Be Careful What You Wish For

The transgender blogs are celebrating, as "gender identity disorder," which replaced "transsexualism" (largely because of the transgender kooks) is now "gender dysphoria."  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen goes so far as to crow and quote "Dana" Beyers, who makes the following incorrect observation:

“A right-winger can’t go out and say all trans people are mentally ill because if you are not dysphoric, that can’t be diagnosed from afar,” Beyer said. “It no longer matters what your body looks like, what you want to do to it, all of that is irrelevant as far as the APA goes.”

Sorry fellows, but most of you, like Mr. Sandeen, are covered by "transvestic disorder."  As to what Beyer claims, well, if you are not "dysphoric" and therefore cannot be diagnosed with a mental disorder, that just makes you a "happy pervert."  In another words, you have to admit that your behavior is chosen, and therefore you have absolutely NO basis to claim things like a right to strut your junk in women's spaces.

The simple fact is, what was called "gender identity disorder" in DSM-IV, and "transsexualism" before that, never really applied to the vast majority of transgender people.  Almost all of them are actually covered by what was called "fetishtic transvestism" and is now called "transvestic disorder."

So, hey, you got what you want...and hey, you are still disordered.

It's Really Ironic...

There has been a lot of talk lately about "depathologization" of transsexualism and transgender behavior. Of course, these are two separate topics, which actually have nothing in common, thought, of course, the transgender kooks don't want you to know that.

Now, what is ironic is, depathologization of transsexualism is not really that new of an idea. It has been around for several years, and was previously known as "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." Yes, that horrible thing that makes transgender kooks like Suzan Cooke and "Autumn" Sandeen rent their clothes and cry out was really about moving transsexualism from being a "mental illness" to recognizing it as a medical condition. Well, actually, at first, Cooke kind of embraced the idea until she realized it was competition for her "Women Born Transsexual" silliness.

Oh, and note, I said Harry Benjamin Syndrome, not "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome," the phrasing preferred by a separate, and eventually unrelated movement that originated more in Europe, and which became somewhat extremist in certain views. Some dishonest "historians" attempt to conflate the two movements in order to discredit the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement.

So, why do the kooks hate it so much? Well, in some cases, it is because it competed with the kooks own little patch of turf, and a lot of the people who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome did not necessarily agree with this, or that, kook's own agenda. For example, we did not embrace the idea that "transgression" was a valid reason to claim to be another sex.

Worse, those who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with transgender activism and that we rejected the transgender paradigm. That, of course, was too much for the gender fascists to accept.

The approach was simple, and straight forward. We asked that medical profession simply acknowledge that a small number of people are born with what is, in effect, a congenital condition where the brain is sexually differentiated at odds with at least part of the body. This condition resulted in an overwhelming desire to correct one's body to the extent that science allows. In another words, what some would call a true, or classic transsexual.

HBS, as it has come to be known, would have provided a basis for insurance coverage, which some are more than willing to sacrifice in their demands that doctors no longer consider people who think that simply claiming to be a different sex effectively changes their sex to be mentally ill. Uh, yes, that sounds crazy to me...but hey, most crazy people will tell you they are really the sane ones.

Another problem people had with the HBS movement was that we would not embrace the insanity of "surgery on demand," and actually endorsed tightening the criteria. While it is fortunate that most who should not have surgery now embrace the non-op paradigm, there is room for mistakes, particularly in cases where surgery is more easily obtained because of insurance or socialized medicine. For example, Natalie Reed, who recently admitted what I had already surmised, that he is a "pre-op" wrote a post in which he discusses his ambivalence towards SRS, but indicates that he will pursue it anyway. Reed is a mistake in the making. If one can live without surgery, then they should. Just because it is, effectively free, and just because one is able to talk a therapist into rubber stamping your request (far too many therapists are afraid to "just say NO!" to be people who are poor candidates, does not mean one should hope on the table thinking that surgery will somehow make it all right.

We have enough screwed up "post-ops" already. We don't need another who will either become a virulently anti-transsexual TG activist, or worse, decide that God does not approve of SRS because they made a mistake.

So, now we have yet another attempt to get transgender people out of the DSM. Of course, most could care less if transsexual are harmed, and for some, harming transsexuals would probably be a desirable side effect.

Gender Confused?

A term that is commonly trotted out by the religious right in arguing against transsexuals is "gender confusion." It is used in the context of arguing that transsexuals should not receive sex reassignment surgery as treatment, but should receive psychiatric treatment to help them overcome their "gender confusion."

Now, for those who are true, or classic transsexuals, i.e. those who have what is better referred to as Harry Benjamin Syndrome, there is clearly no confusion about their gender. They know, quite fully, that they are mentally female, and no amount of psychiatric browbeating is going to change this. For example, I identify as a woman, period. I do not identify as a "trans woman," or any other variation on the numerous man who had a sex change and became a woman concepts that so many cling to. From the beginning of my transition, I knew I wanted to be accepted as a woman, not seen as a transsexual, or worse, as transgender.

But, unfortunately, there are also those who are transgender. In their case, the answer is not as simple. First off, I should point out, again, that "transgender" is actually an artificial political construct. A more proper term for those who are not transsexual or HBS would be "crossdressers". I mean, they are clearly not transsexuals if they are not seeking SRS, or even if they are seeking SRS but do not have a brain that is sexually differentiated differently from their body. Most of those who would fit this description seem to have a very strong need to maintain an identification with their birth sex. For them, it is not about being, but about appearances.

Robert Stoller, a researcher at UCLA, wrote about crossdressers (he used the term transvestites) having an identification as being a "woman with a penis." Now, I don't agree with much of Stoller's ideas, mainly because they were rooted in the silliness known as psychoanalysis, but I have come to see that he did have a point about crossdressers. There does seem to be a strong identification of the sort he described.

Now, in the process of writing this article, an interesting thing has happened. You see, I don't always write a post in one setting. I work on it some, take a break, do some more research, etc. Well, this morning the suggested DSM revisions came out, and one of the suggestions is to classify autogynephiles as "transvestites."

That would mean that a lot of the "transgender" crowd, the vast majority, would now be classified as having "transvestic fetishism" instead of "gender identity disorder."

But to return to the original subject, the term "gender confusion" does seem more appropriate for someone who wishes to be seen as a "woman" while clinging to his status as a "male," though I am not sure that is is rooted in "confusion" so much as it is just a conscious rejection of reality.

Is there anyone who is truly "confused" about their gender? I don't know, but I cannot honestly say I have seen any real cases. I have encountered people who are clearly suffering from mental illness that seems to manifest itself in cross gender behavior. In some cases, the person goes back and forth, but I am not sure that it is actually confusion.

In any case, the bottom line is that "gender confusion" is a myth created by the religious right in an attempt to appear compassionate while actually doing real harm to people simply because they do not fit a world view that has no foundation in reality, and that includes the Bible.