Thursday, July 26, 2012

DSM-V and Medical Diagnosis for Transsexualism

In my previous post on the DSM-V proposal it is quite clear there are distinct differences between DSM-IV and DSM-V.  One of the biggest differences is DSM-IV basically described transsexualism as GID while in the DSM-V Gender Dysphoria describes transgenderism and fits a wider spectrum. By simply replacing and between primary and secondary sex characteristics with and/or they have effectively opened the door for many others to qualify as "mentally ill" under the new classification.

Those of us born transsexual should not wish any harm on any others and that includes all of those under the transgender umbrella not transsexual. The problem is by blurring the lines and including those that are not transsexual they have made it more difficult for them to admit there is a cure for transsexualism. There has been a concerted effort among the transgender crowd to deny transsexualism is a medical condition because if transsexualism is medical then what are they, mental?

If there is a cure then one cannot be transgender forever or a "trans" woman or a transgender woman or even a transsexual woman.  If there is a cure then you are simply a female and a woman and since they fail on the female side it is in their best interests for this to remain non medical.

If a condition is medical then there is normally a cure of some sort.  even those born intersex have medical intervention that can let them be normal members of society in the sex they should belong to. The big problem is again the use of the term "gender" which is ephemeral and may last for a hour, hours, a day, or a week, or a life but gender can be fluid and is cultural while sex is physical and relates directly to both primary and secondary sex characteristics. It is funny how those silly little items like sex characteristics are such a bugaboo to the transgendered.

It is why they want to redefine what female is so a penis qualifies and why they see nothing wrong with a pregnant man nor do they see anything wrong with a "woman" impregnating another woman with a penis. It is classic misogyny and maybe the worst misogyny is the man getting pregnant.

Those of us born transsexual understand clearly what we need and it is SRS. We need to be physically female and the transgender loons love to throw around the comments about what is between the legs does not define what a woman is but I hate to be the bearer of bad news , it really does define who is female and who is male.

When I was a child, an adolescent, and in my early 20's my identity issues were off the charts. I knew I should be a girl and I was deeply depressed and resigned to not allowing myself to grow into a man. These problems eased as I started hormones around 14 and ended on a day in late January 1971 when I had SRS. I do not have sex or gender identity or dysphoria issues so that means I have been cured of all symptoms.  My nightmare ended that day. That is a medical solution and not a psychological solution.

The problem with the transgendered is they see their condition as something they enjoy. To the vast majority of them it is about the clothes and the femulation and faux appearance as female. It is transient or ephemeral and gives them pleasure and release from whatever anxieties life brings them. For some it is a fetish and for others it is enjoyment but it neither case is it life threatening.  The only depression they feel is when the wife finds the clothes and throws them out or will not let them dress or worse yet if the wife rejects them and then they whine like pathetic little men about not being understood. That is pitiful and not a symptom of a medical condition but of a social condition or a fetish. It does not make them bad people but it certainly does not mean they are the same as those born transsexual.

The new wave of transgenders is the older ones in their 50's and 60's. They suddenly decide they want feminization as the testosterone levels lower and before you know it they were always "trans" and of course wanted to be girls their entire lives.  Unfortunately for most they have a blog history that says otherwise.  Does it make them bad people?  Absolutely not but neither does it make them experts on what it means to be female and a woman but do not tell them that.

The DSM-V received a lot of input and none of it was from those representing transsexuals but from transgender activist groups pushing the same rights and the same diagnosis for themselves as transsexuals. Thus, we now have painless transsexualism where someone can decide on Tuesday they might like to be a girl and within 6 months learn a narrative and fool a therapist. It is a sign of the times.

The problem with all of this is transsexuals will be hurt.  As bad as the DSM is it was used to get some help under medical insurance and some honest activists are worried the new DSM will give even these Insurance Companies and avenue to deny care plus with everyone claiming that SRS is not the cure for transsexualism it makes it easier to deny those that really are transsexual the help they need. This is apparent in Britain where children are left with absolutely no avenue for help other than traveling to the US or finding benefactors like my friend and me.

Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard on the Gender Dysphoria working committee for the new DSM certainly have never believed transsexualism is a medical condition as have minions like Anne Lawrence.

I hope all the transsexuals out there and those born transsexual understand that the chance of transsexualism being given a medical classification diminishes as long as transsexualism is lumped with the transgender condition because there are few transvestites and cross-dressers  that want to be cured.  All they want is the same rights as women so they can play their penis power games in a dress.

The chance for medicalization is slipping away and the sad truth is it was deliberate and our so-called allies watched and grinned while it has and is happening. The simple truth is they cannot argue for medicalization of transsexualism because it opens the rest of the transgender umbrella occupants up to scrutiny which they cannot stand up to.

42 comments:

Van buren said...

From the perspective of someone working with the current system and dealing with the current "trans" environment, it saddens me to have to say that is suspect this horse is dead enough to justify we stop beating it.

I feel the only real hope future transsexuals have for a life which doesn't have to be affected (in meaningful ways) by their birth condition, is to be recognized young (and helped by) someone who does truly understand them and what they do/will need (for future happiness), and who also understands the pitfalls and intricacies of the system (of treatment) and of modern societal systems legal/government etc.

I personally cannot see a way that this will be resolved favorably for transsexuals and as much as I don't want to be/sound negative; sadly I feel that the further this progresses the more transsexualism becomes a death sentence.

The bitter price we pay for normality

Kathryn Dumke said...

I would like to make two points:

Firstly,

The DSM V wording is very suspect because it perpetuates gender/gender conflict instead of the gender/sex conflict and is essentially designed to keep matters in psychiatry and psychology land for purposes of diagnosis; the industry approach to continued client streams.

It is important that in the "indicators" sex characteristics are used to support a gender/gender conflict scenario.

Secondly,

The assertion that "older ones" want to feminize because of a lowering of testosterone levels is a broad generalization. In some instances it is quite the reverse. Consistently low or very low testosterone levels during adolescence and early adulthood, increasing with age.

WPath just recently amended their mission statement as follows:

"As an international multidisciplinary professional Association, the mission of WPATH is to promote evidence-based care, education, research, advocacy, public policy and respect in transsexual and transgender health."

I believe that is an advance.

Anonymous said...

Here's where I see DSM V a problem. It will force Trans to Fake being intersex in order to get pass the gate kepers. It will result making intersex people's lives very hard to exist.

Van buren said...

M'kaaayyyy.....

How exactly does one "fake" being intersex?....

Oh sure, you can LIE about it, but what difference does that make when they start medical testing?

Nicole said...

I actually think that being transsexual (in the true medical sense) is one form of being intersexed. To me it absolutely is intersexed to have a female brain (a physical organ that is part of your body) while also having a male outer appearance. Just because it's harder for others to see the physical discordance doesn't mean it's any less intersexed than say having ambiguous genitalia. And Dr. Milton Diamond agrees with me on this.

Van buren said...

for whatever I, you or Dr Milton Diamond might think (if that is in fact what he does think) I agree Nicole.

Until it is proven does that make a difference?

KnoxBoyz of eTN said...

I am not disagreeing with the points made regarding TS is not TG, I do agree in medical diagnosis not psychological (lots of TG and TS people have real psych issues and diagnosis, their gender identity should not be one of them).
However, while ranting about misogyny you are also acting out with misandry. The only mention of Trans Men is the pregnant man issue. Everything else is assumptive polarizing as it all being a Trans Woman issue. When Trans Women rant and blame theirr transition woes on misogyny you are also negated Trans Men who are in the same boat as Trans Women. Trans Men are not females with special status, they are men with the same gender v. sex markers condition as Trans Women. Misandry and Misogyny exist all around, but pushing your own political misandry while claiming to be speaking for all Transsexuals is being a hypocrite and worse.

Elizabeth said...

@KnoxBoyz

I know very little about FTM transsexuals and I am not ranting about misogyny. The misogyny I write about is a man in a dress demanding to be considered a female while packing penis. I also thin a man claiming to be pregnant is misogyny.

There is a certain FTM Doctor in Britain that is about as misogynistic as it gets when it comes to transsexual kids. I do not represent any other transsexuals or individuals that were born transsexual. I represent myself only and do not pretend to represent anyone else.

I am neither a radical feminist nor am I a misandrist. You seem to be reading something into my posts that is certainly not and I am certainly not a political misandrist although I doubt you even have a clue what the word means.

By the way I never had a gender verses sex marker issue. I had a sex identity issue. Only a man could think misandry exists all around. Just how do we poor women hate and mistreat you pathetic little men?

Anonymous said...

@Nicole,
Transsexual is not a form of INTERSEX. Their is no scientific proof or scientific basis for inclusion within the Intersex community. So stop claiming intersex because you don't show any Physical, Biological & genetic DNA signs of intersex. It trans people like you who make it vary hard for REAL Biological Born intersex people to live and exist. You must be following the same crap that Zoe Allen Brain likes to peddle to people.

@Van buren
Transsexualism will never be accepted as intersex because it's not intersex in the physical, biological and genetic sense. No intersex group accepts the theory of transsexualism as being intersex because it doesn't meet the medical and scientific definition of Intersex from a biological, physical and Genetic DNA view.

Oh and their are people who have been known to FAKE Intersex and one of the biggest FAKE intersex people are Zoe Allen Brain. Zoe Allen Brain is a Fake intersex person, an intersex wannabe and a transsexual in deep denial. Their are Trans who fake and pretend to be intersex because they are transsexuals in deep denial and are using the Intersex name as an excuse & Justification for their trans to their friends and family.

Which is why as an Intersex person, I am offended and pissed at any trans who fakes being intersex and tries to use the intersex name as an excuse & justification. It hurts Intersex people and it makes their lives even harder to exist when you have trans people who fake and pretend to be intersex. It's why Intersex people are offended and pissed at any trans who fakes and pretends to be intersex.

Van buren said...

@anon
Firstly, I could give a damn whether any intersex groups recognize transsexualism as a form of intersex, frankly I could care less WHAT they think of the condition AT ALL, I am not your or their enemy and I am not trying to CLAIM anything at all.

I simply stated that in my opinion the congenital condition is a form of intersex. I hope for the sake of those born with it, that one day a test is found that proves that to be the truth, but until then what I think is of little consequence to anyone.

Alan brain does NOT fake being intersex, Alan brain LIES about being intesex, it is impossible to FAKE testable medically PROVEABLE genetic condition (and I my be incorrect in my understanding but) as far as I am aware all ntesex conditions are.

Van buren said...

Oh, and if a test CAN be found to prove that TS'ism IS a form of intersex, then you statement about it NEVER being accepted as one will look rather foolish.

Please sign your comment so I can refer to you directly if we get another anon (as happens) although I suspect I've seen you post here before (I think) under the handle of "Nicky"? (not certain, sorry if I'm mistaken)

Anonymous said...

Another reason I view myself as concerned for today, to cure my myself of this condition, this has already started before DSM V. Around 2 years ago, 'transgendered lifestyle' was added to my medical recorded. It's all part of the Borg to make me one of them. I simply am not; I have a medical condition that will be cured, yours (the borg's) is a lifelong fetish that not only is misogynistic, but also incurable.

While my doctor is not Dr. Spack, I have someone similar in his approach, in that she places me under transgender, or worse, gender non-conforming. To be honest, with this as the prevailing medical attitude, it's not going to get better, and it makes me sad. Granted, I plan to take Elizabeth's excellent advice earlier this year, and owe nothing to nobody, and chose the life of a normal woman, in non-disclosing my past, with the fixing of this birth defect. With that said, I feel bad still for those kids who are truly transsexual, and who don't like being lumped in.

At least there is a cure, despite what Zucker, Blanchard, and his assholes claim. After surgery, my body will be right, there will be no more pain, no more suicidal attempts on my end, just living everyday as the woman I am. (On a sidenote, I've seen a crony of these two as a 'therapist' firsthand, I seriously wanted to choke him, and made my intensity worse, which I didn't think possible.)

In regards to the intersex bran talk, while it's possible that's a form of intersex, that's unknown, and as long as you aren't espousing what nonsense Zoe does, well, I have no issues with your stance, regardless of which side you take. Personally, I just use "HBS" (lengthened if with someone medical, to show the correct science) to describe my medical condition, and will use intersex only if it turns out to be medically accepted.

I truly ask that, somewhere, somehow, the medical removal of comparing the truly transsexual to crossdressers is soon. It makes me so sad, and makes my life WORSE. You hear that, Sandeen? You make my life WORSE knowing that you might expose me, that you might try to lump me in.

Make it stop. I hate this body, and the correct science is simply there, ignored in favor of men in frocks- just like real life, I suppose, disgusting, gross, and anti-female, pro-male as always.

~Jessica

Nicole said...

Van Buren said: "Until it is proven does that make a difference?" I agree 100% and I have tried to tell this to many people who claim that being transsexual is a medical condition. I do believe it is a medical condition but with current medical technology it is hard to prove. When a person dies you can autopsy them and check their brain sex region and see if it matches what they said in life it would probably match. If it does then you have some proof. The fact that it's hard to check while a person is alive doesn't make it any less real of a condition. Where I slightly differ (very slightly differ, and maybe it's not even about "differing") is that a lot of these people say, "Being transsexual is a medical condition! But how dare you ask for proof! You just have to trust us!" and I don't think that's a very good tactic to assume.

Nicole said...

Anonymous said: "Transsexual is not a form of INTERSEX. Their (sic) is no scientific proof or scientific basis for inclusion within the Intersex community. So stop claiming intersex because you don't show any Physical, Biological & genetic DNA signs of intersex."

I think you're getting a number of things confused here and I'm not sure that I have time to respond to them all. But for one, "intersex" means a lot of different things. It's not one distinct physical condition. For two, you seem to be claiming that any medical condition begins to exist only once "proof" of it is shown to others but that until proof of the existence of a medical condition is given then that condition doesn't actually exist. This doesn't even just apply to intersexed conditions; it applies to many, many things that people experience that medical professionals may not be able to pinpoint a cause for. Medical science is still advancing. No need to pretend it is frozen right where it is.

BTW, I'm not making anything hard for you. Certainly not making it hard for you to exist.

And another BTW: Here is a link to Dr. Diamond's statement: http://ldsgender.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/transsexuality-is-one-form-of-intersexuality/. Linking to this article because it pulls out the part that is cogent to our present discussion but that article itself provides a link to Dr. Diamond's complete article.

Anonymous said...

@ Everyone. For the record, one of the most respected early medical practitioners in the field of transexualism Harry Benjamin did indeed suspect that it may very possibly be a type of intersex. There are after all many hundreds of versions of the intersex condition. Dr Benjamin urged research to either confirm or disprove his suspicions. To date there has not been conclusive results in either direction. Dismissing the possibility at this stage is scientifically speaking unwise. Proof either way is likely to be stumbled upon while researching something else since it's unlikely there are any Nobel prizes to be awarded for pure research into the issue; no money to be made either.

However, while all this is an interesting discussion it is a deviation from the main thrust of Elizabeth's essay and that is the current proposal of for DSM V The saving grace is that in the "rationale" there is provision for an "escape clause" Post srs and in a productive and stable life a GD diagnosis is no longer appropriate. The part that saddens me is that in order to not upset the sensibilities of middle aged men type VI transsexual kids get to be diagnosed as transvestites, male or female! If that isn't misogynistic, I don't know what is.

I'm pleased to see that the discussion has not descended into name calling or personal attacks. I hope it stays that way.

Cassandraspeaks

Anonymous said...

There are disputes about what is sufficient "proof". However, in recent years I've seen a couple of scientific papers that show specific TS brain structures have characteristics of both male and female brains - both MtF and FtM. No, I didn't bother to save them nor can I point you to them. Do your own research. That may not yet officially be recognized as "intersex" but I presume in time it will be. For now there's too many careers vested in psychiatric models.

- an old aunty

Van buren said...

I understand what you're saying Nicole, the point of my comment was simply an effort to direct discussion back to the purpose of Liz's post which was NOT a debate about whether or not TS'ism is an intersex condition, it was (or at least my interpretation of it) a critique of the DSM V and how it could potentially/will effect people born with the transsexual birth condition
However, if we are to have a side discussion (sorry Liz), I'll say I don't fully agree with what you've written.

When a person dies you can autopsy them and check their brain sex region and see if it matches what they said in life it would probably match. If it does then you have some proof.-Nicole

As I understand it, not quite.

YES, the BSTc(?) region of the brain can be checked post mortem, however (as far as I'm aware) there is no solid scientific evidence to prove beyond doubt that it IS responsible for a person's sex identity.

Researchers simply believe that it likely is, based on what is typically observed.

Secondly, there is no proof that the differences observed aren't due to the influence of hormones, meaning that someone who has had cross-sex hormone therapy may well exhibit the same observed differences as others influenced by the same hormones (E would be consistent with all other E, whether genetic or HRT sourced).

there are still too many variables for your statement to be considered accurate.

SO! Back to the point of the post, and my original comment.

@Cassandraspeaks

I haven't read the DSM V as I try not to concern myself with this kind of thing (because I consider it futile based on what I've seen/experienced over the past few years) I wasn't aware there was an exit clause?

Would it be beneficial to discussion if you could provide the info? (or maybe it would be counterproductive to the interests of those who need it to point it out specifically?)

Despite the discussion, for me personally, based on what I've experienced.

It is my personal intention to try and find some practitioners who are understanding and un-biased and hopefully willing to put the best interests of young people first and treat TS'ism OFF-THE-BOOKS, and from there keep my eyes WIDE OPEN in my everyday life for kids who need help.

And I would hope that anyone who has been through what I have (and feels the same way about what they've seen as I do), would do the very same thing.

Nicole said...

"there are still too many variables for your statement to be considered accurate."

Wrong. I am only saying "some proof" meaning that you then have information pointing the direction that the person seemed to claim it might not point. Is it incontrovertible proof? No, I'm not claiming any such thing. But if a person claims they have a cold and then they sneeze then you have some proof that they might indeed actually have a cold. And from the things I have read they were unable to find that hormones affected the size of the brain sex region.

I am not presenting anything here as absolute proof. Just saying that we shouldn't think there is nothing; that lack of 100% proof does not necessarily equal 0% proof.

Van buren said...

You know what Nicole? That's a VERY interesting blog you linked there....

I don't suppose you'd be interested in telling the readers here how old you are?.... Married?..... Any kids?....

Please take your attempt at self justification elsewhere and stop derailing this discussion and it's meaningfulness to those of us who DO/HAVE experienced the transsexual birth condition and who (unlike yourself) DO infact want it's legitimacy as a medical condition to be PROVEN and a test found.

If you are who and WHAT I think you are then swallow down hard and use those stones you used to get your wife pregnant, BE A MAN and face the music, and stop trying to ride the coat tails of transsexual born women.

I am not presenting anything here as absolute proof. Just saying that we shouldn't think there is nothing; that lack of 100% proof does not necessarily equal 0% proof.~Nicole

Of course you're not, why would you? You don't WANT it to be provable, you just want it to be explainable so you can weasel out of your responsibilities and leave your wife high and dry.

Be careful how you respond (IF you decide to), the women here don't take to kindly to pieces of shit like you.

Anonymous said...

Following upon Van Buren's observation given above, I too would strongly recommend seeking treatment 'off the books'. That might be more costly in the short run, but in the longer run it would certainly spare one from having the remainder of one's life being continually derailed by having a 'history'.

I have never regretted side-stepping the 'official' system and going privately overseas. 34 years onward, still happy with that choice.

Leave the umbrella folks to stew in their own juices. We can't fix'em, and certainly shouldn't join'em. Engaging is an utter waste of time, ne?

yours anonymously,
'the elfchick', for want of a more memorable pseudonym

Anonymous said...

Now that this 'discussion' has de-railed and is in dangar of degeneratinginto the usual tiresome tirade generally rife with half truths and agenda driven slfjustification, humormeby returning to what I see as the key point of this post:

"The big problem is again the use of the term "gender" which is ephemeral and may last for a hour, hours, a day, or a week, or a life but gender can be fluid and is cultural while sex is physical and relates directly to both primary and secondary sex characteristics. It is funny how those silly little items like sex characteristics are such a bugaboo to the transgendered."

"Those of us born transsexual understand clearly what we need and it is SRS. We need to be physically female and the transgender loons love to throw around the comments about what is between the legs does not define what a woman is but I hate to be the bearer of bad news , it really does define who is female and who is male."

The REAL problem from my perspective is that, "The DSM-V received a lot of input and none of it was from those representing transsexuals but from transgender activist groups pushing (for), the same rights and the same diagnosis for themselves as transsexuals."

C.I.

Anonymous said...

@VB Had to taken the time to delve a bit deeper into the LDSGenderBlog before dismissing it, you might have found this: http://ldsgender.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/jims-view/

What I found of note here, besides the author's impressive credentials was the accurate use of the terms SEX and gender, as well as the pointed lack of the usual conflationary platitudes.

Anonymous said...

I too agree with "elfchick" and Van Buren that, "off the books" is the way to go.

I took one look at what was being promulgated by those "writing the book", and ran the other way as fast as I could. 40+ years later, I am still extemely happy and thankful I made that very wise choice.

E.

Nicole said...

"I don't suppose you'd be interested in telling the readers here how old you are?.... Married?..... Any kids?...."

42. Single. No children.

"Please take your attempt at self justification elsewhere and stop derailing this discussion and it's meaningfulness to those of us who DO/HAVE experienced the transsexual birth condition and who (unlike yourself) DO infact want it's legitimacy as a medical condition to be PROVEN and a test found."

Wait, that's me too. I'm not sure what I have said to make you think otherwise. Do you mind pointing it out to me? I want its legitimacy as a medical condition proven too.

"If you are who and WHAT I think you are then swallow down hard and use those stones you used to get your wife pregnant, BE A MAN and face the music, and stop trying to ride the coat tails of transsexual born women."

I think you might be getting me mixed up with another Nicole.

"Of course you're not, why would you? You don't WANT it to be provable, you just want it to be explainable so you can weasel out of your responsibilities and leave your wife high and dry."

See my responses to your three prior remarks. Wait, I'll just put them here again:

* Single.

* I want its legitimacy as a medical condition proven too.

* I think you might be getting me mixed up with another Nicole.

"Be careful how you respond (IF you decide to), the women here don't take to kindly to pieces of shit like you."

Um, thanks? Again, I think you're getting me mixed up with a different Nicole and I was afraid this might happen when I saw you refer here to another person named Nicky.

Van buren said...

I mean no malice here nicole, but is that the WHOLE story? And please remember it's a sin to lie.

Alright, I'll bite then, I've got an open mind, why? Why do YOU want it proven? What's YOUR motivation? Why the big religious crusade?

Van buren said...

Nicole, my email is on my profile page, in the interests of not detracting from Liz's post any further, IF I'm right, it MAY be benificial for you to email me, you MIGHT find I'm not the heartless person I appear to be here.

Anonymous said...

@ Van buren

I have a problem with your comment:

"If you are who and WHAT I think you are then swallow down hard and use those stones you used to get your wife pregnant, BE A MAN and face the music, and stop trying to ride the coat tails of transsexual born women."

I am a transsexual woman, born as a woman in a man's body, etc, etc. Here is my issue.... I was raised in a homophobic household where men are supposed to be as manly possible and any feminine thoughts and/or characteristics that I displayed as a child were scared into suppression. To the point that I forced myself into denial and did everything I could to live my life as a man. This caused a horrible decade long depression and frequent plans made for suicide. I know that the path necessary for my life take to rid me of the constant pain is SRS. However; the depression led to me getting married and I now have 2 beautiful children that I would not trade for the world.

Does the fact that my denial led me to "fathering" children make me less of a transsexual, or not a transsexual at all? Does it make my unwavering need for SRS any less valid?

I am no longer married, 30 years old, and my children are ages 3 and 1 and my daughter now refers to me a "Mummy". And before you say anything nasty like

"you just want it to be explainable so you can weasel out of your responsibilities and leave your wife high and dry."

let me tell you that it pains me everyday to have to face and deal with the pain that the former denial has caused my ex.

Also, does that fact that I have not yet had SRS make me less of a woman? My insurance will not cover it "regardless of medical necessity" and I cannot afford it (though I am saving money). I live as a woman, am referred to as one, respected as one, etc. I do NOT dress, look, behave, or LIVE as a woman for fun, I do it because I AM A WOMAN!

BTW: I am not the same Anonymous as the previous posts. My name is Shauna and you are welcome to try and invalidate my transsexualism if you feel compelled to do so.

Anonymous said...

@ Shauna Your brief narrative as you've written it here probably places you as a a type V transsexual. If your target need is SRS then fine. No-one here has an issue with that. Personally I have a lot f sympathy for your plight it cannot be easy.

That said please understand that for a type VI it's very hard to comprehend how any TS can father children.

Cassandtaspeaks

Van buren said...

Hi Shauna,

Did I say at any point in the comment you quoted WHO or WHAT I thought Nicole to be? Did I invalidate her transsexualism at some point?

In the world I live in MEN get excuses, that is called male privilege and is part of being the bigger and therefore dominant variant of our species.

Women are smaller and weaker and so by nature are dominated and as a result almost always pay a price for their own actions and the actions of men.

You can sing a sob story about how terrible your circumstances growing up were, but the reality of the world is that we each make our own choices. It was a choice for you to marry and a choice for you to father children those were choices, like it or not, that your wife and children have paid a price for.

I could care less if you or nicole are TS, what I was in fact saying is that if you are a WOMAN then do as ALL women have ALWAYS been expected to do and be accountable for your actions.

If you look further through the comment thread, you'll notice I offered nicole my email.

If my suspicions are correct she has found herself in a similar position to yourself due to being raised by a family with strict religious beliefs and expectations. It's speculation until she confirms but I suspect when the time has come and she's had to transition or die, those same factors have seen her wife and family taken from her, and so now she seeks to justify her actions to those she feels can help her get her family back.

I may be WAY off base and until she responds i won't know, but I was offering my email in the hope that I may be able to offer her help and or a different perspective and approach.

I'm sorry for the hurt that your decisions have caused you.

Others of us faced VERY similar and often WORSE circumstances and still managed to make reasonable choices, and we all still paid our own price, often steeper than you can imagine, and some of us even did it with humility, dignity and grace.

I hope this satisfies whatever you may have hoped to achieve.

Anonymous said...

Where does it all lead?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2181312/The-sex-change-zealots.html?ITO=1490

Nicole Jade said...

"Why do YOU want it proven?"

So others will know that our condition doesn't stem from mental weakness.

"What's YOUR motivation?"

So others will know that my condition doesn't stem from mental weakness.

"Why the big religious crusade?"

I haven't mentioned religion on this blog. I did link to a blog that has some religious content but I was only pointing out a part there that is purely scientific. I really think there is a medical reason behind what we go through and I know there is some evidence out there for that and when there is even more convincing evidence to present to others they will be able to take it as scientific fact apart from their religious beliefs or denial thereof.

Nicole Jade said...

"Also, does that fact that I have not yet had SRS make me less of a woman?"

The people that think that it does must then accept that they did not become a woman until SRS occurred; that up until that time they were men in dresses.

Nicole Jade said...

Interesting thing about that Daily Mail article is that it's the first place I've ever seen the term "gender dysmorphia."

Nicole Jade said...

One thing for everyone to keep in mind is that for some of us the way to keep alive until we could transition WAS to keep silent about our condition. Little kids have been beaten to death for acting feminine.

I quite literally switched into a survival mode that worked for me when I saw that my father didn't like displays of feminine behavior. Once he died my type of survival mode switched. I don't however operate under any delusions that my decisions made in the face of hardship are going to please everyone.

Elizabeth said...

@Nicole

If you want SRS but have not had it yet then you are transsexual. After SRS you are a female. Simply put a female/woman does not have a penis but a MTF transsexual does have one until SRS.

Van buren said...

Firstly Nicole, I want to say how it dissapoints me the way that you have turned what should have been a meaningful and objective discussion about Liz's subject and how we might find a meaningful way to help future transsexuals, into a disscusion about what is, currently little more than a meaningless opinion/theory that MAY help bolster your own personal insecurities.

Secondly, I'll ask you again the same question I asked you privately:

"Why do YOU want it proven?"

So others will know that our condition doesn't stem from mental weakness.

"What's YOUR motivation?"

So others will know that my condition doesn't stem from mental weakness.
~nicole

What difference does it make WHAT people think if you're desperate to survive/trying to save you own life, from the LIFE THREATENING medical condition we're talking about here?

Do YOU think YOUR condition stems from mental weakness? 'cause I can tell you my opinion of people who feel that way if you want me to (but I can assure you, you won't like it).

Fact of the matter is, proof or no proof, judgment or no judgement, if you ARE TS you take your lumps and you do whatever you must and I can tell you I KNOW that from personal experience.

Last thing:

One thing for everyone to keep in mind is that for some of us the way to keep alive until we could transition WAS to keep silent about our condition.~Nicole

I'm certainly glad you pointed that out for us all because we might otherwise NOT have realized.

Again, my apologise Liz, I'm finished now, I promise.

Nicole Jade said...

Van Buren, I'm very aware of all the points you have brought up. They are not new concepts to me. I'm very aware of the "trannier-than-thou" type thinking that many people have. Oddly, I agree with you on something and then you get on my case about it. We seem to both be looking forward to more medical evidence of the condition and when I give my reason why it's not quite good enough for you. What other people think about me is NOT the most important factor in my decisions. I just think ANYTHING that helps ANYBODY understand the condition is, overall, a good thing. Do you disagree? Any tidbit of knowledge will help the next generation of transsexuals at an ever younger age. The answer I gave as to why I want proof is the same answer Liz's article is getting at: we want EVERYONE to know that people who have this condition have it because of a medical reason not because of a mental reason. But when I say I want people to know it's a medical thing for me and not a mental thing then somehow that answer deserves all your wrath, ire and consternation. Think about what you are doing for a second and realize how bizarre it is

If we want society at large to know it is medical and not mental for all transsexuals then why should it be wrong for them to know it's medical and not mental for one particular transsexual?

I don't have time to type up my every nuance of thought in a comment on somebody else's blog but here I keep finding that when I don't somebody else is ready and rarin' to jump on my case to show how much more of a pure transsexual they are than me. It starts to get kind of comical and instead of it making me feel more like I need to explain myself I start feeling less motivated to do so.

Since you don't like my answers can I redirect your own questions back at you?:

"Why do YOU want it proven?"

"What's YOUR motivation?"

When you answer can I then get on your case and tell you how my motivations are so much better?

****************************************

"I'm certainly glad you pointed that out for us all because we might otherwise NOT have realized."

Thank you for acting like you don't realize it but trusting us to know that you do just because you assert that you do. You have said repeatedly that no hardship should stop you from doing what it takes to save your life and when we agree with you you get on our case. Is that what you do to everybody who agrees with you?

Van buren said...

When you answer can I then get on your case and tell you how my motivations are so much better?~nicole

You're most welcome to say anything at all that you'd like nicole, you don't need my permission and it won't make any difference to me or my life or who or what I am.

Nicole Jade said...

Phew! That was a lot of drama for nothing. Usually people argue when they don't agree with each other.

Saphirenz said...

Thank goodness for people like Elizabeth and "Cassandra speaks" for they restore my depleted faith that there are people who are prepared to "tell it as it is"....the truth that is. I haven't read DSM for years either and the probable effects upon our situations elude me but the deceitful TG machine never seems to rest in its mission to erase the transsexual condition and replace it with their ludicrous "Gender Theory" I suspect they have a "fifth column" of moles in high places.I find it it quite incredible the way authorities here in my country capitulate so easily and accede to TG demands...The latest development here? They may choose the sex marker in their passports by simply making a statutory declaration. As for the DSM and psychiatrists ... they'll probably make more money out of the TG delusion than out of those truly aflicted by transsexualism.

Van Buren said...

Oh, I certainly DON'T agree with your desire to normalize "trans", please don't presume I agree with you, or that our motives are the same.
I've simply resigned myself to the fact that it is futile for a woman to discuss/agrue anything with a man, and especially a man with his own agenda, he simply can't recognize purpose in anything but what HE feels he needs.
I'll never get the last word, and I'm making myself look foolish for continuing (even now).

good luck with it, but I can assure you that proving TS'ism to be an intersex condition will do YOU PERSONALLY no good what-so-ever.

Christian Taylor said...

Interesting post. It's nice to find someone else who recognizes the difference between being transgender and transsexual. I've found it unfortunate that the term transsexual is being phased out by the masses and many are trying to replace it with the word transgender--when the two indicate very different things. I really strongly agree with you that being transsexual is a medical condition while being 'transgender' is often not.

Really though you imply that all medical conditions have a cure. Well, being born without arms doesn't have a cure and it's a medical condition. Really there is no perfect cure to being transsexual either. I mean I can undergo an operation that will give me a vagina, but I can't ever undergo an operation that will give me ovaries and a uterus and the ability to bare children.

So, I wouldn't say that SRS is a complete cure to the condition we deal with, but an extremely effective medical treatment--just like a high quality prosthesis isn't a cure to having no arms, but it is certainly an effective treatment.

There are a lot of people out there who struggle with different types of gender issues and I think most of them are not bad people, but I do agree that the current medical classifications are not adequate and are misrepresentative in many ways.