![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
recursiveparadoxFor 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Points not taken...
Date: 2009-08-17 10:08 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Points not taken...
Date: 2009-08-17 11:05 pm (UTC)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."
Re: Points not taken...
Date: 2009-08-26 08:53 pm (UTC)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).
Re: Points not taken...
Date: 2009-08-27 12:13 am (UTC)