Skip to main content

not much further along

How does the qualifier in the term “homosexual transsexual” help us understand transsexualism? The answer is that it doesn't. How can it if the root condition itself is not well understood.

Recently I featured Anne Vitale’s essay on the work of Ovesey and Person and how they classified transsexuals. Subsequent researchers then ended up reversing what they meant by Primary and Secondary transsexualism and then Blanchard came along and invented his own categories.

Even Harry Benjamin, whose work I greatly respect and whose 6 classifications were the first attempt at categorizing dysphoria, never arrived at an explanation and to his credit he never pretended to.

Therefore, until the nature of dysphoria is well understood, you can play with classifications until the cows come home and have gotten no further until we understand the fundamental nature of what constitutes gender identification and how it can diverge from birth sex.


Comments

  1. I'm not saying scientists shouldn't continue their quest, but it does seem to me that trying to put individuals into clearly defined, absolute boxes is a hiding to nothing. There are simply too many variables. Trends may be discovered and certain characteristics may be observed, but it is unlikely to lead a definitive answer to the question, asked billions of times, "Who am I and why am I the way I am?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Categorizing is a shell game Kati. It is because so much information is missing that somehow doing this might give the impression of scientific rigor.

      Delete
    2. Also keep in mind Kati that in Blanchard's grossly simplistic model it's all about aberrant sexuality exclusively which washes its hands of the true complexity which lies beneath...

      Delete
  2. We obviously need categories to talk about anything. The trouble with all the pseudo-scientific categories is that the researchers believe that there is a one to one relationship between their man made concepts and reality "out there". There rarely is in any discipline.

    What is even more serious is the fact that they mistake correlation for causation. They group people into different categories on the basis of their observations. This is what science is all about. It is ok to sort transgender people into androphilic and gynephilic, educated uneducated, blue eyed and brown eyed or anything you want, but as soon you see a correlation you must always ask if there are other factors that influences the distribution you see.

    That is, unfortunately, what some of these researchers fail to do. In the world of Blancahrd & Bailey sexual orientation equals type of transgender, which anyone who knows anything about transgender people could tell them is not the case. Benjamin was far more careful in his analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks for the feedback Jack and of course you are correct they mistake that correlation into an argument for causation which is not the case here. But if you want an expedient solution, using groupings can be a pretend substitute for real science. This is what makes Benjamin the best in that he observed and catalogued behavior but favored a biological origin so he refrained from any conclusions he could not back up.

      Delete
    2. Benjamin did, indeed. But the trans separatists could not help themselves, could they. They redefined his categories into water tight silos, sorting the good from the bad and the ugly. Sigh....

      Even these days I meet young people over at tumblr and reddit who think that crossdresser (or even transvestite) is a meaningful term for cis straight men with a kink.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way b…

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.

the pseudoscience behind gender dysphoria

The real science as to what causes gender dysphoria still awaits.

Harry Benjamin was on to something except he didn’t have the scientific evidence to back up his suspicions hence, like a true scientist, he negated to draw conclusions. His hunch, based on treating so many patients over his lifetime, was that one is born with a predisposition to be gender dysphoric.

However, with inconclusive brain scans and no DNA marker (as of yet) we are left with believing the word of people who need help and only want to lead happy and productive lives.

The best we have been able to muster since Benjamin's death in 1986 was to amass statistics on who gets a boner imagining themselves as a woman which is in equal parts pathetic and disappointing. For this is not really science at all but is instead playing with interview data that doesn't point to anything definitive or conclusive. I have dealt with this problem at great length in my blog.

The whole thing started with Kurt Freund's obses…