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…

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…