The remaining symposium, “In or Out? A Discussion About Gender Identity Diagnoses and the DSM,” will focus on diagnostic issues specific to gender identity disorder, particularly the issues of having gender identity disorder listed in DSM-V and the implications of removing it. Several leaders in the transgender community will speak at this symposium.

And from the program:

S6. “In or Out?”: A Discussion About Gender Identity Diagnoses and the DSM (DSM Track DM03)

1. The DSM-V Revision Process: Principles and Progress William E. Narrow, M.D.
2. Beyond Conundrum: Strategies for Diagnostic Harm Reduction Kelley Winters, Ph.D.
3. Aligning Bodies With Minds: The Case for Medical and Surgical Treatment of Gender Dysphoria Rebecca Allison, M.D.
4. The Role of Medical and Psychological Discourse in Legal and Policy Advocacy for Transgender Persons in the U.S. Shannon P. Minter, J.D.

S10. The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism

1. Brain Gender Identity Sidney W. Ecker, M.D.
2. Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Milton Diamond, Ph.D.
3. Novel Approaches to Endocrine Treatment of Transgender Adolescents and Adults Norman Spack, M.D.

Whatever the situation, the facts will out in the end. It’s not about philosophy or ideology, but biology. I have my own ideas about that, but whether I’m right or wrong, unlike questions of sociology, there exists a definitive answer.

Ekins’ book was first published in 1996, I believe, before 95% of the work on neurology had been done, and is based on the axioms of psychoanalytic theory. As such it makes a useful contrast with similar psychoanalytical works attempting to explain the psychological origins of stomach ulcers before the helicobacter bacillus was discovered.

I support this reasoning through my reading of the following book: _Male Femaling: a grounded-theory approach to cross-dressing and sex-changing_ by Richard Ekins. This is a seventeen year study of cases of male femaling, or, biological males adopting stereotypical female roles/identities/etc.. (what we have been calling cross-dressing, transgender, etc…).

One thing that struck me is that the researcher found that male-femalers who accepted a particular line of thought would tend towards that culture’s goal. I point out two “career-paths” (p.108/109) (a) the cross-dresser who adopts the idea that his tendencies are marks of unconscious fear of heterosexual intimacy and, as result, is disinclined to cross-dress and (b) the one who accepts the idea that he is actually a “woman in a man’s body” and builds a self-identity based on that. Both paths are laden with angst and self-reflection. The author seemed to imply that, where you choose to listen, you will go.

This was in the book: Male femalers in TS communities were more likely to opt for a sex-change. Male femalers in private counseling were more likely to reduce their interest in dressing.

This makes it unlikely there is a hard, ‘real’, truth about a person’s brain that can only be satisfied by a physical change in one’s genitals. Instead, the “women brain” argument is a social construct, meant to satisfy difficult questions of identity.

One alternate interpretation of the statistics is to say that these “women in their brains” are real and they found their support community and eventually chose to become women. However, I don’t think this is likely – especially, when transexuals don’t seem to decide on their identity until after they’ve joined the community. After which, they revisit and reinterpret their personal history in light of the new ideology that they have adopted.

HOWEVER I have never come across a case where this WAS a problem for a client.

And then come back and tell me men are lovely.

The underlying principle is not the same. All other oppressed groups seek the full rights of the default human WITHOUT REGARD to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Only transfolk seek the right to be perceived as a gender — which is less then “full humanity without regard to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc”.

The case for transgenderism becomes a special pleading, which is automatically invalid. Is there something about that concept which is difficult?

Oh, I have some feeling of déjà vu. Didn’t we have this discussion already?

Anyway.

I think I said more or less the same thing already elsewhere, but, well…

1) Actually, a non-null part of the feminist movement is centered on revendicating being a woman and not just being “human”. Just like a non-null part of gays/lesbians feel important to claim that they are men/women when they are insulted of not being true ones. (Though on the other hand Wittig said that lesbians are not women, true.)
2) But actually, the question is not even that, in this case, I don’t even know why you are putting this trope again. This is not a question of claiming an internal identity or saying you are a true woman , but to say that you are suffering oppression because you are categorised as such.

Personally, I don’t think I have a deep gender identity of “woman” or anything like that. But I have some vague consciousness that if I am now more likely to be e.g. sexually assaulted than some years before, it’s not only because criminality is rising and it used to be better before, but also maybe because I am now more or less, whether I like it or not, categorised as a member of the “woman” class.

Now it’s true that sometimes this is negated e.g., last time I was forcefully kissed on the mouth by a drunken man, he later explained to me that it wasn’t sexual at all, because actually I was a man and he was heterosexual, so I couldn’t have suffered oppression, agression, or anything like that.

I guess he would agree with the argumentation to justify that a trans woman should be denied the access to women’s space and sent to a space where she will be able to be counceled by a guy who could have been his agressor.

He must be a better feminist than me, I guess.

A slippery slope argument is said to exist when no line of demarcation is possible. Transgenderism qualifies, and is therefore invalid. Thorry.

Well, maybe you’re right. There might be no possiblity of straight line of demarcation. But then again, without looking at the genitals, I don’t always see the line of demarcation between a trans woman and a cis woman, or even between a “man disguised in a woman” and a cis woman. (And less again between a “lesbian” and a “straight woman”, in the cases of lesbians-only spaces)

Anyway, I must admit that I suck at theory.

On the other hand, in practice, slippery slope or not, demarcation line or not, I’ve never seen a real difficulty in telling between a trans woman and a cis man.

It’s pleasant to believe that all males behave themselves at all times, but um, try reality for a change

You know, I wouldn’t bother to go to women-only space/lesbians-only spaces if I though men were all nice and not oppressing and anything.

And concerning reality, well, I agree that I should probably be more active in the real world and less on quite virtual blogs having discussions on quite virtual things.

A male will claim he is trans in order to gain admittance as soon as the opportunity exists for his strategy to be effective. Right now that would not be an effective strategy, because there is too much controversy.

Well, in my reality (that is, the “milieu” I frequent in my country), no, there is not that much controversy. In my reality I’ve never seen controversy at all on whether I, for example, (or any other tranny) should be given access to women-only/lesbian-only feminist space.

And yet, I’ve never seen a guy trying to “intrude” those spaces by claiming he was a trans woman. I’ve never even heard of that happening ever (despite of the many legends/anecdots concerning women/lesbian-only spaces that do exist), so, well, I’m, as you say, trying reality, and I didn’t see any of the weapon of mass destruction threatening feminism that is supposedly hidden in the barbarian country of “transgenderism”.

The only place it stopped was in the bathroom, because they couldn’t quite rationalize following me in there. I understand I’m supposed to be concerned about the traumatize rape victim in the shelter – and I am – but the harrassment by “nice guys” went on every single day. Hell yes they’d follow me in the bathroom, do you not get it yet?

Seems as if the most important consideration should be given to the person who is in immediate crisis, not some dingaling trying to feel accepted and validated as a councelor.

I agree with that, even if it’s politically incorrect (like, a person who doesn’t want to be counceled by a visibly lesbian woman). But then, that also includes the right for trans woman to have a place where they don’t have to face men.

lol One must first prove that two things are identical, before one may claim they are equal.

The underlying principle is not the same. All other oppressed groups seek the full rights of the default human WITHOUT REGARD to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Only transfolk seek the right to be perceived as a gender — which is less then “full humanity without regard to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc”.

The case for transgenderism becomes a special pleading, which is automatically invalid. Is there something about that concept which is difficult?

Any male, no matter how much of a dominating asshole he is, no matter how badly he passes as a woman, no matter how much he hates women, can claim to be transgendered — which guarantees him admittance into women only space.

Yeah, I also saw this as the argument against trans inclusion (and also by straight people against the existence of lesbians-only spaces, actually, because, how can you tell someone is really lesbian, uh?)

Oh I forgot there’s supposed to be a way to have threaded comments now. I’ll have to check. Anyway.

A slippery slope argument is said to exist when no line of demarcation is possible. Transgenderism qualifies, and is therefore invalid. Thorry.

Now, has this case actually already happened ? (I mean, a cis man gaining access to a woman-only space by claiming he’s trans, and the reaction of the people not being “yeah, right, fuck off?”)

A male will claim he is trans in order to gain admittance as soon as the opportunity exists for his strategy to be effective. Right now that would not be an effective strategy, because there is too much controversy. It’s pleasant to believe that all males behave themselves at all times, but um, try reality for a change. Especially when so many of them excuse their behavior as “just having fun”.

Heterosexual man can’t just claim to be women and enter women’s spaces. Trans people have to jump through a lot of hoops to be able to transition. We have to see therapists who get to decide if we’re “really” men or women, or if we’re crazy.

On the other hand, I’ve never been asked a shrink’s certificate to enter a woman-only space or a lesbian-only space (that would be problematic for lesbian-spaces, actually, since many psychiatrists don’t want their trans patients to be homosexuals), so I don’t think this is an argument that can really stand.

And honestly, I don’t think that any heterosexual man who has it out for women would feel that it was necessary to wear a dress in order to harm someone.

I too have some trouble imagining a dominant man devirilizing himself by putting a dress or even claiming he’s transgender, in order to be violent.

When I think about it, the only case of physical violence I heard in a woman’s space was a dominant man who “sent” a woman (his girlfriend, I think) to physically hit another woman he had had an altercation with.

(But obviously since the guy was an anarchist there couldn’t have been a power dynamics between e.g. him and his girlfriend, so I guess she just did it without his inflluence or coercion and this has nothing to do with male domination, right?)

I yelped when I read this. I was going to respond.
Instead, in my best Emily Lytella voice, I shall say, “never mind.”

Challenging your hatred for men doesn’t lead to sexism. Believing that all men are inherently bad is sexist- sexism isn’t only towards women.

I’m actually trying to answer your questions- perhaps not every single one directly, but nonetheless. As for your last comment, I don’t think that you can work for the rights of one group and actively put down another in the process, and feel that that’s a good thing. I am for equal rights, and don’t’ think that rights for trans people hurt women. On the contrary, I am for HR 2015, which would protect workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity/ gender presentation. While you may see this as being forced to work with a male bodied person who identifies as a woman- and perhaps share a bathroom with her- I see it as a law that allows men, and women especially, the right to present their gender without being wrongly fired because of backwards ideas of what would be appropriate for a woman to wear or act in the workplace.

I’m still commenting on your blog because it seems that a lot of the arguments that you’re making against trans people have been made by men against women, to keep them from receiving equality.

However, when you start interferring with feminist goals, then it becomes my business.

Yeah, that’s what I though too, this is actually why I took the time to comment on those posts. But apparently, I shall not be able do discuss the way some feminism is implemented:

Either get on board with the main programme, or get out of the way. And stop trying to redefine what feminism is, what female is, and all the other POMO bullshit.

I mean, yeah, it’s true that there is one big united feminism that must not be discussed, and, well, the definition of female shall not be touched either, after all, it was made by serious men and it has proudly stood up for centuries, so it can’t be wrong.

mAndrea:

Seems as if the most important consideration should be given to the person who is in immediate crisis, not some dingaling trying to feel accepted and validated as a councelor.

I agree with that, even if it’s politically incorrect (like, a person who doesn’t want to be counceled by a visibly lesbian woman). But then, that also includes the right for trans woman to have a place where they don’t have to face men.

Any male, no matter how much of a dominating asshole he is, no matter how badly he passes as a woman, no matter how much he hates women, can claim to be transgendered — which guarantees him admittance into women only space.

Yeah, I also saw this as the argument against trans inclusion (and also by straight people against the existence of lesbians-only spaces, actually, because, how can you tell someone is really lesbian, uh?)

To begin with, I think the only difference that a “woman but not trans” policy concretely has (except if you want to look at genitals) is that the person has to roughly pass (it’s sad (for me) but I have some cis male friends who could pass much more easily than me as women and can still, for at least one of then, be quite a “dominating asshole” when he wants to.)

Now, has this case actually already happened ? (I mean, a cis man gaining access to a woman-only space by claiming he’s trans, and the reaction of the people not being “yeah, right, fuck off?”) Because, I don’t claim I’ve had thousands of experience of xxx-only space, but I’ve been to some (that included trans, obviously), and I’ve seen cases where there were “intruders”. And I think that if one of thoses guys had claimed to be transgender, there would have been a smal discussion in order to verify that it was bullshit and he would have been politely pushed off.

Now, I may be wrong, but I really have the intimate convition that this argument (cis man claiming to be trans) doesn’t really stand in concrete.

So I think the real reason to have women-only spaces that exclude trans women isn’t to avoid this risk, but, quite straightforwardly, to avoid having trans women.

lol, it’s enough…

Hello!

I have to admit that I tend to be a sarcastic ass, but guess what? I’m actually not out to hurt transpeople. I would however, like it if the claims and insinuations they put forth do not result in more sexism. That is not a lot to ask from people who believe themselves to be women or who were born female.

Why are you so afraid of men?

But many of the comments above seem to be based on some prurient hatred of sex instead, which is disturbing.
This is a cheap transparent trick to change the subject from the behavior of men, to the feelings of women. Every time you hear the term hate used in this fashion it is always a cheapass way to change the subject. Serious people do not like to be manipulated in the style of political operatives.

Men rape women.
Why do you hate men.

Porn hurts women.
Why do you hate sex.

Do you see the shift from the behavior of the perp to the feelings of the victim? You can see it any time you like on the cable news networks, where that crap passes for discussion.
It does not pass here.

TheBewilderness said it better than I ever could. That is my all time favorite quote!

Heterosexual man can’t just claim to be women and enter women’s spaces. Trans people have to jump through a lot of hoops to be able to transition. We have to see therapists who get to decide if we’re “really” men or women, or if we’re crazy. And honestly, I don’t think that any heterosexual man who has it out for women would feel that it was necessary to wear a dress in order to harm someone. If a person wants to hurt someone else, they will. I don’t think that most “women hating men” would stoop to wearing a dress in order to hurt a woman.

Why are you so afraid of men, and penises, anyway? That really seems to be the heart of the matter.

I’m interested in your opinion because your article is your opinion- and if you’re putting it out into the world you should be able to defend it. I’m interested because you say that what my doctor and I have deemed appropriate for me “will eventually come back to bite real women in the ass in a few years.” By the way, what is a “real” woman, if “gender is an illusion,” and “one is physical [sex] and one is mental [gender],” how are you so sure that you are really a woman? Or are you? I’m really not trying to be a jerk, but I’d like you to tell me what makes you sure you are (besides the fact that you have a vagina, because that’s physical sex, not mental gender. You take for granted that your mother and your teachers told you you were a woman so you never had to question it, and therefore have never come up with a consistent definition for what gender is.

Actually, my doctors do describe me, and look at my medical history, as male. I have the same rate for heart disease and stroke as men do, as well as many other biologically male health problems. However, if I was interested in a doctor’s opinion, I wouldn’t be discussing this with you. As far as I can tell, you’re a theorist, not a scientist.