The moment I read Benjamin I knew the concept was correct. A scale independent of birth sex (although most patients were MtF) and sexual orientation (most high intensity cases were then androphilic) which ostensibly measured gender identity disconnectedness,  it was simple and yet deliciously elegant. Yes, it combines expression and identity within it and hence could have been duly christened as a gender variance spectrum or umbrella. Forgive me if I don't say trans.

The thing about categories (in this case types I through Vl) is that they are approximate and even my own identification as a type IV need not have been perfectly accurate but it did for a time provide solace that I fit in somewhere within an identifiable band and wasn't alone. Today, the specific echelons are less important to me than the broad concept which is really about the fascinating anomalies we find everywhere in nature irrespective of how infrequently they might occur.


Popular posts from this blog


Language matters

One last thing remains