recursiveparadox

From:

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.