Dear Moderators,

Because things that bother me and things I can't prove seem to be an ongoing thing, I was wondering if I can just keep reusing this thread as a place to vent these things? That way people who know can simply avoid the thread instead of me starting new threads all the time that they must then compulsively open.

I don't believe in any existence other than the one I am currently experiencing. Basically because no one has ever shown a theory that would have testable predictions, that show any other existence exists at all. In fact as far as I know, I am just a character in an elaborate pre-programmed universe. Nothing is really as we perceive it. The color we see things as, is not the color they are, but rather the color they are not. It's the color they reflect that hits our retina. And things we see as solid are not solid at all, they are mostly empty space. But because of electromagnetic energy, they feel solid to us, so our brain sees them as solid. It's a survival issue. Basically all of our sensory inputs could be intercepted and our brain would not know the difference. Anyone who has ever played the modern video games knows that our brains treat these pretend worlds as if they are real places. That is why some people live their lives in these games now.

I don't believe we need a two inch thick book to tell us all the mental disorders people have. While some people really do suffer from mental illness, and I do not want to say there are no disorders, because schizophrenia is a very real disorder. Most of the other stuff, I just don't buy it. All these so called personality disorders exist because they have some relevance to survival. Otherwise we would not have evolved with them. So what is considered a disorder is really more about social mores than any real mental disturbance. Homosexuality used to be a mental illness and people had their children committed to mental institutions for life because of it. But it was no more of a mental illness then as being transsexual is now.

It is not a mental disorder just because people don't approve of it. But in our society, that is how it is. Get angry, it's a mental disorder, too happy, that's a disorder too. Not too happy but not too sad? That's a disorder too. You react badly to breakup, your borderline personality. You accuse people of betraying you, you are paranoid. And on and on. Guess what, pedophilia is not some mental disorder. 60% of all women report being sexually molested at some point, most by family members. And that is a low number. Guess what, men will have sex with anyone they are in control of. It's a fact. You want to protect children? Don't leave them in a power structure where they have the say so over the children or entire family. Both parents have to keep each other in check. But we don't do this, because we can't admit the truth.

That when people are sexually aroused the part of their brain that makes them obey the law is literally turned off. Ask any woman, they will tell you how weak men are sexually. Look at all the careers and lives ruined because men can't keep it in their pants. So yeah, I hate that we call everything mental illness. Especially because there are so many people out there who really do think I am insane. They think I had a nervous breakdown and then transitioned because I went insane. Let's start looking at human behavior the same way we do with other animals. We don't say animals are insane when they exhibit homosexual behavior. We don't accuse animals of being murderers, even though many kill quite viciously. When only a small percentage of a species exhibits a certain behavior, we don't call them insane. We just say that only a small percentage do this.

I don't believe our forefathers knew more than us. I do not believe they could possibly have anticipated how far, not just the USA has come, but how far mankind has come, since they wrote our constitution. I have a problem with the fourth amendment for instance. According to our Supreme Court, it is perfectly ok for law enforcement to pull you over with no probable cause, do a safety check on your car, search you and your car and detain and search all of your passengers, and use any thing they find against you, all with no warrant. No go and read the Fourth Amendment and see if you can tell me any possible way any sane person could come to believe that the people who wrote, then ratified the Constitution, intended that kind of search to be legal. That is exactly the reason they wrote it. They did not like the fact that British soldiers could just stop them and search them without cause. But here we now have the same thing.

Now the Supreme Court says Corporations are people. Which of course everyone knows is totally ridiculous. But now they have unlimited untraceable money to get anyone elected they want, no matter how crazy. And the Republican field shows it. All you need now is one billionaire and you are a viable candidate now. Government of the People, by the Corporations, for the Corporations. That is what we have now.

And I am totally disgusted by this whole birth control issue with health care. Once you become an employer, it no longer matters what you believe. They do not have to take federal money and so they are not compelled to go against the doctrine of their church. But as I hear everyone talking about the Catholic Churches rights, what about the people who work for them? They have no rights? The Catholic church gets to use the force of government to enforce their doctrine on those who oppose it, even their own members? What about their right to not have to do everything the Catholic church says? If a Catholic wants birth control, why does the Catholic church get to use the government to enforce their doctrine? Because it sets precedent. And that is what they want. Their religion becomes the law of the land. It don't matter that most Catholics use birth control, it's up to the Catholic Church and Santorum to stop women and men from using birth control, because they know that in a hundred years or so, the Muslims will out number Christians.

I mean, I thought religious freedom meant that the state can not tell you what to believe? Yet now they are saying that if you are a Catholic, you must do what the church says, or you will be a criminal. And we all know the History of the Catholic Church and inquisition. Churches making law is exactly what the first amendment was designed to protect us against, now they are trying to say that religious freedom means the Church being able to impose it's rules on others, including those not of their faith? I can't believe people jumped on board this train. What a loser. American women are going to continue to use birth control and any attempts to ban it will be at the peril of those attempting it.

There is a point of wealth where it no longer changes the way one lives. Making more money does not in any way change the way a person or their family lives their lives. Having a system where we allow a few to accumulate an amount of wealth that no longer benefits them, at the expense of having more than 50% of the population living in poverty is insane. But that is what we have. If you were an alien and came to this planet for the first time and looked at us from the outside, you would be amazed at all the wasted resources of the wealthy, while literally billions go hungry. And you would ask yourself why people tolerate such a system? And the answer is, the carrot in front of the stick. Everyone is convinced that somehow they are going to become the elite class, so they don't want to dismantle it.

Here is an idea for a really fair tax. How about you only pay taxes on the money you don't spend. You can spend as much of your income as you want. But capital gains are still capital gains. So anything that can be considered a capital gain is not money spent, but rather converted, and subject to taxation. Any person could avoid taxes by spending all of their money. But it's 75% tax on everything you don't spend. This would encourage spending which would keep the economy going all the time, and there is a limit to how much one can buy before it's a capital gain. So no one could claim they were being taxed to death, because everyone would have the potential to not be taxed at all. It the rich people had all of thier money in the economy, instead of hedge funds, our GDP would quadruple and we would have less than 1% unemployment. And the money people would be taxed on is money they were not using anyway.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:32 am Because things that bother me and things I can't prove seem to be an ongoing thing, I was wondering if I can just keep reusing this thread as a place to vent these things? That way people who know can simply avoid the thread instead of me starting new threads all the time that they must then compulsively open.

Gotta be honest, I don't like disorganized threads like this one. If you have a lot of different things to say, start a lot of different threads. Maybe you can add a tag "Elizabeth" and "Open-Questions" to each of the threads, if you need to keep track of them.

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:32 am I don't believe we need a two inch thick book to tell us all the mental disorders people have. While some people really do suffer from mental illness, and I do not want to say there are no disorders, because schizophrenia is a very real disorder. Most of the other stuff, I just don't buy it. All these so called personality disorders exist because they have some relevance to survival. Otherwise we would not have evolved with them. So what is considered a disorder is really more about social mores than any real mental disturbance. Homosexuality used to be a mental illness and people had their children committed to mental institutions for life because of it. But it was no more of a mental illness then as being transsexual is now.

It is not a mental disorder just because people don't approve of it. But in our society, that is how it is. Get angry, it's a mental disorder, too happy, that's a disorder too. Not too happy but not too sad? That's a disorder too. You react badly to breakup, your borderline personality. You accuse people of betraying you, you are paranoid. And on and on. Guess what, pedophilia is not some mental disorder. 60% of all women report being sexually molested at some point, most by family members. And that is a low number. Guess what, men will have sex with anyone they are in control of. It's a fact. You want to protect children? Don't leave them in a power structure where they have the say so over the children or entire family. Both parents have to keep each other in check. But we don't do this, because we can't admit the truth.

Yeah, I think the classification as gender identity body-mind-mismatch as a disorder does have the very practical function of affording affected individuals surgical access. It also depends on your definition of gender. If you take the older, more accurate definition of gender as purely a social construct, then yes, it does seem silly that one can have such a disorder. However, I'm guessing that the DSM is referring to the broader (and more vague, and generally less useful) definition of gender, as including sex and secondary sex characteristics. It should be pointed out that the DSM doesn't just include diagnosis, but a treatment plan, which in the case of transgender issues doesn't involve locking up the patient in a mental institution.

So, if GID is not a disorder, what would that entail? Would patients need to prove the necessity (body identity disorder) of every operation in transition: show that they have an irrefutable, incurable problem with [for MtFs] their voice, lack of breasts, sex organs, face, adam's apple, etc.? Maybe for some, who don't have a specific problem with their genitals, this would be a good thing -- they couldn't change their bodies in ways that were just for passing. I don't know. But, I'm in favor of fewer limitations to surgery, so long as people are sure.

I agree pedophilia should be classified as an orientation. But again, they should have access to professional help, disorder classification or not, because it's obviously important they do not act on their desires.

And what you say about things being overclassified as disorders is partly true, but some recognize the problem. You might find this article interesting: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/how_pts ... r_america/ .

purpletomato (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:28 am Gotta be honest, I don't like disorganized threads like this one. If you have a lot of different things to say, start a lot of different threads. Maybe you can add a tag "Elizabeth" and "Open-Questions" to each of the threads, if you need to keep track of them.

Yeah, I think the classification as gender identity body-mind-mismatch as a disorder does have the very practical function of affording affected individuals surgical access. It also depends on your definition of gender. If you take the older, more accurate definition of gender as purely a social construct, then yes, it does seem silly that one can have such a disorder. However, I'm guessing that the DSM is referring to the broader (and more vague, and generally less useful) definition of gender, as including sex and secondary sex characteristics. It should be pointed out that the DSM doesn't just include diagnosis, but a treatment plan, which in the case of transgender issues doesn't involve locking up the patient in a mental institution.

So, if GID is not a disorder, what would that entail? Would patients need to prove the necessity (body identity disorder) of every operation in transition: show that they have an irrefutable, incurable problem with [for MtFs] their voice, lack of breasts, sex organs, face, adam's apple, etc.? Maybe for some, who don't have a specific problem with their genitals, this would be a good thing -- they couldn't change their bodies in ways that were just for passing. I don't know. But, I'm in favor of fewer limitations to surgery, so long as people are sure.

I agree pedophilia should be classified as an orientation. But again, they should have access to professional help, disorder classification or not, because it's obviously important they do not act on their desires.

And what you say about things being overclassified as disorders is partly true, but some recognize the problem. You might find this article interesting: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/how_pts ... r_america/ .

What I am saying is that people who are transsexual, or gay or any other way, it is not because they are defective, it's because there is a huge number of ways DNA can combined along with cultural exposure, that determine how someone is going to be. Different does not mean mentally ill. It only means different.

Why is it that anyone can pretty much have any plastic surgery they want, no matter how bad it makes them look, or how it may disable them, as long as it does not entail removing a penis, breasts or testicles?

Elizabeth

You make a lot of sense on a lot of issues here, only by making so many points in one go do you inevitably cover some point somewhere for most people to disagree on; and then by our nature we are more likely to feel compelled to comment on the disagreement than on the many agreements! x

The main difficulty I have with simple presentations of complex issues is the, to me, subjectively terrible fact that I invariably experience simple presentations of complex issues to often be disastrously dishonest when a simple presentation of a complex issue is made into some sort of law people are, by color of law, required to obey, in spite of the utterly insane fact that such obedience is far outside the pale of anything that can ever be possible.

So, Elizabeth, I say to you, and to everyone else, "Thank You for writing and posting as you did, earlier today!"

For myself, I am far more predisposed to comment on the concerns you raised from an "agreement" vantage than a "disagreement" stance.

What "human nature" is has been the focus of my life work, as a person, as a possibly-research-driven scientist, as a licensed professional engineer, and as an autistic and transgendered person whose life, I surmise, exists almost purely in total, absolute, unrelenting, intractable, ineluctable, intransigent rejection of every aspect of the human condition I have ever stumbled upon or which has somehow acted as though to reject my human validity, which aspects of the human condition damage the brains of little children.

Is there a scientific field in which there are research scientists who study such aspects of the human condition as damage the brains of little children? Sure is. What is the name of that scientific research field of study? "Neurology."

Can I name some published neurologists (and their allies in neuropsychiatry neuropsychology, and neurobiology) as evidence of my view? Sure can. Want evidence? How about:

Hughlings Jackson, the Luria Brothers, Abraham A. Low, Robert C. Scaer, Oliver Sacks, Thomas Szasz, R. D. Laing, Lenore Terr, Lance Dodes, Alice Miller, and, if you need the names of a few hundred more, I can fill a comment here with them, and keep going with even more.

I live in Wisconsin. From the Wisconsin Legislature web site, the Wisconsin Constitution, Article 1, Section 18:

Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state

religion; public funds. SECTION 18. [As amended Nov. 1982]

The right of every person to worship Almighty God according

to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall

any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of

worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall

any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be

permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious

establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be

drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or

religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29,

vote Nov. 1982]

As I seek to be a "law-abiding citizen," surely I need to comply with the Wisconsin Constitution, which, I find, unambiguously demands that I have "dictates of conscience." Given my sense of this demand, I have found it necessary to know about, be familiar with, and understand, the "dictates of conscience" of my conscience. It took a while to for me to become as close to absolutely sure of knowing about, being familiar with, and understanding, the dictates of my conscience as to be able to put those dictates into word form with at least some semblance of plausibly accurate conveyance of meaning. Having, perchance, done that, here goes"

I find that the dictates of my conscience are:

"There are two dictates of my conscience, of which this is the first."

"There are no other dictates of my conscience, this being the second."

My conscience informs me, however, not as a dictate, that the human brain phenomenon often labeled "religion" is, for me -- if for no one else -- about what I do not yet understand; and similarly, the human brain phenomenon often labeled "science" is, for me -- if for no one else -- about what I have already learned to understand; my conscience thus informs me, but does not dictate, that my life is inseparably comprised of experiences, all of which are at least partly religious and at least partly scientific.

Oops! My conscience informs me, but does not dictate to me, that I am inescapably both a religious and a scientific person in terms of my lived experiences, and furthermore, my conscience informs me, but does not dictate to me, that all religion needs be contain religious dogma and doctrine; dogma and doctrine being brain functions which allow me to be aware of that which I do not yet understand.

Furthermore, my conscience informs me, but does not dictate to me, that it behooves me, for the sake of my safety as a member of supposed human society, that I wisely make an effective effort to fully understand my religious dogma and my religious doctrine.

Methinks I may have accomplished that task while, in the conventional sense, an infant. Perhaps I put that "methinks" to the test.

My religious dogma?

There shall be no other religious dogma.

My religious doctrine?

There shall be no other religious doctrine

Why that dogma and that doctrine? Because of the mere fact that, throughout the whole of my life, at least until now, what I experience as religious is inextricably about, and only about, what I do not yet understand which alerts my attention.

Consider, as a "for instance," the Legal Maxim (or doctrine?), as found on page 1835 of the Ninth Edition of "Black's Law Dictionary" (copyright 2009, Thomsen-Reuters):

Ignoranti facti excusat, ignoranti juris non excusat. Ignorance of fact excuses; ignorance of law does not excuse. Everyone must be considered cognizant of the law; otherwise there is no limit to the excuse of ignorance...

Some thousands of years ago, in ancient Sumer, there was the Code of Hammurabi. In the now-public-domain, published in 1904, Robert Francis Harper translation, I find a mere 282 laws, most of which seem to me, in translation, to be of the "If..., then..." form.

Consider an "If..., then..." form of physical law, my illustration intended to be rather ridiculous: "If the sun does not appear to rise tomorrow, then it may be useful to explore whether planet Earth has shed its entire angular momentum."

Whether ignorance of the law is possible for anyone now living to avoid is a matter which I find subject to scientific scrutiny. The Code of Hammurabi? 282 Laws? I surmise that a formidable plurality of adult folks who are well-versed in the language in which the Code of Hammurabi is written and/or translated could, without undue difficulty, memorize the Code of Hammurabi, and, on a stack of soap boxes, set up shop on some street corner and spend hours repeatedly reciting the Code of Hammurabi.

That was then, this is now. How many laws are there?

The following is an exchange of words which happened with an attorney at law and myself some years ago, when an "officer" confabulated a dishonesty regarding me, and I set out to learn what, if anything useful, I could do in response. The words are from my memory, memory is reconstructive, and I may have messed up a little with the exact wording, but not with my sense of the meaning of the words spoken.

I have a modest collection of posters I made which summarize some of the main aspects of my doctoral research. I showed the posters to the attorney, who looked at them, one at a time, after which I summarized my sense of the overall meaning of the posters by saying, "I understand that ignorance of the law is an excuse."

Yes, by then, I had, in my library, the Sixth and Seventh editions of Black's Law Dictionary, both of which contain that "Ignoranti facti" maxim, which I had read.

I said, "I find that ignorance of the law is an excuse." The lawyer said, "No, ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, and Thomas Kuhn to my rescue! What I said and what the lawyer said formed a pure dichotomy in the form of a null hypothesis and an alternate hypothesis, such that, if I could demonstrate that it is impossible to not be at least partially ignorant of the law, then that impossibility inextricably (from a neurological view) excuses an offender of such of the law as the offender was inescapably ignorant.

The word exchange went something like this, as best I now recall (please note that it is my understanding that the attorney is a member of a group that self-identifies as a "church"):

Me, "I find that ignorance of the law is an excuse."

Atty, "No, ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Me, "How many laws are there?"

Atty, "I don't know."

Me, "I called the American Bar Association headquarters some time ago, and they could not tell me how to find out how many laws there are."

Atty, silent.

Me, "Is it reasonable to expect people to do the impossible?"

Atty, "I don't know."

Me, "Is it decent to require people to do the impossible and punish them for the inescapable failure?"

Atty, "I don't know."

Me, "What is the law?"

Atty, "I don't know."

Me, "Well, I do know the law, and there is only one of them. We are to love the lord our god with all of heart, mind, soul, and strength, and, in so doing, learn properly to love neighbor as self, and in so doing, find ourselves learning to understand the truth, and, in so doing, find our selves being set free. Now, you know the law. How much do I owe you?"

Atty, "Nothing."

The next day came, by post, a letter from said attorney, in which the attorney stated that I had acted so as to "harass without legitimate purpose," and that I was to never contact said attorney at work or at home ever again. That letter has been very, very carefully laminated and is kept in a safe place. To "harass without legitimate purpose" is, as I read Black's Law Dictionaries, a criminal act.

Which is the greater crime against humanity? A system of law which its proponents do not know, or the questioning of a system of law which its proponents do not know, yet impose on others with ruthlessly apparent oblivion?

I suggest looking up "cartel" in some law dictionaries, and then I suggest doing a scientific proof (null-hypothesis / alternate-hypothesis?) showing that the American Bar Association and its ilk are other than an unconstitutional established religious cartel.

Yikes!

My prior post on this thread is intensely serious and is of the core of my doctoral and post-doctoral research into public safety aspects of the structure of human society.

While staying within the bounds of confidentiality of my actual identity, for the sake of Archive member anonymity, I can state as fact that I hold B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in bioengineering, that I am a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, that I am a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Biomedical Engineering Society, the Institute of Biological Engineering, the Association for Psychological Science, and am also a Life Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and am also a Wisconsin Certified Master Electrician.

The work I do is done in accord with my understanding of the meaning of the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers, which meaning I find succinctly stated, in my words, as:

"A Professional Engineer shall hold paramount the public safety, shall work in -- and only in -- areas of professional competence; and shall do so without deception."

To avoid forfeiture of my professional engineer license, given my established professional competence, I find I am mandated by law to question the neurological validity of the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence.

I intensively question whether I will ever find words that accurately convey the sense of amazed astonishment that came over me when I sensed the most probable interpretation I have yet garnered of the significance of my being autistic and transgendered in ways that seem to have unconditionally denied to me any pathway to living in accord with social/cultural conventions which induce in young children, typically around the age of 18 months, the dissociative trauma which drives people later in life to project their trauma induced and acquired sense of self-invalidity (like hatred and prejudice) onto others in ways that lead to seemingly willful crime and war and perhaps every other form of supposedly malevolent human conduct.

Were I to describe the one characteristic which, to me, distinguishes those who are members and guests of the Eunuch Archive more than any other characteristic, it would be the tendency I have rather consistently observed for people who gather here to have an internal sense of self which is, in one or more aspects, stronger and more enduring than any sense of self imposed by other people.

There is, methinks, a name for that sense of self. It is "personal integrity."

purpletomato (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:28 am So, if GID is not a disorder, what would that entail? Would patients need to prove the necessity (body identity disorder) of every operation in transition: show that they have an irrefutable, incurable problem with [for MtFs] their voice, lack of breasts, sex organs, face, adam's apple, etc.? Maybe for some, who don't have a specific problem with their genitals, this would be a good thing -- they couldn't change their bodies in ways that were just for passing. I don't know. But, I'm in favor of fewer limitations to surgery, so long as people are sure.

IF GID is a disorder, then really, so is being "insert race here", "insert height here", "insert hair colour here", "insert eye colour here". I think you're referring to the body dysmorphia that most but not all transgendered people suffer from. Since it is a known fact that non-trans people can also suffer from body dysmorphia, even genital specific dysmorphia, I think it is clear that body dysmorphia itself is not and should not be a criteria for diagnosing GID. Thus GID really isn't a disorder at all.

punkypink, I asked about BDD before, and it seems to be a separate phenomenon, which is mostly about improving body parts to an ideal, rather than removing them, or e.g. changing a penis and scrotum to a clitoris and neovagina.

People who are gay (or different race, whatever else is discriminated against) do not need treatment, except maybe therapy to counteract social prejudice. So, I think that's a spurious angle. I said in the previous paragraph I agree that gender, _if_ defined as a purely social construct, should not be the basis for a disorder.

The interesting question is whether people should be able to get surgery so that they pass more easily, even if they don't mind a particular body part. I personally think the answer is yes: if it changes the person's perceived gender [by their peers], then this could cause the person to be happier, e.g. feel as they are accepted in their preferred gender role.

Of course, you're completely right that there's an issue affording access to those who are not transgender but have a need for surgery. I can see how deeply embedded Harry Benjamin's SOC, in particular the "12 months of role play" stipulation, is in the medical community -- it seems mostly assumed that one changes one's social image first, and genitals last, even if one has most severe problems with one's genitals.

GREAT Omnibus Thread Title.

Numero uno: there is a non physical world and a reason to be a good person.

When one is infested with clairvoyant experiences no faith is required. It is experienced.

Can't convince an atheist.

"I know it" by experiences. Some involving others that they can verify.

Moi

Please don't report me to the PSI Corp.

sleepers or join the corp

purpletomato (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:37 pm punkypink, I asked about BDD before, and it seems to be a separate phenomenon, which is mostly about improving body parts to an ideal, rather than removing them, or e.g. changing a penis and scrotum to a clitoris and neovagina.

People who are gay (or different race, whatever else is discriminated against) do not need treatment, except maybe therapy to counteract social prejudice. So, I think that's a spurious angle. I said in the previous paragraph I agree that gender, _if_ defined as a purely social construct, should not be the basis for a disorder.

The interesting question is whether people should be able to get surgery so that they pass more easily, even if they don't mind a particular body part. I personally think the answer is yes: if it changes the person's perceived gender [by their peers], then this could cause the person to be happier, e.g. feel as they are accepted in their preferred gender role.

Of course, you're completely right that there's an issue affording access to those who are not transgender but have a need for surgery. I can see how deeply embedded Harry Benjamin's SOC, in particular the "12 months of role play" stipulation, is in the medical community -- it seems mostly assumed that one changes one's social image first, and genitals last, even if one has most severe problems with one's genitals.

So if wanting to change one's penis to a vagina is part of GID, would you care to explain what I have?

Would you care to also explain what people who want to change a penis and a scrotum to a clit and vagina but who don't want to live or identify as the opposite gender have?

Truth be told, BDD is not BID, BID is not GID. That is a plain simple fact. My very existance alone dispells the myth that GID is a disorder or that it involves wanting to change one's genitals.

Also, i would NEVER get surgery for the sake of other people's ignorance. Selling out would make me far more unhappy than "passing easier" ever would. Besides. surgery changes a part of you that is normally hidden under clothes. How much does it REALLY change a person's perceived gender? I've always said someone should get surgery because they want it, because they actually psychologically have a problem with the genitals they were born with.

And it isnt just an issue with those who'

purpletomato (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:37 pm re not transgender but have a need for surgery. I

t is also an issue affecting those who are transgender but have no need for surgery. We should be trying to get society to become more enlightened, not hide under the carpet and validate the current ignorance.

I don't even see why there should be a problem acknowledging that people who have BDD do not necessarily have BID or GID, that people who have BID do not necessarily have BDD or GID, and that people who have GID do not necessarily have BDD or BID. It just feels like the trans women who insist that GID is BID are just trying to discriminate against people who're transgendered without BID or BDD as a selfish and ignorant way of strengthening their own floundering identity. The irony being that since I am far more enlightened about what makes me a woman despite not fitting any of the primitives convention of womanhood, I'm probably more of a woman than any of those trans women who cling onto their primitive ignorance about what decides gender ever will be.