Ok... I have just finished reading this article and this is my immediate reaction. That is a fair interpretation of the condition and an answer to the question which was posed. I find it uncannily close to my own perception and feelings with regard to this subject. The facts as we see them were clearly laid out but, I am pleased to say, not without compassion. Compassion for those who do not have HBS but who, nevertheless and for whatever reason, feel compelled to deviate from accepted gender norms. I have no right or wish to sit in judgement upon them.

Permit me to extend this thought a little further. I never liked the term transsexual, simply for those three letters "SEX" and the connotation probably associated in the minds of society although, in reality, there is little wrong with its etymology. What then of the labels applied to TG? Probably one of the "nicest" was secondary transsexual but even that implies second class. Some labels are even more uncomplimentary, such as "fetishistic transvestite". Who can blame people for balking at such a term being applied to them? Perhaps if a term was found, which the TG etc. could "live with" they would not feel the need to compromise the integrity of HBS by erroniously claiming to suffer it.

Kaye

Someone actually wrote a lengthy piece on my life condition in which I can find nothing to dispute (including in the sidebar).

Nice work!

Sharon makes it seem all too easy. Overweight? Just lose the weight! Not enough money? Get a second job!

It isn't necessarily all that easy for people to lose weight, and there are people out there for whom bariatric (weight loss) surgery risk is too high for a surgeon to operate. I have sadly been losing the same 20 pounds trying to lose the 100 I would need just to overcome that one obstacle - and then there are things like a heart condition that still make for a surgical down-check. I'd sign a waiver to have SRS anyway - if any of the surgeons would accept the waiver.

I personally don't have the money issue (I already have my surgery fund saved up) - but I do believe it's somewhat cavalier to dismiss the money issue with a wave of the hand and advice to get a second job. That may be great advice to middle class white folks, particularly those who are early in transition and haven't started suffering collateral damage of transition-related job loss. There are minority folks who already have one strike for being a minority. Some have a second strike for being undocumented (and afraid of deportation to some South American country where they might get killed for being who they are) (And yes, I know that there are cases where the US has granted asylum - one in particular to a trans woman who founded a trans rights group in Argentina - but the risk of deportation is still high for many of them.) For them, getting any job at all is tough. Then there are cultural barriers - those who resort to sex work to stay alive are often pumping auto grade silicone to "transition" their bodies and shooting up with black market hormones - all using shared needles. HIV infection in this group is at 50% or more in New York City, based in part on the shared needle issue.

What works as a means t separate the "real" people with HBS from people who don;t have HBS, for middle class white people (at least those without medical complications) seeking transition, does not necessarily work in that particular milieu.

I also know of people who have put off surgery for other reasons. It isn't as if they don't want and even desperately need it, it's just that they have decided on other priorities - keeping a family together in one case, or continuing their work, in another. (The latter example I am thinking of is Denise Brennan, former Catholic priest, who was quoted as stating she had severe dysphoria from her mid-40's but struggled to keep things in check until she retired from the priesthood 20 years later - *then* she transitioned and had her surgery. One can't say that Denise did not have HBS while she was delaying her transition - or can one?)

I do believe that there is some truth in Sharon's observations - if one has HBS, the need to complete a transition to the extent humanly possible can be used as a litmus test. I know people who do not want surgery and are perfectly happy being physiologically somewhere "in between." While I wouldn't necessarily leave them in a completely separate category (Harry Benjamin himself did not), I can understand the desire on the part of some to create separations and distinctions between an "us" and a "them." Some would deny a line altogether, and that is also not a good thing (we are, after all, *not* all the same). I think Sharon unnecessarily draws the line too narrowly.

Hi Kaye! The column, of course, was an answer to a questioning comment. However, it raises a number of interrelated concerns.

One concern is the way transgenders are often discussed solely in terms of their extremes.

There exists an unknown number of transgenders, perhaps the majority, that have nothing to do with cross-dressing per se or fetishism. They simply happen to be read as either effeminate males or masculine-seeming females.

They really aren't any different from many of the people you can see in a large urban grocery store on Saturday aternoon. And most of them have nothing to do with transgender activism. Like most people, they just want to get on with their lives and do so without discrimination.

Then there are the people - again, not CDs or TVs - who are intimidated by the workplace and social scene and view themselves as gender transgressive even if they lie well within gender norms (i.e., passive male or assertive female). Many are in the ranks crowding under the TG Umbrella for emotional protection.

Yelling at the "Transgenders" seems problematic to me, given that TGs are not exclusively the cross-dressing males, but include a lot of other people. Granted, the most vocal of the activists most often are CDs and TVs, but there are a lot of other people crowding under the umbrella.

And let's add in another group, germaine to the focus of our column. We know there are some post-ops that also set forth as Transgender. I am not talking about AGs, but regular 'ol HBS/TS. It is only partly due to a confusion of sex with gender, conflating them into a gender spectrum.

It also has to do with their social connections, often forged early in transition. This is fascinating, given that the vast majority of post-ops we know are glad to leave that phase of their lives well behind them.

We also know of a surprising number who seldom if ever use the phrase classic transsexual any more. They think it is a rude put-down of the CDs, etc. (rather like HBS). Some times people use the term for clarification: "Yes, I am a transsexual, but my therapist and I knew right away I am a classic transsexual. That is, not trapped on the spectrum.

Everyone deserves respect and compassion. It would be nice, though, if we could all just be who we are without encroaching on others.

Hello, Joann. It is always good to have you here.

I think we covered most of your points in the column. There is one thing, though, that needs immediate clarification. You said:

... I can understand the desire on the part of some to create separations and distinctions between an "us" and a "them."

I do not see it as an "us" and "them" (which naturally leads to inclusion vs. exclusion). As we have said, it is simply a matter of focus. One can be a cross-dresser and have no more medical problems than other people.

We can share the same general health status with the cross-dressers but a simple fact remains. We have distinct additional medical needs they do not have.

In my view, that isn't a "line" (which I take to be social in nature). Rather, it acknowleges an urgent physical reality faced by all HBS-born.

I agree about distinct additional medical needs for those who are postoperative. For that matter, there are distinct additional/different medical needs for those who are pre-op (even if they are not surgery-tracked because of real barriers, as opposed to "non-op by choice") compared with those (including those who are "non-op by choice") who "cross dress" without HBS. Some of the differences in needs change as one progresses through surgery.

Even if we are limiting the discussion to the medical condition aspect of HBS, the "line" should still be seen as more fuzzy than the one you seem to be drawing.

Still, I'm glad of the "no us, no them" statement - I do appreciate the clarification.

It seems to me that those who find difficulty with HBS born are those who accept the transgender identity in the first place and use any and all excuses not to have surgery. I have no problem with that as long as they simply identify as being something 'other'. And let us understand that Dr Benjamin used the term 'primary transsexual' which of course excluded the 'transsexual transvestite'...(use whichever of the last two in conjunction as an adjective and the other as the noun. It makes no difference as I see it).

The need to separate from 'sex' as if a dirty word is escapism. I did correct my sex and am not one iota ashamed of having done so. I am also a heterosexual woman and not at all ashamed of that either. I almost went bankrupt; I lost my career; I lost many 'friends' and even family; I faced dread and most of the material 'rewards' I had accumulated.

But I succeeded in being what I had to be: a woman.

To use those threatened losses as an excuse for not driving forth to have corrective surgery is simply what it is: an excuse and a lame one for it covers what I see as simply a fabrication. If comfort is your choice then remain what makes you feel comfortable and don't make imposing claims of like identity upon those who did what needed to be done. Be yourself without confusing others about what and who you really are. Is that asking too much?????

NO! If one does not harbor the need to have corrective surgery from before puberty then I suggest they are any one of the 'trans' elements but they are not HBS born. If one claims a medical problem that accompanied age then NO, they are not anything but that oxymoron...non-op trans-sexual...or connected to that other one...trans-gender.

How can I say this? I was born with a congenital heart defect and also had abdominal bleeding threats as well. Could I have claimed non-op status and be accepted for doing just that. YES, I suppose could have! But, what was most important to me was to live a life whole and not fragmented and that was in total disregard to the threat of losing my life by undergoing surgery. That now allows me to claim with honor HBS born, a now corrected condition.

To claim womanhood while keeping your male birth genitalia is a fabrication undermined by a socially constructed disordered concept of acceptance to which I will never be a part. I am not a woman with a penis...I am both a woman mentally and physically so if you claim yourself to be otherwise then I must claim that NO, you cannot be HBS born if that is your elective no matter your manufactured reasoning.

The confusion did not exist when only two terms were used: transsexual or transvestite and/or transgender. Now, since we elect to separate ourselves from those who have joined us to porn or the wannabee's who opt to extend their compulsions to include surgery, (i.e. the AG's), are we being attacked as being elitists. No, that we are not but we do claim distinction not a part of a social construct but instead to the truth from which we take our life giving cue as we now identify as an intersex birth condition.

We were born and not created by a social order and we do not make claim for a choice as an extension of our wants. We NEEDED to transition to a conclusion; we did not use excuses so that we might be able to claim allegiance to those born HBS who never used the status of lifetime pre-op or non-op as a cover.

Diane, HarryBenjaminSyndrome.org

As I would have the transgenders let me self-identify as HBS, I would let the transgenders self-identify as they wish. I would not do to them any different than I would have them do me.

I would love my neighbor as I would love myself. If we cannot love one another, what purpose is there in all of this? I would hope that we are more than clanging cymbals.

I have been contemplating the column and some of the responses. Surely, there is no question that should not be asked. The responses may well emphasise a fact or imply to an obvious answer but this can serve a useful purpose.

Let us assume that we agree about the definition of HBS. This being, in non-rigorous terms, that we have a pre-natal neurological birth defect, which renders some of our physical attributes incompatible with that neurological programming. Perhaps we can also agree that it is not possible to change the neurological programming, so correction of the respective physically incompatible aspects are the only medical solution.

The question then implies certain consequences of the above, by the words "A bridge too far" and "necessary". In terms of a resolution of our condition, transition and corrective surgery are, virtually, by definition, the only means.

As with treatment for many medical conditions there are decisions concerning whether to proceed and when. This is in spite of confidence in the diagnosis and the effectiveness of the treatment. The when may also be affected by relatively prompt privately funded treatment compared with the waiting time for publicly funded health services.

So it may reasonably be concluded that "transition and corrective surgery" is "necessary" for the treatment of HBS; one might substitute "essential" for "necessary". This would seem to eliminate the "bridge too far" concept. In this context, the expression "bridge too far" is perhaps an oxymoron. These conclusions do not solve the problem of funding. The "when" is an aspect involved with many personal circumstances and does not undermine the necessity.

A more difficult aspect, associated with the "when", is when in terms of the age of the patient. There has been much discussion about treatment of young people. There does not appear to be a totally satisfactory answer. I can only say that my only regret is never having been young. I am in no doubt that the earliest possible treatment would have transformed my life. That life would have been different due to the place of women 75 years ago, but I am convinced, it would have been just as successful. This constraint has much less significance now.

Bernadette

When I asked this question I did have an opinion about what I felt was a correct answer.

The answer I received is very much the answer I expected, and no it is not in full alignment with my believes.

Before I give the answer I had hope for and no this is not the answer I had hoped for, let me clarify who I am a little.

I am a woman in transition. I entered into therapy in February 2007, and was diagnosed with HBS/GID. In July 2007 started living full time as who I know I am. I started on HRT in October 2007 and see my transition to full a full woman taking place within the next 5 years.

On July 4th 2007 I stared a group on a dating site I am on to help others who self identify as other then the physical appearance would indicate. There are many in this group who do wish they could transition and yet feel that at this time transition is well out of their reach for various reasons. The fact that many do not or cannot transition does not preclude them from being treated as the men or women that they feel they are or choose to identify as in the group.

As for my own personal belief of whether or not someone is HBS/TS is that they and they alone know the answer. Do all who are HBS/TS need to transition to bring who they are into congruence. No I do not believe that is necessary. We have been around for to long for me to believe that it is the only answer. Ever culture makes mention of us throughout their histories, and most held us in high esteem. So my personal belief is that yes transitioning does make our live easier for us to accept who we are, but it is not necessary for all who are HBS/TS. I believe that it is also possible that some may be fully HBS/TS and at the same time find that they need not transition, this does not make them any less man/woman on the inside it just makes them different then those of us who do feel that transition is what we needed to make the best of our lives

Thank you for returning to review the answer Lisa Thompson and I gave to your question.

We chose to write an extended answer to your question because, as we said at the begining of the column, We received a thoughtful response to a Global Warning column by Lisa Thompson ... A visitor posed a well constructed question. We still feel that way. Moreover, the question is an important one, and of general interest to our readers.

There is a lot of information and supporting discussion in the column, but let me hone in on a couple of your comments and reemphasize our position.

Do all who are HBS/TS need to transition to bring who they are into congruence. No I do not believe that is necessary.

We wouldn't have any comment on that statement except for the invocation of HBS. The descriptive phrase, Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) was developed to deal specifically with those of us who drive toward full correction of the mialignment of our innate neurobiological wiring and external genitalia.

As we said in the opinion column, there are a number of valid reason why correction might be deferred, but the work toward achieving surgery and beyond does not stop. We fully recognize that some may run out of time and not make it in the end.

The term transsexual has been expanded and adopted by a lot of people who will not strive for correction. That is why some folks use true transsexual. We respect the intentions of those who use true transsexual and understand what they are trying to say. We have friends and associates who prefer the term, but we do disagree on pragmatic grounds: we don't think it works in practice.

... yes transitioning does make our live easier for us to accept who we are, but it is not necessary for all who are HBS/TS.

We who are HBS-born do not transition because it is easy. We do it because it is necessary. Optimally, our "acceptance" precedes our transition. For me, it was in childhood. HBS, by definition, is an either/or situation. Either one is HBS or not. The definition of HBS was established to specifically address the reality of our birth condition and is not interchangeable with"transsexual".

I believe that it is also possible that some may be fully HBS/TS and at the same time find that they need not transition, this does not make them any less man/woman on the inside it just makes them different then those of us who do feel that transition is what we needed to make the best of our lives.

It is very important for those of us who are HBS-born that transition not be an incomplete path toward making the best of our lives. For us, living life as the females (or males) we were meant to be is of signal importance. It is a question of being the females and women we were meant to be.

TS-Si exists to work for those who are on a path toward full correction. We appreciate that there are others whose needs are different and wish them well on their journey.

Finally, you started your comment by saying:

When I asked this question I did have an opinion about what I felt was a correct answer.

The answer I received is very much the answer I expected, and no it is not in full alignment with my believes.

We are entirely open to alternative views. We provide the articles at TS-Si.org with a comment facility to enable a respectful and civil exchange of views. If you have an opinion not in alignment with our views, we can accept that - just step up and say what you have to say.

Jayne...
"they would love to transition but cannot because of xyz"
The old meaning of transsexual was someone driven to congruence of body and soul....period.
The wiggle room in that was limited to the arrival of the day of GID crisis as it used to be known, on that day you no longer have any choice other than if you are going to live or die. There is NO choice. Transgenders have been doing the "I'm just like you except for..." for ages but without that GID crisis day, if you haven't done something before it arrives, you are not anything at all the same. HBS became necessary as a concept precisely because transgenders erased the meaning of transsexual, what you are saying appears to be an attempt to erase the meaning of HBS.

Some of those women you mention may very well be HBS and when their day of crisis arrives they will know it.......or die. That's the only wiggle room in this.

that this is a life or death matter for us when she said

on that day you no longer have any choice other than if you are going to live or die. There is NO choice.

I had a great many obstacles to overcome (multiple shock-trauma episodes, cancer, money, responsibilities, and such. The doctors, in particular, held firm opinions that correction would kill me. My story differs not a lot from that of other HBS-born.

My response was simple and heartfelt: "I would rather die on the operating table than go on like this. I will die anyway, so get on with it." Whew!

I think part of this problem stems from the wide dissemination of views by people struggling to maintain a holding pattern, figuring they can avoid the endgame. If they can, then they aren't HBS. They extrapolate from their particulars to the general and deny the reality of others who have a different situation.

Worse, we once again face male encroachment on female space, in an attempt to dumb-down HBS (or even the good faith insistence on the more traditional true transsexual formulation). For years, every venue I had ever been in experienced an influx of people who claimed "they would love to transition but cannot because of xyz" and/or "surgery isn't necessary" and/or "they" (meaning us) are "the extreme case" and/or "you couldn't possibly known at such a young age".

Fortunately, there is now resistance with more and more of us saying no to the encroachment and insisting on the integrity of our orgins and existence as females and women.

This organization, TS-Si, and the website service, TS-Si.org, will not yield. It is my fondest hope that others stand with us and hold the line this time.

Sharon

I am finding this to be very enlightening. I do know the wall you are talking about. I do know the high cost of transitioning and I do know the even higher cost of not transitioning. I have had to pay a cost thus far I would not wish on anyone and yet know that I am not alone in paying that cost.

In the group I mentioned we do what we can to stay away from terms such as HBS or even transsexual for the reason that the group is an open format in which all are given the same status as those who are transitioning. If the terms I use seem wrong it is because of that that I find it hard to use the terms it seems everyone here uses. I thank you for your pateients with me on this.

The point I was trying to make is that yes I do agree that those born GID do indeed need to transition but the speed of transition can and does very so widely that many never make a full transition and many who are GID will do all they can to not transition at all if they can. I don't think that makes them any less HBS/GID/TS or whatever. I asked this question knowing or at least expecting the answer I got, but also knowing or hoping that there would be a lot of information given to help clarify as well and that hope has been proven right. I have learned a great deal in the exchange that has taken place. I do feel that I have grown from the articles I have read here, and no I do not agree with them all but I do agree with a lot of what I have read and I have grown even from that I have not agreed with.

I do love an open dialog such as taken place here I think we all grow from them and may find that our views are not as different as they sometimes seem.

To everyone here at TS-SI thank you for the work you do. Perhaps one day soon we will have back the rights stripped when we came open about who we are.

The thing is, the "speed of transition" doesn't matter as log as they are working and putting all their effort into transitioning and not sitting back saying "I'll never make it". That circumstaces may prevent them from reaching the goal of transitioning is understandable. However, for the

many who are GID will do all they can to not transition at all if they can.

then they don't fit the definition of HBS as those that ARE HBS are driven to transition and work to do so, NOT drag their feet as if it were a fate worse than death. So by definition, they are NOT HBS, may not be GID and at most maybe TG or transvestites if you go by some definitions. HBS don't fight transitioning but rather welcome it as a relief and confirmation of who they are and have been since they were old enough to determine their gender.

Pamela

many who are GID will do all they can to not transition at all if they can.

then they don't fit the definition of HBS as those that ARE HBS are driven to transition and work to do so, NOT drag their feet as if it were a fate worse than death.

As you say they are driven to transition. I do agree with that, but many do all they can to deny they need to transition for many years.

I for an example took 50 years in coming to accept that the truth I knew in my heart was the truth that I had to have in my outwardly life if I were ever to find peace with my self. For some self acceptance is not an easy thing and thus causes a conflict in transitioning.

What I am saying or trying to say is that for many they do all they can because of religious up bringing or other causes to deny that they have no hope of finding peace within themselves with out accepting who they are and then working to correct the problem by transitioning.

...where anyone can claim transsexuality, join groups of other escapist fakers, put forth theories and false claims of their gender dysphoria, and ultimatly present a myriad of excuses why they cannot transition, knowing all the while that the game they play would wither and die on the operating table.

And then there are those that enable them. Well meaning individuals, they form groups with the best of intentions, listen intently to the words and opinions of the group, and are swayed into believing that if the majority of their group postulate a non-op course of action while claiming their new found transsexuality, then surely they must listen and change their views to suit the majority, never once considering that true transsexuality happens to one in a million.

The non-op course is a siding to nowhere, which is ultimatly where the majority of self diagnosed internet transsexuals can be found, watching the through trains pass by on their journey, they slowly rust and claim they have been sidelined and forgotten, victimised by the elite, when in fact their destination never was the same.

The same scenario plays itself out at group therapy sessions across the nation. Most true transsexuals have the sense to avoid them like the plague.

Thank you for adding your comment to this column. Lisa Thompson and I originally published the piece on 19 August 2008. We republished it in our uppgraded format in response to a number of comments we received via our private comment form.

Many of the comments were positive, but a larger number were not, mainly from disaffected individuals who persist in believing that we wish transgenders ill and do not respect their position. Our plain words and actions to the contrary are ognored.

Fact is, we would welcome responsible and articulate commentary from transgender activists and frequently invite comment. None but rants have been forthcoming. But, we keep up our hopes.

Unfortunately, I expect things will get a lot worse before they get better. I shudder to think what will happen when the TG legislative proposals hit Congress.

Meanwhile, life goes on and we do our thing (as do you and others).

I've read through the article and comments several times and I have to say, the article is excellent and I see a lot of the same old lame, tired excuses or should I say "cover ups" for not completing transition. I've sat in a group and heard, "I might lose my friends if I have SRS", and one of my personal favourites, "I like to think of my penis as a giant clit that I use to give pleasure to 'other' women". Another one I keep hearing (and this one has been going on for at least 5 years) "I'm told I'm too old for SRS" and I laugh because when I first heard it I was 63, older by about 6 months than this person and I'd just had my SRS at the ripe old age of 62 3/4 years; now over 5 years post op, this person is still whining about being too old, how much of a 'female' they are and that they've had an Orchi and are accepted as 'female' by doctors etc etc. Sorry, but I don't buy it, nor d I buy the BS that they are 'female' and just think the SRS is unnecessary and that they should be able to penetrate female areas with an intact penis and testicles; and that having an orchi should allow them to change all their legal documents to show them as being 'female' including a birth certificate. Of course too I have a lot of issues with those that run around and infest web groups with their "once TS, always and forever TS, and you need therapy if you disagree". I do have my opinions as to who really needs therapy.
Sorry, you know me and my soap boxes, I'll step down and leave "Hyde Park" now and go get some fish & Chips.
Pamela, a southern Lady

ok so why did you ban me from posting .. too controversial for you ?

"People born transsexual are driven to bring their bodies into conformance with who they really are. In modern times, this overriding need leads to hormone therapy and Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). This is the classical, limited definition of Transsexuality as well as the specific definition of Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS)."

This is misleading (one of the most serious glaring issues with what you are arguing) and suggests somebody who has not read The Transsexual Phenomenon in its entirety. The unfortunate fact here is that we need to move beyond books written in 1966.

Harry Benjamin stated things like:

"The most striking among these sex-split personalities are the transsexuals. Their problems are intertwined with those of transvestites and also of homosexuals, as we will see in later chapters."

"The transsexual is physically normal (although occasionally underdeveloped). These persons can somewhat appease their unhappiness by dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex, that is to say, by cross-dressing, and they are, therefore, transvestites too."

"A low degree of largely unconscious transsexualism can be appeased through cross-dressing and demands no other therapy for emotional comfort. These are transvestites."

These are ideas with which you would likely vehemently disagree, and rightfully so. At no point did Harry Benjamin believe we were actually changing our sex for real. If you look around, "changing sex" is sometimes enclosed in quotation marks.

This is the man you are attempting to define our condition by, I might remind you.

When you persist in defining us by hormones or surgery (both things that anybody can do, if they are a decent liar and willing to put the time and effort in), what you are saying is that our condition is about what somebody does. This is misleading and may result in people trying to ape us, thinking that surgery or hormones is what 'makes' a transsexual.

It has nothing to do with whatever they may do, it is simply who we are and what we were born as. Not everybody may handle this problem in the same fashion that you do, and female-to-males do not have a good way of approaching it. There are far too many issues with how you define this for it to be factual or logically based.

I think you miss the point: no one can make a transsexual except in the fevered dreams of post-modernist rhetorical gymnastics. Several statements in your comment are questionable, none more than this one:

When you persist in defining us by hormones or surgery (both things that anybody can do, if they are a decent liar and willing to put the time and effort in), what you are saying is that our condition is about what somebody does. This is misleading and may result in people trying to ape us, thinking that surgery or hormones is what 'makes' a transsexual.

One is born with the transsexual condition. Hormones and surgery are part of the cure. Once corrected, one is no long a transsexual. I am not trans- anything.

Always nice to get to review old articles, I think your response to Hexydezimal is excellent and I certainly agree with your final remark:

One is born with the transsexual condition. Hormones and surgery are part of the cure. Once corrected, one is no long a transsexual. I am not trans- anything.

"I think you miss the point: no one can make a transsexual except in the fevered dreams of post-modernist rhetorical gymnastics. Several statements in your comment are questionable, none more than this one:"

There is a huge gap in your logic here. You assert that one cannot 'make' a transsexual, but have inferred that the necessity of hormones and surgery is essentially what defines (makes up) those who were transsexual. You cannot have it both ways in that fashion; it is either one way or it is the other. I am sure we can both agree that not everybody who has fully transitioned is transsexual, and cultures which are accepting and have properly sexed roles for transsexuals do not have the driving need for surgery that North America or Europe has seen. So your supposed fact that all transsexuals are defined by surgery is simply not true and never was, not to mention invoking a man who did not agree with your perceptions of the issue.

To summarize, I am saying that transsexuals are defined by condition, not whatever they do (or otherwise utilize) to cope with their condition. Sex reassignment surgery does not magically make a female out of any man in the crowd; we were females already.

"One is born with the transsexual condition. Hormones and surgery are part of the cure. Once corrected, one is no long a transsexual. I am not trans- anything."

You are absolutely correct here, and there is no argument from me.

No gap in logic. You set up a false dilemma, then argued I cannot have what I did not assert in the first place.

I did, in fact, assert you can not make a transsexual. I did not mention definition -- you did.

Being transsexual does not mean there is an innate drive toward a specific technology; it means there is an innate drive toward an outcome -- correction. Currently, hormones and surgery are essential parts of the only known medical path to correction.

You persist in claiming that I presented as a fact that "transsexuals are defined by surgery". Where exactly did I say that?

Also, females and males have different genitals.

Alright, I now understand that you are going to deny what you are basically asserting. So let me try a different approach here.

Being a transsexual means that there is an innate drive to be another sex, not necessarily for correction (again, you are not familiar with other cultures in this aspect). You (and other former transitioners who believe as you do) are far too eager to grasp at reasons to distance yourselves from transgender folk. The condition we have is all that is needed. One does not need to be corrected or believe in correction like a religion to be transsexual.

You are talking in terms of effects as the defining factor, instead of causes. You also neglect that Harry Benjamin never once described a 'classical definition' of transsexuality in terms of what you claim, because the biological, causal nature was not known during his time. Back then, it was essentially a far more serious variant of tranvestism.

Females and males do have different genitals, but as any biologist will tell you sex is a hell of a lot more complex than a simplistic binary. The binary system itself is a construct, and nature does not make people in binaries. Transsexuality is proof of that. If genitals were all there was to one's identity, I would naturally question that identity.

Your correction basis completely ignores female-to-male transsexuals, or those who may be perfectly functional men and women in society without the necessity of surgery. I know a few female-to-males who have not even had to go near it. So this correction basis of yours is a predominantly male-to-female way of thinking.

Facebook? Are you mixing me up with someone else? I do not recall receiving a message from you. I checked the log they supply and can't find anything.

Not that I plan to comment all that much, but where in the code have you been, Hexydezimal? You seem to have stepped out of some 1980s' feminist cell. But I give that no never mind.

While it is true that in situations where there is no context, a hexadecimal number might be ambiguous and confused with numbers expressed in other bases, I believe what we have here is failure to communicate compounded with the construction of straw wymyn speaking things that no one has ever said.

TS-Si has no position on non-op transgenders other that they are not men and women born transsexual.

We have no truck with the gender spectrum other than when academic feminists and gender theorists attempt to categorize women and men born transsexual as just another flavor of transgender and crossdresser.

We define no one by an operation nor do we define anyone by how they dress. If someone wants to live their life dressed as the opposite sex, go right ahead. We don't care.

But the diagnostic criteria for transsexuality is the driving, overriding need to bring mind and body into congruence with the basic biological fact that Males have penises, Females vaginas.

Someone can be a pre-op transsexual for a long time -- that doesn't mean they aren't working towards full transition.

Money can be a problem -- but simply because money is an obstacle doesn't mean that man or woman born transsexual stops working towards surgery.

Health may also be an issue, but for many non-op transgenders, health is an excuse not to do something they don't want to do anyway.

As for Female to Male transsexuals, as we have said many times, the state of the art is not yet there to construct a functioning penis. We understand not having reconstructive penile surgery, who wants a non-working organ? For a female to male, however, they DO need to go as far as the current surgical techniques: removal of breasts, ovaries and uterus. There is no such thing as a pregnant male -- if you are pregnant, you are a woman and female.

We sympathize with their dilemma and have published numerous science articles at TS-Si that suggest future courses of research medical action.

I have probably written a half-a-million words at TS-Si; Sharon has written at least as many. Please review what we have written, along with the scientific research and studies, and then come back and tell us what you think we may have said. Just don't put words in our mouths so you can make easy political points to tell your friends.

Never have I seen such a mixed up person as Hexydezimal; me thinks here we have a transgender that wants to pretend to be a Transsexual and uses his/her arguments to explain keeping the "equipment" they were born with. I really like this argument,

Being a transsexual means that there is an innate drive to be another sex, not necessarily for correction

; Sorry Hex baby BUT if you don't think that being Transsexual is an innate drive for correction but just an "innate drive to be another sex" you are way out in left field. We are already another sex, we were born that way, the innate drive for surgery is due to a need to bring body and mind into congruence.

[Facebook? Are you mixing me up with someone else? I do not recall receiving a message from you. I checked the log they supply and can't find anything.]

I started to message you, but you weren't around.

[Not that I plan to comment all that much, but where in the code have you been, Hexydezimal? You seem to have stepped out of some 1980s' feminist cell.]

I might inquire as to why you still live in a confused version of 1966 here, Lisa.

[TS-Si has no position on non-op transgenders other that they are not men and women born transsexual.]

My apologies, but this is complete horses**t. What about children who are transsexual? Do they even have a concept of surgery yet? They don't count under your 'position'. What about female-to-males who have very poor bottom surgery? Does even going halfway qualify them? How about people in cultures all around the world who are born transsexual into a society that already accepts them as the sex they are rather than what their biology dictates?

Another problem with your policy is that it is exclusionary and elitist at a time when we need to be inclusionary and accepting of those with our birth condition. They need to be separated from this transgender nonsense, and we need to reclaim transsexual from the transgender umbrella for what it is -- a condition that drives one to become another sex.

Your special group of people is likely a slim minority in a minority, and the transgender masses will eventually rid itself of your dwindling kind at this rate. There are definitively not enough numbers coming in to replace you and sustain what you have going.

[We have no truck with the gender spectrum other than when academic feminists and gender theorists attempt to categorize women and men born transsexual as just another flavor of transgender and crossdresser.]

I directly quoted Harry Benjamin doing just that above from the book he wrote, and yet you identify our condition with him in his name.

[But the diagnostic criteria for transsexuality is the driving, overriding need to bring mind and body into congruence with the basic biological fact that Males have penises, Females vaginas.]

No medical professional believes this is always the case, and Harry Benjamin did not even originally believe this if you have closely read The Transsexual Phenomenon.

I quote:

"As a working hypothesis, but with good practical uses, the accompanying Table 1. Should illustrate six different types of the transvestism-transsexualism syndrome as clinical observations seem to reveal them. While there are six types, there are seven categories listed on the scale, the first one describing the average, normal person. The seven categories were suggested by the Kinsey Scale (K.S.) and could be described as the Sex Orientation Scale (S.O.S.).

Group 1 Type I Pseudo TV
Type II Fetishistic TV
Type III True TV
Group 2 Type IV TS, Nonsurgical
Group 3 Type V TS, Moderate intensity
Type VI TS, High intensity"

Seems you are a bit off on what transsexuality really means. He did not use the term 'true' transsexual in terms of that being the only 'real' one, you have assumed that.

[Money can be a problem -- but simply because money is an obstacle doesn't mean that man or woman born transsexual stops working towards surgery.]

If you are already a man or a woman societally (I know female-to-males who are just fine as men without surgery, as I noted), it may not even be necessary. Though it may be a rather uncomfortable existence in some ways to be certain, you need to come to terms with the fact that surgery is not always the only 'solution' to transsexuality. Being another sex is.

You might suggest that such a thing is transgender, but the very simple fact is that any other group under the umbrella does *not* operate as the other sex full-time. That, Lisa, is the true test of any transsexual (and what medical professionals consider the defining factor). Whether or not you can live that way, not just that it is a temporary fling.

[For a female to male, however, they DO need to go as far as the current surgical techniques: removal of breasts, ovaries and uterus. There is no such thing as a pregnant male -- if you are pregnant, you are a woman and female.]

This is sex essentialism; that is, people are equivalent to their sex characteristics where you are concerned. There are a lot of issues with such a view of sex, to say the least -- especially for a former transitioner who spent time as a transsexual, of all people.

Let me break it down for you. Former transitioners are not biologically female and never will be -- you are a skilled reproduction of a female's body. You have no doubt heard of medical professionals stating things like 'matching the body to the brain'. What they mean is that your brain (and sexual identity) are female, and so they have reconstructed your body into being as close to female as a formerly male body can get. You are actually neuter, by the admission of SRS surgeons like Stanley Biber in court.

That is to say that a surgical vagina does not magically make you into a woman; you are a woman because that is who you always were and what you live as. Womanhood is a state of mind and the result of time and effort spent living that existence, not what is between your legs.

[I have probably written a half-a-million words at TS-Si; Sharon has written at least as many. Please review what we have written, along with the scientific research and studies, and then come back and tell us what you think we may have said. Just don't put words in our mouths so you can make easy political points to tell your friends.]

I have successfully defended transsexuality on numerous occasions, against many people who hate us. They often ask the hard questions and make the most difficult assertions. While I respect your work, you do need to realize that you are living in a comfortable bubble. There has been a near-constant state of conflict about transsexuality for me since I started transitioning, since it is the most misunderstood condition in the world.

[Never have I seen such a mixed up person as Hexydezimal; me thinks here we have a transgender that wants to pretend to be a Transsexual and uses his/her arguments to explain keeping the "equipment" they were born with. I really like this argument,]

I have no intention in the least of keeping my 'equipment', as you derogatorily refer to it -- nor am I transgender. It is rather difficult to be a lesbian with a penis. I have also demonstrated above that you are the ones who are mixed up as to what this really means.

[Sorry Hex baby BUT if you don't think that being Transsexual is an innate drive for correction but just an "innate drive to be another sex" you are way out in left field. We are already another sex, we were born that way, the innate drive for surgery is due to a need to bring body and mind into congruence.]

Pamela, baby! I would reply that you have no concept of what transsexuality really means in the least, medically and scientifically speaking. Your brain is not even all the way female, if you have seen some recent studies. Living as a woman permanently is what brought you into congruence, not necessarily what may happen to be between your legs. I know transsexual women who live as women just fine with their original 'equipment'. Kind of defies your conventions, doesn't it? They must all be evil transgenders. -eyeroll-

We have repeatedly stated our position. Disagreement is fair if the position is fairly understood. The plain words are in front of you. To mischaracterize our views, then erect them as a straw man for disagreement is not fair.

You even mischaracterize Benjamin's views, especially the history behind the classification system and the intensity spectrum, both of which were tools to organize the initial data. Benjamin adopted them as conveniences for a going-in analysis and fully expected them to be superseded by later investigators. There is ample material on this site that deals with the situation.

Only Lisa Thompson and Sharon Gaughan can speak for TS-Si.

Sorry HAx, But again you show how far out your are into left field. Unless there is some underlying reason, as pointed out by Sharon and Lisa, they are TRANSGENDERS, but NOT women.

Transsexual Women do NOT under normal circumstances have a penis and testicles with no desire to be rid of BOTH. To define some one as a "woman" when balls and a penis are present is an oxymoron, except in limited instances.

What you say does Nothing about "defying" my "conventions" nor does the fact that these TG's have a penis and testicles and "live as women".
I'd say the weight of evidence is against you and your far off base claims.
PS, I gather from your words, you are as yet still "pre-op"
Not a bit mixed up, but rather well read and quite knowledgeable BOTH medically and Scientifically. I've read your nonsense and see that your description fits you more, I think you were looking in a mirror. you have "demonstrated Nothing other than you are confused. No, I was ALREADY a woman from birth with my brain construction all surgery did was bring my body into congruence; the surgery did NOT make me a woman. To claim otherwise on your part demonstrates a great deal of ignorance and a swallowing of TransGender koolaide.

[Disagreement is fair if the position is fairly understood. The plain words are in front of you.]

I fail to see what was not understood in my response. Please elaborate. I have thoroughly answered your 'plain words' with plain words. Here's some more, coming right up.

[To mischaracterize our views, then erect them as a straw man for disagreement is not fair.]

To claim a logical fallacy where there is none is also unfair. While my earliest responses to you could be construed as a straw man (because I was admittedly doing so due to a misunderstanding of your position), my recent ones have directly addressed your thinking.

[You even mischaracterize Benjamin's views...]

Let's stop right there, Sharon. YOU mischaracterize Benjamin's views. I have demonstrated that several times now. Harry Benjamin stated that, "It must be emphasized again that the remaining six types are not and never can be sharply separated."

That is what you are attempting to do here.

To Benjamin, all transsexuals were also transvestites and referred to as male, often along with being 'disturbed' or such as well. Something I have also quoted several times now and can back up much farther than that. I would imagine you disagree with his perceptions.

You were also refuted here for the same thing: http://www.jimmo.org/mind/?p=43

Jimmo has some good points that I feel you should address.

I would inquire as to why you have the same mentality (with different targets) as the feminists who hate us. Woman-only spaces ring a bell? They're not talking about discriminating just the transgenders there, you know. If any of them found out about your former condition, you'd be out on the doorstep as well.

Needless to say, there are a whole slew of issues with how you think and one can tell that you are likely not used to disagreement with your distorted version of the 'facts'.

[Benjamin adopted them as conveniences for a going-in analysis and fully expected them to be superseded by later investigators. There is ample material on this site that deals with the situation.]

Nice opinion, I'd love to see the facts as to where in the world you feel Benjamin backed up your genital correction based exclusion of other transsexuals.

Under the definition of Type V, we find: ESTROGEN MEDICATION "Needed as *substitute* for or preliminary to operation." Note the words 'substitute for operation'.

Again, he states the same thing on page 55. "Estrogen therapy is either given as the *substitute* for a conversion operation or, in accordance with the suggestion of Hamburger et al., in preparation for the operation in order to test the patient's psychological reaction to feminization."

On page 15 he states, "It is true that the request for a conversion operation is typical only for the transsexual and can actually serve as definition. It is also true that the transvestite looks at his sex organ as an organ of pleasure, while the transsexual turns from it in disgust. Yet, even this is not clearly defined in every instance and no two cases are ever alike. An overlapping and blurring of types or groups is certainly frequent."

Note that sentence there: "Yet, even this is not clearly defined in every instance and no two cases are ever alike."

Perhaps he was describing you when he said, "Many transsexuals are utterly self-centered,
concerned with their own problems only and unable to consider those of anyone else." You certainly seem unwilling to concern yourself with any transsexual that does not meet your standards of transsexual existence. After all, they must all be transgender, right?

I think it is about damned time you admit that you have grossly misrepresented Harry Benjamin here, in just about every fashion, to make surgical correction the 'true' standard when it never was. Not only that, but you have been discriminating born transsexual men and women based on your gross distortion for what, is it into the decades now?

You are born transsexual, you don't quire it from the toilet seat, kissing a girl before the age of 10 or from being imprisoned in a Thai Jail.
Hormones, surgeries and in some cases therapy to help undo the socialization are components of the treatment to cure someone of transsexualism.

It really is that simple.

[Sorry HAx, But again you show how far out your are into left field; Unless there is some underlying reason as pointed out by Sharon and Lisa, They are TRANSGENDERS, but NOT women.]

I wasn't aware that Sharon and Lisa defined transsexuality for all of us.

[Transsexual Women do NOT under normal circumstances have a penis and testicles and no desire to be rid of BOTH to define some one as a "woman" when balls and a penis is present is an oxymoron except in limited instances.]

Funny, I would've guessed you were born with them. Do we now define people by surgical procedures alone? You need to face the facts, my delusional friend. I am a woman with an otherwise biologically male body as I sit here typing to you, with my (albeit small) 'equipment' intact. I realize the concept of that may be distasteful to Lisa and/or Sharon, but there it is.

[What you say does Nothing about "defying" my "conventions" nor does the fact that these TG's have a penis and testicles and "live as women".]

If they are permanently living as another sex, they are TRANSSEXUAL and always will be. That is what transsexual literally means, 'across the sexes'. There is no conditional there, nothing that is specifically required beyond crossing the sexes with how you live.

[I'd say the weight of evidence is against you and your far off base claims.]

I have yet to see a scrap of evidence out of Lisa or Sharon. Plenty of opinions, though I seem to be the only one presenting any evidence here.

[PS, I gather from your words, you are as yet still "pre-op"]

You are correct.

[Not a bit mixed up, but rather well read and quite knowledgeable BOTH medically and Scientifically. I've read your nonsense and see that your description fits you more,]

Then you would know that a great number of medical and scientific professionals do not define transsexuality by corrective surgery at all. Perhaps you need more reading.

[I think you were looking in a mirror. you have "demonstrated Nothing other than you are confused.]

Hardly. Little over a year in and I am already making factual trouble for people well over twice my age. You see, my brain works exceptionally well in tandem with estrogen.

[No, I was ALREADY a woman from birth with my brain construction all surgery did was bring my body into congruence; the surgery did NOT make me a woman.]

That is my point, Pamela! Corrective surgery DOES NOT DEFINE A TRANSSEXUAL. Condition does!

Sorry Hexydezimal you are wrong;
Transsexual means to move from one sex to the other.
Once the transition is complete the person in question is NO LONGER transsexual.

Now that I've got your attention lets get to the point.

I grow tired of dismal man rants that only fall silent if you agree with them and admit that the male mind is superior to the female's.

Any female.

We all agree that the operation does not make one transsexual but it certainly weeds out most of the crazies and the pretenders. The DESIRE, the pressing need from an early age to bring your body into conformity with your brain IS a descriptive characteristic of someone born transsexual.

Doesn't matter when you have surgery, just that you continue to move towards surgery. Other than for medical or financial reasons, non-op transsexuals do not exist. Such creatures are transgendered, cross-dressers, transvestites or poseurs.

However, men who go off half-cocked and continually attempt to make the conversation about them are all to common. If we were in the same conference room, I am certain that Hexydismal would talk over all the women and attempt to dominate the discussion as he is trying to do here.

We have all seen this behavior before: the transgenders and cross-dressers enter transsexual space and attempt to take over the agenda. Typical male, testosterone driven behavior. You would be able to smell the metallic scent of testosterone if such a person were in the room.

He isn't, of course. He's at some computer someplace safe, typing away under an assumed name because he doesn't have the conviction of his rants.

I don't understand what Dismal's afraid of -- he has all the answers after all.

Hexydezimal mentioned one of my previous columns -- and a rejoinder -- in the discussion. Here are the citations.

What About Non-op Transsexuals? A No-op Notion. Sharon Gaughan. TS-Si.org (18 August 2006). [ link ]

This opinion column from 2006, oft-cited around the internet, has taken on a life of its own. I have always been interested in how TG activists have been willing to take selective quotes to fortify their own positions but conveniently ignore passages that might challenge their assumpions.

Transgender vs. Transsexual. Jimmo. The Jimmo Articles (5 June 2009). [ link ]

I recall coming across this article a couple of years back. However, I saw that the selective quotations, and the avoidance of uncomfortable counter-evidence (favored TG activist techniques) were in full sway. I moved on.

[Sorry Hexydezimal you are wrong;
Transsexual means to move from one sex to the other.]

Trans- (prefix): From the Latin meaning "across, over, or beyond."

Latin for move is as follows:
moveō mov- mov- mot- move motion, motive, motor, move

As seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...erivatives

Ced- means 'to go', but cedsexual doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

There are also the suffixes -cede, -ceed, -cess, -cease +
(Latin: to be in motion; to go, to go away, to yield, to give up, to withdraw)

So I'm afraid not. That is precisely what it means.

[Once the transition is complete the person in question is NO LONGER transsexual.]

I do not disagree here, but does that give you (or anybody else) the right to look down on other transsexuals? One also cannot change having been born with the condition, since that condition was what causes one to do anything about it in the first place. Methinks quite a lot of fully transitioned people around here have forgotten what it feels like not to be.

[I grow tired of dismal man rants that only fall silent if you agree with them and admit that the male mind is superior to the female's.]

I am not sure if you are referring to me, but my female mind on estrogen is far superior to where my mind was on testosterone. So you are preaching to the choir here.

[We all agree that the operation does not make one transsexual but it certainly weeds out most of the crazies and the pretenders.]

I have to disagree. Many clinical professionals feel that the real life test is what weeds out the crazies and the pretenders, especially at a span of two years. While people can demonstrably handle a year, many flunk out within the two year limit from reports.

[The DESIRE, the pressing need from an early age to bring your body into conformity with your brain IS a descriptive characteristic of someone born transsexual.]

I doubt many children have any concept of such a thing. The driving need from an early age to bring one's gender into conformity is what I would imagine you meant to say.

[Doesn't matter when you have surgery, just that you continue to move towards surgery. Other than for medical or financial reasons, non-op transsexuals do not exist. Such creatures are transgendered, cross-dressers, transvestites or poseurs.]

Seems awfully convenient to pretend them away and define our condition according to your opinions or whims instead of facts and logic. I have shown that Harry Benjamin did not support your assertions, so I eagerly await any further evidence on your part.

Non-op transsexuals do exist, because living as the opposite sex is what defines this condition. Not your fantastical ideology about what one does, but rather what one is. In fact, this long-time elitist position on your part and those like you is why transsexuality and those who identify as such are dwindling in comparison to the transgender juggernaught.

I will also mention that not many women I have met believe that your surgical corrections are what made you a woman. If you ask women about transsexuals, you will often get a similar answer. I want them to act like women, I do not want masculinity invading my space, etc. They don't give much of a care what genitals you have; to them, it really is whether or not you are a woman who caught some s**tty luck and ended up in the wrong body.

[However, men who go off half-cocked and continually attempt to make the conversation about them are all to common. If we were in the same conference room, I am certain that Hexydismal would talk over all the women and attempt to dominate the discussion as he is trying to do here.]

Ah, the radical feminist argument coming from a transsexual! That's a new one. You should have used the word 'mansplaining' while you were at it. Insisting that only men are dominating or assertive is definitely sexist, to say the least. Women can be just as aggressive (if not moreso) than a man, as well as men who are submissive, quiet, and meek.

This conversation is not about me, it is about you and Sharon misrepresenting my condition and using surgical correction as a litmus to exclude others who share this condition.

[We have all seen this behavior before: the transgenders and cross-dressers enter transsexual space and attempt to take over the agenda. Typical male, testosterone driven behavior. You would be able to smell the metallic scent of testosterone if such a person were in the room.]

Jeez, you sound more like a radical feminist with every passing moment here. You are aware that the vast majority of them hate your guts, right?

I have planned to have SRS since I started transitioning, and am fully accepted as a woman by every natal female in my life. They would actually laugh at you for this statement, because my femininity and womanhood are plainly apparent. I am a transsexual by and well beyond your definition, Lisa. However, YOU do not define ME. YOU do not define ANY transsexual whatsoever. It is about time you learned that, and I am involved in this discussion to teach you that lesson. Save your judgments of my status.

Let's stick to the facts now and stow the ad hominem attacks, thanks. Attacking the messenger is a good indicator to me that you are about ready to throw in the towel.

[He isn't, of course. He's at some computer someplace safe, typing away under an assumed name because he doesn't have the conviction of his rants.]

It is she, by the way. I give you the respect of referring to you as you are, so it does not hurt you in the least to show some common human decency from your end.

The name is Zoe. I have no reason to hide; Sharon is on my Facebook, and my nickname is tied to my account there. I have never been hard to find or communicate with.

[I don't understand what Dismal's afraid of -- he has all the answers after all.]

Far from all the answers, and you would find me a surprisingly humble person in real life. The point here is that you don't have all of the answers, either. I am also ready to admit I am wrong, when and if you prove me wrong. I have yet to see any of that. That is because this 'transsexuality is surgical correction' nonsense is your opinion, Lisa. Not a fact.

No one here looks down on anyone.

You really want to claim that after Lisa's tirade about how transgender and masculine I must be? I mean, that has kind of been disproven right in front of you. I can only imagine how you must feel about actual transgender folks, if this is how you feel about my disagreements with your logic and methodology as a transitioning transsexual woman.

While we are debating with each other, I do want to make it clear that there is no hard feelings. At the end of the day, anybody who identifies as transsexual receives my support. Lisa is likely not aware that I lay into the TG side of things, as well. It is only that I want you two to expand your horizons a bit. Realize that not everybody fits in little boxes. We need to modernize and shape up our game, because we are losing ground fast.

There you go again. You said:

You really want to claim that after Lisa's tirade about how transgender and masculine I must be?

I said no such thing.

This is you:

"No one here looks down on anyone."
Sharon S. Gaughan

This is them:

"Penis Enabled Hominids in Dresses"
"Other than for medical or financial reasons, non-op transsexuals do not exist. Such >creatures< are transgendered, cross-dressers, transvestites or poseurs."
Lisa Thompson

"Never have I seen such a mixed up person as Hexydezimal; me thinks here we have a transgender that wants to pretend to be a Transsexual and uses his/her arguments to explain keeping the "equipment" they were born with"
Pamela

It is not like we are translating ancient hieroglyphics in terms of my meaning here, Sharon. What you just said is as off as the rest of your side's arguments have been.

All comments must address the central topic and avoid content that misrepresents the mission of TS-Si or TS-Si.org

There is ample opportunity throughout the site to discuss TS-Si per se, but not here.

Any further activity of this type will be blocked.

I am not transsexual or transgender, so I have no dog in this fight. Nor do I have any expertise in this.

But maybe that is occasionally a good thing. A little distance shows that, in many arguments on this issue, both sides are relying on tautology. In other words, when people define things differently -- and in a manner that compels certain conclusions -- it is impossible to come to agreement without altering one or both of the definitions.

Hence, if one defines transsexual (or whatever term one chooses) as a person driven to change physical sex, the group is small and, in this respect, clearly defined.

OTOH, perhaps one defines the term more broadly as including, for example, all those uncomfortable with some aspects of the gender role associated with the sex assigned to them at birth. If so, the group is much larger and more diffuse.

Neither approach is per se improper. It depends on the context.

But it seems to me that, if one wishes to focus on the special needs those of those that feel compelled to change their physical sex, this focus is quite valid for many purposes. Likewise, it would seem preposterous to argue that the interests of such individuals in obtaining correction are not affected by their need to do so. Again we have tautology.

And, if I may be permitted one further observation, it seems a bit unbecoming to argue simultaneously that, "you belong to my group whether you like it or not" and "you are a small and shrinking minority" in my group!

I will stop before I get t TLDR. (Too late?)

and I like it. Thank you.

It is beyond dispute that there is at least a very small group in society that is driven, above almost all else, to change their physical sex.

You really have to let them call themselves something.

Hexydezimal has posted an article about this discussion on the blog, One Fallen Angel: a woman in the darkness.

The article is entitled Correspondence with TS-Si and encourages readers to "Leave a comment". [ link ] It largely consists of Hexydezimal's selectively quoted responses to posts by others but omits the complete text that initially provoked the response.

The page also includes what purports to be private correspondence I sent to Zoe Kincaid (Hexydezimal).

Consistent with longstanding TS-Si policy on editorial matters, I do not publish private correspondence and therefore cannot attest to the accuracy or veracity of Kincaid's account.

The action caught and identified by Sharon is indicative of a troll and suggests that Zoe Kincade did not enter this discussion with clean hands. Kincade's true motive seems to be to invade and disrupt a transsexual space, a motive characteristic of many transgenders and male cross-dressers.

At least there is confirmation now of what many had suspected. Kincade's associates, all of whom may show-up with equally unclean hands, if they should arrive knives in hand, should be dealt with appropriately.

All I can say is Hex is a little strange.

Funny how I receive two warnings, while:

Pamela skates by.

"Never have I seen such a mixed up person as Hexydezimal; me thinks here we have a transgender that wants to pretend to be a Transsexual and uses his/her arguments to explain keeping the 'equipment' they were born with."

(disparaging, false, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, inaccurate, unfair; tends to mislead or reflect unfairly on any other person)

Lisa tramples all over your rules.

"The DESIRE, the pressing need from an early age to bring your body into conformity with your brain IS a descriptive characteristic of someone born transsexual."

"But the diagnostic criteria for transsexuality is the driving, overriding need to bring mind and body into congruence with the basic biological fact that Males have penises, Females vaginas."

As a side note here -- you cannot prove the above claims, because there is no proof. Not a scrap of evidence to suggest that the drive for surgery is what defines transsexuality or makes up the 'diagnostic criteria' for every transsexual in existence. I knew that long before I engaged in this debate with you. If you ever find any facts to support that imagination of yours (that all transsexuals are driven to surgery and that drive is what makes one a transsexual or not), I will publish them on my blog for you.

"...non-op transsexuals do not exist. Such creatures are transgendered, cross-dressers, transvestites or poseurs."

Also note the use of the word 'creatures' in reference to transgender folks. That could be construed as reflecting unfairly upon and unreasonably harmful or offensive to a community.

"However, men who go off half-cocked and continually attempt to make the conversation about them are all to common. If we were in the same conference room, I am certain that Hexydismal would talk over all the women and attempt to dominate the discussion as he is trying to do here. We have all seen this behavior before: the transgenders and cross-dressers enter transsexual space and attempt to take over the agenda. Typical male, testosterone driven behavior. You would be able to smell the metallic scent of testosterone if such a person were in the room. He isn’t, of course. He’s at some computer someplace safe, typing away under an assumed name because he doesn’t have the conviction of his rants."

This collection of statements broke more than a few rules on its own. Being that Sharon is fully aware that I am a transsexual woman and I made myself clear as such several times before this message (and this newest one where she attempts to make me out as transgender or a cross-dresser again), these comments from Lisa are defamatory and slanderous. Since you claim to be a respectable publication and Lisa speaks for you, I believe it is well within my rights to demand that she either prove or rescind these comments.

These are all gross exaggeration and/or unsubstantiated claims, obviously.

Then Sharon states, "All comments must address the central topic and avoid content that misrepresents the mission of TS-Si or TS-Si.org. Any further activity of this type will be blocked." Which is funny, because I didn't see the first point in your rules and have not misrepresented TS-Si. Apparently, you make up warnings to deal with interlopers now?

How nice that the two co-founders set an example for everybody else, I might add. I can see that you are two *very* mature women for your respective ages.

So let's be honest. The rules only really popped out when I disagreed with your narrow-minded view of the world from the bubble you live in. How hypocritical and predictable.

As for my response to the rest of what has been said, I will make it on my blog. I would simply *die* if I broke any more of your made-up or biasedly applied rules...

The user identified as Hexydezimal (aka Zoe Kincaid) is hereby banned from posting comments on articles and opinion columns at TS-Si.org

This is a rare but necessary step here at TS-Si, inescapable given recent events connected with this opinion column -- first published on August 19, 2008

Up until now, the only banned people or entities generally have fallen into one or more of the following overlapping categories: bigots, obsessives, pornographers, racists, spammers, stalkers, thieves, trollers, and assorted disruptive psychoneurotics.

We have never banned anyone for merely disagreeing with us, nor do we now. As regular readers know, we actively protect dissent, sometimes at a reputational cost to ourselves. Our open access discussion threads and voluminous private correspondence are testaments to that fact.

As discussed on other occasions, most of the distasteful incidents occur solely in background and are quietly handled to minimize site disruption.

Looking over my logs, I do recall now a brief and seemingly innocuous chat late one night on Facebook, not fully realizing at the time it was "Hexydezimal" setting up an assault on this site. Subsequently, both TS-Si and I have been deliberately targeted, both in foreground and background.

The mere presence of Hexydezimal on this site is an affront to rational discourse. We have had visitors who disagreed with us and each other. Sometimes the exchanges were heated, even overly so, but in general all respectfully parted after thorough discussion among equals.

In this case, the condescending petit intellectualism, attempted dialogue refocusing, and relentless presumption of interpersonal dominance have made further participation a destructive option.

What Hex fails to understand is that any reasonable points Hex might have are buried in a torrential downpour of misrepresentation and rant that obliterates good will. Any response to any statement by Hexydezimal, from the misleading through to the outright bizarre, receives a torrent of self-focused and ill-considered words in return.

If I were to answer every single one of the Hex distortions my time and energy would indeed be hijacked. No more.

TS-Si has scheduled a special announcement regarding current and future directions for TS-Si as an organization and this site.

The announcement has been in the works for some time and is not connected in any way to this current discussion.

We will post the announcement on US Sunday, 06 March 2011 at US 09:00:00 am est (09:00:00 UTC -5:00).

I wanted to post a comment on this topic and have been looking for an opportunity to do so. I hope I am not too late. I find it remarkable that this column has been revisited after so long and I wonder at the purpose of that. Also significant for me is the fact that my original comment upon it was the first to appear on 20th Aug 2008.

My opinions haven’t changed drastically since then so I endorse them together with the article and Sharon’s comments which she posted in answer to my comment.. The current round of diatribe has swung back and forth and accomplished little but irritation. It could even be said that Hexi was right on a couple of occasions although she probably did not mean them in the way in which I interpreted them. Corrective surgery does not make one a transsexual,. Fair comment, witness the growing number of TG and regretters undergoing surgery but that is not what the article said.

I know of some quite radical women of history who, like myself, do not advocate that Classic Transsexualism is the only indication for corrective surgery and that it could be efficacious for some TG. I do not consider it then, to be part of our brief to deny them that treatment …so wouldn’t it be nice if they ended their colonisation of the Transsexual condition?

NB I write this comment under my name used at the time of my original comment but occasionally comment here under a pseudonym.

Hexydezimal (Zoe Kincaid) has posted an additional article about this discussion on the blog, One Fallen Angel: a woman in the darkness. The two articles (with slightly different titles) are:

-- TS-Si Correspondence [ link ]

-- More TS-Si Correspondence [ link ]

Both articles consist of Hexydezimal's selectively quoted responses to posts by others while omitting the complete text that initially provoked the response.

The first article includes what purports to be private correspondence I sent to Zoe Kincaid (Hexydezimal). Consistent with longstanding TS-Si policy on editorial matters, I do not publish private correspondence and therefore cannot attest to the accuracy or veracity of Kincaid's account.

You commented on the appropriateness of surgery for some TG people.

I know of some quite radical women of history who, like myself, do not advocate that Classic Transsexualism is the only indication for corrective surgery and that it could be efficacious for some TG. I do not consider it then, to be part of our brief to deny them that treatment …so wouldn’t it be nice if they ended their colonisation of the Transsexual condition?

That is an interesting perspective. Apart from criminality, people should make whatever choices they want, even if others might think them unwise.

To better understand what you are thinking, what are your reasons for saying that ".. corrective surgery and that it could be efficacious for some TG"?

I believe Hexy makes our point, they :

-- Don't believe in science.

-- Don't believe in biology.

-- Elevate their socio-political agenda and personal desires and needs above the greater good and above any and all scientific research.

-- Embrace post-modernism obsfucation at the expense of clarity and logic.

-- Resort to emotional personal assaults after claiming to be victimized by those they are attacking.

Lisa, why did you talk me into reading a tranny blog?????

Anyway, I was surprised to see that my attempt at peacemaking here prompted an ad hominem attack against me over there.

Mostly funny, though, especially the implicit claims of superior knowledge.

TS-Si is a treasure and we dislike seeing it smeared by anyone.

I am glad to witness the cessation of hostilities, at least for now. The current situation appears to spring from a pathological extreme common on the internet.

I would have blocked the creep straightaway.

Please Sharon, let this comment through despite how I will embarass you but some things should be said.

Sharon Gaughan is a kind and supportive woman. She also is the most intelligent woman I have ever met in person or seen around the web. And she has the patience of the proverbial saint. (Who was that saint anyway? lol)

In disclosure, I have sat in scientific meetings and been exposed to her brilliant advocacy of good and neglected research that would benefit everyone and I mean everyone. And that includes a general population that encompasses transsexuals and transgenders.

She never mixes up science and politics. That is an important distinction that I didn't understand at first but now see as vital to funding future relevant research.

But most of all, she makes plain good sense in her own work and the advancement of others. You would have to see Sharon's defense of researchers who live outside of the box, or her mentoring of younger people, to appreciate her importance to the future.

And I just don't understand calling names at this most loving and womanly of women!?!?!

Please all of you do not be disappointed and keep up the good work.

Hi Sharon…Yes, it does sound like a bit of a ramble huh?

To better understand what you are thinking, what are your reasons for saying that “ ….corrective surgery and that it could be efficacious for some TG”

Firstly, there is no invidious intent. I have always been a lover and not a fighter. I can remember my mother saying that I was “chicken hearted ‘ and ‘wore my heart on my sleeve. but that was when she thought I was a boy. I have compassion for anyone’s distress.

I suppose the thought originated mainly in a long discussion I had some years ago, with someone who had spent some time as a therapist who counseled people presenting as transsexual . The majority of those would have histories which bore too much resemblance to published classic transsexual histories. Although the therapist could see through the attempts to deceive it was thought that a few could in fact benefit from transition and eventually undergo surgery. I see that as a possible compassionate solution.

Does that help?

Generally speaking I do not sit in judgement on others , particularly those who do us no harm.. However, proponents of gender theory, defamation and undermining of the integrity of the transsexual condition and the effort to force us all under their damned umbrella make my blood boil. In doing those things they harm us all and divert resources from those who really need them. They have colonised the classic transsexual condition and I will do what little I can to help claim it back.

I am somewhat aware of the recent drama with Hexydezimal on here, but I am going to leave that out and just give my thoughts on the post as I experienced while reading it.

This post seems very focused on creating "transsexual" as a very essentialist group, requiring strict adherence to the desire for specific types of medical treatment in order to deem one as "worthy" of being a part of that group. This is of course very common in creating a group mentality, as similarity is what drives our friendships and keeps groups together.

However, I see negativity expressed in the comments such as Kaye Barrie saying "proponents of gender theory, defamation and undermining of the integrity of the transsexual condition and the effort to force us all under their damned umbrella make my blood boil" and I sensed a general animosity in the article towards these "others," aka members of the out group. This makes sense in the realm of standard human biases in that people form negative views of others in order to uphold their views of self and maintain their choice in being part of a certain group, along with removing the ambiguity associated with the group's definition.

However, being the person I am and having the goals I do, I am not a fan of the standard bias between groups going on unchecked and unabated as it was what serves to create all sorts of discrimination in this world such as from men against women and from whites against blacks. So the essentialist expressed in this article seems like quite a folly and result of insecurities to me.

Now to stem from this further I would like to draw attention to the surgery in question which is being used alongside hormone therapy in order to drive the essentialist ideas in this article, and as such let us look at it logically. You say this surgery is a fix, yet as far as I know the people who get the surgery get just a reasonable facsimile of a vagina which lacks the ability to reproduce and serves as nothing more than an aesthetic f**k hole with a functional clitoris.

For some people this may be enough. However, if someone should find the surgery inadequate as medical science is currently able to do it (since it is), are they somehow not a transsexual to you? Does someone truly need to have the tunnel vision desire to have an intensive and expensive medical operation done to them in order for you to find any possible social connection with them? That said, are these strict requirements any different from those set by opponents of transsexuality which serve to say you are not women due to the various aspects they put out there to explain why you are not?

Cheers,
Jade

Now to stem from this further I would like to draw attention to the surgery in question which is being used alongside hormone therapy in order to drive the essentialist ideas in this article, and as such let us look at it logically. You say this surgery is a fix, yet as far as I know the people who get the surgery get just a reasonable facsimile of a vagina which lacks the ability to reproduce and serves as nothing more than an aesthetic f**k hole with a functional clitoris

May I point out that there are many women in this world that have a vagina that "lacks the ability to reproduce" and that to so crudely characterise those vaginas as @nothing more than an "aesthetic f**k hole" is extremely rude and crude and furthermore shows a complete lack of understanding about the reasons for the surgery. To put it in simple terms so that you might be able to understand, There is no such thing as a WOMAN with a Penis.

That some may desire more than a vagina and think that to be a "complete" woman, they need to be able to get pregnant and reproduce is rather sad; That they would decide to NOT have an operation to make them physically congruent with their brain is even sadder and might make one wonder if rather than TS they are really fetishistic. Desiring a surgical intervention to bring body and brain into congruence is NOT tunnel vision and nothing I have seen or read on Ts-Si indicates that Sharon or Lisa Jain in any way subscribe to what you say in this quote:

Does someone truly need to have the tunnel vision desire to have an intensive and expensive medical operation done to them in order for you to find any possible social connection with them? That said, are these strict requirements any different from those set by opponents of transsexuality which serve to say you are not women due to the various aspects they put out there to explain why you are not?

As for the rest of your statements, I think that you seem to lack a complete or even a partial understanding of the difference between those that are "TG" anf those that are "TS" and why there NEEDS to be a distinct line drawn between them, both legally and in the eyes of the public.
I have no doubt that either Sharon or Lisa Jain will be along to expound further on the errors in your thinking.

May I point out that there are many women in this world that have a vagina that "lacks the ability to reproduce" and that to so crudely characterise those vaginas as @nothing more than an "aesthetic f**k hole" is extremely rude and crude and furthermore shows a complete lack of understanding about the reasons for the surgery. To put it in simple terms so that you might be able to understand, There is no such thing as a WOMAN with a Penis.

This is indeed, a true statement. Yet, you are all the same perpetrators of this idea that a vagina is an "aesthetic f**k hole", and cancel out your 'validity' as a woman by stating that "There is no such thing as a WOMAN with a Penis." By that definition, no transwoman is a woman, because all of you have penises - some of you may have mutilated penises, but it is a penis all the same. To call a mutilated organ that does not function like a natal woman's vagina is a callous appropriation of a woman's body, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

As much as you would like to make the distinction between those who are 'TG' and those who are 'TS', the behaviors I have seen from your cult tell the world you are all nothing more than extreme transvestites. Your reaction to Hexydezimal makes it clear how easily threatened your 'identities' are.

Ignore them.

It's just their testosterone and scientific illiteracy speaking.

Nothing new there.

It's always about them. Always.

Sharon, cut off this discussion. I grow tired of male attempts at dominance, but it's not their fault, penis enabled persons as they are.

We will comment on the extreme mischaracterizations in the posts by MLQ. We will do this to better inform that large number of readers subscribed to this thread.

However, before that I make this declaration: no trolling and blatant sexism will be allowed. If it gets any further out of hand, we block the perpetrator and unpublish the offending comment(s). If necessary, such actions may well take place without warning.

I assure you that my critique is not trolling but simply my reaction to this post. Also, I forgot my blog link in my previous post. Do give it a look.

Myself and MLQ (Martha Luther Queen) are actually radical feminists, but I do appreciate your automatic assumption that we are "boys." Accusing people of being adolescent or "lesser" males is quite a common argumentative tactic employed by men in my experiences. However, do feel free to respond to our posts without mansplaining and surprise me though.

Radical feminism is just another form of religious fundamentalism and willful, dogmatic ignorance.

Let me address the thrust of your assertions:

Your wrote

no transwoman is a woman, because all of you have penises

-- Not by any definition known to science or medicine. I have a vagina that receives annual gynocological examination and PAP smears. It is virtually indistinguishable from any other vagina (verified and confirmed by at least a half-dozen medical experts over the years). I can normally accept penetration by the erect penis of a normal average male (7 to 8 inches in length, an inch and a half to three quarters of an inch in girth).

I have a functioning clitoris and am capable of multiple orgasm.

My body has been free of testosterone for a decade. I am an estrogen based life form.

As are most all post-op women with a transsexual history. My narrative is not unique.

You wrote

- some of you may have mutilated penises, but it is a penis all the same.

The ignorance of radical feminists and young males is astonishing. I have a vagina. As the cells in the human body undergo complete replacement over seven years, there is not a single cell in my body that was ever part of a penis. I have a perfectly good vagina as do all post-women with a transsexual history. (See Above)

You wrote:

To call a mutilated organ that does not function like a natal woman's vagina

Have you taken a human physiology class? A basuc Health Class in high school?

Your knowledge of female anatomy is ludicrous (not unexpected coming from a man, but disappointing from a self-identified radical feminist [who could, of course, be male just as easily as female]). You seem to be focused on where to insert a penis (or perhaps a dildo as the case may be. Or are you one of those radical feminists who thinks any and all penetration is rape and/or enslavement by the patriarchy?).

The female external genitalia (the Vulva) is composed of many major and minor anatomical structures, including the labia majora, mons pubis, labia minora, clitoris, bulb of vestibule, vulval vestibule, greater and lesser vestibular glands, and the opening of the vagina. I have all of these.

The female internal genitalia comprise the ovaries, the Fallopian tubes, the uterus (womb), the cervix, and the vagina. These are, collectively, the female organs of reproduction. Of these, I have a vagina, but like any woman who has had a full hysterectomy, I do not have ovaries, Fallopian tubes, a uterus (womb), or a cervix -- but one does not stop being a woman simply because those organs have been removed or are missing. (I realize that a lot of men leave their wives after a hysterectomy but that just reflects a stunted, emotionally adolescent personality. I have only hearsay and personal observation that similar behavior occurs between lesbians [and I suspect, radical feminists]).

I apologize for using up so much space answer someone who has a dogmatic religious belief that supersedes science, medicine, and all attempts at rationality.

I will make a statement within the next 24 hours. We are working against a hard deadline at this time, and following up on the death of Joanne Proctor, while dealing in parallel with a spoofing influx.

Effective immediately, all comments throughout the site are under moderation until we have matters in hand. Go ahead and comment if you wish -- they will not be lost. We will remove moderation and release the legitimate comments in the queue once we complete our work.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

I am a Psychologist so I imagine if you give my thoughts a chance (http://jadehunter.wordpress.com/) you will find that I am plenty scientific. It is easy to just dismiss what someone says out of stereotypes and prejudice, but doing so without any actual research into them to back it up is not very scientific, now is it?

In my first comment I asked a couple questions and I would appreciate responses to them and some real thought into it as well, but people seemed to get stuck on me saying "people who get the surgery get just a reasonable facsimile of a vagina which lacks the ability to reproduce and serves as nothing more than an aesthetic f**k hole with a functional clitoris." That was not me trying to put down your precious surgery, it was just me being realistic. If it is true that the mentality moves people to wanting the current surgery, is it impossible to conceive that perhaps some people are motivated against the current surgery because they want a more true correction down there and are willing to wait?

Anyway, please do answer this question and really give it some thought.

"That said, are these strict requirements any different from those set by opponents of transsexuality which serve to say you are not women due to the various aspects they put out there to explain why you are not?"

The radical feminist community and other woman are accused of "gatekeeping womanhood" and other such things all the time by the trans community. Are you saying that you should get to choose what defines a woman but us FAAB women are just being mean when we do it? That is more or less what I am asking here, and one of the biggest qualms I have with this article.

The good news about the most recent offending commentators is that there will not be a reasonable person anywhere that will give their venom any credence after viewing their crudely profane insults. Those that are able to continu reading the material undoubtedly will sense the seething behind the text.

As I have said on occasion, I do not care much about the taxonomy of these questions, but the trollers invariably yield the moral high ground on this issue.

I know the site is now under moderation, but I could not bear not to type this response whether anyone other than me is ever to see it.

We have cleaned up the damage from yesterday and implemented elements of our standing no-tolerance, no-mercy policy toward spammers, pornographers, spoofers, trollers, rascist/sexist, and other assorted opponents who exploit contentious situations for their own personal gain.

We will make a statement in another comment regarding Jade Hunter's concerns.

We will not respond to the site mischaracterizations and sexist crudity of MLQ. Any further posts by MLQ like those already made will result in a permanent ban, along with the existing ban against Hexydezimal.

I am a Psychologist

So Says Jade Hunter.
Pamela says that was a wasted education and probably not very complete. I have spoken with and been counseled by TWO Psychologists both of whom were WELL experienced and quite knowledgeable without being "radical" feminists (one was a male); I also have an Uncle that IS a Psychiatrist which is a cut above a Psychologist and surprise, surprise, ALL THREE agreed that not only was I Transsexual, but also that I was a woman. One of them even signed my letter for my surgery (only needed one for my Surgeon in Thailand). As my Uncle said, You have to be the person and gender your brain tells you that you are; that is the organ that determines your gender and identity.

There will be no extensive followups on this batch of comments. We published the column on 19 August 2008, reflecting the circumstances at that time. Most of the recent hostile comments lack circumspection and made assumptions unsupported by the evidence of the opinion column (including the sidebar).

Oh, and before I start, please keep this in mind. I am not a transsexual. Those days are far behind me. In fact, I am not trans- anything.

Jade, you said:

I assure you that my critique is not trolling but simply my reaction to this post.

We have no problem with accepting comments on the opinion column. In fact, we welcome discussion. However, we do believe that comments on the post should be pointed toward what the column's text actually says -- not what is assumed or inferred -- without further elaboration.

Myself and MLQ (Martha Luther Queen) are actually radical feminists, but I do appreciate your automatic assumption that we are "boys." Accusing people of being adolescent or "lesser" males is quite a common argumentative tactic employed by men in my experiences. However, do feel free to respond to our posts without mansplaining and surprise me though.

I never said you are boys. Lisa said that based on long experience with cross-dressers and transvestites who visit here and use the same kind of sexist language used by you -- and especially -- MLQ .

This post seems very focused on creating "transsexual" as a very essentialist group, requiring strict adherence to the desire for specific types of medical treatment in order to deem one as "worthy" of being a part of that group.

Value judgments directed at exclusion have nothing to do with it. We do use an austere definition of "transsexual" and have explained that in many different places throughout the site.

Our position is that distorting the semantics that underlie the vocabulary term "transsexual" have resulted in a general confusion in the public, reducing transsexualism to a form of social expression that ignores the underlying medical significance of the birth condition.

In our view, it is a misapplication the philosophical principle of "essentialist" when you combine questions of sociopolitical value with the basic act of defining entity properties to ensure a precise definition. We can differ on the accuracy of the definition, but it would take a very strong argument to argue against the need for precision (and concomitant consistency).

You can disagree with any or all of this, of course, and make it the subject for discussion -- if relevant -- to the column. However, disguised assumptions and invective are not acceptable.

... I see negativity expressed in the comments such as Kaye Barrie saying "proponents of gender theory, defamation and undermining of the integrity of the transsexual condition and the effort to force us all under their damned umbrella make my blood boil" and I sensed a general animosity in the article towards these "others," aka members of the out group.

Of course. Given the pain -- verbal, emotional, and physical -- inflicted on many of us by some pornographers, cross-dressers, transvestites, and various miscreants over the years, some of us have deep cautions borne of experience.

The transgender umbrella is a major sticking point because the net effect is to minimize the importance of satisfying the medical needs of some very vulnerable people, many of whom die.

However, being the person I am and having the goals I do, I am not a fan of the standard bias between groups going on unchecked and unabated as it was what serves to create all sorts of discrimination in this world such as from men against women and from whites against blacks. So the essentialist expressed in this article seems like quite a folly and result of insecurities to me.

With respect, your statement does not exhibit any awareness of the damage done by forced association and the skewing of priorities by what many consider an oppressive majority. We are quite confident that the time has arrived to resist the colonization of our space by male cross-dressers and transvestites.

Now to stem from this further I would like to draw attention to the surgery in question which is being used alongside hormone therapy in order to drive the essentialist ideas in this article, and as such let us look at it logically. You say this surgery is a fix, yet as far as I know the people who get the surgery get just a reasonable facsimile of a vagina which lacks the ability to reproduce and serves as nothing more than an aesthetic f**k hole with a functional clitoris.

For the last time, I will put aside your use of a sexist diminution of females and point out that the corrective surgery these days results in a vagina with a functional clitoris -- not a facsimile. The reshaping of homologous tissue, already subject to cross-hormonal influences, is a step toward eventual and full tissue replacement. This is biophysiology 101.

For some people this may be enough. However, if someone should find the surgery inadequate as medical science is currently able to do it (since it is), are they somehow not a transsexual to you?

Re-read the article and other materials throughout the site.

-- We have made it very clear that one is transsexual (and pre-op) until they have completed hormonal reconstitution and corrective surgery.

-- We write here in this article and elsewhere of our sympathy and support for those struggling with the practicalities of life and less-than-elegant surgical techniques, particularly for F2M patients.

-- We have also made it very clear that hormonal reconstitution and corrective surgery do not "make" a transsexual.

In fact, I am not a transsexual, nor am I trans- anything.

Does someone truly need to have the tunnel vision desire to have an intensive and expensive medical operation done to them in order for you to find any possible social connection with them?

I consider this a condescending and insulting statement.

You are addressing a female and a woman (who happens to be post-corrected) who is a mother, grandmother, sister, aunt, friend, and thoroughly embedded in her community. My social circle (co-workers, colleagues, friends and neighbors alike) is populated with men and women who would find your claim so far afield as to be laughable in the extreme.

That said, are these strict requirements any different from those set by opponents of transsexuality which serve to say you are not women due to the various aspects they put out there to explain why you are not?

The question, as you state it, conflates sex and gender. We are talking about sex here; people express their gender choices in all kinds of ways. I do not judge.

For me, my sex informs my gender, which has an impact on the world.

Which reminds me, I should get with some girl friends and go shopping. I could use the break from unreality.

On 13 March 2011, Jade Hunter posted an account of the recent discussion.

You can read it by clicking on the title, Into the Heart of Delusion – Communication with a Transsexual Cult.

Note: as usual, there are selective quotations out of context, talk of a cult, avoiding the followup, and so forth.

If you choose to read the post, I counsel against further comment. We have seen that kind of behavior before and certainly will again.

Kids.

I was not "avoiding the follow up," it was simply not posted when I posted that article and I also also observing a day of silence (http://jadehunter.wordpress.co...-to-japan/) in order to send out feelings and thoughts to those in Japan who have been affected by the Earthquake and tsunami, and as such I wanted to put all this aside for yesterday.

I will, however, be doing a follow up and addressing both Lisa's and your own response in full detail. I will not post it here because it will be far too long, but I can post a link unless you would rather do it.

Go ahead and post the link yourself. Your content is your own, of course, but I can only hope that you brush up on what this site is really about.

Jade isn't the best option to write about you, but there you have it. Another bunch comes here with preconceptions and tries to deny the evidence the site itself presents. And I really don't get this elitist stuff they bring out like a horse collar.

It isn't just that I am a colleague who respects your work, the work both of you have done for a wide variety of people, transsexual or not, transgender or not.

I made my feelings known in an earlier post after that Hexy person betrayed a rudimentary understanding of TS-Si, you, and plain veracity. Maybe these fools would benefit from reading a few of your articles that I found particularly inspiring. Sorry about the links I don't know how to make them work.

Beyond Ourselves: The Children of Transsexuals [ link ]

Finding Renewed Faith In Optimism, And The Perils Of Despair [ link

Countering Empty Gestures With Coffee & A Really Good Blueberry Scone link

Editor's note: Links corrected

I hope my words get to you all some day, if not today. I do not know where they will take you since I have no direction to offer you, but please give them a chance.

http://jadehunter.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/communication-with-a-transsexual-cult-final-transmission/

@Anonymous Scientist: I do not care to read any more of this inane babble. I have seen what I needed to see and have thoroughly judged both Lisa and Sharon on their own actions and even took into account all the science necessary to debate their claims. If you wish to remain alongside them, feel free because I do not want to be guilty of leading you anywhere else other than into a reality that you create rather than them.

I am done here. This is the last you will see of me on this site. I leave in disgust and hopes that my words may unmask monsters and free the minds of people here as I hope they will with the women around the globe I hope to free as well.

And then decide which of our sites makes more sense.

It's your choice: politically correct social science or a site run and contributed to by working scientists.

I'm not particularly white. More of a mongrel, if anything, with just enough Iroquois blood to have nicely high cheekbones and a history of being asked what my tribe is.

All my grandparents were working class and lost everything during the Great Depression and started over. The best my parents could claim is lower middle class (although my father was out of work for over six months during a strike in which we had no income coming in so I'm not sure we qualified for even lower middle class.

I went to a local state commuting college where my parents managed to pay my student fees and buy my books. California was like that back then. Most all of us at Sac State came from the post war working classes.

But I am very American. Been here for 14,000 years or so on the Native American part, the mid 1600s on the original immigrant line, and since 1904 on the Mediterranean side.

We've always been working class, self-supporting, quite mobile, industrious and independent individuals.

Can't find an elitist in the bunch.

But that doesn't stop the University Educated from calling me one, does it?

I should comment on the matter of cell replacement in genitalia following SRS and, of course, testosterone.

In general, I have little to say about Jade Hunter's post over at her Wordpress Blog, Communication with a Transsexual Cult – Final Transmission. I will omit discussion of her condescending (and post-correction-ignorant) lecture on vaginas, the supposed cult, personal attacks on me, and other nonsense. That was a sad display.

Regarding genitalia, I said in this discussion:

The reshaping of homologous tissue, already subject to cross-hormonal influences, is a step toward eventual and full tissue replacement. This is biophysiology 101.

Someone else mentioned the common rule-of-thumb about overall replacement of the body's cells taking 7 years. The rule-of-thumb, of course, is a very generalized and rough statistical average. The actual number, when it does occur, varies widely depanding on sex, age, and organ-specific location.

We have a lot of information on this site, both in articles and professional abstracts, as can be seen going to our extended search facility and entering "homology homologous" in the field that says "with at least one of the words".

The article Jade cited, Do We Replace Our Cells Every 7 or 10 Years? (by Tom Pelletier, a naturalist), deals with neurons in the cerebral cortex, fat cells, and cardiomyocyte heart cells. The work cited, from the Karolinska Institute (one of our correspondents) is credible -- though bounded -- but off point.

I spoke of the homologous tissues that comprise human genitalia.

Regarding testosterone, we do, like all females, have testosterone supplied by the adrenal gland but it does not make up in any way for the elimination of the original source. In fact, neither Lisa nor I have any that registers in the standard tests, coming barely above zero, less that the already low quantity of the average natal female.

It would take the kind of injections typical for the F2Ms for any kind of tissue reversion to take place. That is fine for them, but unthinkable for us.

Sorry Lisa, but I am not going to read another attack cite, especially one maintained by a person that tried to make a point here largely through ridiculously overdramatic personal insults and coarse profanity. But generally I think the behavior we often witness from such individuals really is a compliment to this site. IMO many people have tried to attract attention to themselves and their musings by searching among the old articles and picking a fight, while directing as much traffic as possible back to their little blogs.

If Lisa and Sharon had not created something very worthwhile, it would be a less attractive target for the various self-promotors.

But for me ... well, I will avoid the temptation to move closer to the source of the flames. Life is too short.

I'm not going to bother going to read her mindless rantings either. She has an agenda and apparently hates Transsexuals.
I too have read that research shows that over a period of time the characteristics of the cells in the vagina of a MtF change to the point that they are the same as the endometrial cells as a natal female and no different from those cells.

I am a non op transsexual. When I first started feeling the shame of gender dysphoria (I remember being 4 or 5) I didn't know I needed to have my penis removed. I didn't know it when my dad beat me for being a sissy and crybaby at 7. I wished and was saddened about not being born a girl every day for my entire life..I never knew why.

I went through therapy for years with no co-morbidity problems. The only issue I had in my life was that my brain sex didn't match my body. I started taking HRT and got more and with the therapist got more and more comfortable with my body. I am becoming something of a feminist, and see most of gender as a social construct that can be learned and unlearned. While I followed the standards of care, I think they are patriarchal and outmoded. How can you be expected to "live as a woman" when you haven't lived as a women.

Some people are simply not genital obsessed. Some people are not surgery obsessed. Some people are comfortable with themselves warts and all. HRT gave me "girls blood" and that immediately gave me relief of "just am.." Why is it all about the penis, for me it was about the blood and the changes to my face and body without plastic surgery. The skin is the largest organ in the body, I have female skin...an inside out penis is small by comparison.

Why are most of the "True transsexuals" old? Why did so many of them live as men with absolutely no outward signs of femaleness only to start transition and become a characature..a stereotype of social gender concepts. Lying, manipulating, and leaving paths of ruins in their wake?

How are they more transsexual than someone like me?..who was aware and honest about it at 16, 19, 22, 25...told all my partners on my first dates. Who lives a very happy life with a penis that I don't use and no one sees.

They're not. It's a delusion. They're still manipulating people.

The medical community is abandoning these notions. People who believe this are a dying breed of the most calcified stereotypes. Victims of past gender norms...

Sorry Jappie, But if you're comfortable with yourself "warts and all" which means with having a penis, then you are NOT transsexual. There is no such thing as "girl's blood". Obviously you have a very poor understanding of what a transsexual is, and you do need to read a lot more and learn.

Part of your nonsense is the same tired old TRANSGENDER claim

Why are most of the "True transsexuals" old? Why did so many of them live as men with absolutely no outward signs of femaleness only to start transition and become a characature..a stereotype of social gender concepts. Lying, manipulating, and leaving paths of ruins in their wake?

which could have come off of any tranny site.

I'd suggest that you change therapists and find one that's a lot more knowledgeable. Gender is NOT a "social construct".

Never mind, you are too happy being a transgender and wont listen any way. Maybe Sharon or Lisa Jain will set you straight.

You appear to have a genuine interest in this topic, so as one of the two co-authors of this column, let me address some of your specific questions and assertions.

One important caveat: some of your remarks seem aimed at a specific group of people and/or website. I can only answer for me and make some general observations. Beyond that, you will have to approach the specific folks you may have in mind.

We do not have a "group" here on the site and never have had such a thing. The historic TS-Si organization had a broader set of concerns, particularly with regard to relief efforts here and abroad.

If we do not get to all of your questions or concerns, or there is confusion, we can clarify and discuss them further. In any case:

I can't relate to "the shame of gender dysphoria", since my core problem was the misalignment of my innate neurobiological state and my genitals.

For many of us, gender is an outward manifestation of our inner state. Some claim they can assume various modes of expression as learned/unlearned behavior since it is a "social construct". I have always found that interesting because it so often consistent with the idea that "society" is somehow a separate entity in charge of our lives and that we as individuals have no (or little) impact on macrosocietal convention. Such a claim inadvertently suggests the we as individuals do not move within, and influence, society at all.

You say that the SOC is patriarchal and outmoded because it expects someone who hasn't lived as a woman to "live as a woman". For most of the post-corrected people of whom we are aware, there was no hard and fast line between their lives as lived before the time-framed real life experience began to satisfy requirements for surgery. The really big consideration is whether their lives were full-time or not.

Your use of the word "obsessed" is interesting, given how you apply it to "genital" and "surgery". If some people are "comfortable with themselves warts and all", then fine -- go on in life as you are. That is your business.

For those of us who went through correction, having a sex change involves genital surgery; it is a matter of medical realism, not obsession.

I am alarmed by your statement that HRT gave you "girls blood" and how it gave you the relief of a chemically-supported "just am.." This reduces hormonal reconstitution to the status of Prozac.

Buried in your claims about bodily changes due to hormones, there are these two: "Why is it all about the penis ..." and "an inside out penis".

-- The penis is a male genital; whether a F2M or M2F is involved, it is a central consideration when having a sex change operation.

-- I take the "inside out penis" remark as a reference to the penile inversion process step in M2F sex change surgery (one of several important steps). Once disassembled and functionally destroyed, the biomaterial is no longer a penis. Concomitantly, the vagina of a M2F patient is not an inside-out penis, as it is the sum total of penile and other materials in a specific configuration for healing.

Moreover, it is not "all about the penis", as other structures are involved when changing sex.

Why are most of the "True transsexuals" old? Why did so many of them live as men with absolutely no outward signs of femaleness only to start transition and become a characature..a stereotype of social gender concepts. Lying, manipulating, and leaving paths of ruins in their wake?

I can't speak to the issues of people who advocate "True transsexual" -- or HBS, for that matter -- since neither stance is the subject matter of this site. I suggest you navigate elsewhere to obtain their views.

However, I can address the implications of your loaded question "Why are most of the 'True transsexuals' old?" Without clarification, I can't tell whether you are talking about TS folk in transition or post-corrected.

I can say that our extensive correspondence shows that the pre- and post-corrected population covers all age groups and social situations. I haven't seen a statistical clumping driven by the calendar (i.e., birth year). Based on the known evidence, and pending evidence to the contrary, we make the claim that the birth condition approaches or aligns with randomness, and does so consistently over time.

Likewise your loaded question:

Why did so many of them live as men with absolutely no outward signs of femaleness only to start transition and become a characature..a stereotype of social gender concepts. Lying, manipulating, and leaving paths of ruins in their wake?

I have no idea who you are referring to here. It certainly isn't true of Lisa or me, nor the large number of post-ops that subscribe to these discussions. In fact, it was quite the opposite to what you say.

Unless you provide more details on who you are talking about, it is hard for me to attempt an answer.

When you ask "How are they more transsexual than someone like me?" I would have to know who made such a claim and why. There are no known degrees of transsexuality; it is either there or not. Perhaps you are referring to the claims of elastic intensity used to argue for the spectrum of need, culminating in surgery as the extreme manifestation?

Your concluding section says:

How are they more transsexual than someone like me?..who was aware and honest about it at 16, 19, 22, 25...told all my partners on my first dates. Who lives a very happy life with a penis that I don't use and no one sees.

They're not. It's a delusion. They're still manipulating people.

The medical community is abandoning these notions. People who believe this are a dying breed of the most calcified stereotypes. Victims of past gender norms...

Again, I read your remarks as aimed at a specific group of people. Without knowing who they are, I really can't comment. I do know for a fact that your remarks do not fit the situation of a very large group of people who have led lives that significantly belie the stereotypes, resolved their medical problem, and moved on in life. I am one of them.

One last thing: you said "The medical community is abandoning these notions."

What we have seen over the years is accumulating medical evidence that transsexuality exists and that hormonal reconstitution, surgery, and social immersion constitute the only known cure.

We have also seen transgender activists (such as those associated with the "T" in GLBT) move in to transsexual space and claim that transsexuality is a term with an elastic definition that covers all sorts of folks who do not seek hormonal reconstitution and sirgery.

That is the essence of the conflict over the GLBT, a genuine social construction. Many people born transsexual see this as the aggressive colonization of people without their consent.

Our resistance has led some critics to reverse the facts of historical sequence and claim we are colonizing them and bullying people into accepting our version of transsexualism. Not really, people can go on believing whatever they want. We do not have to buy into it.

To wrap up, it is very difficult to talk in any depth about your closing "medical community" remark without knowing who in the medical community and specifically what "notions".

The use of the term "girls blood" was reminiscent of the seeming related "girl juice", a term that was common to crossdresser and chicks with dicks sites a decade or more ago in reference to obtaining female hormones.

The constructions parallel each other so I suspect a connection, linguistically or otherwise.