of the absolute worst kind! And, from a site I thought more of. I seriously wished I could take my weblog votes back. This is pathetic.
Sign THE PETITION…and lets end this type of overly simplistic generalization.
18 Comments
Thank you for posting that link.
I couldn’t pass up commenting on her blog posting.
I find her very arrogant to the point of demonstrating the passable presents of NPD.
Brain throws around the word “We” as though Brain is involved in such research.
To my knowledge Brain has not published a single authoritative, peer reviewed paper on the subject Brain speaks of.
I was taken to task for this arrogance when I was 25, realizing that I was only a spectator and NOT an actor in the technological theater I spoke of I did see the error of my ways and grew up.
More to the point;
You have done such a good job with such economy of words to sight the insanity of it all.
Take Care
S
Sue, I find Zoe to be of a reasonable nature, though we do disagree…on some items more than others. Often she tailors her position to fit the discussion venue du jour and, because of that, I have referred to her as a “fence straddler” in the past. Nonetheless, I was very surprised to see her definition of transsexuality reduced in the fashion it was. It’s regretable and shows just how far apart we are. Honestly, I thought we were closer.
I understand your feelings.
However because she is not sound in her position Brain cannot be trusted.
I have been watching Zoe for a couple of years now, Brain has not done anything to surprise me.
A snake will always behave like a snake, it would be irrational to think otherwise.
Read all of Zoe’s blog entries in light of this one, I think you might see what I see.
Take care
S
aw c’mon folks, she uses “we” in the terms of collective human knowledge, in the same way that we know the earth is flat.
Point is, I think she does a good job of keeping up to date on scientific research around gender and gender identity. If you disagree with the conclusions she reaches on the basis of that research, fine, but that’s not going to make the research itself go away. By all indications gender is a biological spectrum, not a strict binary. Yeah a crossdresser is different from me, as is an androgyne, but that does not make their psyche or the biology that gave rise to it any less valid.
Mina.
If Gender Identity has a biological base – and I think that the evidence is conclusive there, so we can remove the “If”….
Then there has to be a spectrum.
Because that’s the way biology is. A Bimodal distribution rather than a binary one. Two clusters, poles apart, but with a few somewhere towards the middle.
This matches the observations of TS and IS people. Transsexual people are strongly gendered one way or the other, more so than most. The societal and medical barriers against transition are so high that only those more feminine, or more masculine, than the usual are forced to overcome them in order to be true to themselves.
Those less strongly (cross) gendered may be able to cope with their gender dysphoria without showing symptoms. Those with a greater degree may be able to cope by engaging in some cross-gendered behaviour, while remaining of their societally recognised gender.
Those more strongly affected “transition late” after decades of struggle to conform to societal and familial expectations. They will engage in either cross-gendered behaviour in the meantime, or in some cases, complete denial so strong it could accurately be described as minor psychosis – till the bubble bursts, and they have to transition.
The most strongly gendered transition early or die.
There is a continuum even between these broad categories. The last two are sometimes referred to a “Type V” and “Type VI” on one scale, but someone who transitions at age 30 might be in either arbitrary category, depending on available resources and environmental support.
This description fits all the observations that have been made, and the germ of it appears in Harry Benjamin’s original work.
From a practical viewpoint, the most useful arbitrary boundaries appear to be:
Do they require HRT to function?
Do they require GRS to function?
The Human Rights issues for those who answer “no” to those questions I leave aside for now, having no wish to get involved in Transgender politics in this post.
The Human Rights issues for those who answer “Yes” to both questions are relatively simple – after medical treatment, they’re of the target gender for all purposes, and should be treated so by the legal system.
The situation for those requiring HRT but who can tolerate life without surgery, even if by just becoming celibate, is a legal and medical ethics issue, and opinions can reasonably vary.
“Gender” is not a biological spectrum. Gender is a social category. This is the kind of mixed-up thinking that transgenders posit in order muddy the waters. It causes trouble for real transsexuals while affording transgenders, or whatever they are calling themselves at the moment, an opportunity at some kind of legitimacy in their own minds.
And that is the problem; they may think that being linked to “biological condition” gives them a boost somehow, but all it does is make things worse for everyone. You can also see this at work in how transgender politics is trying to absorb intersex into the fold. Anything that is “not my fault” is excusable in their minds. But it is *only* in their minds that this is so.
And that’s what this transgender business is all about- working out personal problems in the public arena rather than taking responsibility and handling it themselves the way people did in the past. This is a common theme in the US these days, this new phenomenon of putting all your problems on other people. The problem is that if you do this as a powerless minority you will be destroyed.
Further, when someone who has lived through the transsexual condition says they believe it to be biological in origin, right or wrong, it has nothing to do with non-transsexuals. It does not suggest anything about crossdressers being “invalid”. (invalid with respect to what?) Words like that are the transgenders’ own self-loathing and fear speaking.
And that tells us why the transgender monolith refuses to let go of transsexuals. They are desperately grasping at personal legitimacy, and it doesn’t matter who pays the price as long as it isn’t them.
To say that a crossdresser is different but just as “valid” is to invite a most unflattering comparison. In this statement you have completely -invalidated- transsexual women by inferring a link to transgender men by juxtaposition. To the reader, this looks like an attempt to be supportive of transgenders through that very slur that the writer says doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t matter if that was the intent, that is how other people read it. All to often, however, that is EXACTLY what was intended. And it is always a set-up for the slur of phobia that is sure to follow if someone is critical of the transgender position. This is standard operating procedure for playing the politically-correct card.
I don’t know what research is being talked about in that blog. It wasn’t immediately clear, and I can only assume the “research” originally alluded to has conveniently morphed into the writer’s opinion. Just like the writer conveniently “morphed” due to circumstances beyond her control in midlife.
I’m going to have to disagree that opinion qualifies as research in this case though. As to this “research” going away, the sooner this type of transgender sophistry is put aside, the better.
I’ve often wondered about Zoe since I first read her writings some time ago. It seems unusual that someone would be “forced” to transition by hormones magically gone awry at some point in middle age. But back then when I had a more naive take on all this, I was willing to chalk it up to one person’s means of coping with the transsexual condition. Now I’m not so sure.
(SA-ET 1-10-09…obviously no one is forced to transition, nonetheless, why and how they do is entirely their business. If you are concerned or question Zoe’s motives in some way it is best you ask her on her blog. I’ll let this to stand, but do not see it as furthering the narrative. Though I don’t agree with what Zoe says at times, she has always been willing to respectfully debate the issue without taking shots at her adversary. She is linked to her blog, both in the essay and comment…take it up there if you have a problem.)
I have to agree I am somewhat weary of people pawning off opinion as “research”.
I am also tired of whenever I question this so called research I am labeled as transphobic.
Finally I have had my fell of self proclaimed experts pawning off Tranny Kool-Aid on the rest of the world.
If you have an opinion that is fine. If you are en expert or athority sight your referances and your credntials otherwise,
STFU.
S
I’m sorry, Zoe, but this statement completely ignores the purely psychological aspects of those whose motivation is strictly fetish based and/or a function of nurture. Those in that group are no more transsexual than a microbe is inorganic. To dispute that would be to deny the existance of a difference between behavior and identity that has a biological foundation (nature) and that which is founded in one’s environmental upbringing (nurture), something I’m not sure you would be prepared to do. The only way I could agree with this statement – which I have to assume is in the context of responding to my criticism of your simplistic and all encompassing definition of transsexuality – would be if we do not differentiate between the biological aspects of psychology and physiology. And, if we absurdly did that, then everyone on the planet would lie on some transsexual spectrul line as it is undeniable that all natal males, females, and intersexed individuals express different degress of masculinity and femininity. However, hopefully you would agree that the degree of masculine and feminine expression in itself in no way indicates a diagnosis of gender dysphoria regardless of how gender identity is defined.
Because there are degrees in the intensity of transsexuality and there are degrees in the intensity of those who crossdress does not indicate, much less prove, that the two are in any way related simply because they may have presentation in common. To turn your comment arround, because that’s just not the way biology is.
As you have brought up Harry Benjamin, his entire transsexual premise was based on the fact that transsexuals were a completely different set of people who innately felt they were of the wrong sex/gender. Benjamin distinctly says in his book, The Transsexual Phenomenon , in the chapter entitled The Symphony of Sexes , italics mine:
In the next chapter, he adds:
He goes on to say that the only reason he even discusses transvestism is to:
Or, in other words, to differentiate the two.
Benjamin specifically differentiates transvestites and transsexuals. He says, emphasis is Benjamin’s:
If one wants to pick and choose certain passages out of Benjamin’s work in an attempt to prove a point that is fine with me; quite honestly it is the transgender way, i.e., metaphorically, to take the tree and miss the forest. But that does not change the fact that Benjamin saw transsexuality as very, very different than transvestism and its subsets.
And, again, I will say, respectfully, the definition you offer up in you essay is simplistic, misleading, and one I despise. It is not based on research or a biological model.
And if you read the comments on Zoe’s blog, you will see all the tried and true transvestite “discussion” tactics leading yet again to the ever popular “You’ll never be a ‘real’ woman” by someone who identifies herself as a transsexual.
Every CAIS, PCOS and related condition woman in the world should collectively hire a hit on these people because they are saying they aren’t women either. Frankly I’m sick and tired of those who co-op classic transsexuality being among the very first to deny the womanhood of women of transsexual history and we all have seen that over and over.
And Susan, thank you for pointing out that ole’ Harry put the stupid chart in his book but then not only mostly ignored it the entire rest of the work but also out and out denied a spectrum. My copy is so old and dogeared I fear to root through it every time this Benjamin Scale crap is pulled.
Mina…I agree, and disagree, and agree.
I agree completely, Mina, knocking Zoe’s use of the word we and interpreting it as her acting from a position of authority is petty.
On the other hand, though I agree that gender presentation is a spectrum as well as degrees of masculinity/femininity, sex and gender itself is a binary…males and females. To reach a different conclusion is, to use your venacular, not going to make it go away.
Lastly, as part of the agree-disagree-agree, I also completely agree with you that there is nothing invalid about the psyche or biology of the crossdressers and other transgender. The fact of the matter is that I don’t have much respect for those who do see them in that negative light of invalidity. It’s their definition that is the issue, not their existance.
The transgender habitually refer to all of us who refuse to allow the colonization of transsexuality as being filled with hate, being transphobic, etc. They can shout that from here to eternity; I really don’t care but I don’t think that’s true at all. It says more about their insecurity, than our defense of the issue. Speaking only for myself, though I honestly think I speak for the majority of classic transsexuals, I am no better a person than the occasional crossdresser or anyone else that defines as gender variant…but I am very much different.
It never matters to any of our detractors that we may have friends or aquaintances who are transvestites or of whom are gay…to them, it’s simply an empty gesture. Our critics, of whom are not classic transsexuals, have this weird mindset that it is impossible to respect and/or otherwise associate on some level with crossdressers or the transgender and not acknowledge their identities…not doing so is tantamount to being defined by the terms I use above. That is absurd.
Individually, I couild care less what someone’s gender identity is. However, from a collective stance it’s very much an issue I have. When a male crossdresser or transvestite tells his family or friends that he is a woman, that doesn’t affect me at all. When the transgender advocates take to the streets and mainstream media shouting to the world that I am simply an extreme part of the transgender spectrum that is a different issue for it marginalizes an identity that has been validated medically, surgically, and through 60 plus years of research on the subject…not to mention violating my own being by including me in a group of which I do not belong.
PS.
It should never go unnoticed that it is and has always been the homosexual transgendered and those who support that concept who claim they are like us…and it’s always classic transsexuals who say, “No, you are not.” The transgender response: you are all elitist, hate-filled, transphobic, homophobic, self-loathing…the list goes on. Always…
“”It should never go unnoticed that it is and has always been the homosexual transgendered and those who support that concept who claim they are like us…and it’s always classic transsexuals who say, “No, you are not.” The transgender response: you are all elitist, hate-filled, transphobic, homophobic, self-loathing…the list goes on. Always…”"
They are also the very first to deny our status as members of the female half of society.
They suffer from the delusion that if they say something out loud no matter how ridiculous it becomes a part of reality and therefore factual. This is the natural result of the “I will fake it, til I make it”, attitude. This is I believe the root of their attacks upon us and anybody else who challenges their stated “reality”.
There are corssdressrs and transgender folk who don’t drink of that Kool-Aid, usually they are not of the homosexual community. Surprisingly they are very level headed and don’t spout the kind of dogma we see from some here in the blogisphure.
As long as some of us keep fighting the Kool-Aid guzzlers anybody new that comes along will question their dogma, and I believe anybody who is level headed will see the fallacy in their dogma.
I have to be optimistic if I don’t then what good is any of this?
S
it’s safe to say I have lost my patients with those people.
Michael Savage was right.
S
You’re entitled to your opinion, Sue, but I can’t condone the kind of rhetoric someone like Savage dishes…regardless of who the target is. It’s simply not right.
it’s safe to say I have lost my “patients” with those people.
… apt misspelling:
…so have a lot of surgeons
It would be quite interesting to require those writing surgery and hormone letters to review the online blabbling of these “women” with an eye towards they reveal freely every bit of mysogyny, gynophobia and male entitlement in what they say to and about women of operate history. It seems we are the touchstone that makes them think it’s safe to express these forms of hatred against us.
That’s funny Leigh
I agree Cat;
And when are they going to realize they marginalize themselves and we don’t want any part of it.
S
I agree with that Cathryn. They should have to reveal their website and online name, email…
My main reason for mentioning the writer’s background, or point of view as it happens, was not to engage in some personal war. It is an attempt to illustrate the origin of these transgender writings that attempt to pass themselves off as informed commentary on actual transsexuals. And these writings often do come from well-meaning but misguided real transsexuals as well.
It doesn’t matter if someone is “real” in this sense or not, and there is no reason to engage in the tranny practice of accusations about purity tests as happens every time you try to separate yourselves from them. The issue us that people who lack certainty in their own lives and transitions make poor advocates for transsexuals. This ambiguity is a fertile breeding ground for selling transgender social philosphy to people coming to grips with their transsexual condition. And it can be entirely unintentional.
And that’s the difficult part. Most of the people engaged in these arguments are not part of some transgender conspiracy. Personal interactions just tend towards certain means and extremes. That isn’t to say that somewhere various politicos aren’t trying to steer things to their own benefit and perpetrate a fraud on the rest of us.
One of the biggest challenges facing us is to unify the concept of the transsexual condition. If we were able to do this, it would force the transgenders to own their own issues, and go back to being gay men and transvestites. Science will eventually show the truth, but it is the social aspect that needs to be managed until the truth can be settled in the public consciousness. Too often truth is subordinate to the loud-mouthed ramblings of various factions in society.
We cannot afford to indulge well-meaning transsexuals who are trying to be inclusive and charitable towards the transgenders. The lack of a unified voice is the main thing that is keeping us from our goals at this point.