mrt (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:54 pm I think "typing" and classifying people is pointless unless there is a difference that is worth talking about. When or how a person comes to the point of being TS seems to me to be of little interest.

Hi MrT,

I agree, for the most part, that 'typing' and 'classifying' people is pointless. As a transsexual woman, though, I find it fascinating to read how others who have reached a similar point came to understand who they are. It gives me a feeling of belonging when I read about shared experiences.

As a scientifically-oriented type, I am also inherently fascinated by these kinds of things. In the end, though, I don't think the mechanism behind the formation of a TS identity should be at all important to the fair and just treatment of transsexual individuals.

mrt (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:54 pm Its difficult (I think) to make a serious count of TS people because we know we have a fair number who prefer to remain in stealth mode and even more that feel that transition was just a short step in their lives. Male once, now female of the other way around. And the goal has been to make this a private legal transition which I think many people support. If someone wants to do this under the radar? Why do we feel the need to put any spotlight on them?

My reading of part of the WPATH presentation goes along with you state. There certainly are a large number of TS people

mrt (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:54 pm who prefer to remain in stealth mode.

Lynn Conway did this herself for several decades. Everything she writes on her own web site

Danya (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:36 pm (http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/

) supports the right of all transgender individuals to lead the life they choose, in stealth mode or not. Lynn Conway's own history would lead me to believe that she is not seeking to expose those in stealth mode. Even without her background, I would not see the WPATH presentation as an attempt to force people out of stealth mode.

The analysis in the WPATH presentation does not depend on actively identifying how many TS people are living in stealth mode. One of the purposes of the paper, as stated in the conlusion, is to show that the frequency of transsexualism is much higher than traditionally reported in the medical literature. This knowledge may result in more help (for instance, insurance coverage for GID-related expenses) for a condition that, according to the WPATH presentation, has a frequency similar to other medical conditions like multiple schlerosis:

"In the United States, Anderson et al estimated a prevalence of approximately 250,000-350,000 cases in 1990 (Anderson, 1992). With a total population of approximately 250 million, this figure corresponds to a prevalence of approximately 1 case per 1000 population (http://www.emedicine.com/RADIO/topic461.htm)"

A look at the entire Olyslager and Conway paper shows that they are aware of the difficulties past researchers have faced in estimating the prevalance of transsexualism. They also point out many incorrect assumptions that have been made over decades based on little factual information. Their contention is, though, that an accurate estimate of the frequency of transsexualism can be made from existing data and the application of a mathematical model.

I only brought up the point of "how" people might get to be transgendered as a point that its clearly medical and that its not just a "kink" or fetish.

What the study I read said was that the numbers of people who will need to undergo transition should increase as the number of pseudo estrogens in our world increase *And are continuing to increase. I think some of my thoughts on how hormones "wire" us goes a bit further. I think estrogen can not only wire someone but it can pull out some of the wires and connect them to female circuits. If that makes any sense.

The also warned that is "possible" that males in general are becoming more infertile and have lower and lower "normal" Testosterone levels. The point about testosterone levels is of interest if only as a point in how males in society are being wired different then previous generations.

I'm frankly not surprised that Lynn Conway's study shows larger numbers. I also think that the ability for people to more properly transition (Surgery improvements, hormone therapy, mental health help etc) and a lower level of stigma associated add to the numbers.

God - Lynn Conway's era was pretty primitive and frankly I can't imagine her being public then. The reaction of IBM is an example of the iodicy of that era. Way too many incorrect preconceptions on what this is about. I think her coming out and talking about her life is a plus to allow people to understand what this is more about.

mrt (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:58 am I only brought up the point of "how" people might get to be transgendered as a point that its clearly medical and that its not just a "kink" or fetish.

I appreciate your clarification and this goes along with how you have viewed TG issues for as long as I have known you. I agree with you.