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.


  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?"

    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.

    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...

  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.

    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.

    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.


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...


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…

feeling sexy

Here are the results of a recent survey of genetic women:

“A new hairdo, walking in heels and a glowing tan are among the things that make a woman feel sexy. Freshly applied lipstick, newly-shaved legs and a little black dress also have a positive effect on the psyche”

Are you surprised? I’m not because it is exactly the same list that makes transgender women feel sexy.

For a long time the idea was pandered about that transsexualism was rooted exclusively in aberrant sexuality. But of course you cannot separate the sexuality from the individual because that forms part of their overall makeup and the fact that genetic and transsexual women overlap here surprises no one.

We should also add here that women aren't always thinking about sex and neither are transgender women.

Pre transition transsexuals would not readily admit they found these things sexy because they were afraid to be seen as perverted men in front of gatekeepers who understood nothing about their condition.

Today we kn…