Now, now, Suzan -- don't you know you will be accused of being an "accommodationist"?

It sometimes seems that as we enter an era less and less friendly to all manner of "different" people (remember, those who see themselves the arbiters of all this stuff decide who is "different" -- what we, or you, say means nothing to them), we become less and less open, less and less accepting.

We now have various measures of "purity", and even those who were among the leaders of transsexual, and post-transsexual, removal from the "transgender umbrella" are under attack for not following a "party line" developed by others.

Once again, the issue of "legitimacy", rears its head -- the "I am more (or less) transsexual than you are", the "I am more 'real' than you", or "I am more woman than you". The various "party lines" seem to have been drawn with little concern for our large (larger than most think), and very varied "community" (which I here define as those of us who have ALL had the same operation - SRS).

In addition, there seems to have been very little thought given to possible "unintended consequences". What does setting up a test of "legitimacy" say about ALL transsexuals? The fact this is a self diagnosed condition can make the setting of different "classes" of transsexuals a gateway to making most, if not all, of the next generation "illegitimate" by those who oppose us all.

Not all women are the same -- but they are all women. Not all post-ops/WBT's/etc. are the same - but we are all post-op --- even if we do not want to accept some as "real" post-ops, or as "real" women.

The differences between us are vast. I do not think it serves anyone to make difference from their specific "norm" a way to define illegitimacy. It only plays into the hands of those who HATE us ALL.

Some times instead of looking out for number one we are faced with ethical questions. Even being able to pass does not free us from the ethical question:

Do you support human rights and equality or do you not? Which side are you on?

This article speaks with a forked tongue: The arguments it presents have played themselves too many times before in too many other situations. That because they're the stock-standard arguments of imperialism and erasure.

Throughout human history every colonized country in the world has faced this process: It begins with an occupied space that another people want to take over. The invaders move in, usually using force of some kind. They take over. They force the indigenous occupants to learn their language.

They deny the indigenous culture and attempt to enforce their own. The rights that are claimed are the rights of the occupiers. It is demanded of the indigenous inhabitants that give up any claim to indigenous rights for the greater good of the invaders. So far they're classic assimilationist tactics

The indigenous people dig their heels and resist. They get told they're not proper New Zealanders, or Americans, or Australians - or whatever. They're abused. They're told that they are terrorists or fundamentalists.

Sometimes the imperialism succeeds and the erasure of a particular human kind is successful. More often in modern times it fails. Those of us who understand the process know it for what it is: A form of tyranny.

At first I was surprised to see a self - proclaimed lefty and anarchist engaging in them. On second thoughts, perhaps I shouldn't be.

"This article speaks with a forked tongue:"

You've watched to many bad Hollywood movies that stereotyped Native Americans.

Transsexuals are hardly an indigenous culture.

Further I'm not the one insisting on calling others by vile names.

I'm not the one denying others their humanity or human dignity. I'm just another woman born transsexual who had an operation nearly 40 years ago.

Not when I was 40 something years old. I don't have to try to validate myself by putting others down.

Hmmm, let's see -- we marched for Civil Rights during the 60's -- has the granting of greater equality to POC led to the loss of "whiteness"?

I do understand that MRA's ("Men's Rights Assoc.) tend to claim the granting of ANY rights to women will lead to the end of "Manly Male Manness", or whatever it's called --- has anyone noticed this actually happening?

If anything, the cult of "Macho Man" is far greater today than it was back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. If I recall correctly, back then it was not considered a plus to be an a*****e.

Where does a measure of mutual respect result in "erasure"? If anything, I suggest you think of that old saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats" -- in other words, no woman is an island.

Where does a measure of mutual respect result in "erasure"?

I’ve taken s**t from some peddlers of the Classic Transsexual party line because I don’t hate transgender people based on our differences...

You and others...peddlers of the TG party line have likened me and mine to nazis and the KKK. In the past you've called us bigots and likened us to christo-fascists, Suzan Cook.

You've taken little more than our disdain for all of that.

Speaking personally I have no generalized hatred toward any individual. I have little time for the behaviorists dogmas of transgenderism and I detest it when those who do believe it try to force it down my throat.

Its no better that trying to force-feed a religious doctrine down the throat of an unbeliever and it should be seen as such!

But the rub is this: that we are closing in on a definitive biological test for classical transsexualism. Despite the agitation of doctrinal WPATH true believers it won't make CT's better or superior. That is nothing more than political scare-mongering!

It may make surgery easier for CT's to access. That doesn't mean it won't be possible (or even more difficult) for others.

So what is this really all about? 60 years ago John Money theorized that X-dressing and transsexualism were degrees of the same thing. An entire belief system has been constructed around that idea. Now the belief system is now coming under threat!

Whither then, when it collapses?

Many true believers are as utterly dependent on the behaviorists of WPATH as any addict is on their supplier. Yet the behaviorist rationals - that also purport to provide legitimacy for IS genital surgeries - are falling into disrepute: that is not before time!

But the entire edifice of identity theory will also surely disappear in time. The behaviorist demigods will give it the kiss of life for as long as they are able. Assisted, no doubt, by their ardent followers. But it is nothing more than a bizarre ideology. Its time is drawing to a close, and all its flaws will eventually be unveiled.

Again I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but those who demand that I should prop up or help sustain so profoundly flawed a dogma should best forget it!

Like every one else I'll take my chances with whatever hard science replaces it. Better that than the current pseudoscience. Little more narrative that, when all is said and done, owes its existence to a bundle of theories originally created to validate genital mutilating surgeries. A narrative sold to the world through the exercise of one of the most extraordinary acts of duplicity in the last 100 years.

So -- if despising identity theory, ideological pseudoscience and behaviorist clap-trap whilst, at the same time, demanding something better, makes me a fascist, nazi, KKK. christo-fundamentalist so be it!

I say nothing of those who would try to force transgenderism down my throat.

Money said nothing of the sort.

I personally do not need the some sort of "scientific cause" to validate my being.

I was a transkid. I grew up I had an operation.

I am who I am not because I mud wrestle the way some people do or call names.

BTW I've been female for nearly 40 years. How long have you? Or will I hear some tale of improbable intersex from you too.

You don't despise identity politic you are totally about identity politics.

I just watched a show about the "hard science" how detailed measurements determined race and all that back among the racist ideologues of the early 20th century.

Human rights and human dignity as well as equality should be based on simple humanity and not on some sort of scientific measurement.

This tactic of trying to de-legitimize born transsexual people and our condition is entirely unnecessary. If you had just written your book and spoken from the stance as a post-trans woman you would have been unique among all the speakers on this topic. You had a winning hand, a niche. An a honest-to-goodness message that no one else even came close to having.

But you threw it all away in a cynical, calculated move towards the TG paradigm, tossing aside your lifelong message of hope for women born transsexual. Where did you get this horrible, horrible advice? You lost your truth, your appeal, and your credibility in the process. And it has cost you your success in the end. It's a shame.

Hold on there -- as founders of WBT (Women Born Transsexual) we were among the first to oppose the concept of "The Transgender Umbrella". We opposed the attempts to colonize the lives, narratives, experience of Women Born Transsexual.

The attempts to paint us as "transgender apologists" began when we opposed the NAME CALLING, the DEMONIZING of transgender folks.

All along, from the very beginning, both Suzan and I said we did not set up a hierarchy, did not claim we are better -- just different. All along WBT spoke of something as simple as "Transgender AND Transsexual". For this we were attacked by various and sundry TRANSGENDER activists. We were called "elitist", and far worse.

As time has passed, as the transgender folks have toned down some of the rhetoric (to some extent because of our efforts), we have begun to examine the possibility of there being limited alliances to work on issues of common interest.

At some point, we the founders of WBT began to be seen as too "soft", not "militant" enough.

We were attacked for being two WBT's together. We were told we are nothing more or less than two gay men. Our relationship is invalid, and invalidates us as WBT's -- this from folks who also appear, from some of their statements, to oppose gay guys, lesbians, etc.

Now, let me be clear -- for years I have said, "There's no future being the 'T' in LGBT.". That was, and is, a statement FOR WBT's. It is NOT against either Gay Guys or Lesbians -- heck, Suzan and I ARE lesbians. We support the lesbian community, but oppose all and any attempts to"ghettoize", to "other" women of transsexual experience.

In addition to telling us our relationship is invalid, we were also TOLD we MUST work for heterosexual marriage -- while those very same folks told us they cannot, in any way, reciprocate, and work for expanded marriage rights.

If you were put in that position, how would you respond?

Then we were attacked as devils incarnate, as some form of "transgender activists".

When did being CIVIL brand you as a devil?

Most of the folks who attack us have done little more than attack. Instead of basing their claims to being HUMAN on basic HUMAN RIGHTS, there is a reliance on some "soon to be delivered physical test / fact / etc.".

Human rights are universal -- other people take them away, or attempt to take them away. My being a valid human being is NOT dependent on some physical test. It is based on being another human being.

Right now, transsexualism is self diagnosed. "Why have I always seen myself as a woman?"

"Because you're transsexual"

"Why am I transsexual?"

"Because you've always seen yourself as a woman."

There is no need for any further "proof" -- the proof lies within each and every one of us. I need no external validation.

I did when I was newly post-op. I did when I was unsure of myself, and those around me ---- but, time cured all those doubts. Time, and experience.

Nothing more is needed.

By the way, humanity, human rights are not a "zero sum game". Some one else being seen as equal, as human, does not deprive you of any rights -- it might well take away some PRIVILEGE. It might make interactions more equal. It might seem as if "rights" are "lost" when all that is lost is unfair advantage.

Every one of us who had SRS, who changed our sex, have experienced some loss of privilege. That is especially true for those of us who lived the major portion of our lives being seen as men.

I think most of us have made a successful "transition" in this area.

Don't you think many of the other "others" of this world are also entitled to basic human rights?

By the way, I am not pleading the case of the weekend crossdresser who goes to HIS office on Monday with all HIS privilege intact. As far as I'm concerned, he is NOT "transgendered", HE is a guy who likes to crossdress. He has his rights as a man -- as a member of our far flung patriarchy.

Nor am I pleading the case of the MAN who claims to "really" be a woman, but who does not take hormones, makes no attempt to transition, dresses in typical male, or perhaps vaguely androgynous fashion -- he is, at best, a poseur.

I also really dislike the setting up of "classes" of post-transsexual women. We do tend to break down into various "affinity groups" -- that does not mean another group of post-transsexual women are invalid.

When folks talk of "slippery slopes", it's best not to set some up simply because you might not like some folks.

A mismatch that, whenever and wherever we find it.

The world of science is changing under our feet, and in many ways. The findings can be a source of wonder and progress, or the process can once again be corrupted to serve the purposes of the next would-be master.

It is easy to forget that the many misuses of science have been driven by ideologues with some sociopolitical axe they grind on the backs of those they wish to dispossess.

Whether it be a consequence of religious or political oppression, a protection of static cultural ways - or whatever the reason - things inevitably go wrong. We have had Inquisitors, racists, fascists, Marxists, sexists, and so forth - an endless catalogue of evildoers - exploiting people rendered gullible and blind to the flaws among our would-be rulers.

As bad as the previous millenia were in fishing up these people, the relatively recent past has seen the arrival of Creationism, Intelligent Design, Lamarckism, Social Realism, ... well, I run out of breath listing all the ways that honest effort can be harnessed by the new boss. Note that the new bosses are the corrupters of scientific integrity and not among its defenders.

Science in and of itself is telically neutral; it is only when humans bend the process toward socially questionable ends that we wind up with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Zucker's reparative therapy, or the application of autogynephilia to all transsexuals.

We play into the hands of bigots when we mix science and ideology in ways that suggest a particular historical worldview is necessary for dialogue. In fact, citing historical circumstances of sociopathy distorting either science or ideology, then arguing for the invalidity of either, plays directly into the claws of the manipulators who violated rational terms of engagement in the first place.

I believe that if an argument can not stand on its own merits, no quantity of insults and dismissal can save it.

If we proceed as though any disagreement with a person is an attempt to invalidate that person, then communication is impossible - and the bad guys win.

Tina - I'm not opposing most of what you're saying, and I do respect your efforts. What I do not respect is TG dogma. But then I am dedicated atheist in every respect imaginable. I cannot find it in me to have respect for any dogma - be it religious, political, economic or, for that matter psychosocial

Hello Suzan

Please note:

"A full time cross dresser may eventually achieve the goal of his lifetime's longing and quite changing back to his masculine clothes and role. Some such people have for so long felt so utterly out of place on the role of their external genitalia that they demand the body, as well as the clothing of the opposite sex. Properly speaking they are not transvestites but transsexuals. Their compelling desire is for hormonal and sex reassignment so they can live full-time in the gender role for which they feel, they themselves, always have had the matching gender identity."

(Money and Ehrhardt. 1979. Baltimore. Man and Woman, Boy and Girl. Johns Hopkins University Press. p20.

This should not be a surprise. Starting with the heterosexual‭ '‬normal‭'‬,‭ ‬through to the most 'abnormal' of the so called paraphilias,‭ ‬all were perceived as gender identity issues by 1972.

See Money and Ehrhardt,‭ ‬1972.‭ ‬pp‭ ‬146-149

They even claimed that sexual orientation was ‭ "‬predictable‭" ‬on the basis gender socialization.

Money and Ehrhardt,‭ ‬1972.‭ ‬p234.

The so-called 'Gender Identity Disorders' are placed under the paraphillias section of the DSM series precisely because of Money's theories.

It really beats me why anyone would to be dependent on them ... but hey! Your choice.

Kiaora.

Unfortunately a corollary of the progress of human and civil rights has been the tendency of subsets of the oppressed group to organize and distinguish among themselves. Those suffering the same discriminatory system may turn against those who may be classified somehow separately and viewed as inferior. Thus some of the most potent discrimination in 19th and 20th century American society was by oppressed ethnic groups that immigrated or gained rights recently against identifiably separate ethnic groups that immigrated and gained rights even more recently.

Many examples can be given. A recent one was the antipathy and violence of the working class "southies" of Boston toward African Americans when action was finally taken to desegregate the city's public schools in the latter 20th century.

Similarly, we have reports from the African American community of self-inflicted discriminatory actions against subgroups based on perceived differences in the shades of their skin color.

IMO some of this is human nature. If the system hands someone the short end of the stick, he or she may be tempted to say, "well, at least I deserve it more than them. Look at them. They are different and of less value than me." This hostility may arise more from the economic of psychological insecurity of the classifiers about their own status than from objectively identifiable differences.

I do not dispute that transsexuals are different than crosdressers, gender queers, or transgenders, depending on how one defines them. If transsexuals are defined as people that need, are working toward, or have had sex change operations (and I am personally comfortable with that definition), than it is a tautology that to assert they are unique in this respect. And if we do not work against the interests of others that are the victims of discrimination similar to that which we may have suffered, I see no ethical problem with that.

But do transsexuals really have to distinguish among themselves, and turn against those that do not precisely fit in self-identified subgroups, often in floridly critical rhetoric? And does that serve any purpose?

I say no.

Tina

I'm not opposing most of what you're saying, and I do respect your efforts. What I do not respect is TG dogma. But then I am dedicated atheist in every respect imaginable. I cannot find it in me to have respect for any dogma - be it religious, political, economic or, for that matter psychosocial.

You do not have to pray for the Holy Grail of physical causation to oppose "TG Dogma". For that matter, the absolute belief in a measurable physical difference is also a form of dogma.

Anything we believe based of faith, which we then act on, or use to differentiate us from others is dogma.

I firmly believe we are born this way. One reason I believe this is that the "transsexual narrative" much belittled by so many "experts" is so real, true, and consistent. We are the best judges of all this crap.

I know darn well I was supposed to have been born a girl. I knew it when I was a very young child -- I told that to my girl cousins, who then told me it wasn't so, as did all the adults around me. I dreamt, fantasized, prayed, hoped -- all to no avail. Heck, as a kid I did not even know what a homosexual was -- this was the late 40's, early 50's -- the idea of a SEX CHANGE was beyond imagination -- then, when I was 13 Christine happened, and the POSSIBILITY exploded across my consciousness --- etc., etc., etc.

So, as you can see, I too believe there might well be a measurable physical difference ----- and? So what? Will it change what is? Will my life change? Will it suddenly turn those who hate us all into our "pals"? Will those who want to kill us for "fooling" them drop their knives, sticks, and guns?

Will we actually become "better" than we were the day before?

I don't think so.

We do not need an excuse to exist. We do not have to find a "reason" to be seen as human. We do not need a special identity card, with all sorts of "official" seals and testimonials to "prove" our right to be human.

We just are. We always have been -- from the very beginning of time. We will continue to be.

This year I turn 71. I have survived and thrived. Today I do not need anyone's "seal of approval".

All my life I have pursued knowledge for knowledge's sake.......and it pays off in strange ways. I discovered early on that in both law and history, one needs to forget "what everyone knows" and go back and look at the original source material.

So, will it make my life any different now that physical causality is proven (because in my mind the evidence is so overwhelming only an idiot can deny it). Short answer, no. I'm 60 years old and disabled and my working life is over. When my history is learned by someone, it's a two week wonder at best and then a reversion to "of course she's a woman- duh!) My paperwork is in order and besides, it turned out I was born an intersexed "freak" anyway so none of what I write and promote actually applies to me. But it does apply to others I know.

So why is physical causality important to transitioning women? Because it means literally they have full civil rights protections if they need them and care to exert them and the TG crowd and the physical causality deniers just muddy that up needlessly and keep them from the keys to a better life. And that is just plain hatred and bigotry in my book when the only reasons often given are along the lines that this does not benefit the fetishistic masturbator crowd and the AGs.

The ADA exclusion was specific, very specific as I learned over ten years ago when I carefully read every single word of the ADA law. And additionally, someone else listened to me back then, approached the civil rights division of the DOJ and got a written, on the record legal opinion from the then head of that division that if transsexuality is shown to by from physical causality, then transsexuals are totally covered under the ADA.

Now I've had people tell me that if their civil rights came at the cost of being seen as disabled, they don't want them. As someone who is physically disabled that pisses me off no end as it's pretty much a direct insult.

So Tina and Suzan, that's why it matters.

Suzan and Tina continue to lie and misrepresent the "Classic Transsexual" position. I just read the WBT blogpost, and it is of course designed as a piece of propaganda to spin the truth, i.e. lie to those of you who have problems with euphemisms, and completely undermine the legitimacy of the transsexual birth condition.

People aren't angry because you "won't attack transgender", Suzan. That's a bold-faced lie. People are angry because you continue to attack US to puff yourself up. You don't care how much damage you do, as long as your little needs are met. You continue to assault the progress we are making and talk down the real gains being made in science. You mischaracterize the importance of a scientific understanding of this condition as some kind of petty personal justification. That's another lie.

You want CT people to go down the same stupid road that the gay lobby did in rejecting a scientific strategy for bringing their condition to legal solution and protection. The gay lobby is extraordinarily stupid, and the proof is in state after state that has banned gay marriage not only by statue, but often by going to the trouble of writing into their respective consitutions. This is where your "leadership" would take everyone.

But that's what I've come to expect from the older generations. It's now the 2010's, and we are entering a time of historic changes. We need every bit of help we can get to steer things the right way, away from disaster. Look at what happened to gays and lesbians in 2009. Things are really heating up and there is just as much chance they are going to get worse as there is for them to get better. People count here.

So where are all the activists and other high minded people from the 60's? Those that didn't put on a power suit and repudiate their beliefs along the way are tiny in number. And now, at the bitter end, they are all in a crush to sell out before the final curtain comes down on their era. TG is part of the gay lobby, and that is all part of the "Establishment". Corporate "activism" and speakerships, so very revolutionary.

You had a choice Suzan, and you joined the side of the authoritarians. You want to stamp out anyone who opposes the corporate lobby. That's going to be how people remember you if you continue down this path. But it's an insidious bargain isn't it? You bet the odds, but you aren't seeing the big picture.

You bet wrong.

From what I have seen over the last 2.5 decades many (NOT ALL) on-line who embrace "classic transsexual" as label have very narrow definition of what a woman is and what are acceptable ways of lives for someone who changes sex.

Somehow more than a few of them seem to think staying married from 'before" invalidates who they are or their 'post' marriages.

Most seem hostile to anti-same sex marriage because it's not 'their' issue... yet percentage wise it seems more het ggs do support it...

All of that seems to me to be rooted in a deep insecurity in their own womanhood and place in society. Why else get into board wars about things that really should not matter to 'classic transexuals' who are just women?

From what I see the whole classic transsexual thing is more divisive among post-op than anything else and just the normal infighting one sees among T faction looking for validation in the wrong places.

Aria Blue -- I think YOU lie. Then again, perhaps you just are a tad confused, or you don't quite read what is written.

In any case, why just attack us? Why indulge in attack pieces?

Please explain what a "Classic Transsexual" actually is. How does a "Classic Transsexual" differ from a run-of-the-mill "regular" post-op, or transsexual?

I do know I've (that is, we've) been attacked over time by folks who don't like us (their absolute right), by those who mis-state our positions, by those who cannot accept that our outlook on life has adapted over time.

How did we "join the authoritarians"? How is my stance on personal liberty, on choice (of all kinds), an attack on anyone?

As I've said, folks waving the HBS and CT banners have, over time, attacked us in vicious ways. We have responded. As those attacks end, our response ends.

To mis-state our position on the corporatocracy takes some rather interesting gyrations on your part. Perhaps we are unwitting dupes --- then again, I suspect you just think we are too old, or are the infamous "60's sellouts" that so many speak of, but can't really point to.

In any case, if you have complaints about us that are NOT personal, not about our age, or our supposed "sellout" to those evil corporations (I NEVER, in my entire life - even as a right wing fool - worked for a large, or even sorta-large corporation) please state them.

Please calm down -- I don't think I've ever attacked either CT or even HBS. I have been attacked by both, called all sorts of names, and had my validity as a human being, as a woman, called into question.

What is a "Classic Transsexual"?

Why is Harry Benjamin Syndrome a better description than Transsexual? If it's only about the word "sex" being in the middle -- well, that's not a good reason (my opinion).

Does making who we are all about a "syndrome" really what you want to do? Are you aware that "syndrome" is usually associated with a disease?

"A group of symptoms that together are characteristic of a specific disorder, disease, or the like."

Is that really what you want to say about ALL of us when we are attempting to get transsexuality REMOVED from the DSM?

How does further spliting up an already fractured group of communities serve anyone?

The original motive for the term Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) was to clearly distinguish between those born with the transsexual medical condition and those who adopt the term transsexual for lifestyle reasons. By my ken, the term True or - more recently - Classic Transsexual (CT) came along to avoid the litmus-test excesses of HBS advocates and more clearly distinguish transsexual from transgender. Even advocates of CT terminology have their excesses as well.

All of these groups have advocates among them that have defined political positions, strong - sometimes bigoted - views against homosexuality (as a post-op would understand it), and so on. Sometimes those strong views can seem implicitly stated as new litmus tests that exclude a major, and contributing, portion of the transsexual population.

This is an ongoing reaction to continuous transgender colonization that confuses medical issues with sociopolitical goals, forcing ever more refined terminology and eventual accusations of separatism. Post-ops find the latter accusation laughable since we are 24/7 and found our individual landing zones out here in society at large.

In the meantime, we find among us heaping mounds of balderdash that result from our struggle to do a few basic things:

• Identify the transsexual (or post-transsexual) population, defined here as individuals born with a misalignment of brain and body, requiring hormonal reconstitution and surgical correction.

• Make common cause for mutual efforts to work on medical validation of the birth condition and affirmation of inherent rights equal to the general population.

• Build on our experience and share the resulting knowledge for the betterment of others.

Each of the born transsexual factions has its own share of dirty laundry, including subsets of adherents who are, in fact, bigots. This does not mean that all HBS or CT adherents are such. It does mean that the presence of diversity in each group poses a challenge when trying to put forth a generalization that truly characterizes that group.

I freely admit I love my brother and sisters who were born with our medical condition, our shared point of reference. I also freely admit that I utterly dislike some of us. We are everyone, after all, so what other result could I expect?

Dialogue on these and related subjects is very important. I, for one, think it about time that we air out our misunderstandings and disagreements. However, confusing the two impedes understanding.

A mistaken or unintentional mischaracterization is not a lie.

I thought it appropriate to share this bit of philosophy from Emo Phillips:

I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it’”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.

“Well there’s so much to live for.”

Like what?”

“Well are you religious?”

He said yes.

I said are you Christian or Buddhist?

“Christian”

“Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

“Protestant.”

“Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

“Baptist.”

“Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

“Baptist Church of God!”

“Me too!. Are your original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God!”

“Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or
Reformed Baptist Church of God of 1915?”

He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”

I said, “Die, heretic,” and pushed him off the bridge.

"Die, heretic" -- an all time favorite joke/story.

I still do not quite understand what, exactly, a Classic Transsexual is, and how she or he (there are FtM's you know) differs from the run of the mill post-op or transsexual.

Must a Classic Transsexual be post-op? How would they know they are Classic?

Are either Suzy or I Classic Transsexuals? Why?

Also, how do we support the Transgender Agenda? How have we deserted the goals of WBT (Women Born Transsexual) which speaks to the difference between transsexual and transgender?

(never the twain shall meet)

Have we supported a merger under the Transgender Umbrella?

I know we have not, but if you think we have -- please tell me how and why.

Thank you.

Tina, you are one of the most dishonest spinmeisters I've had the displeasure of coming across. All you have to do to stop the fight, is to stop attacking people. It is YOU who are stirring the pot and YOU who are keeping this fake drama going.

As long as you continue to goad Suzan into attacking people who don't fit your little vision for how things should be, the blame for every bit of this garbage that is going on falls squarely on YOUR shoulders.

Grow the f*** up. Stop attacking people in your pathetic attempt to get attention and make yourself relevant. There are important things going on and people don't have time for your little games. Is that clear enough? Quit blaming other people for the things you are doing. It's juvenile and offensive. As soon as you stop, it all stops. It's all on you.

Critique the position, not the person.

Perhaps you are mistaking Tina for the people you angered into putting up http://ariablues.blogspot.com.

You seem a tad distraught. Take a breath. Perhaps it isn't us attacking you. Perhaps you have been seriously angering people who have become fed you with you calling them names.

I haven't mentioned you once on my blog. It is true that I think both HBS and "classic transsexual" are silly attempts to put lipstick on a pig but I do not go out of my way to engage in ad homenem attacks the way you and others do. Even though I have seen the pictures of some people like JU and SAR.

Moi? Little innocent me? Who have I attacked? Where are all these attacks? On what fora? Where, oh where have I suddenly gained all this power over Suzan?

As far as I know, some folks have thought I'm merely her acolyte, that all my opinions are directly from her.

I've never made any attempt to be "relevant".

Now, I'm the evil genius behind some nefarious plot against all "right thinking" post-transsexuals.

Say, how about that as a useful term ---- post-transsexual, or, if you like it better --- Classic-Post-Transsexual.

Call it what you want. Justify how you will. If anyone attempts to come after us, to round us up, or whatever, we will be sharing seats in Cattle Cars 1, 2, 3, etc.

Now, please tell me about all these attacks I've made.

Also, will someone who is a Classic Transsexual PLEASE define same for me?

Are Suzan and I Classic Transsexuals? If not, why not. If we are -- why?

Are their "classes" of post-ops? Are some "realer" than others?

Does the issue of AP and AGP enter into this?

Are Classic Transsexuals the same as those called AP by Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence, Zucker, etc.?

If so, why would anyone want to give those charlatans any support -- even if it's sort of "sideways"?

Does the fact some WBT's/post-ops are lesbian have any bearing? If so, why?

Does the fact some folks might have been homosexual/gay/men who had sex with men/ prior to coming out/transition have any bearing? Why, or why not?

What's it all about?

Oh yes, does the age of coming out, the age at which SRS was obtained have any meaning? Is this just a variation on the old "Primary and Secondary" argument? If it is -- who is seen as "better"? Are you able to adjust the criteria based on your own lives? Or are the "rules" hard and fast? If they are ------ what are they?

I've stayed out of this exchange so far and for good reasons.

The whole Essay to which these comments supposedly relate reads like a manifesto of the "Red Brigade" which came to prominence in the sixties. It seems some people have failed to notice the calender now says 2010. That to one side the whole piece is a clear attack on Classic Transsexuals when to the best of my knowledge we have not mentioned either of you in a quite a few weeks. I'm sorry but since you cannot support us as a part of WBT you've really become irrelevant.

But let me play the game here, my father was a labour party socialist and a strong union shop steward. I grew up with very strong socialist ideals. I've been called communist and Marxist. I used to attend meetings in Oxford Colleges where we talked of a British Republic. I was anti nuclear, anti establishment, anti racism, feminist you name it. Unfortunately for me I asked far too many questions and none of the answers bore any relationship to the questions I asked. It was simply more of the same dogma. Much of it sounding like this essay as it happens.

These days my views have moderated somewhat while I still hold true to my principles of racial and sexual equality. Freedom from persecution and the right to express opinions without fear of persecution. I no longer feel a British Republic is desirable. USA is hardly a shining example of the system working. It's bogged down by minority interests dominating progress and blocking any significant changes that don't benefit corporate America or the Religious power brokers. The British Monarchy does not have much power but the power within the constitution that it does hold could be so misused were it the hands of various people I can think of.

What is being done here to the attempts by a few of us who are attempting to assert our independence of the TG "superpower" (which incidentaly is starting to crumble about their ears) is that we are being demonised and denounced as heretics, troublemakers, and bigots. Vile websites have appeared making us look like people my father fought against. I note sadly that you Tina joined that particular attack when you made the reference to the "Cattle truck" you are occupying. Shame on you shame on you.

My last comment here directed at you was to ask that you and Suzan take a hand of friendship and reconciliation. An olive branch to work together on issues of common interest. The hand was refused in a most ungracious fashion. However it still extended. There are far too few of us to squabble among ourselves like this. Take the hand both of you, lets try to work this out. What do you say eh? What harm can it do?

Sorry Evangeline I'm not part of you faction. I don't want to be part of your faction.

I got my surgery recommendation from the Dr whose you are trying to rename transsexualism on honor of and I am perfectly happy to continue to use the word transsexualism to describe why I had the same operation you had.

As for who ever put up the "vile" site most of the things on it are gleaned from your very own words.

I really do not care if WBT is relevant to you or not. My life was complete before we ever met and will be complete afterwards.

As to the cattle car, I said WE would all share seats on same when and if that time came -- no matter how Classic we are

How were you drummed out of WBT? We did remove some folks from the list when they made it clear they could not support our living arrangements -- far be it for us to force people to compromise their long held ideals. Others left when they thought us too rough, or too outspoken -- sometimes we were. We also refused to allow the list to be hijacked. Then there were times people took my sense of humor the wrong way -- not everything is all that serious. In fact, on one occasion, I was told I was a liar when I attempted to explain I was kidding. When that happens, let them think me a liar -- no explanations will soothe a bruised ego, and the realization I was just kidding only makes it worse. Oh well!

As far as any "TG Superpower" -- I still say we were among the very first to officially oppose it. We still do.

I guess telling that truth makes me a "spinmeister", or something like that, in the eyes of those who are, in effect, saying that everything I write is a lie.

If that isn't a personal attack -- what is?

I've asked questions that are not answered.

I've stated my position, and been called a liar.

If that is extending "a hand of friendship and reconciliation", I'm confused.

You extend the hand, while others who appear to be in the same camp call me all sorts of names, and try to trash any reputation I might have.

Is this good poster - bad poster? Will I now be trashed for not accepting a "hand of friendship" when I don't quite know who I'm being a friend to, what is required of me, and if I'm going to have to give up my integrity, or agree to things that go against my beliefs.

Can you understand my confusion?

To Aria Blue -- I have never attacked you. I do suspect you have me confused with other folks.

I don't even post that much.

WBT is no longer a very lively list. It was at its liveliest when folks argued, fought. Remember, it was a private list. It was meant to be a "safe space" where all sorts of issues could be discussed, argued about. One thing we were always dead set against was/is the transgender umbrella -- which is one reason the folks accusing Suzan and me of being in the TG camp really angers me.

It sometimes seems folks like to paint those who do not agree with them as "transgenderists" or worse.

I've always thought that WBT is a valid concept -- it celebrates us as WOMEN, and as having a transsexual background. It also allows for all the differences in our various communities.

I have seen the concept of WBT used by other folks -- not always in a positive way. That's one reason we will always keep our list open, and will always defend it.

Right now, I'm totally done explaining. I'm done trying to set the record straight.

I'm done. I realize it's most likely a waste of time -- folks will believe what they want --- after all, many actually think Obama is a socialist. They think "death panels" exist, and that the "gay agenda" will destroy Western Civilization" -- while at the same time claiming "teh gayz" are stupid and powerless.

Folks support freedom, while arguing against the regulation of huge banks and financial organizations. They support freedom while arguing against civil liberties.

It's very strange -- always has been.

To Tina - re classical transsexual: you already know the answer. Here it is again.

Jan Wålinder 1969.

1. A sense of belonging to the opposite sex, of having been born into the wrong sex, of being one of nature's extant errors.

2. A sense of estrangement with one s own body; all indications of sex differentiation are considered as afflictions and repugnant.

3. A strong desire to resemble physically the opposite sex via therapy including surgery.

4. A desire to be accepted in the community as belonging to the opposite sex.


Note: point 4 on its own, does not cut the mustard!



A few comments ago I made this observation:

Many true believers are as utterly dependent on the behaviorists of WPATH as any addict is on their supplier. Yet the behaviorist rationals - that also purport to provide legitimacy for IS genital surgeries - are falling into disrepute: that is not before time!

But the entire edifice of identity theory will also surely disappear in time. The behaviorist demigods will give it the kiss of life for as long as they are able. Assisted, no doubt, by their ardent followers. But it is nothing more than a bizarre ideology. Its time is drawing to a close, and all its flaws will eventually be unveiled.

Again I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but those who demand that I should prop up or help sustain so profoundly flawed a dogma should best forget it!

This issue gets reduced to an argument about Transsexual legitimacy only because of the defensive position taking of gender paradigm supporters. It is much bigger than that. Were it not for the inability of gender ideologists to see past their own personal needs it would be understood as such.

Dianakat - you asked:

But do transsexuals really have to distinguish among themselves, and turn against those that do not precisely fit in self-identified subgroups, often in floridly critical rhetoric? And does that serve any purpose?

The very day Dianakat, that Classical transsexualism is properly understood as an issue of brain biology, will be the very day that an average of five babies every day will cease to have their tiny genitals mutilated in America alone.

And that's the point. Its not about you, or me, or anybody else and their own personal comfort levels: its about a paradigm change, so that these wicked practices will end.

Neither you, nor Tina and Suzan seem able to understand that the beliefs and theories you support are the real evil here. Nor can you argue that the mutilations can be stopped whilst you still support the dogma as you do.

It is the dogma that is evil. The paradigm that provides the dogma with its pseudo- scientific structure that will have to go. None of you can have your cake and eat on this issue.

Either you will support the so-called right of TG'ism to validate itself by perpetuating and gaining energy from the dogma, or you will reject the dogma. Seldom is any choice so black and white!

There is another matter. Speaking personally I am not a biologist of any kind. I may cheer researchers on from the sidelines, but were I to stop doing that tomorrow the research would still continue and change would still inevitably come.

Its conclusions are pretty obvious already. Not all the politicking nor denying, not all the hiding and denying will stop the voyage of discovery.

Not one of us can change that - nor should we wish to. But those who have invested all their faith in Money's dishonest theories are surely trying!

Its not difficult to understand why. Seldom has so tawdry a duplicity been perpetrated as these ugly beliefs. Not in the last hundred years has an invasive and life-altering medical practice been built on so shaky a platform.

No! lets have some honest science here and be done with Money's bastard theories. To argue their retention is to argue a continuation of an intellectual and moral dark ages.

Bring on the biological renaissance. Lets have empiric substance - not sociopolitical correctness.

That's the word spring to mind. I see this morning I apparently made Suzan's enemy list as she once again dumped my blog and now the petition from her website. This is all so disappointing. Suzan and Tina, that you can defend the blues site in any fashion deminishes you both in my eyes. Were I to select phrases from both of your writings, blogs and comments I could make you both look like the worst bigots out there so the fact it was done to some of us is not a defense. Phrases taken out of context and often replies to the most vile imaginable comments can make any one from any position appear in a bad light.

Suzan, you and I are both hippies who kept the counter culture ideals and yet I often have felt lately most of what you were writing on trans stuff was directly aimed at insulting me, at least I could take it like that. I am the one who promoted the use of "classic transsexuality" in the past couple of years. You've crusaded against that knowing (or at least should have known) that the things you associated with it were total crap in my own case. I support gay marriage rights personally. I'm bisexual and I am not conservative in any fashion. However, it seems I can keep conservative friendships going unlike yourself.

Aria, you too I like but I am also one of those aging hippies you just took a shot at. Susan Taylor and Leigh and Suzan have all taken major shots at those of us who discovered we were born intersexed.....all of you basically calling those of us who found this out about ourselves to be liars. This is the same crap that has kept me from disclosing this in the past. Are there posers? Sure, but when you tar with a broad brush, you often hit friends and allies as well.

I was also what many call a late transitioner. I was married to a woman (well, an FtM in deep denial anyway which is why it kinda sorta worked) I had a child so opps, I screwed up my "creds" there too apparently. All of which is bull you are hurling at each other instead of discussing actual issues and facts on the ground. Suzan, frankly much of what I've read from you lately sounds like it was dictated by Helms. Helms is a monster as far as I'm concerned. But having someone try to destroy your credibility, reputation and get you tossed out of all activism for over ten years without a break lying their ass off to do so will have that effect.

The rest of you, Suzan is not a transgender. Neither is Lisa or Sharon and frankly, given the content of this blog I personally feel you'd either have to be brain dead, have a room temperature IQ or a major agenda to say that.

The gender identity garbage has cost every post corrected women dearly. It also promotes the continued mutilation of intersexed infants. It is scientifically unsupportable, a prime example of the misuse of social sciences, more akin to a dogmatic faith than defensible theory.

I've been in this fight as long as anyone and more consistantly over the years than anyone, yes that includes you and Tina Suzan because you disappeared for years while I kept up the good fight. Most of you have defined me out of it at this point with personal agenda bull instead of sticking to the facts. At some point in the past couple of years I've addressed the young/old, primary/secondary garbage and shown it actually is better explained by accidents of technology and social timing. AG is real, just was so over inclusively defined to make it utterly useless, refine the criteria and it fits as the endstage of fetishistic transvestism.

Once you are post and hopefully living an actual woman's life, you should have left all your self esteem issues behind. Clearly many of you have not. Once you are post corrected and living a well adjusted woman's life, the theories should cease to matter to you personally as should others being concerned about how you got there.

Cassandra, Lisa, Sharon, you three seem to be the last remaining women willing to simply address the facts without all sorts of personal baggage...and I appreciate that.

The rest of you......when you aim at someone personally for a disagreement in ideas you are often hitting your friends as well without realizing it. And that is starting to really piss me off. Grow up or get out of the fight.

....sorry for leaving you out.

i have to wonder how much some of your lives revolve around labels .. defining and defending them. Some who just "is" does not invest so much time and energy into these net wars over validation. I would think your own lives and how you live it should be validation enough for 'successful classic transsexuals'. When one post-op judges themselves 'more valid' or more 'real' than other post-ops it is about their own insecurity IMO.

When TS demonize TG's it's because of insecurity. The same with TGs vs TSes.

The reason for insecurity in who they are for ALL factions is our society even though in some cases (TG vs TS) the identities are different.

The problem with the hard core CT campaigners is that refuse to recognize that and so can't see that the common issue is how society sees "non standard" people - no matter how normal acting...

Yes there are legitimate gripes between the faction... but the core issue is not there... If anybody things if TGs and TV's did not exist that most people would see MTF post-ops as 100% female human beings, I have this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in...

Lisa and I were out early with the neighbors working to dig out from the blizzard that hit the DC area. We barely took time for breakfast.

Nobody cared whose house was first, we just worked logically - and hard - to help each other.

There were men and women, young and old, with all manner of racial and ethnic backgrounds. We dug out neighbors who had health concerns and took refuge with their kids during the storm. It mattered not that they were absent - everyone helped.

The men competed and formed teams; the women guided the effort and exchanged gossip. A good and sweaty time was had by all.

People view Lisa and me as a responsible couple in the neighborhood; no other considerations matter.

This sort of thing happens way below the ideological radar of those who would reduce relationships to tits and tats, ignoring the deep down mutual recognition of humanity and caring that is required to be a friend.

At my age, every day is a good day, but this one has been especially good so far.

"Everybody hates us all" is what I call the big TG lie.....

Take it elsewhere. It just isn't true. If it was true I would not have found over and over that I can socialize with rad fems, sit down to lunch with a religious righter at a legislative session and find every time after just a little non confrontational conversation they are "making an exception of me"..... and it is precisely because my own womanhood is secure enough they find they cannot oppose it in the end. And every time that happens, I open their hearts just a bit more.

The on the ground reality I discovered right of the bat years ago is almost everyone except the most diehard bigot "gets" transsexuality with only a little prompting. It totally fits the standard binary world view, doesn't oppose it. No one, including myself, "gets" shemales as even remotely normal. Now personally, I like weird people, but I have nothing at all in common with someone who defines themselves out of a gender binary and still thinks that doesn't mean they just gave up all claims to it. I can like them as people, and actually do with many non rabid ones, I can support their civil rights.....I can do both without buying the TG agenda or the big lie.

And in the long run, I pick who I associate with and who I socialize with and I do neither with those who feel a decade of highly personal attacks on every aspect of my life is "justified" because I don't buy their personal agenda hook line and sinker. I lined up long ago in the women queue, not the tranny one. In the end that has always been the problem with the TGs and myself. I say I'm a woman, the world agrees and they feel that speaks to who they are. Sounds like personal problem to me. What always amazed me is that the opinion of one eccentric old lady seems so damn important to them I have to be destroyed for holding it.

Also you TG apologists circle like sharks smelling blood in the water whenever the CTs disagree on anything. Most telling.

Cathy.. as you may recall I've know you on-line since your CI$ days... And you know I have never attacked you in all that time and am not responsible for those that have. In point of fact over the years I have been savaged by CT/HBS types (even before the labels) for things like staying married (heck at one time even Suzy did that). It gets to be like the religious right in some ways.

In any case I chose my words carefully. You have been around a long enough that you should know that not accepting us as 100% female does NOT necessarily mean hate...

You can still have acceptance and respect and even admiration as a human being and STILL not be accepted 100% as female by those that know... and that type of acceptance and respect does have some (sometimes pretty subtle ones) consequences ... and is not enough for many... That is why stealth is so important to some even today.

I'm not a TG apologist... just a pragmatic realist. Anybody who says they are TS and don't need to actually change sex IMO is not, and it is wrong for them to claim it and that does bother me... but that does not change that most human being have a hard time accepting people can 'really' change sex.

But looking at the bigger picture I can see where that comes from and understand it... and it's very human thing to do given that bigger picture (and that includes the attacks on me) ...

What needs to change is the big picture... and changing the bigger picture would benefit more than TSes or TGs but as i said all who are a bit 'non standard'.

The problem is how to do that in a way that gives space for post-op MTF's be seen as women. I don't have the answer... but open T faction warfare for sure won't get us there ... That is Mutually Assured Destruction for all just like for the country with the polarization and refusal of the Republicans to work with Democrats on ANYTHING will result in MAD.

Many of the current disputes will fade away with the inexorable progress in science and medicine. This is a slow process to be sure but certain.

Historically, these discussions have been in the classic circular pattern flown by aircraft awaiting clearance to land. The difference is that transsexuals, unlike the transgenders, are not in a static situation. Because of the mounting scientific and medical evidence, we are converging on a solution and a safe landing.

I have seen a marked change in the content of the discussions between TS folk and TGs over the past years. Used to be, I was dissed, banned, threatened, and stalked for my views. It used to be a constant thing, but that is much reduced now.

Now, among ourselves, fault lines appear based on lifestyle, politics, religion, sexual orientation, and other factors that are utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

More and more, we can cite actual evidence and not rely soley on experiential claims and obvious exclusion. It remains the same for transgenders: if anything, their arguments even more sociopolitical than ever.

For us, our experience with TS/TG conflict should be a caution against smearing the same bitter brew of attitudes when considering the differences among TS folk.

We have research to cite, lives to talk about, and cautionary tales to tell that could make all the difference in bringing comity to the situation and a safe landing.

Oh well, the last few posts must mean Suzy and I are Classic Transsexuals -- even if we question that construction.

Isn't that sort of what the "TG-as-umbrella" folks do?

The simple problem in setting up different groups of TS's, post-ops, etc. is that you end up doing exactly what everyone falsely accuses you of -- setting up a hierarchy.

I know darn well there are post-ops who are NOT woman identified. I know the difficulty some have after they have been rejected as women by other women, lesbian or not.

In spite of that, we must identify with women, support women, BE women, if we wish to remain comfortable in our own skins, accept ourselves.

Perhaps accepting ourselves is the biggest problem. as Sharon wrote, being a good neighbor, pitching in, being accountable, goes a long way toward ease with one another, with acceptance.

Karen A. makes a very good point right here:

"You can still have acceptance and respect and even admiration as a human being and STILL not be accepted 100% as female by those that know... and that type of acceptance and respect does have some (sometimes pretty subtle ones) consequences ... and is not enough for many... That is why stealth is so important to some even today."

As the years have passed, we have all gained a measure of wisdom, grace, and acceptance of one another.

There are times when accepting what IS, accepting reality -- especially when it comes to things WE have NO CONTROL OVER - like other people - is not only the most sensible way to go, but the most HUMAN.

Back some years ago a new post-op joined WBT. This person had SRS but was still THE ABSOLUTE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD. There was not to be any silliness like being a partner, allowing wife and children to accept and understand "Dad's" decision. There was no understanding on this persons part that perhaps the entire family needed some time to come to grips with these huge changes. As you can understand, this person left WBT very quickly. No advice, no matter how gently put was, or could be, accepted. This persons role could not be modified in any way. I always wonder what happened to this person -- then again, I'm (in some ways) afraid to find out.

I've also met folks where the WIFE cannot allow her spouse to let go of the old role. In one case, it seemed to be all about a special needs child, a difficult situation that seems to have been made better by LOVE, and a willingness to accept responsibility. Last I knew, the "T" spouse became a strong TG supporter. Perhaps that filled that persons needs in some way.

Not all of us end up doing exactly what we want. Heck, how many early transitioners forever regret the fact they were denied an education just because of who they are? Do you think they could possibily resent those who spent a major portion of their working life as guys, earning top dollar? Is it possible they might tend to look askance at those same late transitioners who proceed to make grand pronouncements about who is, or is not, "valid", or "real"?

How about the poor kids, who come out young, work two jobs, do some hooking on the side, send money home, and still manage to save up enough for SRS? Should they be looked down on by those who have good careers, degrees, and a comfortable life?

How do you judge this stuff? Where do the "rules" begin to break down? How about that straight post-op who discovers she really feels more comfortable with other women -- be they "sisters" or not? Is she now going to be thrown out of some "club".

How about those who forever DENY they are lesbian -- even though attracted to women -- and end up alone and lonely, or go through multiple marriages, because they really do not like men (even though they don't think they are allowed to say that)?

As has been said, life is what happens. The divisions and rules begin to make less and less sense as we age.

Still, there is a difference between TS and TG. There is no "TG-umbrella". There is really no one way for women of transsexual experience to be -- what ends up happening is not alway what we have dreamed of.

It's good to make the best of your life, work to help others, and stop blaming other folks for our problems. We have always been around. Folks who lived transsexual lives many, many years ago, did the best they could. Lots of us died young, and we still do.

Unless you can find self-acceptance, avoid loneliness, and find your niche -- it can be a very tough life.

Sharon writes: "I have seen a marked change in the content of the discussions between TS folk and TGs over the past years. Used to be, I was dissed, banned, threatened, and stalked for my views. It used to be a constant thing, but that is much reduced now."

Without blowing our horns too much, Suzy and I graciously accept some of the "blame" for that.

we have been fighting for something as simple as "transgender and transsexual" for many years. We have held, in steadfast fashion, that there is no hierarchy -- just DIFFERENCE.

No "better" or "worse" -- just different.

In addition, the meme WBT caught on. It has been used all over the globe. It makes it very simple to begin to understand WHAT a "transsexual" is.

Even the idea we had "trannyhoods", as opposed to "boyhoods" has appealed to some.

That ties into the "we are born this way" concept.

That's one reason I'm so angry at those who call us "gay men together" (WHAT does that say about transsexuals - how does it differ from the rabid-religious-right?), or who want to further separate different post-ops from one another.

It just plays into the hands of those who want to proclaim us as INVALID -- including some of the more extreme transgender "leaders".

There are still those who want to outlaw SRS. There are those who want to further "other" us -- often based on the "ick factor" so many men feel when they think about their Dicks being "cut off" (haven't you ever seen a guy "brush" himself, to prove it's still there, when you talk about your SRS?)

Does OUR making segments of OUR population non-women/invalid/just plain wrong/really just TG's/etc., make any sense?

Will a "physical test" that is 89% accurate be necessary prior to approval for SRS?

How will those who are rejected handle it?

Will a certain number of suicides be "acceptable"?

Will it automatically bring social acceptance?

Will there have to be a specific "marker" on all ID papers, Passports, Drivers Licenses, etc. to identify a "certified" sex change?

Will we then see the growth of an "underground" of illegal "sex changes", or TG's?

Will those folks be forced to band together, the way some did in the "bad old days" before all the acceptance of gay and lesbian folks?

What will be the unintended consequences?

There are many important dots in our recent history that some folks resist connecting because they feel it obligates them to accept the context as well as the occurence.

Case in point: Suzy's recounting of her past, including her radical activities and sex work, seems to set off some people as non-representative and a bad example (read bad public relations).

We are accused of being transgender because we work with a group of "transgender" street walkers. Some of the ladies are very likely transsexual but before any of them can get anywhere with it, they have to get work and get out of the drug cycle. For the rest, we are not sages who can know one way or the other by quick inspection.

Typical of many urban areas, there are girls dying on the streets every day. And we certainly would not refuse help to anyone in duress. In the meantime, we get static from those who do nothing at all.

Others have lived comfortable lives, with many somewhere in between.

So what? None of this has anything to do with the right and wrong of social approbrium and the withholding of help to those who need it most.

Suzy's story, along with those of many many more, are all important to letting mainstream society know how much needs to be done before all people can be safe - and healed.

I do not think there is any one representative story any more than we can find a "typical" anything.

Joanne writes: "The very day Dianakat, that Classical transsexualism is properly understood as an issue of brain biology, will be the very day that an average of five babies every day will cease to have their tiny genitals mutilated in America alone."

Are you sure that's an accurate statement? Do you have any way to prove it? Just wondering.

What is the connection between being TRANSSEXUAL and INTERSEXED? I've always thought the Intersex Activists (genuine and not) were anti-transsexual -- at least that's the way they presented for so long.

Mary Daly

"But those who have invested all their faith in Money's dishonest theories are surely trying!" -- writes Joanne.

Who has invested all their faith in Money's theories? Where did that come from?

Back in 1969 (the very same year Walinder wrote his "rules") Money edited a book that most folks transitioning back then used as their "bible". It told about hormones, told about surgery, gave a list of Drs. that were doing it.

That in no way shows approval, or agreement with anything else he has written.

Just a false argument, based on false assumptions, with false conclusions, leading to character assassination.

For shame.

There are so many apparent falsehoods that we have to go over every sentence with a fine tooth comb. Perhaps we should hire a reader

called you a liar, or a sellout Cathryn. Those accusations are not a broad brush, they are specific to individuals who claim the moral high ground and attempt to paint everyone else as Nazis, fascists, etc. I am also a bit tired of people saying "you all" when there are specific people who have done things. Had anyone really said "you are a liar and I don't believe you" right at you from the "classic transsexual" side as it is now known? If they have, that is something to deal with on a person to person basis. I do not accept responsibility for other people's writing.

The core ideals of the 60's are fine by me. It's what came later and the repudiation of their earlier beliefs that are causing people to be incredulous. You have always been consistent and never wavered from your core values. And that's that.

I don't give a crap what someone's past is, except when they make a big deal out of it and then go on to violate their own principles while looking down their nose at the rest of us. I have specifically avoided talking to and about certain people because they seem to want only to fight. When they don't get a response, they escalate their rhetoric becoming more insulting as time goes on. When confronted with their behavior, they try to turn the situation around and play the wounded goose. This is childish and displays a lack of character.

I want nothing to do with people who are so cavalier in their attitude towards this issue. This isn't a damn game to me. I am apolitical in real life, and it takes quite a bit for me to get involved in these sorts of things. You'd better believe I feel this is a life or death thing if I am here speaking about it.

All these petty games make a mockery of what we are trying to do. If people can't put their personalities and ego needs aside and handle this issue like professionals then there is nothing left to say. Go your own way already. Nobody is holding you back. I'm through speaking to Suzan and Tina about this, and that's the end of the argument.

who are following this string,especially our interested non-transgendered, non-transsexual readers, there is nothing quite like watching sausage being made, is there?

Why is it that some of you are successful and get along with your neighbors, like Sharon said, but others don't seem to have any neighbors. Don't you live anyhwere?

I have the impression there are a lot of you who don't move around in society. Isn't that the whole point for making a change?

It seems to me that the world can't be ready for you unless you are ready for yourselves.

I am sorry if I offend anyone. I just want to know.

Oh, I am what some of the people on this website refer to as a natal woman. I am heterosexual, happily married, and very concerned about the science behind who you are.

Sharon, my husband and I are among the lab rats you once freed from the maze. We are regular visitors.

This website deserves a medal for being so professional, passionate, and balanced. I learn more about this subject here than anywhere else on the world wide web.

Sharon has written: "The original motive for the term Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) was to clearly distinguish between those born with the transsexual medical condition and those who adopt the term transsexual for lifestyle reasons. By my ken, the term True or - more recently - Classic Transsexual (CT) came along to avoid the litmus-test excesses of HBS advocates and more clearly distinguish transsexual from transgender. Even advocates of CT terminology have their excesses as well."

How do we decide who has adopted the term for "lifestyle reasons"? You have stated that some of the supposed "transgender hookers" you have worked with actually are transsexual. Wouldn't many of the "keepers-of-the-flame-of-purity" have dismissed them as "merely transgenders" who call themselves transsexual for "lifestyle reasons"?

I remember back when N.Y.C. closed down the Edelweiss (a tranny hooker bar) quite a few of the girls went ahead and got it together enough to have SRS. As long as they had hooking to fall back on whenever they had problems with their "straight jobs", they put off SRS. After all, post-ops are not in demand among the various types of "trannychasers". Guys who like post-ops tend to be different.

Anyway, did those kids suddenly become TS?

I knew an African (from Africa) woman who was a seamstress. She designed and made beautiful clothes. When she would hit an extended slow period, she would work the club for a week or two -- or, until her business picked up. I'm absolutely sure she was TS. She was all alone, with no one, or place to fall back on -- as much as she hated hooking, do you think she would have been better off homeless, without even her sewing machine?

What do we do with, or to, folks who have not had the privileges we have? Sharon you work with folks who need help. In the past, I have also. Some are TG, some are TS, some do not know. Isn't it worthwhile saving a life? Or, at least making an attempt.

Look, I'm a drunk who has been sober for almost 27 years. Totally clean and sober. People helped me. I had to be sober for over 10 years before I was able to accept myself, and come out. I'd done that much damage to myself, and those I loved, and who loved me. It was very important to me that I recognize the damage I'd done to others.

Whatever we do in life, however we do it, there is always a tradeoff.

Lisa and I have been impressed with how many of them have very conventional fantasies of leaving the street life behind, finding a good man, settling down behind a white picket fence, raising children, and becoming esteemed members of the community.

Problem is: most of them are high on something, even violence, and not in a position to make thoughtful, informed decisions. Or, at least, they are not ready.

So many outsiders are ready to write them off, but the success stories come shining through. And some of those successful people are transgenders who move on in life. Others are transsexual and make it through.

Too many die or are irreparably damaged. Classification hardly matters, given the casualties. Every one of them is affected in some way.

We have never attempted to substitute our judgment as to who is who. That is up to the individuals involved. But as human beings, we can't help but be touched by the recognition that some of them, a comparative few, seem so much like us at an elemental level.

We feel certain many of our sisters have not survived.

Joanne: "Dianakat - you asked:

But do transsexuals really have to distinguish among themselves, and turn against those that do not precisely fit in self-identified subgroups, often in floridly critical rhetoric? And does that serve any purpose?

The very day Dianakat, that Classical transsexualism is properly understood as an issue of brain biology, will be the very day that an average of five babies every day will cease to have their tiny genitals mutilated in America alone."

I like to leave these discussions alone once they fly out of orbit. But since I am named and indeed "fisked" in your comment, I will briefly respond.

With respect, I do not see how your statement responds or really relates in any way to my call for civility.

If I weren't tired of the ridiculously embarrassing flame wars on these topics, I might also suggest that your response contains both an unsupported assumption and a non sequitur in the very same sentence. But I will let it go, and sign off this discouraging comment thread.

Dianakat - you wrote:

But do transsexuals really have to distinguish among themselves, and turn against those that do not precisely fit in self-identified subgroups, often in floridly critical rhetoric? And does that serve any purpose?

I explained my primary purpose.

You answered:

I do not see how your statement responds or really relates in any way to my call for civility.

It wasn't supposed to relate to a call for civility. You asked what purpose separating into what you referred to as self-identified subgroups.

I answered that question - and no other.

Both you and Tina asked what the connection between intersex and transsexed issues were in regard to this matter.

To this very day intersexed genital surgeries are carried out in the belief that the human brain is psychosexually neutral for the first 18 months postpartum and that any potential hormonal organization - activation can be overridden by environmental gender conditioning.

In short John Money's theories underpin the practice. Despite being gender role conditioned to the sex congruent with their genitalia classical transsexuals are not influenced by their upbringing.

Nor are slightly more than 30% of intersex infants who are given so-called pediatric gender assignment. In both cases brain biology is not being trumped by environmental determinism.

Once biological the 'mechanism' that determines the psychosexual experience of CT's is fully identified the behaviorist model will be put to rest - no more one-size-fits-all environmental determinism, and no way of knowing which baby can be brainwashed into believing they're whatever sex a surgeon thinks they ought to be.

You also commented:

I've always thought the Intersex Activists (genuine and not) were anti-transsexual -- at least that's the way they presented for so long.

Nope - I think your probably thinking of people like Cheryle Chase (Bo Laurent) and Denise Tree. They don't represent the bulk of intersex thinking. Unfortunately the organization they represented ISNA has had a much higher profile in the USA than it deserved.

Just as a genuine suggestion try exploring OII sometime. You will not find such antipathy there.

Its possible you may find a few more non sequitures.

Joanne:

"You also commented:

I've always thought the Intersex Activists (genuine and not) were anti-transsexual -- at least that's the way they presented for so long."

I certainly did NOT. And I have little interest in such controversies.

I am done with this. Please pick your fights with others.

My apologies Diankat

I accused you of saying:

I've always thought the Intersex Activists (genuine and not) were anti-transsexual -- at least that's the way they presented for so long."

That was a comment made by Tina and I wrongly attributed it to you. Please accept My apologies.

Suzan cleared up the mystery on why I suddenly am unworthy of links. Mary Daly. You see I defended her in death for the positive accomplishments of her life. Apparently my not being "trans identified" enough to see her as evil incarnate for having been Raymond's mentor means no common ground exists between us anymore.

I've also defended Raymond in the past. You see, the thing is I lined up in the feminist woman queue a long time ago precisely because there was nothing for me in the trans anything ones. And because of that, hbs, classic transsexual, autogynphiliac and transgender dogmas I'm always going to be outside of in some fashions because all those classes apparently, without exception, have loud, self appointed spokespeople who demand utter and total conformity to their world views and my entire life has been one of someone who thinks for herself, examines all beliefs, tests all her own positions constantly against reality and my core belief structure and personal sense of morality.

So further discussion on anything trans by me is pointless, something I figured out a long time ago but mistakenly thought might be changing. I pretty much gave up any blogging on trans related issues and restricted myself to comments on some blogs. Even that was a mistake. Have a nice life everyone and the last one surviving your circular firing squads should turn off the lights. Anyone actually interested in anything I have to say probably has my email address and is welcome to write.

I'm always going to be outside of in some fashions because all those classes apparently, without exception, have loud, self appointed spokespeople who demand utter and total conformity to their world views.

Daly was exactly that type of person and her views were why post-ops were hunted down and purged from women's organizations LONG before EITHER of us transitioned.

Whatever she contributed in other spheres, she and her disciples have caused a lot of grieve for those who changed sex REGARDLESS of how feminist or not they were, over the years. She did not believe we were or could be women. In that she was hurting some women... and all the other good she may have done has to be balanced against that... and for many of us that weighs more heavily.

I don't have any use for Mary Daly, nor do I honor her memory. Karen A and others have expressed disappontment with Daly, and have done so in a responsible way (given the grim content).

However, some have directed deep resentment toward Cathryn Platine, attacking her instead ot critiquing her argument. Cathryn's view is controversial in some quarters and susceptible to criticism. Why get personal about it?