Transsexualism, why is it so dispised

[Sueliz]

Zoe links to my blog on hers, and hardly a day goes by that I don’t take a peek at hers. Make no mistake, because I disagree with Zoe on *some *issues, I very much agree with her on others. I must go back to the point of this thread: why transsexuals are dispised. At the onset, I don’t belive that classic/true transsexuals *are *dispised and certainly don’t buy into the mindset that we are victims of the mainstream and organized religion. In fact, it is only recently, within the past few years that transsexualism has even been addressed within the organized religious sphere…that is another thing we can lay at the feet of the transgender libertines and their GLB association. Homosexuality has been the habitual buzz word of organized religion, not transsexuality.

I *do *believe that the overwhelming reason transsexuals are not viewed as they once were within the mainstream is because the GLBT activists have succeeded in making all of the transgender elements synonymous with homosexuality, a point that is simply *not *the truth. That association, whether stated *or *implied by association, is the theme of trans activists blogs. Trans activists are GLB activists; trans activists can’t, or at least don’t, speak to the issues of classic/true transsexuality without speaking in terms of all of the elements incorporated under the transgender umbrella…and those issues are directly tied to those of the GLB. That is yet another thing that used to not be the case. I’m sorry, I don’t believe that a natal female can have a mastectomy, keep the rest of her reproductive tract, grow a beard with the help of hormones, then suspend her hormones, conceive, deliver a child…and then claim not only to be male, but to have been a pregnant male at that. Conversely, I also don’t believe that a natal male can claim to be female by simply saying they are, while simultaneously declaring themselves a non-op, keeping their male bits and becoming the significant other of a similarly inclined person. The transgender advocates, such as Zoe, believe the two examples above *can *exist; I don’t. Though the mainstream may accomodate such, they don’t believe that kind of nonsense either. Sex and gender are synonymous to everyone *but *the transgender who absurdly explain that sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. Fair enough. But if one buys into that psychobabble, which I don’t, it points out precisely the difference between the transgender and classic/true transsexuals. The transgender are perfectly happy to have a sex different from their gender…classic/true transsexuals are not; we want a sex that matches our gender, thus gender reassignment surgery.

 

[hyflyer64]

Zoe links to my blog on hers, and hardly a day goes by that I don’t take a peek at hers. Make no mistake, because I disagree with Zoe on *some *issues, I very much agree with her on others. I must go back to the point of this thread: why transsexuals are dispised. At the onset, I don’t belive that classic/true transsexuals *are *dispised and certainly don’t buy into the mindset that we are victims of the mainstream and organized religion. In fact, it is only recently, within the past few years that transsexualism has even been addressed within the organized religious sphere…that is another thing we can lay at the feet of the transgender libertines and their GLB association. Homosexuality has been the habitual buzz word of organized religion, not transsexuality.

Sue,
I can’t speak for other religions but the Catholic church sent out a document to it’s bishops in the 1999/2000 time frame in response to the news that an Italian priest had had SRS back in the late “80s”. So it was being addressed 10/15 years ago. Only recently has the Church begun to address the issue of gay priests. I think it may have been like the Army. Don’t know, don’t tell!!

We can argue the GayTS points back and forth till the cows come home. Also I have very little knowledge as to how the LGBT umbrela impacted us in the past. However, we all seem to agree to a considerable extent that that association is now causing us more harm than good. We also seem to agree on “why transexuals are despised”.

**What can we do now, what do we do now?? **If we attack them, isn’t that only going to be more fodder for the hate mongers??

 

[magdelaine]

I’m sorry, I don’t believe that a natal female can have a mastectomy, keep the rest of her reproductive tract, grow a beard with the help of hormones, then suspend her hormones, conceive, deliver a child…and then claim not only to be male, but to have been a pregnant male at that.

I agree. This seems very, very odd to me, and simply makes TS look like perversion, and is perhaps in reality an extreme version of TG.

Sex and gender are synonymous to everyone *but *the transgender who absurdly explain that sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears.

I don’t understand this. If you are born outwardly male but feel you are a female, doesn’t that mean that your “true” gender *is *between the ears? (at least until surgery).

Fair enough. But if one buys into that psychobabble, which I don’t, it points out precisely the difference between the transgender and classic/true transsexuals. The transgender are perfectly happy to have a sex different from their gender…classic/true transsexuals are not; we want a sex that matches our gender, thus gender reassignment surgery.

I guess that some of this is going over my head, as I lack adequate understanding of the whole TG/TS dichotomy. My understanding is that transgender refers to drag queens, cross-dressers, and others who like to dress up and look like the opposite sex, yet don’t perceive themselves to actually be of the opposite gender. Whereas from what I’m understanding on this thread and from reading about HBS, there can be true transsexuals that do not opt for surgery. Are you saying this isn’t true? That if you don’t opt for surgery you’re not “real” TS?

I guess I’m getting confounded by your terminology.

 

[magdelaine]

**What can we do now, what do we do now?? **If we attack them, isn’t that only going to be more fodder for the hate mongers??

Don’t attack. Differentiate. It’s not that hard when you rely on *biological *realities.

 

[Benadam]

I’m sure there are many homosexuals who would be sympathetic to this issue. Oops, correction, non transexual homosexuals.

 

[aspawloski4th]

There are aomw legitamate reason for a true TS not to go through with the big surgery, Connot afford it, physical health, and general fear of surgery.

 

[hyflyer64]

I’m sure there are many homosexuals who would be sympathetic to this issue. Oops, correction, non transexual homosexuals.

You better watch it!! I’ll bet that was a slip of the keyboard!!

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Whereas from what I’m understanding on this thread and from reading about HBS, there can be true transsexuals that do not opt for surgery. Are you saying this isn’t true? That if you don’t opt for surgery you’re not “real” TS?

I guess I’m getting confounded by your terminology.

It’s controversial, and my own views are expressed below:

Where I radically differ from the standard HBS model is that the evidence to me shows that while there is a strong correlation between stereotypes-conformity in all parts of the brain, it’s not exact. …
And many more are just afraid of surgery, and want to live with whatever they’re lumbered with, even if it’s not optimal. All-consuming desire for typical genitalia is not a reliable touchstone for determining gender, any more than chromosomes are a reliable touchstone for determining sex. They’re just really, really good approximations.

The standard HBS model, as I interpret it, as over-simplistic. There are male brains, and female brains, period. If you have a male brain, you NEED (not just desire) male genitalia, and if you have a female brain, you NEED (not just desire) female genitalia, and that’s all there is to it. Everything else is “psychological” and any ambiguity or anomaly a “mental illness”. I don’t agree with this, as it results in trying to coerce observations into fitting what is almost a religious theory rather than a scientific one. It’s basically correct, but only as correct as saying the Earth is flat. The further you go from the local area, the less useful such a view becomes. Go far enough away, and it breaks down completely.

If I had my druthers, I’d prefer the standard HBS model to be true. It would simplify things, and stop people like yourself from being confused. We could have a nice clean break, women on one side, and mentally ill men and gays on the other.

This was in fact my original belief back in 2005. But as a scientist, I have to go where the data takes me, even if it complicates the situation, and even if it leads people to incorrectly mix women like myself up with mentally ill and gay men. It’s because I see this as an issue of neurology that I realise that it’s not that simple, there’s degrees, people can have masculinised brains in some ways and feminised brains in other ways… it’s as complex and messy as every other biological situation.

Sueliz subscribes to the standard HBS model. I subscribe to a modified form. Sueliz thinks my views are unfortunate as they lead to discrimination, and she’s correct. I think her views are suboptimal because they don’t completely conform to our observations.

The Church appears to be in favour of the conventional HBS model. Just see His Holiness’ recent speech to the curia on the sibject, condemning “transgenderism” and the “deconstruction of gender”. It appears that in His Holiness’s view anyway, there are men, there are women, that’s all. No exceptions, and all Intersexed people should be sorted into one or the other.

BTW - in case it isn’t totally obvious - I have enormous respect and admiration for Sueliz. We don’t always agree, but it’s impossible for either of us not to see that the other has a point. What I’m saying may be technically more precise, but what about when precision just confuses rather than clarifies the issue? Which view is more “true” then?

 

[magdelaine]

It’s controversial, and my own views are expressed below:
If I had my druthers, I’d prefer the standard HBS model to be true. It would simplify things, and stop people like yourself from being confused. We could have a nice clean break, women on one side, and mentally ill men and gays on the other.

This was in fact my original belief back in 2005. But as a scientist, I have to go where the data takes me, even if it complicates the situation, and even if it leads people to incorrectly mix women like myself up with mentally ill and gay men. It’s because I see this as an issue of neurology that I realise that it’s not that simple, there’s degrees, people can have masculinised brains in some ways and feminised brains in other ways… it’s as complex and messy as every other biological situation.

Sueliz subscribes to the standard HBS model. I subscribe to a modified form. Sueliz thinks my views are unfortunate as they lead to discrimination, and she’s correct. I think her views are suboptimal because they don’t completely conform to our observations.

The Church appears to be in favour of the conventional HBS model. Just see His Holiness’ recent speech to the curia on the sibject, condemning “transgenderism” and the “deconstruction of gender”. It appears that in His Holiness’s view anyway, there are men, there are women, that’s all. No exceptions, and all Intersexed people should be sorted into one or the other.

BTW - in case it isn’t totally obvious - I have enormous respect and admiration for Sueliz. We don’t always agree, but it’s impossible for either of us not to see that the other has a point. What I’m saying may be technically more precise, but what about when precision just confuses rather than clarifies the issue? Which view is more “true” then?

Thank you for clarifying! This was very helpful to me. From my trying to get my head around things, your view makes more sense to me. It’s just a thought experiment, but I could imagine having male genitalia and not being so disturbed by it that I would want to change it. I’ve even dreamed of having those “parts” once… In any case degrees rather than absolutes seem to fit the biological reality of nature.

FWIW, I agree with His Holiness on transgenderism and the deconstruction of gender as being a terrible thing for society. However, I think what he is talking about is the social phenomenon that is typified by the comments of AngelAshley on this forum on the subject of gay marriage; look at me; I was born a boy but now I’m a girl and I love girls so gender is completely changeable and biology doesn’t matter so you Catholics stop forcing your prudery on the rest of the world and get over yourselves. I have no problem distinguishing between *that *and your situation or that of true transexuals, and I’ll bet the Holy Father doesn’t either. But he has to be very very careful, lest acknowledging you gives credence to the social phenomenon as well.

Pray for him and for those at the Vatican who work on these things; I will too.

(FWIW, the thread that I link to reveals a lot of misunderstanding, ignorance, and confusion on trans/intersexed people by posters on this forum, including on my part. Ashley unfortunately stirred the pot with faulty conclusions based on her own condition, but that’s what started my curiosity on the subject. )

 

[Sueliz]

Actually, magdelaine is correct. The objective is not to attack the transgender construct but to differentiate between classic/true transsexuality and the concept known as transgender. The rub, so to speak, is that to almost everyone who reads classic/true transsexual’s effort to make that differentiation walks away as seeing that effort as an attack, particularly the transgender. Any attempt to claim classic/true transsexuality is biological in nature is quickly met with rebuttals that follow one or both of these two general veins:

1. Yes, it *is *biological in nature and gender identification involves a spectrum which everyone falls upon that ranges from the casual crossdresser to the intense transsexuality…we (the casual crossdresser) and you (the intensely transsexual) are all the same, just with different degrees of intensity, motives, goals, etc.
2. No, it is *not *biological in nature and you can’t claim that it is because no one knows absolutely what causes transsexuality.

I should be obvious the pitfalls of making that differentiation using a biological model to do so.

A couple of things need to be made clear, one is the definition of transgender. Transgender includes *any *and *everyone *who in *any *way presents in a gender variant manner. It is an umbrella term that includes casual crossdressers, full-time 24/7 crossdressers, drag queens, transvestites, gender queer, androgynies, and yes, though we don’t like it, classic/true transsexuals. Of everyone in the group, unless they are a psychotic, *only *classic/true transsexuals are hell-bent on having gender reassignment surgery (GRS). The other thing that must be said is this: one does not hear classic/true transsexuals say we are just like the rest of the transgender; what one does hear, all the time, from most of the rest of the transgender is they are just like us. The truth is that they are not. What sets them apart?

*Anyone *who has any real interest in transsexuality should read The Transsexual Phenomenon by Dr. Harry Benjamin; it is available in it’s entirety online, just follow the link. For 50 years Benjamin was *the *authority on transsexuality. Prior to the transgender concept, there were just two major gender dysphoria categories: transsexuals (those who were) and transvestites (those who pretended to be). Describing the difference, Dr. Benjamin said, emphasis mine:

*“But while “dressing” would satisfy the true transvestite (who is content with his morphological sex), it is only incidental and not more than a partial or temporary help to the transsexual. True transsexuals feel that they belong to the other sex, they want to be and function as members of the opposite sex, not only to appear as such. For them, their sex organs, the primary (testes) as well as the secondary (penis and others) are disgusting deformities that must be changed by the surgeon’s knife. This attitude appears to be the chief differential diagnostic point between the two syndromes (sets of symptoms) - that is, those of transvestism and transsexualism.

The transvestite (TV) usually wants to be left alone. He requests nothing from the medical profession, unless he wants a psychiatrist to try to cure him. The transsexual (TS), however, puts all his faith and future into the hands of the doctor, particularly the surgeon. These patients want to undergo corrective surgery, a so-called “conversion operation,” [GRS] so that their bodies would at least resemble those of the sex to which they feel they belong and to which they ardently want to belong.”*

And, this telling quote from Benjamin…again, emphasis mine:

“For patients of a high degree of transsexualism (the “true and full-fledged transsexual”), a conversion operation is the all-consuming urge, as mentioned earlier and as a later chapter will show still more fully. Cross-dressing is an insufficient help, as aspirin for a brain tumor headache would be (Group 3).”

*“…as aspirin for a brain tumor headache would be”…*I’ve always thought this Benjamin analogy was pretty powerful; I know it certainly summed things up for me. It’s hard for someone who has *not *experienced it to understand or appreciate the sheer, unadulterated misery that accompanies *knowing *for as far back as one can remember, being *certain *from ones earliest cognizant memory that due to some horrible mistake of nature, one is inhabiting the body of the wrong sex.

That is what classic/true transsexuals actually are, or more accurately what the rest under the transgender banner are not, and why after a long silence many of us who are true transsexuals are beginning to speak out. So when someone says to us that men can become pregnant…or that they don’t need surgery to be not only female, but just as female as any other natal born female in the universe, while still having their male bits it should be no surprise that we tend to get our feathers ruffled.

The transgender movement and their association with the GLB have *sexualized *our gender identity, *raped *our gender status, *colonized *our support, *threatened *40 years of legal progress, and *spit *on our legitimacy. Again, we are not like them, and until they begin to acknowledge that fact we will continue to be a thorn in their side, pricking them at every opportunity. Many say that is too much to ask. I say hogwash to that. I am a heterosexual female and I resent the audacity of the GLBT to presume they can speak for me as if I have something in common with them.

Would you, the natal naturally born males and females who are reading this blog stand still for the transgender claiming that they are just like you, and the entire GLBT movement speaking on your personal behalf? I think you wouldn’t. For classic/true transsexuals, the question I just asked applies absolutely to us as well…and we also are not sitting still for it.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

FWIW, the thread that I link to reveals a lot of misunderstanding, ignorance, and confusion on trans/intersexed people by posters on this forum, including on my part. Ashley unfortunately stirred the pot with faulty conclusions based on her own condition, but that’s what started my curiosity on the subject.

I’m sorry though that her status is “banned”. And I have to say that it makes me wonder if I might not get that status too, if I say the wrong thing.

On the other hand, I’ve had nothing but charitable treatment here. Oh yes, a few who think people like me are inherently sinful, rather more who are misinformed, but even then no-one’s been deliberately cruel.

I think I know who Ashley is - someone I’ve crossed swords with in the past, We have very different views, and she despises me for being right-wing. She saw the money I gave to her when she was in a financial fix, recovering from a very traumatic and violent rape as “conscience money”, whereas I just saw a young girl in trouble, One who had had to discontinue her academic career due to the mental breakdown after being assaulted, and not supported by her academic institution due to her then pre-op status.

I was so pleased when she was no longer a broken, pathetic thing, and instead had recovered enough to “greet” me with her usual barbed retorts and vinegar.

If I’m correct, “Ashes” paid for her surgery partly with the money I sent. I wish I could have sent more, but as I’m below the poverty line myself, my resources are limited.

I’ve just had a thought - most people don’t live this way, do they? It’s not usual for most people to be on suicide-watch for so many, and to constantly deal with rape and assault victims, is it? SIGH It just seems normal to me, you take it for granted that that’s the way things work.

Transsexual women are just like any other kind. Some are straight, others lesbian. Some deeply committed Christians, others fanatical Atheists. I’m a Kantian Realist, Ashes a Post-Modernist (a Kantian Realist’s natural enemy).

And it may not have been her. There’s quite a few like her in that generation.

Whatever, we’re all human.

God Bless, Magdalene. You strive for the truth with an honest and forthright heart.

 

[magdelaine]

Actually, magdelaine is correct. The objective is not to attack the transgender construct but to differentiate between classic/true transsexuality and the concept known as transgender. The rub, so to speak, is that to almost everyone who reads classic/true transsexual’s effort to make that differentiation walks away as seeing that effort as an attack, particularly the transgender. Any attempt to claim classic/true transsexuality is biological in nature is quickly met with rebuttals that follow one or both of these two general veins:

1. Yes, it *is *biological in nature and gender identification involves a spectrum which everyone falls upon that ranges from the casual crossdresser to the intense transsexuality…we (the casual crossdresser) and you (the intensely transsexual) are all the same, just with different degrees of intensity, motives, goals, etc.
2. No, it is *not *biological in nature and you can’t claim that it is because no one knows absolutely what causes transsexuality.

I should be obvious the pitfalls of making that differentiation using a biological model to do so.

For classic/true transsexuals, the question I just asked applies absolutely to us as well…and we also are not sitting still for it.

What a can of worms! It does seem unfair that TG encompasses TS. It also doesn’t seem quite right that the casual cross-dresser should be thrown in with the biological definition of TS. And is it really true that no one knows the origin of TS? Has there ever been a brain scan of a MtoF trans that found a male brain in a previously male body??

Also, where does that leave the intersexed? Talk about variety…apparently the human body is capable of many variations of that condition…which is just as real and perhaps more complicated than your classic TS.

What turned me around on this issue was the scientific evidence, quite frankly. And the testimony. And the suicide rates. This is a REAL condition, not an affectation and not a social experiment. I think that emphasizing this is the only real way to break off and differentiate from the TG crowd, who seem to me to have very different goals.

I don’t think you *should *stand still for what has happened socially and politically in this arena, not for a second.

 

[magdelaine]

I’m sorry though that her status is “banned”. And I have to say that it makes me wonder if I might not get that status too, if I say the wrong thing.

No, the mods are very careful about banning; they only do so after several warnings. If you look at her last posts, Ashley made it clear after a certain number of posts she had no interest in dialogue; she was just here to proselytize. She got quite nasty at the end.

A postmodern with barbed retorts and vinegar…That sure sounds like Ashley!

Whatever, we’re all human.

Yep, sure are. Fallen creatures all. However, you’re right, it’s not normal to have so many on suicide watch. We must do a better job as a society in this arena. Lumping TS in with TG becomes a life and death one on these grounds, because, like I said, it’s seen as a perversion rather than a condition. This is so sad! (btw, have you heard from imacatholic47?)

God Bless, Magdalene. You strive for the truth with an honest and forthright heart.

Thank you. It’s the same heart that led me to fall head over heels in love with Christ and His Church a few years back. Truth is a beautiful thing.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

(btw, have you heard from imacatholic47?)

Indeed, and I hope to hear soon from the parents. There’s ethical issues involved, and if it were my child, I wouldn’t want some random stranger on the net giving any advice on such a crucial area. Not without going through me first.

I’ve given as much advice as I can. Any further communication has to be through the parents.

Meanwhile, from the Dutch researcher, D1ck Swaab:in NRC handelsblad :

Friday 3 April 2009 by D1ck Swaab
The atypical brain development of transsexuals

Last year Ramachandran, a psychologist and neurologist in the United States presented an interesting hypothesis and preliminary results on transsexuality. His idea is that in M2F transsexuals the representation of the penis is lacking in the cerebral cortex and in F2M transsexuals the region for breasts during development is not mapped onto the cerebral cortex, which is why the brain does not consider the organs as its “own” and wants to get rid of them.

Which would explain that while the majority had desire for surgery, it would vary in intensity.

Until brain scans and autopsies are conducted on people other than “true transsexuals” - Harry Benjamin’s categories 5 and 6 - we can only hypothesise about to what degree (if any) cross-gendered neural development plays a part in Category 4. I think it probably does play a part, but in 3 and below, it’s probably negligible, non-existent, or will be indetectable. Until we do the experiments though, this remains just a plausible conjecture.

I’m in complete agreement with Sueliz on the political co-option by the "Transgender Movement’. I just don’t think it’s just or accurate to use desire for surgery as a touchstone, any more than chromosomes are a touchstone. A good guide, true for the majority, but it’s the exceptions that are important here.

 

[magdelaine]

Whew, that’s a relief you are in touch with him. (I was concerned.) I hope the parents contact you as well.

 

[hyflyer64]

Whew, that’s a relief you are in touch with him. (I was concerned.) I hope the parents contact you as well.

Her.

 

[Benadam]

You better watch it!! I’ll bet that was a slip of the keyboard!!

That’s it! I’m getting some anti-slip tape for the keys:bigyikes: I need to keep some around for these slippery areas

 

[hyflyer64]

I’ve read posts and links … to the point where I question who and what I am.
All that I can say is that I always felt that I was different, that something was not right about me, That something was missing and often felt I would have been better off having been born as a woman. Then one day, I could no longer continue the way I had been. I felt that I could not continue trying to be a man. Shortly there after, while cross dressing, it was like a switch had been flipped. It was all different and I was very scared. I went to see a councilor. After a few visits, we concluded that I was a CD. The only thing was I wanted to do it 24/7 and I started to realize that it was what I had been looking for all my life. Not the cross dressing but to live as a woman. I started to pray to God that He would allow me to do that and I started on a journey. I always had a ‘love hate’ relationship with my genitals. It reached a point where I could not stand to look at them. I started thinking 'I’m a woman and I always have been and women don’t have a penis. My surgery went on my credit card!!
So tell me Sue, what am I?? Evidently not a “classic” true Transexual, but a true transexual or just a psychotic?? Some one that should have seen a really good shrink and had her/his thinking put straight?? Some one that could have salvaged a 40+ year relationship?? Or, is there some room for a bit of flexibility?? Is there the chance, in your estimation, that maybe there is a posiibility that I am a “real TS” and that I didn’t really have a choice, as I thought, other than to have the freaking thing cut off and become who, finally, I thought I had to be?? Tell me, is it so 'black and white"?? Can you tell me why it took so darn long for me to come to this point?? Why I couldn’t have arrived here 40 years ago?? Before having two children?? Are people like me just a bunch of wierdos??
Dump us into the TG basket!?

 

[aussie_jaz]

A couple of things need to be made clear, one is the definition of transgender. Transgender includes *any *and *everyone *who in *any *way presents in a gender variant manner. It is an umbrella term that includes casual crossdressers, full-time 24/7 crossdressers, drag queens, transvestites, gender queer, androgynies, and yes, though we don’t like it, classic/true transsexuals.

sorry but the original and true meaning of the word transgender does not include transsex.it has only been because over the past 15-20 years the glbt and transgender activists have incorperated it into THEIR umbrella for their own purposes.the term transgender was coined in the 70’s by a crossdresser/transvestite for crossdressers,transvestites,she-males and other non medical forms of gender/sex expression variants.

 

[Benadam]

I hope this doesn’t smack as cold hearted but if people are to respond to the good as it pertains to everyone, specifically the radical call of the Catholic faithfull, I think environmentally caused sexual identity disorientations should be considered vocational obligations to heal humanity of the violent tear that the genders have suffered since the beginning. I would even extend that as a heroic choice for those suffering biological disorientations.

If there are validated biological connections being made such as chemical imbalances or organ brain disconnects or bypassing of some sort but not visible gender ambiguity, should there be a line of obligation for the transexual faithfull in regards of their suffering as vocational duty versus liberty from misery?