recursiveparadox | The HBS Controversy and the Fun of Fallacious Reasoning (And For The Uninformed: GID)

For those that remember the last post about people finding cisgendered offensive based on some of the most fallacious and stupid reasoning applicable, don't forget, trans people are just as capable of fallacious silliness.

When in comes to fallacious arguments and pseudoscience, no one does it better than the Harry Benjamin Syndrome proponents. To give you a reasonably good idea of what they're claiming would require me to suspend about 90% of my biology knowledge, beat my head against my desk until it became numb and try very hard not to make the wtf face that my friends are so very familiar with nowadays.

I will do my best for you. But first, there may be uninformed cisgendered people here. Cisgendered people who (provided they haven't ran off from being so offended by the word cis) may want to know what Gender Identity Disorder (which is certainly not HBS) entails first. A point of comparison if you will. It's blindingly simple to describe so it isn't necessary to make an entire For The Uninformed post for it (but to be helpful, I will put a tag for GID and a For The Uniformed tag on this post).

For the Uninformed Mini Section: Gender Identity Disorder

Put simply Gender Identity Disorder (or GID for short) is a mental disorder wherein one exhibits a persistent (meaning it doesn't go away) urge to exhibit traits of a different sex. These traits may be the somewhat ethereal and short lived cultural elements assigned to a given sex. Or these traits may be a simple self conceptualization and involvement with the social group of a given sex. Or these traits may be the actual physical bodily structures that arise from the developmental path of a given sex (not necessarily all of them either). Or all three. GID doesn't specify, so it covers an epic shit ton (technical word) of symptoms.

GID is often characterized by dysphoria, which causes this urge and is persistent in and of itself. This dysphoria has triggers and normally the triggers are traits of one's birth sex. It's often described as a feeling of foreignness or wrongness to one's body parts and/or social and cultural roles and expectations and/or sociological group and conceptual description as assigned at birth.

Okay, maybe not so simple. My fault for being a biologist and loving technical terms. To make it a little bit less sciencetastic: Your body's sexed traits (penis, breasts, vagina etc) and/or your grouping in society (guys, chicks or androgynes), and/or your social/cultural roles and expected expressions (how society expects you to behave) causes you to hurt a lot and makes you want to change one or more of those things.

Ending of For the Uniformed Mini Section!

Transsexuality is more of a phenomenon then a disorder, it's the phenomenon in which individuals with the conditions described by GID (or other folk with different issues) seek out, attain or finish a process known as transition. This transition can be physical or it can be social or it can be both.

So what does this have to do with HBS? After all, HBS's website claims that it is an intersexual condition wherein the mind is the only section that possesses the traits of another sex (whereas more commonly intersexed folk may have genitalia and physical structures that do not strictly follow a male or a female development path alone). That doesn't sound much like GID right?

Well actually, "HBS sufferers" (you will find out why I used quotes shortly) experience dysphoria, often seek out physical and social transition and are pretty much entirely medically and conceptually described by the phrases "GID" and "transsexuality". In fact, the HBS people like to claim that HBS is "true transsexuality". Well shit. So that makes things a lot more interesting now, doesn't it?

First problem: HBS claiming "true transsexualism" (as a medical version of the word transsexuality, which is a fabrication in and of itself, as transsexualism is essentially the exact same damn thing) is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. In case you abhor hyperlinks, a no true scotsman fallacy is based around circular reasoning wherein the actual data or definition of a concept is ignored and counterexamples are dismissed as not being true so and so.

So if I were to say, "all MtF transsexuals like high heels," and then someone else were to dispute that by saying, "I don't like high heels and I'm an MtF transsexual" and I responded with, "you're not a true transsexual, therefore your example doesn't do anything" it would be circular fallacious reasoning based on misuse or complete ignorance of a definition.

Transsexual's definition does not specify a brain intersexed condition. It doesn't even really specify dysphoria or GID. So to make claims about "true transsexuality" or worse yet to attempt to pretend that transsexualism is a medical term replacing a political term, when those claims involve things that have nothing to do with its definition (while simultaneously dismissing all counter examples as not real transsexuals) is the textbook example of No True Scotsman.

And that is exactly what HBS proponents do.

Wait, it gets worse.

GID is established in the medical community for America and written into the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual, the book used to diagnose and keep track of the disorders that the psychological sciences know of). It has essential equivalents in the ICD (what the World Health Organization uses for the same purposes as the DSM). It's backed by the psychological field and biological field's research and the methodology of treatment has been tested and is detailed in the standards of care put forward by WPATH an organization of medical doctors, psychiatrists and other biology and psychology related scientists. It's also accepted by the American Medical Association (which is usually a good sign for its scientific authenticity)

What does HBS have establishing it? Well... nothing actually. It's a theory presented by a layman (an admittedly latently sexist word for non-scientist) named Charlotte Goiar and expanded on by more laymen, all of whom are transsexual and personally invested in HBS being taken as reality by the medical field. This theory is based on a flawed study that tested the brains of dead transsexuals who had already undergone hormone replacement therapy against the brains of dead cisgendered folk of the same birth sex who underwent no HRT. A study done in the 1990's I might add.

The reason why this is flawed? Because exposure to estrogen or testosterone changes the brain, as established in this study published in 2006. Oh and the fun part? They based this study on a group of people with GID and a group of people without it, took brain tests using MRIs and whatnot and then exposed the people with GID to hormone replacement therapy. Which not only tests to see whether HRT changes the brain but also establishes what a pre HRT transsexual's brain looks like.

The information revealed is pretty damning. The transsexual individuals had brains identical to cisgendered people of the same birth sex. After HRT, the transsexual individuals had brains nearly identical to cisgendered people of the same sex as their target sex. So this idea that trans people have intersexed brains? Completely and utterly unscientific. To the point where you can arguably state that the evidence used to back up the hypothesis has been scientifically disproven.

As a note: This is not to say that there couldn't be elements of the brain's structure that we can't detect with current methods that are sex specific and could contribute to or actually inflict GID on someone if they were mismatched with the external birth sex. But the only study used to back up the idea of "intersexed minds" has been disproven so HBS has been relegated back to layman unbacked hypothesis. Any attempt to claim that it is scientific, empirically proven or backed by research is at best shoddy pseudoscience and at worst outright willfully ignorant lying

So the whole HBS thing? Fallacy and a lack of scientific backing. Good times. As Laura from Laura's Playground has cautioned one should not take the HBS proponent's standards of care seriously, nor should one take what they say seriously. The fact that they continue to peddle this abhorrent pseudoscientific garbage as scientific and medical fact is a pretty good indicator of either willful ignorance or outright self inflicted delusion. Not a great bunch to be taking advice from.

There are a few people though (especially because of the note above) that would ask, "well isn't it possible that they're still sort of right? That there might be an intersexed brain condition or something causing GID?"

Perhaps. But something that is important to remember is that anyone who claims that they know the single cause of GID is either full of shit or doesn't understand how the disorder is named and defined.

You see, when I went over GID above, you'll notice that it is (basically) a name assigned to a collection of symptoms. The name doesn't yield a whole lot of idea about what might cause these symptoms and if you look around, you'll find that there's not a lot of ideas on what any causes might be. Considering the sheer numbers of substantially different experiences of dysphoria, transition and whatnot had by various trans people who still meet the definition for transsexual and meet the diagnosis of GID one would be hard pressed to make a viable argument that GID had one single unifying cause.

Like most disorders named after a collection of symptoms (like Multiple Personality Disorder was before it became DID) you really don't know if there's multiple causes. Whereas a disorder that is named including a causative agent (Dissociative Identity Disorder, same effects as MPD, but caused by dissociation fragmenting one's identity and self conceptualization into multiple individuals) can definitely be shown to have a single cause.

So to sum it up GID does not contain a cause mention, nor do scientists really know the cause(s). And people with GID have had really radically different experiences. What does this say, logically? That it is highly likely that GID is multicausal. This means that there could be an intersex brain condition version of GID (maybe called Neurological Intersexuality Disorder if it exists, is discovered and split off). This means that there could be a sociologically and psychologically induced dysphoria version of GID (after all, there's a few folks out there for whom the body is not the issue but the way society treats them is). This means that there could be a self conceptualization version of GID, unrelated to society (which would probably still be called GID if others are split off, honestly). This means, overall, that there could actually be quite a few different types of GID caused by different things (going beyond even what I listed above).

All of these versions (with the exception of hypothetical ones that defy what we do know about the brain, body and GID) are possible because nothing about what we know of GID suggests that any single cause is responsible for every case of it. So when people start talking about "true GID" or "real GID" or "the real cause of GID" they are, for lack of a better way to say it, full of shit.

Always good to keep that in mind for medical trans discussions.

Mood busy

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

tgnonsense.wordpress.com

HBS was an attempt to further remove and define those who were Benjamin Type V and Type VI True Transsexuals from the transgender movement after they, the transgender, hijacked the term transsexual and sanctioned its use by anyone on the planet who presented some form of gender variance. And, as a note, you say that “true transsexualism” is a fabricated word which is completely false. Benjamin used that term too many times to count to differentiate that group from transvestites, crossdressers, and everyone else that is not considered “transgendered.” Many of the more fanatical proponents of HBS have succeeded in giving it a reputation that few ascribe to. Nonetheless, the concept was admirable even if the approach has so far failed miserably.

At the onset, I might say you are quite right in saying that no absolute definitive cause for transsexualism has been found, but there is a general consensus that it is due to hormonal anomalies occurring in the very initial stages of pregnancy. And, to that, one can add roughly 200 other papers to the premise that transsexuality is a medical issue and anything but a sociological one…so I wouldn’t be discarding your biology just yet.

On dysonnance’s blog and related to you essay you say:

“Transsexual is still a scientific term. Just like you said, it isn’t up to us. And even if we do wrest control and own the word eventually, there will still be a scientific term describing the phenomenon of transsexual folk and will be inclusive or non inclusive to those not “pure” enough by the HBS folks, the transsexual separatists, the transsexual gender essentialists or whatnot’s standards, based entirely on the standards of science. Not on the standards of anyone outside of science. So really, why are people thinking that gay folk and whatnot are responsible for the way transsexual is set up? The gay, lesbian and bisexual folks, with the trans folks that wouldn’t be categorized as transsexual did not make these categories. Science did.”

No offense, but that paragraph says quite a lot about your lack of knowledge on the issue you are writing about. Particularly the part of where you say: “So really, why are people thinking that gay folk and whatnot are responsible for the way transsexual is set up? The gay, lesbian and bisexual folks, with the trans folks that wouldn’t be categorized as transsexual did not make these categories. Science did.”

Science had nothing to do with setting up transgender, the term was and is an invented word popularized by those not transsexual, but gender variants primarily associated with the GLB. The transgender then decided that transsexual was a part of that group; nothing could be further from the truth…the only people who believe that are the transgender themselves. It may surprise you, but if you had been around 15 years or so ago and said you were transgender most of the people who you were talking to wouldn’t have even had a clue what you meant.

Those of us who are true transsexuals are not separatists for that implies that at some point we were actually a part of the transgender…and we have never been. We are not elitists either, we are no better than they are. But…we are very different. We are not something less than or other than women…we are female. And we have no intrinsic tie to the GLB or Homosexual T “just because”. We have the same position as the mainstream does…a women can’t have a penis…and males can’t have babies. No female on the planet would ever, ever want to retain their penis…guys simply don’t want to conceive children…all of that is the result of the transgender gender benders everyday clap trap and living in the fantasy that anyone can just say they are something and they will be it.

You also say above in your blog post:

“Transsexuality is more of a phenomenon then a disorder, it's the phenomenon in which individuals with the conditions described by GID (or other folk with different issues) seek out, attain or finish a process known as transition. This transition can be physical or it can be social or it can be both.”

That’s also incorrect. Just because someone is gender variant, transition to female, and even though you don’t mention it, even be successful, doesn’t mean the person is transsexual, it only means that it is a man who is successfully living as a female in a social role. True transsexuals transition in a social way and much more importantly, do so physically as well via GRS…surgery being the dividing line between true transsexuals and everyone else. And while there evidence, though not definitive proof as to a medical, biophysiological reason for true transsexualism, there is exactly no proof that transsexualism has a social cause.

And, finally, you say:

”Considering the sheer numbers of substantially different experiences of dysphoria, transition and whatnot had by various trans people who still meet the definition for transsexual and meet the diagnosis of GID one would be hard pressed to make a viable argument that GID had one single unifying cause.”

You are right, that there are many, many different experiences of GID. But even though true transsexualism is listed as a GID (initially done so in part to legitimize our GRS), the story of our experiences are all generally the same: we knew we were different from an extremely early age, and as soon as we realized GRS was an option we moved hell and high water to have our surgery.

From:

recursiveparadox

Bold is yours, not bold is mine.

HBS was an attempt to further remove and define those who were Benjamin Type V and Type VI True Transsexuals from the transgender movement after they, the transgender, hijacked the term transsexual and sanctioned its use by anyone on the planet who presented some form of gender variance.

And yet absolutely no evidence of the transgender movement at large actually hijacking the word transsexual exists. Currently, the transgender movement at large uses the word, "transgender" to describe some form of gender variance. Not transsexual. The closest thing you could claim to a hijack is that the transgender movement absorbed the transsexual movement socially as a subset of the transgender movement. Which is less of a hijack and more an attempt to tie together an alliance of mutual interest (whether that mutual interest exists is a very arguable point)

At the onset, I might say you are quite right in saying that no absolute definitive cause for transsexualism has been found, but there is a general consensus that it is due to hormonal anomalies occurring in the very initial stages of pregnancy. And, to that, one can add roughly 200 other papers to the premise that transsexuality is a medical issue and anything but a sociological one

It's wise to not make strawmen arguments. In no way did I say that transsexuality was not a medical issue. Considering my support of there being a disorder diagnosis like GID, I'm fairly certain that would constitute a clear support of it being medical in nature. But where is the evidence for intersexualism in the brain as a cause? I've yet to see 1 paper that has countered that paper from 2006. That was what I was bringing up. As for hormonal anomalies, where is this general consensus? Where are these papers? I'm well aware of the papers dealing with GID's unresponsiveness to psychotherapy and responsiveness to physical transition, all of which establish the medical need and nature. But how many scientific papers establish that an in utereo hormone level anomaly could be the cause? Hypothesis and speculation is great in the scientific world but it isn't theory. So give me some links. Give me some material. Show me this consensus.

No offense, but that paragraph says quite a lot about your lack of knowledge on the issue you are writing about. Particularly the part of where you say: “So really, why are people thinking that gay folk and whatnot are responsible for the way transsexual is set up? The gay, lesbian and bisexual folks, with the trans folks that wouldn’t be categorized as transsexual did not make these categories. Science did.”

Science had nothing to do with setting up transgender, the term was and is an invented word popularized by those not transsexual, but gender variants primarily associated with the GLB. The transgender then decided that transsexual was a part of that group; nothing could be further from the truth…the only people who believe that are the transgender themselves. It may surprise you, but if you had been around 15 years or so ago and said you were transgender most of the people who you were talking to wouldn’t have even had a clue what you meant.

No offense, but you really need to actually read what you just quoted and the context around it before you talk about the words in it. In that post, I said transsexual is a scientific word (including all of the categories of transsexual, which was why it was plural). Not transgender. And frankly, whether transsexual could be absorbed into transgender as a group has nothing to do with whether either of the words are scientific. If you would like to discuss whether TG should have TS within the group, that's fine, we can do that. But I would appreciate a lack of strawman fallacies (claiming I said TG was scientific) and a bit more consistency (you said earlier that TG hijacked TS as a way to label all TG as TS, now it's TG absorbed TS as a part of its group, which is your claim? They contradict.) on your side while we finish up discussing the HBS fiasco.

Those of us who are true transsexuals are not separatists for that implies that at some point we were actually a part of the transgender…and we have never been. We are not elitists either, we are no better than they are. But…we are very different. We are not something less than or other than women…we are female. And we have no intrinsic tie to the GLB or Homosexual T “just because”. We have the same position as the mainstream does…a women can’t have a penis…and males can’t have babies. No female on the planet would ever, ever want to retain their penis…guys simply don’t want to conceive children…all of that is the result of the transgender gender benders everyday clap trap and living in the fantasy that anyone can just say they are something and they will be it.

Separatism is in and of itself, simply a movement to leave another thing. It does not imply that you should have stayed or that you need to stay. So it applies as a term. As for the associations with GLB and TG, those are more built from mutually beneficial arrangements and sociological goals, not similarity in type. Unfortunately for you, at least some of society does not see you as female and will not see you as female. They will treat you in a way that is consistent with how they treat gender variant people. Having protections built into law to protect folk from being fired for perceived gender variance (did you know? Even straight cissexual folks can get fired for perceived gender variance, shock and awe) and other such things is beneficial to us and them. No matter how well you "pass", no matter how much you tell someone about your medical disorder, you will need these protections because society will screw you. Hence, mutually beneficial arrangement.

GLB is a little more iffy, that one I'll give you. One would say that we have mutually beneficial ties (the fact that because society will not see you as female it also sees your sexuality as gay, etcetera) the fact is, they have fucked over not only transsexuals but also transgendered folks on a regular basis due to the wonders of cis privilege. So I can understand wanting to just cut ties and be done with the betrayals. That's really neither here nor there however over whether or not you're a separatist and why HBS is full of shit.

Now as for your essentialist claims (a woman can't have a penis), I really wonder if you realize how badly that contradicts your claim that you are female/woman 100% and always have been. Just thought you should know.

That’s also incorrect. Just because someone is gender variant, transition to female, and even though you don’t mention it, even be successful, doesn’t mean the person is transsexual, it only means that it is a man who is successfully living as a female in a social role. True transsexuals transition in a social way and much more importantly, do so physically as well via GRS…surgery being the dividing line between true transsexuals and everyone else. And while there evidence, though not definitive proof as to a medical, biophysiological reason for true transsexualism, there is exactly no proof that transsexualism has a social cause.

You came from Dys' post correct? If you had absorbed any of that you would realize that, no, you are incorrect. Transsexual encompasses all formulations of GID, including those who don't even seek surgery. You may not like this fact but what you don't like doesn't have much effect on reality. The fact is, by all of the scientific standards (sociological for woman, biological for female) if a gender variant person does transition to female, sociologically transitions to woman and successfully functions in society as such then that gender variant person is a female woman. No amount of you not liking this will change it. And really the justifications for your claims even being introduced into scientific labeling are pretty poor to begin with. It would necessitate drawing a line, wherein the mass majority of women and men stop being women and men because they don't exhibit these largely stereotypical traits you ascribe in your essentialist claims (cissexed folk too, if that matters). So really, science is never going to incorporate such a thing into its labeling system. It would make classification a bit ridiculous and useless to base what is a woman and what is a man on stereotypes that have poor basis in reality.

As for proof of a social cause, I distinctly recall pointing out that multicausal GID is simply a high likelihood and that a social cause could be one of many causes. Not that we had scientific proof that it was socially caused. I really hope you didn't come in here and just skim through my post while undergoing rage spasms, because you really are misquoting and misparaphrasing an awful lot. Anger is useful and all but not when it stops your ability to comprehend what your opposition is saying.

You are right, that there are many, many different experiences of GID. But even though true transsexualism is listed as a GID (initially done so in part to legitimize our GRS), the story of our experiences are all generally the same: we knew we were different from an extremely early age, and as soon as we realized GRS was an option we moved hell and high water to have our surgery.

There you go with the No True Scotsman fallacy again. Transsexual is and continues to be what the medical field defines it as. And the fact is, even if you had the power to change that, your justifications are lacking for what you would change it to.

Especially this: "we knew we were different from an extremely early age". Not really. There are quite a few transsexuals who, in every way and form, fit every single other of the arbitrary rules you have applied to create your No True Scotsman fallacy, except for that one. The reasons vary. I thought my hatred of my body structure was normal for guys, ergo I did not realize I was different from a young age. Same for the hell and high water section. Some people go into denial when they face something of that magnitude. Some people kill themselves. Some drown the feelings in drugs and alcohol. An arbitrary rule that bases the diagnosis of a condition on how a person handles their treatment is pretty silly. "Oh Billy is really schizophrenic, because he hates pills". Um what? That's the problem with arbitrary rules made to save yourself from shadowy nonexistent phantoms. In the end, you don't have a lot of actual scientific, rational, logical reason for them to exist.

Me, I'll stick with science, thanks. At least it explains using evidence and theory. Not fear and paranoia of the "Transgendered Conspiracy of International Transsexual Exploitation."

From: (Anonymous)

> as soon as we realized GRS was an option we moved hell and high water to have our surgery.

Also, this is a demonstrable lie. Many of the most hardcore HBS zealots completed their transitions well into adulthood or middle age.

The simple fact is that they demand a kind of purity which does not, cannot exist.

- signed as Anonymous Troll of the Day (arr, woof).

From:

recursiveparadox

That too. Thanks for catching that one where I missed it.

From: (Anonymous)

Whether Harry Benjamine Syndrome(HBS) is or is not a real medically defined condition, or whether or not it is linked in any way to an intersexed condition, it is besides the point of what HBS proponants are trying to accomplish.

The original concept of HBS, which appears flawed and irreversibly damaged, was to differentiate Type V and Type VI transsexuals from the transgender who hijacked the term and sanctioned its use by every other gender variant on the planet. I am not an HBS'r myself, and I have argued against their claims to intersexuality and specifically, that all HBS individuals are aware of their intersexuality prior to 4 years old. Personnally, I cant even remember that far back in my timeline, but I am sure I was not concerned with pink v's blue diapers or what mum and dad refered to me as.

As a post op women of transsexual history with 24 years since SRS and almost 30 years since I first attended the Charing Cross Gender Clinic, I prefer to think of my history as a "classic" Transsexual, i.e. one that conforms to Benjamine's original hypothosis on transsexuality. That does not make me an HBS'r, yet I am accused of such. I do believe that there are "true" transsexuals, I am not so sure it's an intersexed condition.

The concept behind HBS, and one that I support, is that a line is drawn between the notion that anyone, at any age, and with any background, can claim to be a transsexual, and that the numbers of such people doing so, are growing exponentially. Gender variants, from Crossdressers to Gender Queers are claiming transsexuality where none exists. They use the transgender and GLB platforms to assimilate and colonize classic transsexuality, replacing long recognized medical acceptance with gender theory and gender spectrums. They would seek to create laws suited only to their world view, adjust sociatal norms to a grudging acceptance of their ideas that a woman can have a penis, or that a man can give birth.

As a classic transsexual, these "new transsexuals" are no more than fakers to me. I know of no true transsexuals that are willing to retain their birth anatomy. HBS may be a made up term, but then so is transgender. Colonization of transsexuality by the gender spectrum advocates, demeans those transsexuals that have sought to simply resolve a birth defect and assimilate into their target gender. ost of us, HBS or not, have no wish to be a part of any group, not HBS or Transgender, and certainly not the GLB which seeks to affiliate anyone it can under its roof to build it's percieved numbers and approval.

In either regard, transgender dogma that states that all transsexuals are also transgender, is a form of colonization in the same way as when termites invade a house, the purpose is not to live as one with the house, but to devour the house. HBS advocates and classic transsexuals are not willing to allow that to happen.

From:

recursiveparadox

As someone with social ties to the TG community (major sites, not fringe sites) by virtue of activism, I have yet to hear any attempts to claim that transsexual is anything by a person with GID who is attaining or wishes to attain physical transition (which is actually untrue as the actual scientific categories are just based on GID).

Considering GID is based off of Harry Benjamin's material (with some minor tweaking) I really think that's a pretty good indicator that there isn't this attempt to label all gender variants as transsexual. Where are you getting this impression from?

And really, age, background, none of those have to do with GID. What has to do with GID is exactly what is described in the diagnosis. And the majority of people trying to break gender norms in half do not fit that diagnosis.

Honestly, this all plays out like paranoid delusions of some grand conspiracy to destroy transsexuality.

From:

recursiveparadox

No seriously, I've got a transgendered friend in my living room who has no clue what you are talking about. They know for a fact that they are not the same as I am and that they are not a transsexual. Where are these TG hijackers?

From:

snugglebitch

... I have yet to hear any attempts to claim that transsexual is anything by a person with GID who is attaining or wishes to attain physical transition.

You're missing the part where she believes that anyone who does not "fully" transition isn't truly transsexual. That anyone who does not "fully" transition is just "a transgender" hijacking "her" terminology.

From:

recursiveparadox

Well shit, you're right. I did miss that.

Just more arbitrary bullshit based on paranoia of a "TG-GLB conspiracy". I wonder if they've even articulated what "fully" means.

From:

paper_hand

So, apparently even if you get hormones, laser, etc., everything BUT "the Surgery", you're a faker? I guess women can't have penises but men can have breasts (and not trans men, who apparently are "really" women unless they get a phalloplasty)?

From:

milkymoon

What she said, seriously. Seriously, surgery does NOT make the man, woman or anyone else. What the tgnonsense poster is implying in her comment is classist, inappropriate gender essentialism.

From:

snugglebitch

The information revealed is pretty damning. The transsexual individuals had brains identical to cisgendered people of the same birth sex.

They studied seven trans people. Seven. Six trans women and one trans man.

You have taken statistics, right?

From:

recursiveparadox

Alright. That's a fair point. The results certainly can't stand on their own as an indicator of scientific established theory. But they do establish the probability of missed confounding variables when taken into account compared to the other study (by showing that is reason to believe that a heavy control group accounting for pre HRT treatment needed to be made).

So the point of the study from the 1990's not being suitable evidence for the HBS theory still stands. Thank you for pointing that out, though.

From: (Anonymous)

It was the 1995 study that had 6 MtFs and 1 FtM. The paper you're referring to had 8 MtFs and 6 FtMs.

How the hell did either of these papers get published, with these sample sizes? The first one was in Nature, for FSM's sake. Are its editors and reviewers completely incompetent? What is peer review for if it lets stuff like this through?

Sadly, this is just par for the course. Some people should not be let near a brain scanner.

The whole medical community needs to let the particle physics community teach them how to do basic stats, and what constitutes a verified scientific result.

(If you look at, say, Figure 3, there's not even sufficient evidence at these sample sizes for any significant sexual dimorphism at all in the measured characteristics, never mind the stated conclusions.)

-- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥

From:

veridiansage

~Cries~
That's not a sample group...
~double-face-palms~
Must hide from the Pseudo-Science...

From: (Anonymous)

You have dealt with some thorny issues here and you should be commended for that courage. Too bad that in your clear intent to be provocative you allowed personal bias and a lack of current knowledge to destroy your argument and as a result I’m afraid you’re going to find yourself sucking on your foot.

HBS was a concept established with the intent to take transsexual out of transgender which is after all a social and political construct. Since transsexual is a recognisable and clearly defined medical condition it has no place in an artificial social construct like transgender. The intent of HBS supporters was commendable but unfortunately failed to make it clear that the standards of care they established were intended only as suggestions to the professional medical bodies concerned. Whether that was as a result of Charlotte Goiar or her supporters handicap of language is probably moot. The fact is the intent of the movement was to take back ownership of transsexual from those who had no fundamental right to it in the first place. In short the concept was correct the execution awful.

It’s interesting you have chosen too cling to GID and the DSM to legitimise your position. GID as a diagnosis and it’s presence in the DSM is as I am sure you are aware currently under review. In any event it was a diagnosis created by John money based on a premise that we are born without a pre ordained gender. His belief was that gender was a learned through social conditioning. His proof was an experiment conducted with the Reimer twins. 20 or more years on the twin raised female was suffering extreme trauma and reverted to the birth sex. Money’s great experiment failed. So the whole GID concept was proven a farce.

Most people fail to understand the difference between sex and gender. Sex is not solely the act of copulation. It is also the genitalia of a mammal insect reptile fish or plant for that matter. In human terms we uniquely are “self aware” and a part of self awareness is which sex we are. In the case of transsexuals that self awareness is in direct conflict with genitalia. Gender expression plays a very secondary role in that unlike other more psychological syndromes or paraphilias.

You refer to research work in your essay that deals with the effect of hormones on the structure of the brain. It is interesting research and is in it’s very early stages and by no means complete or conclusive. There are a great many things that remain in question. Some pretty conclusive research shows that transsexuals are born with a hypothalamus more typical of the sex opposite the genitalia. If the research to which you refer was at all conclusive one might suppose that flooding a male to female transsexual with a female hypothalamus with testosterone may cure the patient of their transsexuality. Unfortunately it’s been tried and simply caused a great deal more distress than transition would ever have caused.

One thing is very much established the definition of transsexual centres around the sexual identity of an individual in relation to genitalia. Where a person is able to function in a gender role or lifestyle opposite to their sexual organs there is no valid diagnosis of transsexuality possible.

Evangelina

From:

recursiveparadox

It's remarkable how arrogant you folk get when your reasoning is based on paranoid delusions of a TG conspiracy to devour TS.

HBS was a concept based on the flawed assessment that TS needed to be yanked out of TG. You'll notice that sociological groups often take in medical groups (the disabled group pulling people with fibromalygia for instance) when interests mesh. They are not incompatible and claiming they are is to impose arbitrary nonsensical rules on how groups of people operate.

Since there were sociological issues being faced by folks who needed physical transition (i.e. that cis folks were still tearing us a new one, insurance refused to cover those treatments, many states refuse to recognize one's target gender legally) it made sense to work with folks who didn't need physical transition and were addressing rigid gender roles, binarism and identity oppression. Because many of the root causes of these problems came together and greater power is gained by numbers. That's also the reason why the transgender community at large has allied and merged with the GLB community. Not because TG people have sexualities that mesh with that or because the groups are similar. Not even because of the overlap between them both. But because the different prejudices that we all face have similar roots.

Honestly I could see the benefits of the GLBT merging with the feminist movement, considering how many of our various problems come from the patriarchy. But that's another story for another time.

So no, the concept wasn't correct. It was built on paranoia and silliness and the (wrong) idea that social groups can't pull in medical groups for mutual benefit.

As for GID, a lot of things are under review in the DSM, because the DSM itself is getting ready to put out another version. GID diagnoses are being based more on persistent cross gender identification and need for bodily restructuring then social things (the diagnosis includes a section mentioning that you can't transition for social gain) and really, if it were all still based on Money's ideas, they'd be using psychotherapy not surgery. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The fact is, GID does have flaws. Its name is iffy for the concepts described and it often gets applied willy nilly to people who really don't need medical intervention in their lives. We shouldn't medicalize identity but we should medicalize a need for restructuring of the body that, if it doesn't happen will result in serious lose of function or death. So from that standpoint (along with a lot of the cissexism and binarism inherent in some of the standards of care) GID needs an overhaul. It isn't because of Doc Money though.

I love how you mention "some" pretty conclusive research that you haven't presented. I love how many of the HBS "concept supporters" (a new movement based on paranoia of TG folk?) still can't seem to provide these "conclusive" studies on whether trans folk are born with certain structures. The study I presented was to establish doubt on the study used on the HBS page. It doesn't need to be any more conclusive than the previous study to establish doubt and a possibility of confounding variables.

And really, if you think the research I brought up would imply that flooding the brain with testosterone would solve the problem, you might want to get a better education on biology. Hormones may change things in the brain but that doesn't mean that they change self conceptualization, sexuality or dysphoria. All that was established was that the size of the brain and a few other aspects (that don't necessarily affect those previously mentioned traits) were changed by HRT. The brain is simply too complex to assume that size will play a role in self conceptualization. There's no way to know that unless you actually analyze for a correlation.

One thing is very much established the definition of transsexual centres around the sexual identity of an individual in relation to genitalia. Where a person is able to function in a gender role or lifestyle opposite to their sexual organs there is no valid diagnosis of transsexuality possible.

Why's this? If someone's male or female structure is a problem to them and they need to change it, how does that exclude them from transsexuality if they don't have a problem with their role or lifestyle?

Arbitrary bullshit used to make rules tends to not have a lot of basis behind it. And let's face it, if you believe that there's some sort of different brain structure responsible for at least one type of GID, then that would imply that the core element is biological and the social elements only follow that. To claim that the social elements inherently follow it is to either claim that our minds are sexually programmed to exhibit certain behaviors and self conceptualizations (which doesn't jibe well with people who simply don't care about gender conceptually but aren't trans in the least) or to contradict the previous statement.

I hope you realize that your logic is broken. Too bad you were arrogant. I would be embarrassed in your shoes.

From: (Anonymous)

One,

While there may be no conspiracy pursy, historically TG when put into the common lexicon by Charles “Virginia” Prince, was done quite purposely with one and only one goal.

Tie TG and TS into being “the same.”

For this I need to point to any documentation. This information was gathered directly from the horse’s mouth as it were. I attended one of the IFGE early functions many years’ back and “Virginia” seeing something in me. What I do not know, decided to make me a pet project. For four days and three nights, I was regailed (hammered would be more accurate) with the history of Transvestites in America from the 30’s onward. All recounted in excruciating detail as was TS, As I might add ,seen by Prince. who for the record, denounced it as total fraud… ( this sour grapes response of his came aobut followed Dr Benjamin’s refusal to recommend Virginia for surgery. Again this from his mouth to my ears)

I will have to give Virginia this. He was a dedicated man and when he set his sights on a goal he accomplished it. That and he was also very good at making vital connections with like minded persons. Virginia, having decided on a very personal and moral level that there was no difference between TS and TV, and not wanting anything to do with TV as the perversion it was perceived of in the early years. (Which btw did resulted in his being arrested and sentenced to five years on a felony charge of sending obscene content through the mail) Set his sights on glomming onto the slim legal and social acceptance TS had gathered at the time. Legitimacy created by TS being seen, not as a psychiatric issue but as correctable medical issue and no threat to the binary.

He quite purposefully did everything in his considerable power to blur all boundaries and to create as much confusion as possible in the mind of the public about transsexuals and Transvestites, which he sifted to the new term, “Transgender” which continues to this day.

Given the numbers of transsexuals then and now are far far less than TV’s. His cause was eagerly taken up by the legions of men seeking to loose stigma and gain acceptance… both laudable goals mind you, but not with the tools chosen by him and them to accomplish this.

They did what men have done since time immemorial, they co-opted women for their own needs. Albeit this time women with a transsexual history. Bottom line the gender continuum was born at the hands of this man and we transsexuals have been drug kicking and screaming along with is ever since. Not as women with a correctable medical issue but as the uber queerest of the uber queer . We are, the far lunatic fringe of the “gender continuum! Gee thanks!

Which brings me to point two

We harbor no ill will towards any who suffer with gender variant issues, nor do we want to see them not recognized as valid. They should be…

That said we just want to the same consideration being asked for by all the others. To be allowed the right to be recognized for what we are… different!

Now is that really that much to ask?

Sibyl

From:

recursiveparadox

Thank you for the reasonable and concise response. I appreciate it.

As a bit of a "youngin'" (currently 25, started transition at 23) I can't speak for the old school groups of TS, TV and TG. There may very well have been very very bad beginnings to the TG movement, and in no way would I try to dispute that without more knowledge about the history of the TG movement and Virgina Prince.

What I can do is tell you what's going on now. Even if TG was built to let transvestites parasite themselves in its earlier days, right now TG is about general gender variance acceptance and achieving protections for anyone perceived as variant by the dominant kyriarchy.

That's the key reason why the protections and efforts of TG can be used to help us. Because the dominant kyriarchy does not consider our medical condition valid (no matter what may cause it, in fact, the dominant kyriarchy considers IS folk freaks and often delegitimizes them as well, so getting matched with IS people will not help us there) and the dominant kyriarchy does not consider us real women, we are labeled as gender variant, not by the liberals, not by social reformers and feminists, not by the TG community (who really considers us to be far more conformist more often), but by the conservative, social regulation forces of the kyriarchy that enforces strict gender roles, nasty retribution for any slight to those roles and considers a medical condition to not be adequate excuse for something as "extreme" (in their view) as "bodily mutilation" (which is entirely what they see it as)

The TG community as it stands now has no interest in conformity for themselves. TV's are proud to be transvestites and often correct people who wrongfully label them transsexuals. Crossdressers get offended by any implication that they might seek surgery when they're just in it for the clothing, the escape or the hobby or whatever. If anything, these days the TG community considers the TS community a fossil of gender conformity (sort of the exact opposite of what things presumably were back then, based on your memories of the movement) and many of them claim that it's us holding them back.

Obviously still a problem, especially since the TS community at large isn't defined by gender conformity, just a need to modify the body structure due to dysphoria. But this has been built off of current experiences with the TG community at large. Participating in TG activism for freeing up gender variance, working on a TG support site, dealing with the "fringe" directly.

I can tell you that we're considered the hangers on now, so I would say that the situation has changed from the past. I guess its up to you to figure out if its changed for the better. To be honest, I think it would be great if the groups could just work together without spitting on each other anymore.

On point 2: Thank you for that. It shows me that this isn't some kind of TG hate speech, that your views are based on exposure to things that would have given anyone a really bad impression. All I'm saying is that times have changed. Any attempts to blur the lines are no longer occurring at large. While the TG and GLB communities have some issues, like trying to apply self referential definitions to terms while still wanting them to retain meaning for identity purposes: (http://recursiveparadox.dreamwidth.org/3083.html) and acting as though we destroy feminism and enforce gender essentialism by existing (my personal rage inducer) the fact is, they aren't trying to eat us alive (even if they were before)

Those who need surgery and hormones to feel okay with our skins are seen as clearly separate from the clothing interested, the gender iconoclasts, the drag performers, the fetishists, the gender deconstructionalists, the binary deconstructionalists and the gender variant folks.

Really the only overlap is the nonbinary transsexual, who seeks out neutralization surgery or mixture surgery because being their birth sex (male or female) is painful but being the perceived opposite of that sex doesn't work either. And even that isn't a threat because well, the kyriarchy already considers us one of the biggest dangers. When you try to curry favor with the bigots, you will always fail. No matter what medical disorders you cite as a cause.

So to summarize, we actually are given that consideration and protection. No matter what the past was, the TG community at this point does not seek to co opt us or use us. We are safe.

Thank you for the good comment. I appreciate a reasonable, rational individual discussing this with me.

~RP

From:

recursiveparadox

I might have been unclear in there. Here where I said, "Obviously still a problem, especially since the TS community at large isn't defined by gender conformity, just a need to modify the body structure due to dysphoria. But this has been built off of current experiences with the TG community at large. Participating in TG activism for freeing up gender variance, working on a TG support site, dealing with the "fringe" directly."

I forgot to split the first sentence from the second and third. The first was an issue with how the TG community actually views us (as fossils) and the second and third were pointing out how my varied experiences have shown me that the situation is no longer what you thought it was based on your interpretation of the past.

Sorry if that was confusingly written. x_x

From: (Anonymous)

FWIW, Sibyl's account of Virginia Prince and her actions is about as misleading as the HBSers mischaracterization of the scientific evidence for transsexuality. And yes, Prince preferred she (and lived full-time as women for about half her life) -- see her biography by Richard Docter (http://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-Transgender-Journey-Virginia/dp/0974560006/) if you want a more factual account. The HBSers' repeated intentional misuse of pronouns is a good demonstration of exactly the sort of hateful batshittery they're obsessively engaged in.

If fact, Prince vehemently denied that transvestites (the term used at the time) or "transgenderists" (her term for people like herself who transitioned socially but surgically) were at all like transsexuals. Then again the HBSers conveniently overlook that Harry Benjamin in fact argued in that trans-ness is a spectrum and probably would be horrified to see his name used for hateful separatism...

Not to mention that the "but Virginia was mean to us 40 years ago" argument really isn't relevant and hasn't been for at least two decades. Yes Prince was influential in her day, but even at the time a number of her opinions were seen by contemporaries as outmoded or unenlightened.

BTW, if there's an argument to be made about people co-opting terms, I'd say there's a far stronger case that it's a number of transsexuals adopting transgender (seeming as a more "gentile" euphemism) during the past couple years, judging by how I've seen transitioners self-describe themselves in news stories.

Lena Dahlstrom

Re: Two points

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-24 07:01 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Two points

From:

recursiveparadox - Date: 2009-08-24 03:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Two points

From:

recursiveparadox - Date: 2009-08-24 03:03 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Two points

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-24 11:59 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Two points

From:

recursiveparadox - Date: 2009-08-25 12:32 am (UTC) - Expand

You've Crushed Nothing

From:

tgnonsense.wordpress.com - Date: 2009-09-02 03:26 pm (UTC) - Expand

Genderbitch: In ur gender, revealing ur privilege

Page Summary

Links

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags