Skip to main content

Anne Vitale on Primary and Secondary Transsexuals

My readers know that I am a big fan of Anne Vitale and in this essay from 2000 she laid out her views on the work of Ovesey and Person which predates Blanchard's by 10 years:

"It is with dismay that I continue to encounter individuals with gender identity issues using the terms Primary and Secondary Transsexualism as diagnostic indicators. The terms show up repeatedly in Internet chat rooms, in the Internet news groups, in my email, and by individuals presenting to me in my private practice. The individuals who self-identify as Primary Transsexuals are usually using the term to mean that they are "Benjamin Type VI, true transsexuals." Those who self-identify as Secondary Transsexuals are usually trying to diminish their condition and to find some way to deal with their gender dysphoria without having to face the possibility of transitioning. As we shall soon see, neither term has ever had anything to do with severity or prognosis. There is no hierarchy of transsexualism. There are no Primary Transsexuals or Secondary Transsexuals. There are only gender dysphoric individuals who need help.

Never-the-less, important information about the variations of behavior within transsexualism has come to light from the efforts of those authors who thought the severity of gender dysphoria was quantifiable. But before we get to that, here is a short history of these classification attempts.

Sex researchers have been trying to classify people who display gender-variant behavior since the early part of the Twentieth Century. They started by naming the more obvious subgroups such as male cross-dressers and effeminate homosexuals. Later as more individuals came forward seeking help regarding gender rather than sexual orientation issues, a host of authors tried to come up with umbrella terms to distinguish those male individuals seeking sex reassignment who display, what is referred to as "innate" or "core" feminine behavior from those who display behavior that is indistinguishable from non-gender-dysphoric males. As a result, we are left with an array of awkward terms ranging from automonosexualism (Rohleder 1901), homosexual and non-homosexual transvestism (Money and Gaskin,1970-1971 ), primary and secondary transsexualism (Person and Ovesey 1974a and 1974b; Stoller, 1980; Levine and Lothstein, 1981) and now androphilic transsexualism and autogynephilic transsexualism (Blanchard, 1989a).

The terms Primary and Secondary transsexualism came to be the most commonly used. Meanings for those terms were those described by Ethel Person M.D. and Lionel Ovesey M.D. in two papers published in the 1970s (1974a, 1974b).

What has interested clinicians most about Person and Ovesey's study was that they clearly showed that, along with what everyone considered to be the "classic" effeminate homosexual transsexual model, there existed an even more prominent group of non-homosexual genetic males seeking sex reassignment. Although for some it seems counter-intuitive, Person and Ovesey designated the non-homosexual group Primary Transsexuals and the homosexual transsexuals, Secondary Transsexuals. Looking beyond the terminology, here is what they came up with.

Essentially, Person and Ovesey define a Primary Transsexual as one who is functionally asexual and who progresses resolutely toward a surgical resolution without significant deviation toward either homosexuality or heterosexuality. They define a Secondary Transsexual as one who is a homosexual and effeminate from early childhood into adulthood. Within the Secondary classification they identified two sub-classes: Homosexual transsexualism and Transvestitic transsexualism

In discussing Primary transsexualism, Person and Ovesey note that of the 10 non-homosexual transsexuals in their study sample, 9 showed no evidence of effeminacy in childhood. Each member of the sample was clearly identified by both male and female peers as a boy and was never referred to as being a sissy. They participated in rough-and-tumble behavior as required and did not engage in girls' activities any more than the other boys in their peer group. All 10 of the sample were socially withdrawn in childhood, loners who read a great deal, watched television or occupied themselves with private hobbies. Each of the sample admitted to being envious of girls and fantasized being a girl, but the authors note that none of the sample actually believed he was a girl.

In the second part of the study (1974b) the authors report that the homosexual transsexuals they studied resembled the clinical and then-perceived stereotypical transsexuals. These genetic males were effeminate from earliest childhood. As children they preferred girls as playmates, avoided boyish pursuits and were "mother's helpers." Crossdressing began in childhood, initially for narcissistic satisfaction, but later at puberty to attract male sexual partners. Cross-gender fantasies were frequently tied to identification with movie actresses and drag queens. The authors note that the homosexual cross-dresser wants to be noticed and to this end often wears flamboyant and colorful clothing and engages in theatrical endeavors.

Also included in the Secondary classification, were those cross-dressing transsexuals who were characterized as never being effeminate in childhood but instead were appropriately masculine, and occasionally exceedingly hyper-aggressive and hyper-competitive. They neither played with girls nor engaged in female pursuits. They fantasized about being girls when cross-dressed, but valued their assertiveness and maleness.

Given the number of later authors who attempted to classify transsexuals as either primary or secondary, it is obvious that they also believed that one form of gender dysphoria was more significant than the other. However, these authors differ radically from Person and Ovesey over which sub-type should qualify for which classification. For example, Stoller's primary transsexuals fit the description of Person and Ovesey's secondary transsexuals. Stoller further asserted that Person and Ovesey's primary transsexual should be referred to as secondary transsexuals. The following year, Levine and Lothstein (1981) described a condition they called "primary gender dysphoria" in genetic females. Neither Person, Ovesey nor Stoller agreed with Levine and Lothstein.

Given these important differences of opinion, Primary/Secondary terminology has largely been dropped from the literature. It has instead been replaced with sex researcher Ray Blanchard's more descriptive and non-hierarchical Autogynephilic and Androphilic transsexualism. (More on these classifications in a future work.)

Conclusion

Despite efforts to classify transsexualism hierarchically, neither sexual preference nor a history of feminine behavior have been shown to have any bearing on whether or not an individual will or will not profit from treatment. The work of Person and Ovesey was helpful in describing the range of behaviors and orientations to life that transsexuals may experience. From this we have learned that transsexuals can be widely different from one another, yet show a common need for their condition to be understood and helped. There are no primary transsexuals or secondary transsexuals. There are no true transsexuals or "wannabe" transsexuals. Being gender dysphoric in a society that barely acknowledges the existence of such a condition requires the development of coping mechanisms. Some coping mechanisms are more overt and obvious than others. But no matter what the individual does to survive, one thing is certain, everyone who suffers from gender dysphoria must eventually come to terms with his or her situation."



Comments

  1. It's like reading about a group of botanists who stumble upon a collection of rocks and ask, "Golly, what kinds of plants are these?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. This morning I listened to a podcast in the "How to Be a Girl" series, where Marlo talked with the mother of Avery, who is the girl featured on the cover of the National Geographic issue on transgender. It was excellent as always but one thing that they said is that social change spurs the development of vocabulary: the more we see it changing and expanding the more that the change is actually happening.

    I thought about it and recalled the emergence of the black rights movement, and, gays and lesbians, all the labels that arose. Some came, some left, and some stayed. This is where for me trans or transgender was immediately understood. Maybe I'll soon be identifying myself as a transwoman. Nothing wrong with that of course.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

how times change

How times have changed.

Whereas transition was something not to even contemplate for us, here is a young trans person who felt the opposite pressure. She looks and sounds extremely passable but decided it wasn't for her despite the social media presence of young transitioners potentially inspiring her to.

We are all different and I happen to think she's rather a smart cookie as well...


indoctrination

As transgender people, organized religion hasn't really been our friend however on the other hand it has often had little to do with true spirituality. I needed to learn this over time and much of what I was taught growing up was steeped in the judgmental superstition of society instead of what some creator would demand of me.

Regardless of your belief system, you are a child of the universe and have been endowed with uniqueness and goodness of spirit. You have probably never wished anyone ill will and you have tried your best to live within the absurd coordinate system of humanity. Yet somehow belonging to the LGBT community was entirely your fault.

As I have grown older this inherent irrationality became increasingly evident to me. I knew I was a fundamentally good person and yet I was different in a way which was not of my choosing. Hence with this comprehension my self appreciation and esteem grew in proportion.

Religion for me today seems forever trapped in the misinterpretat…

let's please read carefully

This post is prompted by a recent comment I received to one of my older posts and I wanted to address it.

I used to wonder why some transgender people accepted Blanchard’s work until I think I figured out why: they may not have examined it closely enough. They would experience cross gender arousal and then accept it was Autogynephilia without properly understanding what the term meant and what the theory said: it is an invented sexual “illness” which makes people transition. In other words, it is the arousal itself which causes this desire and not a pre-existing gender identity which does not align with birth sex. Of course, Blanchard has no explanation for the origin of his proposed “illness” only that it is a form of sexual deviance.

My counter proposal? we transition despite this arousal. In other words, the transgender identity is pre-existing and the arousal is the result of the mismatching of burgeoning sexual feelings towards females and this misaligned identity; it is not per…