An excellent article complimentary to the author’s previous presentation of historical facts all of which together serve to vividly illustrate the harm and impedence inflicted upon Transsexualism. Our condition had almost shaken off the aspects of stigma only to be undermined by the self serving propaganda and linguistic manipulation of those who seek to destroy us. Even the Catholic Church reversed its one time benevolence when transvestia and transgenderism raised their ugly heads, in an effort to normalise their deviance by hitchiking on our coat tails. .

Battles may have been won but I don’t think the war is over yet.

Some clarifications:

1. Transgender is a practical umbrella term for people who -- due to the prejudices in the ruling culture -- are considered violators of a presumed clear division between men and women. Crossdressers violate these rules because they dress up as women, even if they officially identify as men. Gender queer people offends by refusing to adhere to the binary. Transwomen are persecuted because they are considered men.

2. There are transgender activists that believe in the third gender narrative, but most do not. For me a male bodied person who identify as a woman is a woman. If she chooses to transition she should be respected and treated as a woman.

That does not stop her from being member of several subcategories of mankind at the same time. All people are. The fact that I am Norwegian, does not stop me from being a Scandinavian, a European or a citizen of the world.

A transwoman is (1) a woman-- no buts involved! -- and (2) she is -- because of her personal history and the way many fundamentalists look at transsexuals -- transgender. That does not make her less of a woman, in the same way that an African American woman continues to be a woman, even if white racists refuse her the respect they give white women.

You are trying to force one way for thinking about transgender onto everyone who uses the word as an umbrella term. I suggest that you look into that diversity.

3. I would also suggest that you stop stereoyping crossdressers. You say: "They are men who get some sort of sexual kick, sometimes even sexually dependency, on dressing as women for sexual gratification." That is the message of Ray Blanchard. You do not want to be his friend, believe me!

Yes, some do crossdress for sexual gratification. Crossdressers are, like most humans, sexual beings, and these crossdreamers dream of having sex as a woman. But the sexual side is normally only part of a much more complex condition. Most crossdressers report a deep felt identification with women (and normally *not* with some kind of third sex). Crossdressing is their way of expressing their inner woman.

Great many crossdressers chose to continue living as men, some of them because they do not understand themselves as women. Others, however, keep up their male persona out of fear of hurting their friends and family. They often suffer from severe gender dysphoria. Many have felt like women since childhood; others realize that they are women around the onset of puberty. Some come to this realization later in life after having tried in vain to please their community by living as men. Some of them decide to transition.

Given that a majority of transwomen are late transitioning gynephilic women, it is reasonable to expect that many of them did crossdress during the time they presented as men. Remember that any male bodied person who put on women's clothing is considered a crossdresser by society. Since we have no way of looking into the mind of that person, we have no way of determining if this is a man pretending to be a woman, or a woman who finally is able to be herself.

Given their attraction to women most crossdressers and crossdreamers will not have sex with men. Their attempts to live in "heterosexual" relationships with a woman will rarely give them the kind of sexual satisfaction most people seek. Crossdressing and crossdreaming will most likely be their only outlet for sexual desires. That does not make them perverts. It makes them human. If you insist on labeling these women as men, you are doing the majority of transwomen a great injustice.

4. Virginia Prince did *not* identify as trangender. Really! Repeating this untruth does not make it true.

Trangender is an umbrella term that encompasses all of the groups I mentioned above. Prince's term "transgenderist" was used for male bodied persons who adjusted their bodies to their target sex by hormone therapy and other means, but who did not go for genital surgery. I have read Prince and what she writes about post-op transsexuals is appalling. She believed post-op transwomen to be hypersexualized perverted men or inadequate men. I know of no current transgender activist who supports that nonsense.

Prince was a separatist, and like most militant separatist she has caused much suffering among transgender people.

5. Please stop this "transgender" are misogynistic men nonsense! I cannot even begin to tell you how offensive that is.

First of all it reveals a kind of stereotyping of men that I thought we had left behind in the late 70's. Secondly it reveals that you understand nothing of the kind of identification with women most male to female crossdressers and crossdreamers experience. They do not hate women. They admire them beyond everything in this world. If you really need to pathologize crossdressers and crossdreamers, it must be because so many of them have a completely unrealistic view of the perfection of women, and fail to see that women, like men, have their dark sides and imperfections.

As for homophobia, I have read more gay bashing in separatist blogs than I have heard from crossdressers and crossdreamers. Many in the HBS and CT crowd seem to believe that women have to be androphilic, and that "The Transgender Borg" is a conspiracy made by evil gay men.

Yes, there are homophobic crossdressers and crossdreamers. They have been brought up to believe that a man feeling like a woman must be gay, and that gay men are pathetic sinners. They therefore desperately fear the gay label. These are exactly the kind of male to female crossdressers and crossdreamers who join the military in desperate attempts at suppressing their own femininity.

But then again, the separatist side has its share of homophobes, women who are so afraid of being labelled a gay man by their friends and family that they help perpetuate the prejudices that makes all of this a problem in the first place.

So lets admit that there is human weakness on both sides in this conflict and stop building simplistic enemy images that only help the kind of fundamentalist conservatives that hate both homosexuals, crossdressers, *and* transwomen. It is actually their hatred that makes an LGBT alliance a sensible strategy, not the idea that all homosexual and transgender persons are the same. They are not!

6. SRS does not make you a woman. A woman is *not* defined by what is between her legs. Her sex identity is found in her head.

Like you I believe the core of our sex identity is inborn and natural, but it is completely naive to believe that *all* transwomen will chose the exact same path to self realization. Some of them will have to put the needs of their family before their own. Others will not go for surgery for medical or economic reasons, and some will come to the conclusion that in their particular case, the main objective is not to get a vagina but to be able to live and be loved as a woman. Given that the path of each and every one of them is different, neither you nor I have the information needed to be able to judge them in a fair manner.

7. Using the priestesses of Cybele or Inanna as proto-transwomen is a long stretch. The Sumerian, Greek and Roman cultures were very different from our own. As Foucault has demonstrated in his History of Sexuality the Greeks and Romans did not, for instance, share our understanding of homosexuality. That being said, the priestesses and temple prostitutes of Inanna and Cybele most likely identified as women and were respected as such. Other cultures, however, accepted the fact that people could embody both sexes, like the two spirited of some Native American tribes and like shamans in many cultures. Unlike the cult of Cybele, these do normally not require these persons to chop of their male genitals.

Respect for gender ambiguity is not a "transgender" invention. It common among open minds who respect the diversity of life and the creativity of God and nature.

You are a self confessed crossdressing autogynophile with no credentials at all. I have actually studied the Sumerians, Canaanites, Phrygians, Minoans etc for many many years. My background covers anthropology, psychology and sociology as well as ancient history. As for the fantasies that crossdressing is not rooted deeply in fetishistic behaviour, back in the earlier days of the internet they did not bother to hide that as you do, it was out there, in your face and they literally overran any trans themed chat area well over 100 to 1. I also did my own, informal study of the sexuality of so called heterosexual crossdressers, I say so called because almost all of them fantasized about sex with men.

I am not one of those that criticize people because they choose to identify as transgender. Not do I generalize about them. And you are right, calling someone transgender "does not make it so."

Precisely.

Yet you insist that a (presumably corrected) woman

is -- because of her personal history and the way many fundamentalists look at transsexuals -- transgender.

But I thought a principal point of your post was to insist that people be afforded the privilege of defining themselves! Or do you withhold that right from this single group?

And, if I might ask one more question, should a purely secular person with a Jewish sounding name have to identify generally as a "Jew" against her will because many racists insist that this is her proper identity? I trust that you would say no. The why do you explicitly use the same argument -- i.e. the views of haters -- to lump corrected individuals into a category that is anathema to them?

Sometimes I think that even many well-meaning transgenderists do not even realize that their arguments deny to corrected individuals the very rights they eloquently demand for themselves.

Sorry, I forgot I have an additional question for Jack.

You say ...Given that a majority of transwomen are late transitioning gynephilic women, it is reasonable to expect that many of them did crossdress during the time they presented as men.

What do you mean by gynephilic and what is the basis for your statement tht the majority fit this definition? And are you talking about post-corrected individuals or preops or both?

If by gynephilic you mean "attracted solely to women" and you are talking about post-corrected individuals only, I question your assumption.

Also, I am not aware of any persuasive study on ages of transition for corrected individuals. Can you point me to one?

I have to say that Jack Molay's posting is the biggest bunch of pure cross dresser twaddle I've ever seen. Lot's of claims and NO proof.

As far as V. Prince, it invented the term Transgender and her nonsense had NOTHING to do with taking hormones.

If "Jack" had bothered to read and study ANYTHING about Trans sexual women, he would have discovered that no one CLAIMS that SRS "makes them a woman"; In fact what is stated over and over is that the SRS just makes the body conform to what the brain already knew, that we ARE women.

Those that choose to remain Male without SRS in most cases are NOT Transsexual but permanent Crossdressers or Transgenderists. The exceptions of course being medical and financial reasons.
Now Jack should put his dress back in the closet and go back to work on Monday in his usual MALE mode.

"You are a self confessed crossdressing autogynophile with no credentials at all."

I am not a self confessed crossdressing autogynephile. I am not a crossdresser. Nor do I support the autogynephilia theory. I have now spent three years on debunking the theory of Blanchard over at my blog crossdreaming.com. However, I do not the deny the fact that transgender conditions may express themselves sexually. My understanding of what I call crossdreaming is very similar to the one of Julia Serrano (see her book Whipping Girl)

" I have actually studied the Sumerians, Canaanites, Phrygians, Minoans etc for many many years. My background covers anthropology, psychology and sociology as well as ancient history."

My background is from the social sciences and the humanities as well. For some strange reason I do not feel like sharing my CV yet, not in an atmosphere like this one.

"As for the fantasies that crossdressing is not rooted deeply in fetishistic behaviour, back in the earlier days of the internet they did not bother to hide that as you do."

Oh, I am sure there were people who did not fit your ideal of femininity back then, as there are now. But you are using your personal impressions to create an enemy image that makes it possible for you to discredit a whole group of people you clearly know very little about. Your need to distance yourself from the hated "transgender" requires that you turn all crossdressers and crossdreamers into perverted fetishists. If you don't, it becomes apparent that some (but not all) of these perverts are in fact transwomen.

I have learned to know a large number of crossdressers and crossdreamers and they are all different from each other. Sure, there are sex obsessed male to female crossdressers who believe all this is is a fetish or a perversion. There are even those that have bought the theory of Blanchard.

But there are also suicidal teenagers who have no language, no narrative and no friends to help them understand their own feelings. There are fathers and husbands who sacrifice the very core of their being to play the role that is expected of them. There are persons who live alone their whole life as they have no way of finding their crossdreaming opposites. These persons in all areas of society and contribute to the community as most people do. Over at crossdreamers.com I have also had quite a few comments and emails from female to male crossdreamers, who dream of taking the male role in a love relationship. Science has until recently denied their existence, but there are many of them.

The explanations given by crossdreamers vary: autogynephilia, fetish, psychological trauma, inborn femininity. This is not one unified "Borg". This is a diverse group of people who do their best to cope with a condition they did not ask for, and which -- because of the stigma attached to anything sexual -- suffer a lot from it.

As for the hypothesis that a majority of transwomen are late transitioners and gynephilic:

There is to my knowledge no research that tries to separate crossdreaming tranwomen (i.e. transswomen who admits to have been aroused by the idea of being a woman while having a male body) from non-cross-dreaming transwomen, and that compares the two. Instead many studies try to replicate or dismiss the findings of Ray Blanchard by using his typology: "homosexual transsexuals" (a misnomer for androphilic transwomen) vs. non-androphilic transwomen (i.e. gynephilic, bisexual and asexual transwomen). The "homosexuals" are according to this theory mentally healthy gay men and the "non-homosexuals" are perverted men. I believe his own findings proves that he is wrong: A significant number of his "homosexuals" report crossdreaming, while a significant part of his "non-homosexuals" does not. But given that this is the typology the scientists are using, it is the only proxy we got.

From what I see from follow up studies, it is correct that "non-androphilic" transwomen are more likely to report crossdreaming than "androphilic" ones. In all studies that encompass both groups, the "non-androphilic" is in majority. . Blanchard believes this is because they are not truly feminine. I believe it is because their attraction to women has made them try to adapt to the lives of men in order to find love. Their crossdressing and crossdreaming is their psyche's way of finding an outlet for a female sexuality, while Blanchard (and most "separatists") believe it is an expression of a male sexuality.

The system here stops me from adding links to relevant posts on my blog (calling it spam content). Send an email to jack.molay@gmail.com and I'll send the references.

Don't hold your breath. My first contact with trans was a mixed support group (in person) and several online mixed groups. Over the years I have spoken with over a hundred wives of people like you, their impressions were the same as mine. Men with zero understanding of what a woman's life is like but utterly convinced they did and were somehow more sensitive for playing dressup and at their core mysogynistic men who reduce women to artifice, clothing and body parts. I have visited your site, I took a long shower afterwards.

Cross-dressing males are not rare. So, I would guess that the majority of hormones in the TeeGee community is testosterone. Transgender rights is more about men's rights than women's rights.

For a discussion of the transsexual statistics, see Beyond Ourselves: The Children of Transsexuals by moi. Scroll down to the section titld "Rare and Random ..." [ link ]

Jack, the system we use does not stop you from "adding links to relevant posts" on your blog. People regularly supply links, as I did in the comment titled "What is rare".

Your entry was identified as spam content because your browser identified itself to our server with an invalid "User-Agent". Many spammers do not have this information.

The system flags attempts without valid "User-Agent" information as high-probability spam. While not perfect, it does have a provably high success rate.

If you ever need assistance, please navigate to our site comment facility and describe your problem. We will decide how to help.

TS-Si General Comments [ link ]

Rare, indeed! Aren't we so lucky to have all of those men fighting for our..I mean, their rights.

Seriously, what is your motivation? Do you need validation from us? Early vs. late transitioners, Julia Serano, the Blanchard and Bailey three ring circus,...all you left out was that chart in the front of Harry Benjamin's book he only put there because of Kinsey's work and pretty much never referred back to the entire rest of the book. Serano had a single, not all that original thought in a book that was little more than a collection of blog entries. How did she somehow become the goddess of the TGs?

I had a lot of sympathy for folks like you dealing with the nature of your fetishes until I discovered how much you hate women like me. Irrational, violent hatred. So why are you here pushing your stuff?

Jack,
I don't think I've ever seen so much nonsensical twaddle on thee pages as what you posted above. You may have "read" some books, but they were often full of bull.

This paragraph has to be the most idiotic ting I've seen:

There is to my knowledge no research that tries to separate crossdreaming tranwomen (i.e. transswomen who admits to have been aroused by the idea of being a woman while having a male body) from non-cross-dreaming transwomen, and that compares the two. Instead many studies try to replicate or dismiss the findings of Ray Blanchard by using his typology: "homosexual transsexuals" (a misnomer for androphilic transwomen) vs. non-androphilic transwomen (i.e. gynephilic, bisexual and asexual transwomen). The "homosexuals" are according to this theory mentally healthy gay men and the "non-homosexuals" are perverted men. I believe his own findings proves that he is wrong: A significant number of his "homosexuals" report crossdreaming, while a significant part of his "non-homosexuals" does not. But given that this is the typology the scientists are using, it is the only proxy we got.

It shows a total lack of ANY understanding of the subject and if I were teaching a class and you turned in that nonsense, I'd grade you an "F" for any lack of support for its claims.

Now back to your closet or is it the same gay bars that Bailey hangs in.

Everyone should take care to avoid personal insults and stick to the issues.

Have you seen his article on crossdressing deer? Yes, the animal..No, I am not kidding.

@dianakat
" I might ask one more question, should a purely secular person with a Jewish sounding name have to identify generally as a 'Jew' against her will because many racists insist that this is her proper identity?"

No, but a person born into a Norwegian community by Norwegian parents, must expect to be considered both a Norwegian, a Scandinavian and a European, regardless how much she believes herself to be an African. If she is part of a Jewish family in Norway, she will also be considered a Jew. If she is adopted from Korea, at least some will also consider her a Korean as well. These are overlapping and non-exclusive categories. Not all transgender people are crossdressers, but some are. Not all transgender people are transsexuals, but some are. This is a simple descriptive category used to describe a group of people who share some challenges, but not all. I am not offended by being categorized in the same groups as Swedes and Transwomen. That does not make me a Swedish transwoman. Nor does being categorized as transgender turn you into a crossdresser.

@diankat
On a majority of transwomen being gynephilic: "What do you mean by gynephilic and what is the basis for your statement tht the majority fit this definition? And are you talking about post-corrected individuals or preops or both? "

By gynephilic I mean a sexual orientation towards women. I have noted that in many of the studies of transwomen I have read, androphilic tranwomen seem to be in minority. I wish I could point you to one thorough and critical study of this phenomenon, but I have not found any. I have put up links to a selection of studies over at my blog, including links to the papers themselves. (It was the number of links in my post that caused it to be suspected of being a spam post, given that the post went through after i had removed the links). Most of these studies include clients and/or other respondents who identify as transwomen, and who are either post op or who are aiming at getting SRS.

http://www.crossdreamers.com/2011/08/ts-si-discussion-on-crossdressers.html

@cathryn and others
"I have visited your site, I took a long shower afterwards."

I am fascinated by the debate techniques used by several of the women taking part in this and similar TS vs. TG discussions. I ask for respect for the diversity of the crossdresser/crossdreamer population, and you answer by reducing us all to misogynistic and unclean men. Ironically, this is exactly the type of "male suppression techniques" the Norwegian feminist Berit Ås describes:
- Making Invisible
- Ridiculing
- Withholding Information
- Damned If You Do And Damned If You Don’t
- Heaping Blame and Putting to Shame

Attempts at discrediting me by insinuating lack of academic credentials is also a standard technique used by men to belittle women. Given that you are promoting a site that is supposed to be scientific, you should know that in science the arguments count, not your title.

There is no way you have read anything on my blog, because if you did, you would have seen that I constantly and systematically argue for gender equality and against stereotyping used to suppress women.

@Pamela
"This paragraph has to be the most idiotic ting I've seen [reference to my paragraph on Blanchard] It shows a total lack of ANY understanding of the subject and if I were teaching a class and you turned in that nonsense, I'd grade you an 'F' for any lack of support for its claims."

This is another example of trying to discredit the opponent, not by making arguments, but by trying to undermine his or her legitimacy. The paragraph Pamela refers to gives a very short summary of the theory of Ray Blanchard. The text tells you exactly what Blanchard claims, and if you, Pamela, had read his work, you would have known. I believe Blanchard is wrong. I find Blanchard's terminology offensive. But this is his message, and later studies on sub-categories of transwomen do, unfortunately, have to relate to his terminology and his categories. I have to relate to that.

I suspect that you have pulled the trigger before reading the paragraph through, believing that I support Blanchard's view. I suspect your prejudices are overruling your empathy, stopping you from giving both me and others like me the benefit of doubt.

"Now back to your closet or is it the same gay bars that Bailey hangs in. "

Fascinating! You actually want to force gay men back into the closet? How compassionate of you! I guess this is you empathic femininity talking. The problem is of course that a majority of male to female crossdressers and crossdreamers are gynephilic, including me. Not that it makes any difference. I will be defending gay men and lesbians till the day I die.

@Dana Lane Taylor
"Have you seen his article on crossdressing deer? Yes, the animal..No, I am not kidding."

But you haven't really read the article, have you, Dana? No, I guessed not. Because if you had, you would have understood that the headline was my (failed?) attempt at humor. The message in this article, as in many of my others, is that cultural gender stereotypes are projected onto animal studies by prejudiced scientists. The animal studies are then used to legitimize the suppression of women and male bodied persons who identify with women. This I have learned from the great scientist and transwoman, Joan Roughgarden. Take a look at her book: " Evolution's Rainbow". Fascinating stuff!

@Sharon S. Gaughan
"For a discussion of the transsexual statistics, see Beyond Ourselves: The Children of Transsexuals by moi. Scroll down to the section titld "Rare and Random ...""

Thank you! This is useful!

@Cathryn
"Seriously, what is your motivation [for taking part in this conversation]? "

Well, it is definitely not hatred of transwomen.

I have two objectives. Since I sincerely believe transwomen on the one hand and crossdressers/crossdreamers on the other hand have certain challenges in common, it makes sense for them to help each other.

Some crossdressers and crossdreamers do transition. I see that you refuse to answer the question regarding whether they are real women or perverted men, but in my book -- at least -- they are women. They need your help, and I have this (admittedly naive) belief that communication and learning can generate both understanding and compassion on both sides.

However, I realize that although a majority of transwomen identify as transgender, there is one group of transwomen that think that any association with crossdressers and crossdreamers will undermine their legitimacy as women, and that crossdressers and crossdreamers must therefore be -- to use Pamela's terminology -- forced back into the closet.

It angers me that TS-Si, a site which I love for its great coverage of relevant science, has become a propaganda machine for attacks against people like myself. Given that many crossdreamers and crossdresser go to this site in order to find information that might help them understand who they are, I think it is important to include the message that not all transgender people believe they are male chauvinist creeps.

Transsexuality is a neurological birth condition that has absolutely nothing in common with transvestism. Your agenda is the same as so many others of your kind, to deliberately confuse the two for some sort of perceived legitimacy for your psycho-sexual disorder by linking it to a neurological pre-natal intersexed condition.

Further, had you read anything I have written you would know that referring to me as a transgender or transwoman is about the worst possible insult you could hurl at me. Many, if not most of the other WOMEN who comment here feel the same. I cannot speak for Lisa or Sharon but no where in any of the stated purposes of this website will you find any reference to transgender/transvestite issues as the purpose of this website.

Blunt enough for you?

The use of androphilia and gynephilia has been advanced by "behavioral science" to describe sexual orientation. They have by no means achieved hard science consensus.

TS-Si has always supported the civil rights and liberties of all people.

The primary focus, however, is the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.

Among our many articles, we carry a section with opinion columns. Those columnists who are people of history frequently address topics relevant to the broad span of life, as well as aspects of sex and gender. The columnists, and those who comment on their work, work independently and often disgree with each other.

Hardly a "propaganda machine" for attacks against people like you.

We do not have information here tailored to the aid of crossdreamers and/or crossdressers -- and never have. That is not our mission. From time to time we are attacked for that fact, despite the plethora of fantasy and/or fetish sites available elsewhere.

Finally, I suppose it is so that not all transgender people believe they are "male chauvinist creeps", it is just that most act that way. Disregard for your situation and personal justification does not imply disdain. The latter is earned or avoided, depending on behavior.

by women of history. Seriously Jack? You went there? Typical.

You want an answer from me regarding those who have penises and plan on keeping them being women? I should have thought that would have been crystal clear. They are men, not women.

At the outset, let me say I bear no ill will toward you, or any others that identify as a member of any gender-variant group. I support everyone's efforts to live the way they want, and I support strong civil rights protections for them. And I am perhaps in the minority of the relatively frequent commentators here in that I see much value in the LGBT alliance.

But I do have serious concern with the attempt by noncorrected individuals to categorize and explain the nature and experience of corrected individuals, contrary to the beliefs and understanding of the relatively small and discrete group that actually goes through the process.

It can be sort of like reading a "women's guide to men," or "men's guide to women," but without a trace of recognition of the irony.

Regarding your justification of classifying post-corrected people against their will, in response to my hypothetical about persons rejecting the "Jewish" label, you say

No, but a person born into a Norwegian community by Norwegian parents, must expect to be considered both a Norwegian, a Scandinavian and a European, regardless how much she believes herself to be an African. If she is part of a Jewish family in Norway, she will also be considered a Jew.

I would note that the ascriptive term "transgender" does NOT have the legal and historical significance of a term like Norwegian. Rather the term is of very recent (and clearly political) lineage. IMO the term should not be applied by some groups to characterize other groups (to which the people making the characterization DO NOT belong).

Also, it borders on the offensive to suggest that a failure to accept the forcable application of this terminology by people who know little of this small and discrete group is tantamount to a person not understanding what continent on which she was born.

To the extent that you suggest that your country would in fact characterize people against their will as members of a religion to which they eschew, that does bespeak some consistency on your part, but to be honest it is very disappointing to hear.

Regarding your conclusions about the sexual orientation of corrected individuals, I have not searched your blog for the study links. But let say this: If the majority of corrected women are attracted solely to women, I must have the most extraordinarily skewed set of acquaintances imaginable! But I suspect from your description of the studies, the samples are badly flawed, at least to the extent that they are used to prove this point. Let me give you a few reasons.

First, they apparently include pre and noncorrected individuals simply because they identify as "transwomen." I would be surprised if there were not PROFOUND differences between the views of people in these groups and those of post-corrected individuals. There are many reasons for that, but I do not want to get to TLDR here.

Such samples likely are also skewed for another reason. Many if not most of the post-corrected individuals I know vehemently reject the "transwoman" or "transgender" labels, and regularly decline even to participate in such studies if such identification were required. Indeed, it is well known in the corrected community (but I am not sure elsewhere) that most such samples are badly skewed for this reason.

Finally, even in the rare study where a more correction-friendly identification (like "women of TS history") is permitted, the small numbers of corrected participants likely would be overwhelmed by the much larger TG groups. Hence I would caution against deriving any conclusions whatsoever about the small subgroup of corrected individuals from such studies.

If I may be frank, I believe that your constant referral of post-corrected women as "transwomen" belies a lack of understanding of the group. This lack of understanding prevails even among reasonable members of your TG community. I mean no personal offense by this. It is very common. But it does highlight the problems of a nonmember of a group lecturing that group on their nature.

Indeed, while lectures and instruction from others is very common, there rarely is any attempt from persons outside the group of women of TS history to look at things from their viewpoint. Rather women of history simply are told about themselves and criticized for not conforming with the attitudes and behavior of people that are entirely different.

And then people wonder why some react angrily.

But I am not angry. And I appreciate your attempt to deal with these issues.

Dianakat, my thanks for your temperate comments. As you rightly pointed out, the studies of sexual orientation among corrected individuals are indeed badly flawed.

-- There has never been a large-scale longitudinal study of corrected people of history, nor are they explicitly included in such studies of the general female and/or male population.

-- The targeted, very small-scale, studies that do exist almost entirely depend on self-identification of the participants as to their existing pre-op status and/or their stated intention to obtain correction.

-- Very few studies focus on sexual orientation, even with the above limitations. In most case, orientation is incidental to other concerns (such as general health, hormone dosage, and lifestyle factors).

-- For those studies that deal with sexual orientation, the researchers depend on participant polling as a substitute for direct social observation and carefully designed questionnaires.

-- General conclusions about the larger group of post-corrected people of history depend on a meta-analysis of studies to derive their conclusions. In hard science, a rigorous meta-analysis combines normalized data from several studies, that address a set of related datasets and research hypotheses, to generate testable conclusions at a larger scale. However, orthodox social science practioners seldom do this; instead, they skip to qualitative conclusions.

There is gathering interest among biologists and some sciologists in getting this right, but until then we are left with anecdotal evidence. I can provide some of that, based on several years of continuing contact with an arguably large group of post-corrected individuals.

We engage in voluminous private correspondence with both pre- and post-corrected individuals around the world. Again the evidence is anecdotal, but here in brief is what we have observed. Please remember these are general observations -- there are always some exceptions.

-- For those who are serious about transition, who actively seek and often obtain it, certainty about one's sexual orientation is of lower priority than correction.

-- Liaisons during the pre-op period do show a disproportion of same-sex liaisons when compared to the general population, which may be the consequence of intense and limited friendships within a confined social circle.

-- For those who obtain correction, their acknowledged sexual orientation becomes more self-certain with the passage of time from correction.

-- For those who obtain correction, their sexual orientation appears to be in about the same proportions as the general population, particularly as time passes from correction.

The problem is of course that a majority of male to female crossdressers and crossdreamers are gynephilic,

Nice try, but as pointed out by others, the studies are flawed; I don't go around advertising my past when in the company of males, and I find many of them attractive too, but at my age, I'm not really interested in a "relationship", so I don't seek one.

RE: Blanchard

But this is his message, and later studies on sub-categories of transwomen do, unfortunately, have to relate to his terminology and his categories. I have to relate to that.

If you "relate" to his "terminology and categories, then you ARE accepting his theories and statements. He is one that thinks being "Transsexual is a choice and has instituted "therapies" to correct it often at the mental expense of his patients. He is wrong of course and many avoid his clinic because of his beliefs and practices. His clinic was mainly established to treat Sexual deviants and that has slanted his views of "Transsexuals".

In regard to the "closet and gay bars; Your views seem to reflect those of Bailey and that's where he apparently collected his "information" , from a very limited clientele and with no scientific method; His book of "science" had no supporting data and did not really qualify as a legitimate study.

Sorry, BUT "Crossdressers and "crossdreamers ??" are NOT women; women do not have a penis. That some may transition is most probably explained by the fact that they suffer from autogynephillia, the most notable one being Anne Lawrence who is self confessed. Their goals and those of Transsexual and post Transsexual women are quite divergent for the most part. The practice of changing DL's, Birth certificates, and Social security records based just on just a Therapist's letter with no or very minimal surgery or hormone usage is not favorable to a Transsexual woman as it confuses the issue and does not reflect reality, only the fantasy of the crossdresser or transgenderist who retains all the male sexual characteristics.

However, I realize that although a majority of transwomen identify as transgender,

Sorry, here you are making a claim NOT supported by the facts. Transgender has now come to include everything from Crossdresser to female impersonators and bear no relation to those that are Transsexual. Most TS women I know, both pre and post Op reject the "transgender label" which is continually trying to be forced on them as part of some imaginary "umbrella"; Nor are we a part of the LGB crowd as their goals are not ours, except for those Transsexual women that ID themselves as being Lesbian (or gay for FtM's).

I have nothing against Transgenderists and crossdressers and indeed have some friends that fall into those categories; But to put it simply, their goals and concerns are not mine although we may enjoy shopping together and even social activities such as dinner out, visiting a Jazz Club ( not a gay or crossdressing site) and even taking in a movie. The crossdressers I know are nice people and so are their wives.

I think Sharon and dianakat have expressed it much better than I am able to express it.

@ Jack. Just to refresh my memory I reread most of Benjamin's book today. You can find it online here ... http://www.transgenderzone.com...phenom.pdf

Although published in 1966 he uses a database through 1964 of approximately 250 of his patients 151 of whom he deemed TS and 51 of whom were post op. At the time he published there were no U.S. surgeons doing SRS. In the book you will find many concepts agreeable with your thoughts. But remember that Harry strongly qualified everything in his book as nascent theory subject to future radical revision in the course of further elucidation and investigation of Transsexuality.

Why bring up these numbers? Lets fast forward to the most recent decade. From 2001-2010 there were approximately 7 North American Doctors performing SRS and at least 13 more in other countries which were frequented by U.S. citizens. 20 doctors times 10 years is 2,000 times 200 surgeries a year gets a total or 40,000 post op MTF's in that single decade. Cut it in half and you still have 20,000. Now add in 1991-2000 and each decade past through 1970. The most conservative estimate I can come to is 50,000 post op women in the U.S. and the most aggressive calculation would be about 200,000.

Now Jack, ask yourself "where are all these women"? The highest number I see who are active on the web in your "transgender" discussions is a few thousand and with any prominence is more like twenty or thirty. In fact most of the post operative women could care less about GLBT and are very happy googling other topics. In fact if you read carefully you will find buried in Harry's book the statement that the sexual orientation of the 51 post ops mirrored that of women in society. Yes I know it was a very limited sample.

So Jack, if you seriously want to understand what is going on I suggest you study women. There are approximately 115 million women in the U.S. over the age of 20 and it is in that population where you will find 99% or more of the corrected ones who were born with male genitalia. Good luck with that Mr. Jack.

It may be useful to go back to a point made by the author to explain to someone who is not a woman of history why the attribution of a special category outside the gender binary (like trans-whatever) may be regarded as offensive. As the author of the original article says ...

People born transsexed HAVE to eventually correct their bodies to the maximum possible and have always fully identified as the sex their brains are hardwired neurologically. It is criminal, almost to the point of a hate crime, to degender them ...

Indeed, many move heaven and earth to achieve their proper place in the sexes. It is no exaggeration to say that many risk their very lives to complete the surgery. Believe me, it is no exaggeration.

IMO, you cannot begin to know what is involved in a full physical, social, and legal transition, unless you have done it. (No offense to the preops, who are happily learning. ;) ) One must devote her primary effort, above ALL else, to getting this done.

And all this sacrifice is made to achieve the proper sex and gender congruence. In the case of an M2F, to be completely and unequivocally female. Just imagine the drive necessary to require that -- imagine the profound psychological need to obtain that.

The effort to characterize the people that go through all this as part of some third category on some transgender spectrum, as not really entitled to the sexual congruity they have achieved, is a terrible strike at the very heart of such a person.

I guess that TG people gain some credibility by associating with people of history. And perhaps there is some room for that. Certainly we can be allies in the fight against unfair discrimination.

But is it really fair to toss aside what post-corrected individuals have achieved in terms of their psychic peace by lumping them with every group with any kind of (often casual) gender variance? To many, that is precisely what the permanent application of the various "trans" labels does.

Sorry for talking so much on this comment thread. But I thought the author's point on this was worth restating.

...especially if they are on point, thoughtful, and informative -- as they have been in this thread. I am beaming in my female psychic peace (;->

Very nicely stated, dianakat! :-)

@Cathryn
"Transsexuality is a neurological birth condition that has absolutely nothing in common with transvestism."

That is your opinion. As far as i can see, the jury is out on this one. The real gender dysphoria felt by a large number of crossdressers and crossdreamers (i.e. people who get aroused by the idea of becoming their target sex) leads me to believe that there is much more to this than a fetish. The fact that I, not being a crossdresser, face many of the same challenges as crossdressers, tells me that this is not about being turned on by feminine attire per se.

I am unable to explain what I feel as a fetish or a perversion. No one in his or her right mind choses to go down this path, in the same way as no one chooses to become transsexual. Many crossdreamers and crossdressers disagree with me on this, but I believe that at least part of this must be inborn. The fact that a significant number of transwomen have a crossdresser/crossdreamer past strengthens this belief. By the way, Harry Benjamin, who has been turned into an icon by the HBS tribe, was of the same opinion.

"Further, had you read anything I have written you would know that referring to me as a transgender or transwoman is about the worst possible insult you could hurl at me."

I use the word "transwoman" to refer to women who have been born with a male body, to distinguish them from women born with a female body. Transwomen have a unique life experience that is not shared by other women, and when we discuss trans issues I need a term to be able to refer to this sub category of women. If there are other terms you find less offensive, I will, of course, use them. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, though: To me a transwoman is a woman, with no footnotes or small print.

There is nothing I can do about you finding the term "transgender" offensive. You are trying to redefine the concept "transgender" in order to force people to think in the same way as you do. By saying that you are offended you also try to imbue the term "transgender" with negative connotations. You are offended by being associated with people like me, which -- of course -- I find offensive.

If we leave transgender as a neutral umbrella term and agree that a crossdresserr is normally not the same as a transsexual, no one should feel offended.

@Sharon
"The use of androphilia and gynephilia has been advanced by "behavioral science" to describe sexual orientation. They have by no means achieved hard science consensus."

That is true. I used the terms for practical purposes.

Most researchers studying transgender and transsexual conditions are using the term "homosexual" and "heterosexual", referring to the body at birth. A lesbian transwoman therefore becomes "heterosexual", which is not only offensive, but extremely confusing for those who do not know the genre. I have found that many outsiders get equally confused about using the target sex as reference point for sexual orientation, wich is why I have given up using perfectly reasonable terms like "heterosexual" and "homosexual".

" I suppose it is so that not all transgender people believe they are 'male chauvinist creeps', it is just that most act that way. "

No, they do not. This is exactly the kind of generalizations that serve to dehumanize a group, in the same way transwomen have been called everything from "prostitutes" and "shemales" to "ugly men in frocks". Yes, there are crossdresser and crossdreamers who behave like a**holes. You will find people like that in all groups, including the transsexual separatists (see Rose White's latest book).

The fact that many crossdreamers and crossdressers find no outlet for their inner personality and sexuality, and often lack the language needed to make sense of what they feel, also mean that some of them get isolated. Isolation and stigmatization often breed aggression and hatred. That is not an excuse, only an explanation.

The great majority of the crossdressers and crossdreamers I know of are good people who do their best to help their friends, families and colleagues. They go on, in spite of everything. They are real human beings. Some of them are also transsexuals who chose not to transition, out of fear of hurting their loved ones, or for other reasons. They do not deserve scorn.

@dianakat
"But I do have serious concern with the attempt by noncorrected individuals to categorize and explain the nature and experience of corrected individuals, contrary to the beliefs and understanding of the relatively small and discrete group that actually goes through the process. "

If we followed this principle, no group could ever say anything about any other group, as they would lack the necessary life experience.

You are right, of course, I cannot truly know how a post-op traswoman really feels, in the same way I cannot truly understand how it is to be a Malaysian Muslim, a supporter of the American Tea Party movement or a gay man. But if there is to be a debate, we must at least try to use or intellect and our empathy to put ourselves in the shoes of the other.

I have found that I have enough in common with a Malaysian Muslim to develop a reciprocal respect and understanding. There is enough of the woman in any man and enough of the man in any woman for great authors to develop genuine and believable fictional characters of the opposite sex. This tells me that the stereotypical "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" way of thinking is bogus.

Following your logic, no "corrected" transwoman or transman should ever say anything about the nature of the crossdresser/crossdreamer conditions. According to your own logic you know nothing about what it is like to be me. I, on the other hand, think you have the right to make any statement you want about people like me, but if you do, you must also be willing to engage in a constructive dialog. I am glad to see that you are willing to do so!

"If the majority of corrected women are attracted solely to women, I must have the most extraordinarily skewed set of acquaintances imaginable! But I suspect from your description of the studies, the samples are badly flawed, at least to the extent that they are used to prove this point."

Yes, the samples are badly flawed, no doubt about it, and I truly wish we had a dedicated survey on the sexual orientation of post-op women. We do not, as far as I know.

I did not come up with the idea of the majority of transwomen being gynephilic by myself, of course. The first time I heard about this was from Cloudy over at The Science of Changing Sex. Being a "transkid" and Blanchard supporter, she made use of Blanchard's statistics, which again are based on patients at the Clarke Clinic in Toronto.

Needless to say, the fact that these numbers came from Blanchard is in itself suspect, but he could hardly have controlled the sexual orientation of the MTF patients seeking treatment at the clinic. In fact, as he believes all non-autogynephilic "hetereosexual transsexuals" to be lying, he should have expected the majority of the patients to say that they were androphilic (which used to be the "correct" answer if you wanted to be perceived as feminine).They did not.

I have discussed this with experts I know, including sexologists in Norway and Thailand. My Thai friend tells me that it is widely known that a majority of male bodied persons seeking surgery in Thailand are gynephilic, even if nearly all Kathoeys are androphilic. But she does not have the numbers to back this up either, which is why I gathered data from a wide variety of studies. These led me to the opposite conclusion of Sharon's, although I wholeheartedly agree that the very concept of a stable and unalterable sexual orientation is questionable, especially in the case of transsexuals. I have read several biographies written by transwomen who report a gradual change in sexual orientation after transitioning. Indeed, i suspect that the idea of there being only two types of sexual orientation, homosexual and heterosexual, is not in accordance with the real human nature.

Note that my point is not that the large proportion of gynephilic transwomen make them less feminine. The existence of lesbian women and gay men tells us that sex identity does not follow from sexual orientation. This also means that it is not obvious that we would find the same distribution as regards sexual orientation among transwomen as among other women. The sexual orientation is not embedded in same part of the brain as the sex identity. If it were, there would be no XX lesbians.

My point is that being a gynephilic transwoman brings up a completely different socio-cultural context than for the androphilic ones, and that this may at least partly explain why the gynephilic ones are more likely to try harder to adapt to life as a man, transition late, and have a past as a crossdresser and/or crossdreamer.

I note that none of you are willing to say how these transwomen fit into a world view where crossdressers and transwomen are supposed to have nothing in common.

@Pamela

The majority of crossdressers and crossdreamers are definitely gynephilic, in the sense of being exclusively or predominately attracted to the female body. I base this on my wide correspondence with crossdressers and crossdreamers from all over the world, and the few studies that have been done on crossdressers. http://www.crossdreamers.com/2...sers.html

What many find confusing is the fact that many crossdressers/crossdreamers still fantasize about having sex as a woman with a man. I believe that this is due them having a basic "feminine" receptive sexual instincts. Other crossdreamers argue that it is caused by a cultural association between being a passive receptor and being feminine (I have read enough romance novels and studies of female sexual fantasies to know that this is common among women as well).

The perfect match for a male to female crossdreamer would be a female to male crossdreamer, in the same way a lesbian "femme" will look for a "butch". The FTM crossdreamers do definitely exist, but the two groups find it hard to meet. It is not like they are wearing crossdreamer buttons or t -shirts.

By the way: The very existence of female bodied crossdressers/crossdreamers prove that these conditions are not the product of a typical male sexuality. This is why Blanchard so far has failed to recognize the existence of "autoandrophiliacs". He cannot understand how androphilic/heterosexual women can develop a "masculine" sexuality.

"If you "relate" to his "terminology and categories, then you ARE accepting his theories and statements. He is one that thinks being "Transsexual is a choice and has instituted "therapies" to correct it often at the mental expense of his patients."

No, I relate to a lot of theories without buying them. The problem is that so may researchers make use of his terms when studying transsexuals. This limits their value, but since they are the only ones we got we have to use them to the best of our ability. This requires knowledgeable and critical reading. That's what I am trying to do over at my blog.

I do not often come to the defense of Ray Blanchard, but in this case I have to. He actually believes that both androphilic and non-androphilic transwomen suffer from an inborn condition that can not be corrected through psychotherapy. He believes that androphilic transwomen are extremely feminine gay men, and sexual orientation is inborn in his book. He believes non-androphilic transwomen suffer from an inborn condition that turns their natural sexual orientation towards women inward (a erotic target location error). He argues that transitioning may be a solution for people from both groups, in spite of not recognizing any of them as women. Needless to say, I do not agree with him, but it would be wrong to say that he advocates the use of correctional psychotherapies.

"Most TS women I know, both pre and post Op reject the "transgender label" which is continually trying to be forced on them as part of some imaginary "umbrella""

I guess that any transsexual friend of yours who has a crossdressing/crossdreaming past or who identifies with the term transgender would be very careful not to mention that to you, in order to save that friendship. Or maybe they just left.

I have looked at the US National Transgender Discrimination Survey, to see if we can learn something about how transsexuals identify.

Out of 6258, respondents 4039 identified strongly as transgender, 1601 somewhat as transgender, and 618 did not at all identify with the word transgender. All right, that does not tell you much, given that the respondents include both crossdressers, transsexuals and other transgender people. However, 46% of the respondents identify as transsexual (which, by my account is 2879). If we say that all 618 opponents to the term are transsexual (which is questionable) , that would mean that 21% of the transsexuals do not identify with the term transgender. The others do. I guess some transsexuals would refuse to take part in such a study, but we are still left with a large proportion of transsexuals identifying as transgender.

@Deena
"Now Jack, ask yourself "where are all these women"? The highest number I see who are active on the web in your "transgender" discussions is a few thousand and with any prominence is more like twenty or thirty."

You are so right, and that number is more or less the same as the number of prominent separatist transwomen being active online.

Most transwomen live their lives as women and do not get involved in this debate, probably because they are sick and tired of it. But is this because they support your cause or is it because they know that this is not a world of black and white? I suspect that many of them shut up because they do not want to get involved in a meaningless debate about the purity of their womanhood. If they admitted to having had crossdreaming fantasies or to a crossdressing past they would automatically be excluded by most separatists, and who wants that?

@all of you
All things considered, I think this is one of the most constructive TS/TG debates I have taken part in so far, and will thank you for that. I do not think that we have to agree on anything, but I do believe in the value of respect and in discussions based on sound arguments, critical thinking and relevant research.

said of Cathryn that she was "trying to redefine the concept 'transgender' in order to force people to think in the same way as you do". I disagree and note you have it backwards.

People born transsexual made their way for decades before Transgenderism ever arrived. It was the TG advocates who unfolded the umbrella and included us without our consent.

I had said I "suppose it is so that not all transgender people believe they are 'male chauvinist creeps', it is just that most act that way." Jack, however, says they do not.

My statement was not a generalization intended to dehumanize a group, but reflects the reality of a female living in a world largely dominated by males. My meaning woud have been more clear had I substituted "transgender activists" for "transgender people".

My bad.

opinion, anyone who denies the reality of the neurological prenatal nature of those born transsexed is about on the same level a climate change denier at this point. Theory?, yes but one apparently backed up by study after study without a single study in opposition.

Harry Benjamin was not Divine, he was a researcher who got a lot surprisingly right given the information available to him at the time and would have been the first to modify his positions given additional information. Today we have certain "markers" for those born transsexed, early onset of self knowledge being a biggie. Sexual response of a female neurological central nervous system another as there exists a definite difference between a male and a female neurological response regardless of pre corrected or post corrected, something the autogynophiles apparently remain ignorant about.

Jack, you knowingly insulting me by applying the "transwoman" and transgender labels which you almost could not have not known was offensive. In my opinion you are clearly male and yes, I draw a distinct line between you and myself.

Jack,

I know you intend to be done here. I will not try to pull you back against your will, so I will avoid being argumentative. But I wish to clarify a few aspects of my views in light of your response, and to answer a question you have posed several times.

1. I do NOT object to others speaking about women of transsexual history or trying to understand them. In the end, such efforts will be productive.

I won't speak for Sharon or Lisa, but it seems to me that such discussion and improvement of understanding of transsexuals is a purpose of this site itself.

But much of what is presented by transgenderists online and in the activist culture -- and I am NOT including you -- amounts to little more than a lecture to us about what and who we are, by people outside the group. Those lectures often seem affected by the speakers' (or writers') personal political ideology and even personal psychology. Questionable generalizations are made without evidence. And as I stated, such generalizations often are phrased in a way, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes not, that amounts to a direct attack on the very identity of women of transsexual history. I will note once more that corrected women are a group that have lived through constant and intense social pressure on their identities, and finally (apparently also now in the view of the DSM 5) have achieved the appropriate balance.

So, I hope you will understand if there is some sensitivity on our part, when someone categorizes us. Unless one actually has corrected m2f, our place in the taxonomy is almost always done on the basis of very limited and faulty understanding. This is in part because of the limitations in the science we all have acknowledged.

In such circumstances, if someone wishes to understand us, it can help actually to listen to us.

At a minimum, I hope anyone reading these comments will have some sensitivity in how they discuss the issues. And, perhaps that they will read some of the science on sites like this, before they make pronouncements.

2. I emphatically do NOT view your condition as a perversion and I support your right to explore its nature. And I do NOT outright reject any connection between people in your group and post-op transsexuals. My guess is that there are some physiological aspects to at least some transgender conditions, which may have similarities to the physiological contributors to transsexualism. The science may bear that out. But overall and by definition, there are significant differences in the groups which lead to profound differences in life experience.

3. I will try to answer the question (for myself) that you say has gone unanswered. I do not have it readily at hand now but I think basically the question you have asked several times is whether a crossdreamer/dresser who transitions m2f is a "woman."

From my perspective, ANY m2f that achieves full correction is a woman. Period. I don't care what her motivations were, or how feminine or masculine she is after correction. There are natal women of all stripes and styles, and there are corrected women of all stripes and styles. I eschew all efforts to kick people out of the club.

I also think all real pre-ops and many transgender persons should be treated as women, and I will not call anyone a gender to which he or she does not identify. In some cases, line drawing may be necessary for certain legal and medical reasons, but I do not wish to press that hot button in this mainly civil discourse.

4. In terms of an inoffensive label for us, good luck! I would have to confess that almost every label offends someone in the community. ;) But for me, on the rare occasions when one can't just say woman or person, "woman of transsexual history," or "post-op transsexual woman" are acceptable. That is they are acceptable if they are not attached to my real name. For, apart from the activities of my nom de plume, I too reside in the woodwork. ;)

I will try to shut up now because I sense you wish to leave. I have enjoyed reading your arguments and wish you the best. Perhaps we will meet you on this side of the divide some day in the future.

This site actively encourages people to discuss their views, however divergent, in a civil manner. The "discussion and improvement of understanding of transsexuals" is essential to our mission.

Moreover, we share dianakat's acceptance of others speaking about women of transsexual history, or trying to understand them. The productive end will be widespread appreciation of our unique -- and in the profoundest sense -- ordinary existence.

I see many conclusions by Jack about what I say and think as being wrong:

The majority of crossdressers and crossdreamers are definitely gynephilic, in the sense of being exclusively or predominately attracted to the female body. I base this on my wide correspondence with crossdressers and crossdreamers from all over the world, and the few studies that have been done on crossdressers. http://www.crossdreamers.com/2...sers.html

I read your views in an early posting as referring to TransSEXuals in this group; I would agree that the TG's I've known were all MARRIED to women and seem to love their wives. Including TS women in this study would be an error. I See no reason why that fact and study should have been included.

I do not often come to the defense of Ray Blanchard, but in this case I have to. He actually believes that both androphilic and non-androphilic transwomen suffer from an inborn condition that can not be corrected through psychotherapy. He believes that androphilic transwomen are extremely feminine gay men, and sexual orientation is inborn in his book. He believes non-androphilic transwomen suffer from an inborn condition that turns their natural sexual orientation towards women inward (a erotic target location error). He argues that transitioning may be a solution for people from both groups, in spite of not recognizing any of them as women. Needless to say, I do not agree with him, but it would be wrong to say that he advocates the use of correctional psychotherapies.

Sorry, I disagree with your statements and claims about Blanchard and his beliefs and the facts about him; I have known several TS women that have been to hi clinic and what he talked about and his approach; let's just say that they had to step carefully to avoid getting denied surgery or having to wait for a long period of time. DO NOTE however that the same thing went on with those that were involved with Dr Money at the Johns Hopkins facility and even more so at the well known clinic in London England.

I guess that any transsexual friend of yours who has a crossdressing/crossdreaming past or who identifies with the term transgender would be very careful not to mention that to you, in order to save that friendship. Or maybe they just left.

Here you draw a conclusion from no fact at all in evidence; As a matter of fact, I know of several people that "assumed" that they were cross dressers at first and may have at that time thought the term "Transgender" applied to them; however they no longer feel that way or accept that term in regard to themselves. You also cast a slur on me in the way your statement is worded, once again drawing or attempting to draw a conclusion NOT based on facts or any thing else available to you.

I have looked at the US National Transgender Discrimination Survey, to see if we can learn something about how transsexuals identify.

Out of 6258, respondents 4039 identified strongly as transgender, 1601 somewhat as transgender, and 618 did not at all identify with the word transgender. All right, that does not tell you much, given that the respondents include both crossdressers, transsexuals and other transgender people. However, 46% of the respondents identify as transsexual (which, by my account is 2879). If we say that all 618 opponents to the term are transsexual (which is questionable) , that would mean that 21% of the transsexuals do not identify with the term transgender. The others do. I guess some transsexuals would refuse to take part in such a study, but we are still left with a large proportion of transsexuals identifying as transgender.

I would NOT rate that as a very good place to draw facts and make conclusions about TS people. If they ID'd as "somewhat**" transgender (1601) (** a meaningless term), then chances are they are NOT Transsexual.
Next, you then try to include those that ID as being somewhat TG as being a part of the TS group; Nice try, but not very scientific or factual. Let's note that 4039 equal 64.5% of the respondents, which blows the 46% transsexual claim out of the water. Then you cannot "assume" that the further 1601 ARE transsexual and lump them into that group. If you take the 618 that did NOT ID with the word "Transgender" at all and again "assume" that they are all TS, that's only 9.88% of the total respondents, much less than your claimed "46%". Since they apparently DIDN'T include a category for "TRANSSEXUAL", UNLESS you left it out; I would suspect strongly that their "sample" was pretty badly skewed.
Gee and I thought I was never going to get to use my course in statistics again.


I would guess that most post SRS women avoid such surveys, sites that publish them and especially one that ID's as:

National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force


Go in peace
Pamela

Jack is taking the definition of transsexual from the TG crowd like Sandeen, Helms etc. while those of us here use the medical definition we have been trying to restore in spite of the attempts at erasure by those same TGs. Therefore any reference to transsexuals that Jack makes is flawed from our viewpoint from the get go.

Jack, a person born transsexed is born neurologically intersexed and will eventually do whatever is possible to correct their body to the maximum amount possible. If this sounds a tad convoluted it is because it needs to address the unequal surgeries for MtF and FtM, possible medical considerations so often raised as a red herring and the possibility of abject poverty despite the fact that many of us still manage from there.

In short, a female neurology will eventually completely reject a male anatomy. In other words at some point you either fix it or off yourself, no hype. This is the essence of difference Jack. Not dreams, not wishes, not desires...need, absolute need.

@cathryn

"anyone who denies the reality of the neurological prenatal nature of those born transsexed is about on the same level a climate change denier at this point."

There are serious weaknesses in the research done to identify "feminine" areas in the brain of women. First of all we have the flexibility of the human brain. It is constantly changing, which means it is hard to determine what is inborn and what is caused by life and upbringing. It is also close to impossible to sort out transitioning crossdressers/crossdreamers from the "classical transsexuals". So I am not going to dismiss the critics out of hand.

That being said: I think you are right.

It is, as some "post-structuralist" claim, obvious that a lot of what many consider natural gender traits are the results of social and cultural pressure (semiotics). But the very fact that the socialization into "natural" gender norms is so strong, makes it hard to explain why some male bodied persons so strongly feel that they are women. The price they pay for this social "crime" is horrific, which leads me to believe that the transsexual condition is inborn and neurological at its core.

@diankat

"From my perspective, ANY m2f that achieves full correction is a woman. Period. I don't care what her motivations were, or how feminine or masculine she is after correction."

Amen to that! And thank you for a very constructive comment!

There are serious weaknesses in the research done to identify "feminine" areas in the brain of women. First of all we have the flexibility of the human brain. It is constantly changing, which means it is hard to determine what is inborn and what is caused by life and upbringing. It is also close to impossible to sort out transitioning crossdressers/crossdreamers from the "classical transsexuals". So I am not going to dismiss the critics out of hand.

Nice try, BUT Dr Money's "Nurture not Nature" theory has been thoroughly trashed as being in complete error; it actually resulted in the death of a twin. The research done isn't weak although there hasn't been enough done; Autopsies done on Transsexuals, gays and those that aren't have CLEARLY found differences in the TS brains that more closely resemble normal Female brains; the same hasn't been found in cross dressers and gays.

The next paragraph repeats more of the failed Dr. Money theory; The only part that is correct is the statement:

The price they pay for this social "crime" is horrific, which leads me to believe that the transsexual condition is inborn and neurological at its core.

You have that right, it IS inborn, neurological and has nothing to do with nuture, or society; Strangely enough, given free choice, little boys and little girls tend to prefer the toys associated with their gender. So it's not just social and cultural pressures.