Going Our Separate Ways

The idea of “autogynephilia” being used as a weapon against classic transsexual women has been one of my concerns in the past. The way it’s written, thinking of oneself as a woman when having sex more or less, could be interpreted broadly to attack the legitimacy of our condition. My question to those who point to this as evidence of sickness is “How SHOULD a woman think of herself in sexual fantasies? As a man?”. This also leads into something I’ve been meaning to ask those transwomen who support HSTS model. Do you see yourselves as men in your sexual fantasies, since you claim only “AGP” types see themselves as women in those sorts of situations? This is seems to be a major point of difference in that false dichotomy, and its something they should answer before pointing fingers at people for being sexually obsessed.

So here comes the DSM. Some people are trying to rally support against the revision based on this threat of AGP being used against actual transsexual women. But after reading through this, I have to say I don’t really feel it. They do seem to be slowly separating the classic transsexualism out, and beyond that the whole autogynephilia thing seems to be mostly self-diagnosed by people who have lost control over their sexually compulsive crossdressing. The fact they put it specifically in the transvestic fetishism section, apart from the areas addressing transsexual syndrome, speaks volumes.

So while it’s not the perfect solution yet, things are moving in the right direction. I would expect that as time goes on and science builds the case for transsexual syndrome the psychs will eventually let it go. The other troubling part, the intersex inclusion, is another negative aspect of this area but I believe the resolution to that situation is much closer than people think. If psychiatry wants to remain a relevant discipline it will have to bow to progress in other fields such as neurology and other related sciences. When viewed from that perspective, easing John Money’s paradigm out of the trade and letting biologically-based conditions out of your field seem like small prices to pay to stay in business.

That’s the core of the issue here- science is evidence in court. Those who want to take a civil-rights-only stance instead of a civil-rights-plus-immutable-condition stance are whistling in the wind and have made an extremely poor political choice. This choice was made solely to insert crossdressing, aka transgender, into the mix. That was the point of colonization all along and now the price of that act is becoming clear. Transgender is holding back the rights of everyone and as time goes on more and more people realize the injustice of the situation.

Traditionally-intersexed people have a very strong case in court, and the case for classic transsexualism is building too. If the psychs do not address these issues soon they could be faced with massive lawsuits which will cause them and the doctors they are trying to cover no end of legal pain. And possibly a black eye for their trade that it can’t really afford at this point when their very legitimacy is under assault by powerful forces of public opinion that could turn into political action.

Intersex and transsexual people have a strong position to bring action against organizations like the APA, and in all of this trans business they in fact are the only ones who do. If you remove intersex and transsexual people from the DSM, the impetus behind the remove-GID-now crowd is completely gone. Crossdressing is not a civil rights issue no matter how activists couch the language. It doesn’t seem that “transvestic fetishists” are sufficiently moved to political action, outside of certain transgender participants, so why should the rest of us be so concerned? To each their own.

Moving towards complete removal of bio-conditions is a smart move for the APA. By shedding themselves of legal liability they are free to treat and study the people who present to them with “gender issues”. I personally believe that most of these “gender issues” will mysteriously disappear as TG goes out of fashion- and transsexual is not available for colonization. That should produce some interesting theorizing from the gender studies crowd and the gender therapists alike.

Due to the nature of male sexuality, there will always be “fetish” to some degree in that population. Whether it is for clothing or “imagining oneself as a collection of woman parts”, it doesn’t really matter. The point is that if something is causing someone distress, if a person’s behavior gets so out of control that it ruins their life, there should be resources available to help them without stigmatization. I’m no fan of Blanchard or his cronies, but we have to acknowledge that some people have the sorts of issues he talks about. His real “crime” is that he applies them too broadly. This isn’t going to change with Blanchard or Zucker because they are steeped in Money’s gender paradigm- but it will change. Absent the moralistic value judgments there is a valid reason for studying sexual obsession.

The task ahead is to continue the separation of biological conditions from the psych world, as well as the GLBT. People need to have their choices restored and not be forced into things they want no part of. The DSM changes are a step in the right direction. If the APA can be encouraged further along this path we are close to the end of our issues there, and soon will be moving towards the next big challenge. If this is a bribe from them as some say, we need to let them know that they have to do better. Temporary payoffs can be rescinded at a later date.

They can buy us off… but the price is full freedom.


11 Responses to Going Our Separate Ways

  1. joanne says:

    There is a delicate balancing act playing itself out at the moment. David J. Kupfer, M.D., (DSM-5 Task Force Chair) and Darrel A. Regier, (Vice-Chair) have written:

    “The DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group members are working to develop criteria for diagnoses that not only reflect new advances in the science and conceptualization of mental disorders …”


    I many respects there is precious little evidence of the advances in scientific knowledge displayed in these new proposals. Yet the overall effect is obvious. The behavioral sciences have run roughshod over classical Transsexualism for almost sixty years. Now that is coming to an end.

    The real test for TG’s will be whether they can develop a discourse of their own, such as IS and TS are accomplishing. A discourse independent of behaviorism and independent of the biological variations such as the intersex and classically transsexed conditions.

    For six decades TG’s have tied their own legitimacy to the faux legitimacy of behaviorist theory. That may continue for a while. But a steady flow of classical TS individuals who have previously sought shelter under the TG / GLBT umbrella can be anticipated in the future.

    It will be interesting to see where this will all lead. Until now there has been a powerful element of social contagion inherent in the growth of transgenderism. Those who have opposed environmental determinism in the past have recognized that element for years.

    It seems that fact is slowly sinking in to the thinking of the psychologists. Its not before time.

  2. annierose55 says:

    It seems to me that there is indeed some effort to make some changes, be it change for the sake of change. Unfortunately, at least from where I am reading this, the changes are subtle and seemingly designed to further cloud the issues by continuing to use the words transexxual and transgender interchangeably. Now please understand that I am no scientist, researcher or academician, and so I tend to read things from an “every-man’s” (or woman’s) point of view.

    I guess the good news is that for those that do seem to understand this attenuated scientific jargon, the words seem to be saying the correct things.

    I guess what I am wondering is if there might be some value in arriving at some consensus of what it means to be “cured” of “transexxualism”, or what it is REALLY like to be a “post-op” or “post-corrected” woman. That is, can we come up with a statement that draws a clear distinction between the ‘psychological’ causes/etiologies of “transgender-ism” which can be treated however they deem appropriately AND…the biologically based condition described as “transsexual-ism”, which can be effectively treated with appropriate medical therapies.

  3. annierose55 says:

    THIS is where I see the pointy end of the TG spear, and where we might think about countering this psuedo-scientific nonsense.


  4. annierose55 says:

    What really riles me is that all his “science” clearly applies to transgenders, but he insists on MIS-LABELING them as transsexuals. I have no clue why he is mounting such an outright assault, but for me this is the nexus of the conflation conflagration.

    OOOH such big words you use. lol…I just love poking fun at myself…

  5. joanne says:

    Hi Annierose

    … if there might be some value in arriving at some consensus of what it means to be “cured” of “transexxualism”, or what it is REALLY like to be a “post-op” or “post-corrected” woman.

    If we come back to Wålinder:

    1. A sense of belonging to the opposite sex, of having been born into the wrong sex, of being one of nature’s extant errors.

    2. A sense of estrangement with one s own body; all indications of sex differentiation are considered as afflictions and repugnant.

    3. A strong desire to resemble physically the opposite sex via therapy including surgery.

    4. A desire to be accepted in the community as belonging to the opposite sex

    It should not be awfully difficult. Perhaps…

    a) …When the first three conditions defined by Wålinder are no longer present?


    b) …The fourth of Wålinder’s conditions has been substantially fulfilled?

    Others could no doubt rewrite (a) & (b) to reflect the situation more accurately, but the basis is there. It just needs to be more simply stated.

  6. Ah, Silly Ol’ Cloudy.

    Still beating the homosexual TS drum hard by virtue of her Very Important Credentials, i see.

  7. Aria Blue says:

    I see the Molay-Cloudy clique is busy redefining the pure transgender conditions they posit, HSTS and AGP, as somehow biological. This is no doubt intended to glom onto the ever-increasing biological status of classic, or true, transsexualism. Luckily for us transgender is going out of fashion.

    There is nothing more to transgender than crossdressing. It sounds outrageous to say that now in GLBT circles but I would bet that within a few years it will be relatively uncontroversial.

    One of the more interesting revelations of Cloudy’s search into the studies done about sexual orientation is actually how she disproved her own hypothesis that gay men and transsexual women share an “etiology”.

    In fact, it appears that gay men got a bit “too much” androgenization/maleness and this shows up in such things as various brain structures and the length of the index finger. Certain parts of the gay male brain show at the higher end of the male spectrum, and the index finger length is longer than in other men. In contrast transsexual women resemble other women most closely, which should come as no surprise. We are polar opposites to gay men, not cousins.

    HSTS is a gay man that tried to escape being gay. AGP is a transvestite that went too far. Neither of them are transsexual, and as time goes on the separation of the social choices from biological conditions will be complete. There is no way to put the science genie back in the bottle no matter how hard all these transgender types try.

  8. annierose55 says:

    Hi Joannne, What you say is obviously the truth, simply the the way it IS. Why is it so hard for all those egg headed type to see the obvious simple truth?

    The problem that I see with Cloudy et al and all their “science” is that while it describes at one point or another, one or another, of the various degrees of transgenders, they INSIST on calling these AGP and HSTS’s, Transsexuals

  9. joanne says:

    Kiaora Annierose 🙂

    Why is it so hard for all those egg headed type to see the obvious simple truth?

    For exactly the same reason that creationists can’t see the obvious simple truth of evolution?

    (See Catkisser – lots of threads ago)

  10. kathrynliz says:

    so refreshing to be among my peers that have a clear view of who we are……. If only we can get the TG’s to be honest about themselves…..Better for them, poor things (can’t be easy being TG) and better for us..


  11. annierose55 says:

    Hello Kathrynliz.

    In my opinion it is the truth that hurts. THat is why it is painful to be honest, with ourselves and others. We all know this. All we have to do is to remmember our own pain. It was painful to learn and realize that we were different and it was VERY painful to grow up and OUT of that pain. But WE DID IT. We paid the price and CROSSED OVER into the promised land. We TRAN-sition into the bodies that matched our minds, hearts and souls.

    It is those poor souls that hide from the truth that keeps the pain coming. YES it was painful to face our demons and cross through the darkness into the light, but we did. And now we live in the light.

    Happily for me that ‘darkness’ is long, long ago past.
    I only wish that others could find their way and that all the “Doctors”, shrinks, psuedo-scientists, and politicians would just get out of the frickin’ way.

%d bloggers like this: