...
Danya (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:18 pm
This issue also contains an article entitled "The Third Gender" with a subtext "Transsexuals are illuminating the biology and psychology of sex - and revealing just how diverse the human species really is." ... The writer notes the diversity of transgender expression in humans. I find it disturbing that he proceeds directly from his opening observations on transvestism (which for some would be more properly referred to as cross-dressing) to:
"As researchers probe the biological, psychological and cultural underpinnings of transsexuality in its myriad forms, they continue to be astounded by the individual variation they find."
My problem with this is two-fold. First, the article title specifies transsexuals as the subject and opens with two paragraphs about 'transvestism.' This may confuse those who are not well informed on the variety of transgender expressions. Especially when (concern Two) there is no seque into the transsexuality discussion.
Then there is the title subtext "...illuminating the biology and psychology of sex" when gender identity is, as correctly stated in paragraph 3, distinct from biological sex and sexual orientation. ..
There is a lot of space given to the ideas of psychiatrist Ray Blanchard and psychologist Anne Lawrence. Blanchard originated the concept of 'autogynephilia.' Lawrence, who is a MtF transsexual, made some adjustments to this model. Autogynephilia is the idea that heterosexual MtF transsexuals are aroused by the idea of being women.
Excuse me here.
I most definitely am a heterosexual MtF transsexual and I was never aroused by the idea of being a women. Anyway, natal women are known to be sexual beings who enjoy that physical aspect of their being. Should MtF, heterosexual transsexuals be any different?
Autogynephila was also elaborated by J. Michael Bailey in the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen. There is a Wikipedia article
[quote="Danya (imported)" time
The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Controversy)on positive and negative responses to this work.
Part of the outcry resulted because it was published by the National Academy of Sciences. Critics contend that the methodology used by Blanchard, and others, to sup
[/quote]
port his claims was not
Danya (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:18 pm
scientifically based at all. ... Referring to BaileyΒs shoddy scholarship and deeply flawed
research methods, Dr. Coleman emphatically declared: ΒWe need to challenge bad science.Β
I have been meaning to reply to this post, but it's been a chaotic week, and this is the first chance I've had. First a quick reason I feel entitled to comment. For the better part of the last decade I supervised and scheduled facilitators for trans support groups for the self described longest continously running support organization for trans people in the country. Most weeks we had four or five meeting, with me often ending up facilitating two or three myself. Among those who facilitated meetings for me were Anne Lawrence (twice a month) and, once or twice, Marcie Bowers (before she went to Trinidad and became the face of American SRS) . Several times I have argued autogynephilia with Anne Lawrence, who is a brilliant woman, (though with the people handling skills of a rabid pit bull.) I was a very good facilitator because I was good at staying invisible and getting shy, scared people to talk about things they had never been able to say to any one else before, and even reasonably good at getting them to shut up when the disfunctional tried to make themselves the whole center of the meeting. Over the years I have probably listened to at least a thousand trans people tell their stories, and have observed
Danya (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:18 pm
maybe forty or so over a period of several years.
"My problem with this is two-fold. First, the article title specifies transsexuals as the subject and opens with two paragraphs about 'transvestism.' This may confuse those who are not well informed on the variety of transgender expressions. Especially when (concern Two)
there is no seque into the transsexuality discussion."
One thing I have learned is that all the trans labels "Transsexual" "Cross Dresser" "Transvestite" etc. are useful only when you keep in mind that they are descriptors of current behavior, not intrinsic nature or any predictor of future behavior. I have seen couples come in when the husband gets caught cross dressing, and listened to "I am strictly a heterosexual cross dresser" only to meet the same person a couple of years later coming back to America from Thailand fresh from SRS and off to marry a man. I know a couple of people who have followed the trans yellow brick road all the way through the various gatekeepers all the way to SRS, FFS, breast augmentation, the whole nine yards, go off to live happily ever after as a woman, only to return, have the inserts pulled, had chest liposuction and gone back to living as a ma
Danya (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:18 pm
n. (I never figured out whether he was F2M or what.)
Then there is the title subtext "...illuminating the biology and psychology of sex" when gender identity is, as correctly stated in paragraph 3, dis
tinct from biological sex and sexual orientation.
I get very tired of those who insist that there is no link between gender and sex and that transsexuality has nothing to do with sex. It is not your identity as a chemist or an American we are talking about. It is about identity that is associated generally with a particular sexual and reproductive role. True, gender and sex are not the sam
Danya (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:18 pm
e thing, but they are not completely distinct either.
There is a lot of space given to the ideas of psychiatrist Ray Blanchard and psychologist Anne Lawrence. Blanchard originated the concept of 'autogynephilia.' Lawrence, who is a MtF transsexual, made some adjustments to this model. Autogynephilia is the idea that heterosexual MtF
transsexuals are aroused by the idea of being women.
Had Blanchard coined the term as autogye-erotic, or autogyne-arousal, no one but a few hundred sexologists would have ever read about it, but -philia is a loaded term referring to fetishes, so the entire trans community collectively had a hissy fit and made Blanchard and Bailey famous and rich. But the whole thing is a straw man that we waste our energy on. It is an ancient observation that there is a difference between male and female sexuality. Men tend to be pretty straight forward. He wants her. Period. But for women it is more complex, not that they don't want men, but that they want men to want them, (this is one reason that women raping men is so rare, just having sex is not sufficient for most women) A large part of female sexuality is tied up in having a body that will entice the appropriate partner. The whole point of lingerie is autogyne-erotic. The whole beauty industry, cosmetic surgery industry depends on it. Also the observation on which the theory is bases is quite valid. Trans people tend to cluster in distinct types, particularily late and early transitioners, but Blanchards theory is too simple. I am sure that there are far more than two types of transsexuals. Also his terminology is deliberately provocative. To label feminine trans people a
Danya (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:18 pm
s "homosexual" is to deliberately deny their claim to being women.
Excuse me here.
I most definitely am a heterosexual MtF transsexual and I was never aroused by the idea of being a women. Anyway, natal women are known to be sexual beings who enjoy that physical aspect of their being. Should
MtF, heterosexual transsexuals be any different?
I think you need to think that through. Before you transitioned, if you had no libido or fantasies, then you have a much larger problem then simply being transsexual. Assuming that you did actually have sexual fantasies, if you weren't female in them, then I don't think you are actually transsexual. And if you were female in your fantasies, then trying to decide whether you were aroused by HAVING A FEMALE BODY making love to a man, or by MAKING LOVE TO A MAN while having a female body, is less productive than deciding how many angels can dance on the hea
Danya (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:18 pm
d of a pin. Another red herring to waste our energy.
Autogynephila was also elaborated by J. Michael Bailey in the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen. There is a Wikipedia article on positive and negative responses to this work.
Part of the outcry resulted because it was published by the National Academy of Sciences. Critics contend that the methodology used by Blanchard, and others, to sup
port his claims was not scientifically based at all.
Of course it's bad science. It is after all sociology. There are few studies in sociology whose methodology would meet the standards of hard science, or even the much less strict standards of psychology. You would be hard pressed to come up with a dozen sociological studies in the last fifty years that would pass hard science standards.
Transward
I do not expect the company will note this.
Well done on your quest for a new job, hopefully the more you apply the more you will get (of course for the ones that are suitable for your area of expertise)
after work, not only I but everyone of us should try to take good care of ourselves in order to be relatively healthy after 70s 
I can say that I ve never smoked not even a cigar 
has arrived here this weekend itd be around 20 to 23 celcius ( we dont use fahreneit )
descent!