What's Wrong With Just Being Normal?

For many of us, nothing.  For some...well...  To me, there is nothing wrong with being "traditional" or " "mainstream,"  but in her most recent rant, Suzan Cooke, transgender kook, gender fascist, and pretty much increasingly a bit of a shrill joke, goes off over someone named "Purple." What did this person do that was so terrible?  Well, apparently they have extolled the virtues of being a relatively normal person.

Granted, this person does seem to also be a bit of a flake.  It is not clear if this is the person who used to post under the name, "PurpleGirl," who was a devotee of Charlotte Goiar, who started a European "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" movement (apparently it has since dropped the incorrect use of a possessive...naming is to honor, not imply ownership) who used to post under the name "Courtney Michelle Holder."  That person, who as I recall did take some extremist views not unlike those taken by person posting as Donna Reiser, who is also a devotee of Goiar.  The HBS group that I was part of had major disagreements with Goiar, and broke with her very early on.  

Cooke never misses a chance to attack the HBS movement, apparently because the idea that a person might actually transition simply to live a normal life seems to disgust Cooke.  This Reiser is as extremist in one direction as the transgender activists, including Cooke, are in the other.  Where they want to claim that everyone who is "transsexual" is motivated by a desire to transgress gender, and must be "out, loud, and proud," Reiser claims that "true transsexuals" cannot be lesbians.  While many of the "straight men in dresses" that make up the core of the transgender extremists do claim to be lesbian, that does not mean that everyone who is transsexual, and identifies as a lesbian, is a fraud.

Let's consider that view.  Certainly some women, a certain percentage, are sexually and romantically attracted to women.  Some of them are that way, pretty much from birth.  Others are more fluid in the sexuality.  A lot of women, after a bad experience with a man, or because of abuse by a male, will, for a period, be attracted to women.  They may well return to being attracted to me, often to the dismay of their female partner.  So, to say that a "transsexual" cannot be a lesbian is to say, in effect, that transsexuals are significantly different from other women.  And this plays into the Blanchard-Bailey theory that attempts to "prove" that transsexuals are not really women at all, just excessively gay men, and straight men with a weird fetish.

This sort of thing is not uncommon.  I once had a well-known transgender kook tell me that a transsexual could not possibly be "pro-life."  I have seen others try to claim that transsexuals can't be Republicans, or conservatives, etc.  

The simple fact is, women, including transsexuals, like women in general, can have a wide range of views.  Some of us are more conservative than others.  Personally, I tend to joke that my politics are radically moderate.  I am a member of the Far Middle, the extreme center.  I pride myself on the fact that I can enter a debate between someone who is far right, and someone who is far left, and have both of them calling for my head. 

Some people, like Cooke, are very rigid in their thinking.  They are incapable of comprehending other view points.  I don't mean "agreeing" with those viewpoints, but comprehending why someone might hold them.  They cannot see that their might be arguments supporting that view that people might honestly hold.  Cooke sees the world as  black and white.  If you do not share Cooke's highly extremist left-wing view then you are wrong, end of story.  No just in error, but wrong as in "you will face the firing squad" when the revolution occurs type wrong.  Even evil, in a sense, though Cooke does not quite seem to believe in actual morality in an traditional sense.

On the other hand, while I may not agree with someone, I can often see why they think the way they do.  I can see the reasoning behind their view, and that enables me to see the flaws in their reasoning, if such exist.  I could make their arguments for them, and then explain to them why those arguments are flawed while also explaining why the extreme opposite view is equally wrong.  That is more than an extremist can handle.

A good example of this sort of thing would be the recurrent bathroom issue.  On the one hand, and extremist like Cooke will claim that there should be NO restrictions on transgender access to bathrooms.  No matter where one is on the imaginary spectrum, whether one identifies as a straight male fetishtic crossdresser who is just really turned on by the idea of slipping into the ladies room even though you know you are not going to pass and will cause major distress...which really, really turns you on, are you are a surgery-tracked transsexual who is a week away from surgery, it is all the same.  And I can see the arguments that might be made.  Everyone needs to pee.  It can be dangerous to go into the men's room if you are crossdressed.  We have to respect everyone's gender identity and gender presentation.  Now, on the far opposite extreme are those who might go so far as to say that even if one is a fully transition post-op, they have no business in the ladies room.  Their argument would be, a Y chromosome has no business in the ladies room (I would love to hear how they would deal with someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, a so-called "XY female.")  Well, The first arguments are not really persuasive.  If one wishes to crossdress, that might be their right, but it does not give them license to create a public nuisance, and quite frankly, speaking as a woman, a man in the ladies, and that is what a crossdresser is, is a public nuisance.  They don't become a woman when they slip on a dress.  If they are concerned about danger, then they should take responsibility for their behavior and avoid such situations.  They do no have an absolute right to crossdress and use that as an excuse for being a nuisance.  And the term gender identity is, to a large extent, meaningless.  It is one thing to be a true transsexual, carefully screened by a qualified and competent therapist, and another to simply assert that one "feels like a woman today."  And presentation?  Give me a break.  It may be your right to present as you wish, but that does not mean I have to pander to your fantasies.  

As I say, I am a moderate.  There need to be provision made for those who have a legitimate need to enter the ladies room, even though they might be physically male.  Those who are properly diagnosed as transsexual (not some kook who manages to fool a therapist with a big rubber stamp), but also provision to protect the privacy of women.  Personally, I did not enter the ladies room until I felt reasonably sure that I would be accepted as a woman, and not cause distress.  That, simply put, was because I was a woman, and had concern for other women.  The vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transgender are men, and like men, they think they have privilege that they really don't.

No, there is nothing wrong with being normal and traditional.  And people have a right, within limits, to be otherwise.  But, if they make that choice, they should also take responsibility for their behavior and realize that not everyone is going to look at them and say "Aren't they so cool, being a rebel and all..."  We aren't.  We are far more likely to look at them, and at best laugh, and at worst see them as a very disturbed, and disturbing person."  

It's About Time

An interesting thing happened last week on Suzan Cooke's transgender blog, Women Born Transsexual.  She finally had her fill of "Willow" Arune, who is a well known net kook and apologist for Blanchard, Bailey and company.  What finally triggered the meltdown was the rather bizarre case of George Rekers, a well known advocate of reparative therapy for both those who are gay or lesbian and those who are transsexual.  Rekers was found to be involved with a gay prostitute who had accompanied him on a trip.  I will spare you the nasty bits, which have been posted on numerous gay blogs.

Cooke linked Rekers to Blanchard and Bailey and as would be expected, Mr. Arune rose up in defense.  Cooke, who is a major Godwin's Law violator, seemed a bit surprised, perhaps the only person who was.  The usual accusations of being a collaborator and a Nazi resulted, and Arune apparently decided to beat a hasty retreat before being toss off of another blog.  Arune has a long history of being banned from numerous groups, blogs, and other places.  Arune even managed to get banned from Yahoo after creating a mailing list to attack Andrea James.  That cost Arune not only that group, but also his infamous Autogynephilia mailing list.

Why Cooke would expect anything different from Arune is the real mystery.  Arune has a very bizarre history.  He is on disability in Canada, even though he brags about practicing law pro bono.  He traveled to Thailand, supposedly as part of some sort of business deal, and claims he was imprisoned because he was framed by Citibank.  While he was in a Thai jail, he claims he was sodomized (he uses the term rape, but that is not the appropriate term for male on male sexual assault).  Apparently, prior to this he showed no inclination towards any gender issues and he originally claimed that the idea of a sex change was suggested by a therapist, apparently in Thailand.  When he was confronted on this, he defended that claim.

After being largely rejected as a transsexual by anyone who encountered his bizarre claims, he dropped out of sight for a while, returning with a claim of being an autogynephile and major defender of Blanchard and Bailey.

Arune has a history of attacking those who have successfully transitioned.  He tries, desperately, to drag them down to his level.  He has attacked Andrea James, Calpernia Adams, Lynn Conway (he took her to take for her "Successful Transsexual Women" page, claiming that none truly existed), and anyone else who does not blindly adhere to the Blanchard theory of transsexualism.  Arune also has a history of seeking affirmation for his transsexualism.  He seems more concerned with being seen as a transsexual than anything else.  That is why he was trying to befriend Cooke.  He saw her as a major source of credibility.  As is always the case, this has basically blown up in his face.  Of course, it never occured to Arune that Cooke's imprimatur no longer has the value it was once perceived to have.

Of course, the relationship was symbiotic.  Arune provided major strokes for Cooke's massive ego.  Both seem to have a pathological need to viewed as authoritative.  Outside of their indivdual small groups of followers, neither of them is.

The bottom line?  I seriously considered naming this article, "When Kooks Collide."

A New Low

Over the past year, I watched as Suzy Cooke cozied up to the transgender types.  At first I was a but puzzled, as Cooke was one of the staunchest advocates of separatism.  But, Cooke got closer, and closer until it reached the point where it was clear that Cooke's position has shifted drastically.

Now, Cooke has really gone off the deep end...  Cooke is clearly taking up the position of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence.  The same position taken by Paul McHugh and most of the rest who would oppress transsexuals.

Cooke has declared that transsexuals do not have "female brains."  Even more puzzling, Cooke has declared the idea that we do to be "misogynistic."  I'm not sure where that leaves the concept of "Women Born Transsexual," since the alternative is "men who choose to be transsexual."

This is a position that is taken by some transgender radicals who seem to know that they clearly don't have female brains, but who want to claim to be "just like transsexuals."  It is, for example, the position of "Willow" Arune, and well-known net kook, who by the way, has become a major fan of Cooke.  That also says a lot about what Cooke has turned into.  The main cheerlead for Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawerence, who has made a career out of trashing successful transsexuals, is now cheering on Cooke.

The bottom line is, Cooke, who does not take criticism well, started taking positions that did not sit well with other transsexuals.  We spoke up, and Cooke lashed out.  From there, things went down hill.  Cooke talks about unity, but what Cooke seems to actually mean is blind adherence to the law according to Cooke.  If you don't agree with Cooke, then you are the enemy, to the point where those Cooke used to be allies with are now all the enemy.  Cooke needs to take a look around and realize this.

I theorized earlier that Cooke seemed to want to unite everyone, with Cooke as the supreme leader.  That is obviously the case.  Sadly, right now, Cooke's might force seems to consist of a few hanger's on, including Mr. Arune.  He will cozy up to anyone who will stroke his ego, and tell him he really is a transsexual in spite of his totally bizarre history.  And Cooke, it appears, will accept anyone who blindly follows.

There was a time when Cooke was viewed by many as a major arbiter of who was, and was not, real.  If Cooke accepted you as a "Woman Born Transsexual," you could feel secure in your identity.  Yes, it was silly, but many fell into that trap.  Now, Cooke seems to be struggling to maintain a slowly deteriorating grasp on a secure identity.  And it is kind of sad to watch.

Unclear on the Concept....

Let me begin by saying again that this blog is not targeted at any individual, regardless of what some may wish to believe. This blog began as a means to comment on issues related to HBS, also known as true or classic transsexualism. On my occasions, the biggest issues related to these are raised by the transgender communities. So, people who are part of the transgender community are going to be mentioned. Of course, one of the common traits of the transgender communit is to view an disagreement as an attack. Personally, if they would simply leave transsexuals out of their model, I would gladly ignore them.

That said, discovered this morning that Suzan Cooke, who has effectively abandoned transsexualism in favor of a more transgender viewpoint, now objects to the term "classic transsexual." This is not, of course, surprising for someone who has embraced the transgender view, but as is all too common, Cooke doesn't seem to understand the concept...or perhaps doesn't wish to, preferring instead to simply make straw arguments.

For example, Cooke makes this statement:

Embracing “Classic Transsexual” is sort like embracing autogynephilia. Indeed Bailey uses it as a synonym for androphilic or homosexual transsexual. I was sort of amused to discover this one because the other couple of people I banned were self identified autogynephilics. Neither set particularly strike me as folks I would want to hang out with.

Now, this statement is a bit puzzling. I know of no one who uses the term "classic transsexual" who remotely embraces Bailey's ideas. Blanchard, who created the idea of their being only two kinds of transsexuals, homosexual transsexuals and autogynephiles, did so as an attempt to discredit the concept of classic or true transsexuals. Blanchard's model was designed to show that all transsexuals are actually men, either those who are "too gay to be men," or who are men with a fetishtic desire to be feminized.

Now, there is really no question that autogynephiles exist. But, the concept as created by Blanchard is flawed. But this is not the subject we are dealing with today.

Cooke seems to wish to claim ignorance, even as she attacks the concept of classic transsexualism:

They also displayed a propensity for obfuscation when asked for a definition.

That is an odd statement, given that Cooke has link to several blogs that support the concept on her own blog site. But, just so there is no mistake, the definition of "classic transsexual" is simple. It refers to someone who has had a lifelong knowledge that they were different. Someone who has show indications of having a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body from a very early age. It precludes those who suddenly, at some point after puperty, discover that they enjoy crossdressing and who then "progress" to claiming to be a transsexual. Classic transsexuals will have serious problems coping with their situation prior to transition, but will show significant improvement afterwards.
Being a classic transsexual has nothing to do with sexual orientation, the age at which one transitions, or the age at which one has surgery. It only has to do with having a lifelong history of showing a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with the body.

Further, those who are classically transsexual will, in the vast majority of cases, have a strong desire to simply get on with their life as who they really are. This is probably because their life prior to transition is nothing they wish to hold on to.

I have met young transitioners who were clearly not classic transsexuals, and those transitioning later in life who clearly were. Granted, both are relatively rare. I have met classic transsexuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. I have even seen a few tragic cases where they wind up "drinking the transgender Kool-Aid." Transgender is an identity, not an objective state of being. Most who identify that way are not classic transsexuals. A few do. And when they do, they effectively give up what they have worked so hard to achieve, and often do a great deal of harm to other classic transsexuals.

Compromise? No thanks!

In a recent post on her Women Born Transsexual, Suzan Cooke writes about "compromises." For fsome time now, I have watched as Cooke has come closer and closer to a alignment with the gender fascists. The first major sign was when Cooke became friends with one of the lead gender fascists, Monica Helms. Since then, Cooke has moved closer and closer to accepting transgender, even those she continues to deny it.

Now, Cooke has finally stopped sipping the "transgender Kool-Aid" and started downing it by the gallon. She talks about "acknowledging our differences" but the end result is the same. She wants to join the transgender movement, provided she can pretend to maintain the illusion of separation. Sorry, but "No thanks!"

Part of the problem is, Cooke has long been "transgender" in all but name. She has always had a tendency to embrace her differences. In a way, this is not surprising. Cooke's attitude reminds me of the famous quote from the Marlon Brando movie. When Brando's character is asked, "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" he replies, "Whaddya got?" That pretty much sums up Cooke, who mostly fills her blog with self-aggrandizing stories of her glory days as a revolutionary.

Cooke, and her partner who is also a transsexual, take credit for coming up with the term "Women Born Transsexual," which apparently was meant to play off of "Women Born Women." Originally, it seemed to serve as a strong denunciation of the transgender model, but that has begun to change. Shortly after she started her blog, Cooke began increasingly to embrace transgender activism, calling for transsexuals to join her in fighting for the goals of the the TG community.

Further, Cooke has increasingly adopted the transgender model of identifying as being out side the binary paradigm. For example, in her blog she states:

When I started this blog the first thing that happened is that a few people made snide remarks about Andrea James and Lynn Conway. They wanted me to embrace things like “HBS” and “Classic Transsexual”. I probably disappointed a number of fplks (sic)when I embraced neither.

Actually, I was not disappointed at all. In fact, I would be quite alarmed if Cooke were to try to co-opt the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement. Now, while I do not agree with everything that Andrea James and Lynn Conway say, I don't have the animosity towards them that some have. But it does seem that Cooke is actually drawn to then for the same reasons many disagree.

Cooke, in her next statement, solidly aligns herself with what is, essentially, the transgender model:

I actually like the term “Transsexual” for the name of what I was born. Not so much as an identity but it gives clarity to the oppression I endured as a transkid and it doesn’t hide the reality of my life journey behind a bunch of jargon aimed at obscuring.

In another words, she wishes to embrace her "special status" and separate from those she has derisively referred to as "normborns." And, ironically, by adopting the term "transkid" she actually seems to be, perhaps inadvertently, aligning herself with the Blanchard-Bailey model. This term is widely used by their supporters to describe those who Blanchard would term "homosexual transsexuals."

Or perhaps Cooke is just insecure in her own identity. This would explain this rather odd remark:

As for “classic transsexual” I recognize it for what it is, a post-moderning term for heterosexual transsexual. as such I tend to see it as both homophobic and as a slam against sisters who come out later in life. It goes against my theories that the root cause of transsexualism is the same for almost all transsexuals and the truth can be found in the narrative. Reading biography after biography leads me to this conclusion that actual people with TS knew as early as their first conscious memories.

What makes this all very strange is that Cooke feels it necessary to denounce the term "classic transsexual" because she fears, quite erroneously, that it is linked to sexual orientation. "Classic transsexual" is not a synonym for "homosexual transsexual." Quite the opposite, it is part of the overall rejection of Blanchard's model. What makes all of this even stranger is Cooke's assertion that she has always identified as "bisexual," given Cooke's history of cruelly attacking post-op transsexuals who had been married as "skin transvestites." But then again, as I have observed, Cooke is now partnered with another transsexual, apparently one who was a later transitioner.

Then again, perhaps Cooke simply longs for her glory days when she was a major leader in a movement that had not yet become know as "transgender." It does appear she wants to be one of the big dogs again.

Whatever Cooke's motivations might be, what she proposes is simply unacceptable. She tries to compare her "compromise" to that she claims resulted from the rise of Anita Bryant, when it was decided that the term "gay" was not appropriate to describe both male homosexuals and lesbians, which resulted in the adoption of "gay and lesbian" to describe the community. Cooke suggests something similar:

A similar compromise would be Transsexual and Transgender Communities. LGBT/T or TS/TG and putting those into usage.

The problem with such a suggestion is that it still results in the appearance that those with a legitimate medical issue (HBS or classic transsexualism) are in common with those who choose to subvert the binary.

Personally, I think Cooke should just drop the pretense and admit that she is effectively "transgender." I suspect she will be much more comfortable with herself, and perhaps no longer feel the need to try to deny her true feelings in order to maintain an identity that is not legitimate.

Arnold Lowman is dead...

Now I imagine you might be asking, "Who was Arnold Lowman?" You probably knew him better as the infamous crossdresser "Virginia Prince," aka "Charles Prince." His real name was Arnold Lowman. Or, at least that was his name at birth. Quite frankly, I have never seen anything that says whether he changed it, or not. But, he is much better known as "Virginia Prince," the founder of the Heel and Hose Club that later became Tri Ess, the "sorority" for heterosexual crossdressers. I think the original name says a lot about what "Prince" was really all about, but he made a career out of denying that transvestitism, which he later insisted be called "crossdressing" was not erotic in nature. To which I say, "POPPYCOCK!"

While "Prince" was telling the world that he was a "femniphile" and crossdressed out of a love of the feminine, he was admitting to Robert Stoller, a researcher at UCLA who specialized in gender identity issues, that he really was motivated by erotic desires. And he was also telling Stoller, and anyone else who would listen, that transsexuals were all just crossdressers, or gay men, who were just getting carried away. Hmmm, sounds like the same pseudoscience that Blanchard spews now.

One problem was, "Prince" had no standing to be making such pronouncements, and yet he had papers published as though he did. His degree was in Pharmacy, not Psychology.

"Prince" is also credited with coining the term "transgender." Some question this, as the term that he actually coined was "transgenderist," to describe full time crossdressers such as himself. Now, it appears that "Prince" did take female hormones, and it is claimed that he had breast implants, but he was completely unwilling to give up his manhood, though some claim his response to the news of Christine Jorgensen was, if I had $5000 I would catch the next boat to Denmark. Of course, it is has also been said that he was, quite wisely, denied surgery.

Now, even though they were somewhat slow to react to the news, some of the transgender fascists have begun to sing the praises of their fallen hero. Both Sandeen and Helms have weighed in. And Sandeen has not taken that kindly to those who would point out "Prince's" shortcomings. For example, one person was took to task for referring to "Prince" with male pronouns. Of course, this is a big no-no in the fantasy world of the transgender." A big part of the transgender fascist's paradigm is that one gets to simply declare what one is, and everyone else has to follow in lockstep agreement. Never mind that "Prince" was clearly not a woman, given that his motivation was admittedly erotic. In his later days, he was known for having a taste for "she male" pornography.

Now, Helms raises the question about why anyone would care about "Prince's" 50-year old remarks. Well, Helms has never been known for paying much attention to facts, and apparently he glosses right over the fact that "Prince's" ideas are still being used by those, like Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker, Docter, and others, who would discredit transsexuals.

So, "Prince" is dead, and for the most part, few have actually paid much attention. Even in places where you would sort of expect this to be a major story, it has been ignored. There is no mention on either the Tri Ess web site, or at the IFGE web site. I would be a bit surprised if TG Tapestry doesn't dedicate the next issue to "Prince," but then again, he was a bit of an embarassment to those who want to claim that "transsexuals" are really "transgender." But, at the same time, IFGE did name one of their awards (since dropped) for "Prince." So, who knows?

As Shakespeare said:

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

Not that "Prince" actually did anything that was that good, but there is no question, his evil will definitely live on for a while longer. Especially for those who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome.

Oh the irony!

The Illinois Family Institute decided to weigh in on the rather bizarre situation in Illinois where those who have had sex reassignment surgery are allowed to change their birth certificates only if the surgery was performed in the United States, thus preventing those who go to place like Thailand or Canada that privilege. Here is a section from their article:

In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the "gender" designation on their birthcertificates from "male" to "female." Several important points must be made. First, it's utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate. Apotemnophiles, as they are referred to in some circles, identify with amputees and seek to align their bodies with their psychological identities through amputation of healthy body parts. Dr. Anne Lawrence explains the condition:

Desire for amputation of a healthy limb has usually been regarded as a paraphilia (apotemnophilia), but some researchers propose that it may be a disorder of identity, similar to Gender Identity Disorder (GID) or transsexualism. Similarities between the desire for limb amputation and nonhomosexual male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism include profound dissatisfaction with embodiment.

She further explores the similarities between Male-to-Female (MtF)transsexuals and those who seek limb amputation:

Persons who want to undergo limb amputation typically experience an intense desire or overwhelming compulsion to change their bodies to match their idealized images of themselves as amputees. . . . They usually describe their feelings as developing early in life, often before puberty. . . . most emphasize that they are primarily seeking a sense of wholeness or completeness or are attempting to correct a mismatch between their bodies and their identities.

Now, the irony here is that Dr. Anne Lawrence is what the Illinois Family Institue would describe as a "sexual amputee." And yet, while citing this rather questionable source, they refer to Lawrence as "she." Anne Lawrence is well known as part of the infamous "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence" often abbreviated as "BB&L" who have built their careers around attacking HBS women. Even more ironic is the fact that Lawrence self-identifies as a sexual fetishist, claiming to be an autogynephile, which BB&L define as "a man with a fetishtic desire to be feminized."

Ah yes, irony at its best. Once again, BB&L are the darlings of the religious right, who contradict their own erroneous beliefs in an effort to attack those with HBS.

Won't someone please think of the children?!?!?!?!?

Some years ago, I won't say how many, I had a disagreement with my 6th grade teacher. She accused me of talking, and I hadn't. Since she was threatening me with rather dire punishment, I told her, to her face, that she had told a lie. Well, of course this did not go ever well with her, and I quickly found myself in the principal's office. The result was, I was referred for testing to find out what was wrong with me.

Over the course of several months, I was sent to a number of offices where I received an array of tests, all designed to determine exactly why I was having trouble. In addition to psychological exams, I also had my vision and hearing tested.

Of course, what was wrong was simple. I had what would the DSM-IV would label as "Gender Identity Disorder in Children." Of course, it would be my contention that I had Harry Benjamin Syndrome, which is a completely different matter. Unfortunately, at that time, and in that place, those who saw me were not quite so enlightened. And for that reason, I was not willing to reveal certain things to them anyway. Simply put, I knew better than to do so.

I do wonder if one of the people I saw didn't have some suspicions. My mother made some rather odd remarks in later years about what he told her. What she said simply did not sound quite right, and knowing my mother, she might well have been trying to hide the true facts from me. But, I do recall, on at least one occasion, deliberately lying to a psychologist. And given what she did with what I did say, I shudder to think about what would have happened if I had told the truth.

She asked me what seemed a relatively benign question. If I had three wishes, what would they be. Well, of course, the first one would have been to be a girl. Of course, that was not a safe answer, and I knew it. I made up three answers, that I thought would be benign...."To have more friends, to have a million dollars, and for three more wishes." The last one was a common answer among my friends when we pondered this question...and no, I didn't tell them my first wish would be to become a girl either.

Well, what I thought was safe, turned out to be anything but. She took the first answer as an indication that I felt isolated. And she took the third as proof that I did not like to follow the rules. I can only imagine what she would have written if I had told the truth.

Times have changed, at least for some. Much research has been done on children who show signs of having some issue with their gender. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the primary reasons that "Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents and Adults" is listed in the DSM-IV is so that therapists can continue to treat children in an effort to prevent that mental illness.

One of the leading proponents of treating children with gender issues is Kenneth J. Zucker who practices at the notorious Centrefor Addiction and Mental Health aka the Clarke Institute. Yes, the same place where Ray Blanchard practices.

Zucker is also leading the American Psychiatric Association committee that is revising the section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual dealing with "gender idenitity disorder." Many find this disturbing because of his association with people like Blanchard, Michael Bailey, and Anne Lawrence.

Zucker is the leading proponent of the use of reparative therapy to treat children with gender issues. He has made the claim that he is able, using psychoanalytic techniques, to prevent children with gender identity disorder from becoming adult transsexuals. Now, reparative therapy is what is commonly used by the ex-gay movement to "cure" homosexuals. Ironically, the American Psychiatric Association has condemned its use with adults, but makes an exception for those like Zucker who apply it to children.

But the question remains, can Zucker's approach prevent someone from growing up to be transsexual or HBS? According to Zucker, most of those he treats go on to become homosexual, "rather than transsexual." He cites this as a success. But there is a major problem with Zucker's claims...one that has been pointed out by a least two of those who might otherwise be seen as part of the same group. In the absence of treatment, most children who exhibit what is termed "gender identity disorder" grow up to be homosexual anyway. Both Michael Bailey, and more recently Alice Dreger has admitted this. In fact, in a recent article Dreger seems to openly disagree with Zucker's approach.

She compares Zucker's "try to make them normal" approach, which supposedly tends to make the child homosexual rather than transsexual, and the "accomodation" approach, which allows the child to be "what they feel they are," but which can lead to later problems when the child realizes that he or she is really homosexual, and finds both somewhat lacking. Instead she endorses a third approach.

This approach, which was developed by Peggy Cohen-Kettenis is not so concerned with the child's gender issues, as much as the child's functioning as well as the family situation. It recognizes that most children will not go on to be transsexual or HBS, but if they do, the child is supported in this decision and is assisted in preparing for sex reassignment.

As much as I have disagree with Dreger in the past, surprisingly, on this issue, she seems to be the voice of reason. Zucker's approach accomplishes little, if anything, other than probably leaving the child who really is HBS feeling confused and guilty. The accommodation approach works fine if the child really is HBS, but since that is difficult to verify, it may cause problems if the child later decides to follow a homosexual path.

Unfortunately, many who work in this field are less concerned about the health and welfare of the children than they are about pushing their own agendas. Zucker is part of the larger group that is dominated by the rather bizarre views of Ray Blanchard who has made a career out of trying to discredit people who are HBS. The fact that Zucker considers it "preferable" that a child identify as gay rather than HBS or transsexual is part of this. It is widely believed that Blanchard simply represents the disdain that many older gay men have for transsexuals.

And many who push the accomodation approach have their own agendas. While this is clearly the best approach for the child who truly is HBS, unless that can be firmly established, it may result in worse problems.

Clearly, this is any area where much research is needed. But those doing the research need to approach the subject with truly open minds, leaving behind the sort of prejudice and stubborness that has caused so much heartache in the past. One only has to look at the results of John Money's mistreatment of David Reimer to see how tragic such an approach can be.

A new outrage...

Word is out that the American Psychological Association has appointed Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard to the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders working group to help revise the DSM-V. This means that two men who are notorious for their dislike of women with HBS (formerly refered to as transsexualism) will play a major role in defining how those people are viewed by the psychiatric community.


Simply put, this is an outrage.

Zucker has a long history of trying to use what is referred to as "reparative therapy" to bully male children who exhibit early signs of possible HBS into accepting a male identity. And Blanchard is notorious for his ridiculous theories that try to classify all transsexuals as either homosexual or autogynephillic, as well as his notorious comments that post-op transsexuals are men without penises. His theories are a direct attack on the concepts behind HBS.


Putting these men on this group is a direct slap at women with HBS, and an outrage. There appears to be little balance to this panel, and it looks like it may be a much longer time before any real progress is made towards a more accurate view of HBS.