Talk:Transsexual/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Trinity FFS site

Same link removed from this entry numerous times already. Site in question contains content lifted without permission from at least two other sites:

• Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon
• TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison

The site has been spammed under multiple listings on Wikipedia. Many speculate the site owner is responsible for repeated attempts to reinsert the link here and elsewhere. The owner has had an unsatisfactory experience with plastic surgeon Douglas Ousterhout and has been publicizing this dissatisfaction in any venue available. Since the link appears under the Ousterhout entry and is not considered a primary trans web resource or a neutral point of view, it should not be listed under the general heading.

note:

• original comment was removed by 68.185.69.177 on 8 March and replaced that day.
• comment removed by 68.185.69.177 again on 9 March and replaced that day.

Jokestress 15:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TAKE A LOOK AT TRINITY'S SITE AND COMPARE WHAT THIS USER IS SAYING TO WHAT IS ON THE TRINITY SITE AND YOU SEE THAT Jokestress IS MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.

Jokestress Makes the claim that info has been lifted from * Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon

Compare the the link at **Trinity Site is question You will find the site uses frames, which would require you to dirctly right click on top of the Electrolysis and Laser link, then left click on open in a new link to see where it's linked to. Jokestress tries to use peoples lack of knowing how web pages work to make it seem like that site is stealing something when it's not doing any such thing.

Click on the link to the Electrolysis & Laser Treatments

Electrolysis and Laser **Electrolysis & Laser Treatments Area in question Notice the site links directly to Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon www.hairremovalpros.com being the site Jokestress claims is being lifted without permission. The site in questoin is linked to the same site Jokestress is claiming to be lifted by the Trinity site and this is the first example of slander by Jokestress

Now look at the other site Jokestress claims has had info lifted from it. TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison and compare the the links at **Trinity Site is question There are no TG-friendly Therapists listed on the site at all. Another example of slander by Jokestress

Slader after slander after slander.

I moved the above response by 68.185.69.177 below the earlier comment by me. Frames or not, the issue at hand was whether the site link should appear under this entry. Since several other Wikipedians had removed the link previously, I was following suit. Finally, the removal of comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. This is a place for discussion of conflicts, not for removing comments with which one disagrees. Jokestress 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jokestress you lied about the site and the owner time and time again. I would not be surprised that people who removed the site are past patients of Douglas Ousterhout. I think you would want to up date you statement since accused **Trinity Site is question lifting items and it has not done what you claim. The site is linked on some of the major TG sites om the web by the owners of the site. So there are bound to be people who link it here and other places. If a site is linked on one major site on the web, it will bound to get links other places by the people who read the site and like it.

OK, let's take another look at more Trinity content lifted from another site as an example. Electrologists and Laser in CA is lifted almost verbatim from California Electrolysis Page on Karyn's Transsexual Refuge. Bottom line is that the Trinity site has padded out some areas to make it seem like a general resource site, but its primary goal is to complain about a surgeon Trinity does not like. Jokestress 15:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a semi-objective bystander here, I want to state that Jokestress's website is one of the most comprehensive and genuinely useful ones out there on the Web. She takes definite stances on some things, and is a very successful client of Ousterhout, but she errs on the side of cautious scrutiny and caveat emptor in all cases. She is extremely NPOV about everything she states on her website, and I am sure her edits here are, as well. I don't have caches of the website(s) in question, so I can't swear to the absolute accuracy of her points here, but I would bet a lot of money that she is in the right here. (Is this an appropriate place to make this point? I'm still kinda new to Wikipedia.) Jiawen 04:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please also note the following page User_talk:68.185.74.179 and their associated edits - Pete C ^✍ 17:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit about treatments

Anecdotal evidence about increased SI removed. Haven't seen this published at all in peer reviewed literature (and have actively looked.) Moreover, even if found in a valid research study, I wonder whether this is significantly different from the 20% suicidality of people pre-op or denied op? That is, does reparative therapy cause an additional effect? You'd need a rather large sample size that compared simply non-op people with 'non-op and treated with reparative therapy' to find a statistically significant difference (unless the effect size was amazingly large.)

Removed 'barbaric' ? that's a judgment call presumably based on films like 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest.' ECT, as practiced today is neither barbaric, nor even ineffectual when used for the right diseases (that is treatment resistant unipolar depression.) A good friend of mine had his years duration severe medication/therapy resistant depression essentially cured within a month by ECT. And while I knew that ECT was effective based on medical evidence, seeing a beautiful vibrant person emerge from a black hole of seemingly endless suicidal depression with a few weekly 5 minute generalized seizures done in the OR under general anesthesia cemented that view for me. Its not for everyone, but it can literally be a lifesaver for some. Barbaric would be denying these people a safe and effective therapy because of the ill use that therapy was put to years before.

Nobody denies - well, few people do - that ECT can be the only effective treatement for severe depression. However, what you removed was an "in some cases barbaric", and the following list was "aversion therapy, psychoactive medications, electroconvulsive therapy, hormone treatments consistent with the birth gender, and psychotherapy alone". It is therefore obvious that neither a method itself nor all such treatment was described as "barbaric". [AR]

That would be fine except that the way ot was worded before didn't distinguish. And many people have an entirely pejorative view of ECT. It could be read that 'some of the cases I am listing are barbaric' or that 'sometimes these valid treatments were put to barbaric uses.' If you want it to be clearer, that's fine... just the way it was worded didn't read that way to me. So maybe simply removing the barbaric comment and then linking to ECT which provides info about it (and the history of its use.) How about that? Then it would be clearer. Also, not all aversion therapy is bad either. For example, that is in part how Anatbuse works to treat alcoholism. Now that's not for everyone, but again, its babies and bathwater. So how about a link to aversion therapy which isn't balanced for AT in general, but in the specific instance of bogus 'treatment' of LGBT people it does OK.

Also from a purely linguistic perspective, 'some' implies more than one of the following.

Feel free - I merely mentioned it because you seemed to mis-read the sentence that was there before. Oh, and BTW, I always sign replies that are apart from others with [AR], makes it much easier to understand who said what after a while. It is not a standard practise (unfortunately) but you might consider adopting it (or something similar). After all, talk pages sometimes get read long after a debate took place, and everybody hates it to have to count or guess who said what. [AR]

Added section about supportive therapy for people who chose not to transition either because their cross-gender identification while present, is not strong enough to motivate the patient to choose SRS, or because the patient chooses not to for other reasons. That is, a 65 year old patient who presents with GID who simply does not wish to transition because he does not wish to disrupt lifelong relationships, valued social roles, etc, should not be provided with no therapy simply because he does not wish SRS. Supportive, psychoeducational, psychiatric medications, and sometimes even 'partial' somatic therapy can be very comforting to patients like this. So while reparative therapy for people who wish to transition is whacked, supportive psychotherapy, meds, etc can be helpful for a population of transgender people who sometimes get forgotten. Babies and bathwater comes to mind. Nick

Once again - are you sure that it is not you who is confusing things? Reparative therapie is a quite clear term for that one particular brand of therapy that seeks to "turn around" homosexual people, and throws trans-people into that category, where it obviously does not belong. Whether this particular brand of "therapy" would be helpful for people seeking counceling for gender-variant feelings is quite an open question; nobody however doubted that such people might need and deserve and should get counceling or supportive therapy. I assume you would like to move what you wrote about this to a more appropriate header, or even better, an appropriate article, since it does nor really deal with transsexual people (and not "transsexuals", please, either; see /Archive 2004). [AR]

Actually there are specific people who advocate reparative therapy for trans-people in particular (notably Jerry Leach.) Also, as I said there are really two different scenarios. The first is someone with some element of transgender feelings who doesn't feel motivated enough to transition... which according to the DSM definition is transsexuality. Also, to be honest, I know some people in this situation who describe themselves as transsexuals. However, the second scenario is someone who has significant conflict but who chooses not to transition because of other reasons (often social, relationship, or health related.) These people most definitely meet the criteria in the DSM and I would certainly agree that they are as much trans(men or women) as would people, I think. That is, what makes you who you are is who you feel like on the inside - not whether you can get or have gotten surgery and hormones or not.

Yes, but you see, this is under the heading of "'Curing' transsexualism" and right below "reparative therapy" so it will look to many readers as belonging to that - which it does not.

As for your two groups, still, the first does not quite belong into this article, which has already become a place to collect much information that does not, technically, belong to "transsexualism" or not to TS alone. (That was already the case before you started to edit, so definitely not your fault.) I'd propose to move that stuff to a new article, actually, something like Psychotherapy of transgender and transsexual people or something. -- AlexR 01:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, changed it a bit. Basically what I was trying to get across is to distinguish reparative therapy (bad) from supportive therapy for people who choose not to transition. I shortened it a bit as well. I think that needs to be distinguished when you talk about reparative therapy being bad because people end up with the distinction SRS = good, talk therapy/drugs = bad. How about that?

And with regard to an article called Psychotherapy of transgender and transsexual people, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight that battle. ;) [User:NickGorton|Nick]

Zhou Article

While Zhou's study seems to provide tantalizing information, it is best not to read more into the study than it actually states. Its very limited, and a few of the assumptions made in their interpretation of the data is questionable at best.

I would love Zhou's article to be proof positive that transsexual's have sexually dimporphic brains that reflect gender ID rather than sex assigned at birth. I actually believe that is a likely hypothesis. However, Zhou's work doesn't do that ? by a long shot. Moreover, as articles go, it was weak in that it didn't at all actually discuss its own valid limitations. (The N of 1 study of an FTMs brain I didn't address, because that has its own obvious significant limits.) One way you can tell a really rigorous research article is that the authors state the limitations of the study that come to your mind as a reader. That is, they answer the challenge before you even make it. That's says a bit about the scientific and intellectual honesty of the author as well as the rigor of the peer review that the article underwent (that is, did the reviewers find the limits and call the author on it to address these in the article.) In a well written and well reviewed article, you should not be able to find many methodological errors that the author didn't state in the limitations section. However, I can find several that Zhou neither mentioned nor addressed (and at least one that he made strong implications about dismissing out of hand ? the effect of total brain size on the BSTc and the well known effect of age related atrophy on brain size... and that his transgender women were significantly older than the homosexual and heterosexual men.)

Its always best to state the limits of your own data before your detractors do. Giving everything a fair treatment yourself establishes the academic rigor of your analysis. Simply looking at the data through rose colored glasses makes your conclusions much more suspect -either through lack of being able to find the methodological errors or simply hiding or minimizing the ones you have found. (And while it may simply be an oversight... I have always been a little suspicious that they didn't just compare the BSTc's based on size of the brain which is logical, obvious, would have made their data stronger, and is pretty simple.) Nick

You have put very much criticism into that section now, I wonder whether it has not become too long, and should go into a seperate article. I also have my doubts that your edit was all that NPOV; at least it should be stated that there is a problem with replicating the findings simply because they still, AFAIK, require an autopsy. [AR]

To be honest, there is more (and better) information that supports the supposition that transsexuality is genetic and due to early environmental influences than Zhou's article. If anything I was not NPOV in that I didn't cite the stuff that says it better than Zhou.

However, Zhou gets cited all the time, and its rarely (as it was here) examined with even a minimally critical eye. And to be honest, if you are going to use research to support a position, I think there are much better choices than Zhou. Though he was published in a more popular journal so it gets overcited. And with an article as shaky as this it makes the argument weaker as soon as anyone actually reads Zhou.

That said, I think it is the responsibility of scientitst to do exactly what you suggest as being NPOV. That is, if you believe A is the case, you are most valid in your analysis if you present the best arguments for not A. That is, to truly understand your own POV, you have to really examine it critically. That is what an author should do in his paper when discussing its limits. Unfortunately Zhou didn't do that. And to be honest, that makes a paper even less reliable IMO.

I mostly agree with your criticism, but again, I wonder whether something so disproportionaly large should be in this article at all. If you are aware of more studies that point to biological causes of GID, an article on its own might again be a better idea, with only a short reference to these articles in this one; something like Theories about biological influences on gender identity disorder (Frankly and personally, I find the question mildly interesting, but not much more; however, you can safely assume that other people insist on having that reference.) -- AlexR 01:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, eliminated the while Zhou critique, but placed Zhou in context. Nick

Requirements Changes

Changed some of the more outdated elements of the requirements for gender reassignment treatment section. In addition to the SOC update in 2003, there are an increasing number of physicians (like me for example) who don't require diagnosis. Or rather better said that we do our own diagnosis. (Just as not all people with depression need a shrink to determine they may benefit from anti-depression treatment, not all transpeople need it either.)

Also, there are a lot of surgeons from Asia who do SRS without RLT. Moreover, I know of a couple of American surgeons who are much more liberal as well. So this is not set in stone anymore. Nick

There are more SoCs than the HBIGDA SoCs, Germany for example has it's own brand, based on an old HBIGDA version, plus a new attempt to set standards which are even much harsher, although both versions are ignored by some caregivers and considered "too weak" by others; other countries also don't necessarily follow the latest HBIGDA. Most of those clearly state an "and" there, not an "or". And since Wikipedia is not about the USA only, you should seriously consider rewriting that sentence to reflect a wider experience.

Now, I have mainly criticized some point you wrote; that should not give you the impression that I am only critical - on the contrary, I very much appreciate more input on these articles - not to mention the pleasure of not being the only guy out here. Still, I am not exactly well-known for keeping criticism to myself ;-) --AlexR 22:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, there are more clinical policies than HBIGDA's SOC. However that is the most world-known and can truly be seen as the most international. Additionally, there is a difference between a true SOC promulgated by a professional organization and local policy or local standard of practice. And again, you are right that most experienced practitioners do what they want rather than follow any guideline to the letter. However, if there was one international standard that anyone would cite as a true standard, it would be HBIGDA... that's whats most commonly cited on a few of the international practitioner and academic discussion lists in which I participate.

The problem is, though, that those other standards exist and we should not pretend that they do not or that they are that rare. Also, I am under the impression that those practicioners who participate in exchange with colleguaes from around the world are the rather liberal minded - those less liberal don't want to be confronted with facts they have been trying to ignore for years. Therefore, I think we really need to mention those other practices, guidelines etc as well, no matter how much we would want them to disappear day before yesterday. [AR]

Though if you know of any nationally officially promulgated standards outside of national health program policies, or of any promulgated by professional organizations - even if they are within a specific nation - I would very much appreciate that information.

I've got quite some stuff in German, but how usefull would that be to you? Nothing of that has, as far as I am aware, been translated to English - wait a minute. The IJT has the translations of the German SoCs, at [1], and also the Russian and the Italian ones. [AR]

I am currently unaware of any SOC that is official (except for in NHPs) than either the HBIGDA or ICTLEP SOCs. (And to be honest, I haven't ever seen the ICTLEP-SOC either used or cited in a serious manner by a practitioner. Even trans-doctors that I know, myself included wouldn't use that... you may as well print: 'please sue me' on a placard in you waiting area. My own professional experience and my diagnosis of someone with GID is a lot better protection than having someone sign a 'release' form.)

US experiences ;-) The rest of the world is not quite so happy to sue people for giving them something they asked for, although of course it happens. [AR]

No, its just that the ICTLEP-SOC basically say that you are treating a patient without diagnosis. That is malpractice (bordering on malefescance) no matter where you go. Nick

Also you are right that older or local more stringent versions are used in many places. However, I think it would actually be in the best interest of transpeople in general if the HBIGDA SOC were presented as The Standard of care. Its the most liberal of one that might actually be used and it is evolving into an even more liberal document.

Maybe it would be - although I doubt that as well, since it gives rise to expectations that are, unfortunately, not always met. However, this is Wikipedia, which strives to be an encyclopedia, and therefore, we cannot present things or not present things based on a political reason, no matter how good that reason is. [AR]

No problem, but just as you should not express one end of the bell curve as 'usual' (i.e. the permissive practices in Asia) you should also not express the other end as 'usual' as well. That is, what do you see as the 'most average' SOC for the entire world. Including the more restrictive German SOC and version 5 HBIGDA-SOC, the permissive Asian not-really-any-SOC-as-long-as-you-have-the-money, and the HBIGDA middle of the road? Basically, as you shouldn't be an optimist, you also shouldn't be a pessimist.

So the question really is: state the average (HBIGDA) only, or describe the spectrum - how much to put in the article? Nick

And I did mention the most liberal of surgical practice - that which occurs in Asia - in addition to my own experience. I will admit its hard to quantitate changes in practice like these - especially when they haven't been systematically studied. However, I can speak to what is at the end of the spectrum and what I have experienced in my own practice. But I think the way it was worded before seemed to make the whole system seem much more stringent than it actually is.

Well, surgenons who do surgery without some checks are not exactly without problems either, but just as with many surgeries and procedures, if you have the money to pay for it, there are places to get it. (Of course, the quality is not always the best in such cases, either.) But whatever the practise of some people is, whether liberal or careless, it is not the only practice around, and we cannot pretend - at least in the Wikipedia - that it is.

Lastly, there are more practitioners than you would know who read these pages... I've been contacted by a few. Its not just transpeople who look things up on Wikipedia. ;) So if anything, I think we should err on the side of presenting what the most MODERN practitioners do, not what is done based on 7 year old standards. Describing a range is good, but describing it as overly restrictive will only shoot the trans-movement in the foot.Nick

Well, as I said - we cannot leave out information for political reasons. It would however be perfectly acceptable to present the new SoCs as just more humane and effective and whatnot than old SoCs or practices, if you can find enough arguments for that. (Shouldn't be too difficult, should it?) Besides, what you are proposing is very much alike to what you accuse Zhou of - being somewhat dishonest by omission; and it would open this article to the same criticism. I think we would be much better off with presenting arguments for and against both sides here; especially since we probably agree that one side has about as many arguments against as the other has for ;-)

There is a difference - I am not making conclusions as Zhou is. Plus, this is also in part based on my professional experience and discussions about this with people (in and out of the US) who provide care. Of course this has its own problems in that it is anecdotal, but reflects that there is a big mass of practitioners who are in the 'middle of the road' with regards to trans care - that is not as permissive as the Asian practice or ICTLEP-SOC but not nearly as restrictive as the German SOC. So it is, I think valid, to present the middle of the road - especially since that is the most internationally recognized standard.Nick

As for the readers of WP, well, it is nice to hear that ones work does get appreciated ;-) I tried to rally people to contribute to the articles a while ago on about every mailing list I was on, but seems nobody was interested. Shame, really. Anyway, most readers who read this article are most likely neither transpeople nor caretakers, and many probably don't not even know a transperson, so we should keep those readers in mind, too. -- AlexR 01:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Even more reason to be boring and middle of the road with description. Nick

Actually, no, I still disagree - It's not that I don't understand you, in other contexts I have done the very same thing. Only by presenting only part of the facts here, for political reasons, in my opinion we violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, and that is "absolute and non-negotiable". :::::Furthermore, I doubt that by presenting an overly rosy picture of things we are doing anybody a favour. Caretakers will probably hear about other SoCs and guidelines anyway, feeling cheated. Transpeople will feel most certainly cheated if they read the rosy version here and then have to face reality which can be quite different. And other people will just say "What are those people complaining about, this is so straightforward!". In other words, I think that we not only need to make the article conform with Wikipedia standards, no matter what political reasons speak against it, I also don't think that sort of political reasoning would, in this case, work. Please do me a favour and read NPOV, I've gone through it myself today and I really don't think the current version is NPOV. -- AlexR 05:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Resolution of NPOV versus the reality of what goes on?

The issue is presenting the reality of care versus the 'promulgated' guidelines. At best, I think the solution lies in presenting both (and I have to thank DG for that suggesting and this comparison.) That is, currently, (in the US ? sorry that's my only clinical experience, but bear with me) it is considered standard of care to NOT treat simple ear infections with antibiotics. That is, the AAP and the IDSA have both said that it is appropriate to do so. Moreover, that's what is done in most of Europe and Canada (the best comparisons for the US.) However it is the case that 90% (or more) of pediatricians prescribe antibiotics for ear simple infections. Now the reason is not at all scientific ? its because parents are used to that and these guys have most of the time 7-10 minutes to get a history, evaluate the kid, and get them out of there. There is no way you can do the required education to get parents out of there without wanting your skin unless you cough up the pink stuff.

So were I presenting that, I would say: X is what you are supposed to do, Y-Z is what is done, and ABC is the reason for the difference between the two.

I think in this case then it would be acceptable to say the following:

Providers of hormonal and surgical therapy may require prior diagnosis and psychotherapy and/or a period of cross living in the desired gender role prior to the provision of hormonal treatments or surgery. The currently most widely accepted standard for the provision of care are the HBIGDA-SOC. However the standards for treating transsexuals are both highly variable and constantly evolving. In general, providers less familiar with treating transsexuals abide more strictly by established guidelines whether the HBIGDA-SOC or local standards of care in their country (which widely range from far more to far less restrictive). This caution and dependence on requirements is attributable to the fear that many providers may have about treating patients who may subsequently regret treatments and decide to live in their original gender role. As in many other specialties of medicine and surgery however, more experienced providers are often less dependent on guidelines and may rely on clinical judgment. With experience, most providers learn what is known based on research from post-operative transsexuals: that true regrets are extremely rare. This coupled with seeing the suffering that transsexual patients endure pre-transition as well as the sometimes dramatic improvements they may experience with hormonal and surgical therapy makes experienced providers far more willing to treat patients who have yet to meet established requirements for therapy.

This need for individualization of therapy as well as the evolution of the treatment of transsexual people is evidenced by the evolution of the HBIGDA-SOC. For example, in version 5, the SOC stated: ?under no circumstances should an person be provided hormones? who have not undergone psychotherapy or a real life test of at least three month duration. The version 6 SOC state ?In selected circumstances, it can be acceptable to provide hormones to patients who have not fulfilled [3 month RLT or psychotherapy]?.

Of course the problem is I am, as ever, long-winded. Any suggestions how to say those same points more succinctly? Nick

This article has major NPOV issues. It reads like a page from a trans website.

Correlation Between Transsexuality and Pervasive Developmental Disorders?

I have heard of this before, but there seems to be precious little information on the subject. If a study found the correlation, shouldn't it be posted somewhere in this article?

Wikipedia:No original research. Yawn. Go away now. Ambi 01:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to be so dismissive. I do recall that at one of the major world conferences on transsexuality, one psychologist did give a speech regarding it. This is more a request than anything else, because one of the better researchers here, such as yourself, may be better able to find the information regarding it. After all, because I have no research is why I posted this on the talk page instead of the article page. Hmmm, I may have a problem convincing people of my seriousness. Allow me to post some web discussions that also mentioned it:

First off:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TransgenderPDD/

This is a large group on Yahoo! that has been active since 2001, and members are generally both transgendered and are PDD (and will have things like autism).

Also, this matter was discussed here:

http://www.calpernia.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/83061/an/0/page/0

Calpernia.com is a major resource site and forum for the MTF transsexed. It is run by Calpernia Addams, whose boyfriend was murdered for going out with her.

Of course, the sites listed above do not constitute original research or NPOV, and as such do not belong on the article page. I hope, though, that by posting these on the talk page that people will realize that a possible correlation between transsexuality and PDD is not simply a crank idea. Again, I reiterate, I recall hearing about a speech giving by a psychologist at a major world convention regarding transsexuality. I do not recall where to find the information on that, nor on any other hard research on the subject. I request that the people here find the research on the matter, because I think it is highly relevant for not only this discussion, but also one of PDD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.4.241.178 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, regarding debates in general, if you want to be talken seriously, especially when making potentially controversial statements, get yourself a username and sign your entries. Even if you don't get yourself a username, sign anyway. Second, it does not harm if you learn to format properly, too.

As for the question of Transgender and PDD, there is no reason whatever to assume that people cannot suffer from both, just as transgender people can have schizophrenia or broken legs. I don't know the mailing list, but the discussion page is utterly irrelevant, since it is, well, a discussion page. (And I think you can safely assume that most people here know who Calpernia is, which also is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.) Now, if you could find the speech somewhere, that might have some relevance. Then again, there are incredible amounts of crackpot theories out there concerning trans-people, which is probably the reason why yet another question about some odd theory by an IP is regarded as - how shall I put that? Usually not quite something one wishes to waste ones time with; compare the "hypnosis" debate in /Archive 2004. :::Anyway, even if there is a correlation found between T* and PDD, there is still the question remaining as to whether the two are independant of each other, both caused by a third condition, or one the cause of the other - and if so, which one causes which. This is the point where most crackpot theories meet their Waterloo. Because, you see, you probably can find correlations between trans and the flue, or the color of the curtains in baby's bedroom, too - only, do they mean anything? And are many traits found in many - but hardly all - trans-people are the cause of being trans - or rather the effect? Let's face it - particularly the medical sciences are still hell-bent on finding the cause of trans*, so they can finaly "cure" it, and many are perfectly willing to see about everything as a probable cause, as long as they don't have to consider trans* to be something that not only cannot be cured, but probably shouldn't, either. -- AlexR 19:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, there was a recent talk at HBIGDA in Bologna about the association of PDD and GID: ?Autism and PDD in GID-adolescents? deVries A. And I don't have the specific reference(s), but I believe Ken Zucker wrote about this at least one review articles of his that I've read. If you want the reference, I can dig it up. In my own (entirely anecdotal, but correlating with the proposed link) experience, I have met several people with PDD and GID (more than I would expect from simple chance.)

However, I also am pretty under-impressed with the whole GID-PDD connection. I know a lot of GID people who have depression, ADHD, and (for some reason) a ton of Bipolar spectrum depression. I think it may be a product of two things: people who go to see shrinks who have other occult psychiatric illnesses will have a higher diagnosis rate just because they are 'in the system.' Secondly, I think there is a tendency for people with GID to have comorbid psychiatric illness in a larger percentage than would be expected from chance.

So while I think there may be a connection there, there has been some work looking at that question, I think it is about as exciting and earth-shattering as a wet kleenex. NickGorton

As I am currently undergoing transition and have been diagnosed with AS, this is a very important subject to me. As it stands however, the more research I do, the more confused I get. Take a look on the study relating to 2D:4D digit ratio and Autism. 2D4D digit ratio is fixed from the first trimester of pregnancy, and it has been found that in ranssexuals this ratio corresponds to the norms for their target gender rather than assigned.

However, children with autism, siblings or children with autism, and parents of children of autism, male or female, have much lower 2D:4D ratios than normal. For AS children the descrepency is smaller than for other autistic children, with slight overlap with the control group.

Where it gets odd is that children with AS have higher (more feminine) ratios relative to what would be expected given their parents while other autistic children have lower (more masculine) ratios. The idea is that testosterone exposure is what causes these finger ratios, and autism, while transsexuality is hormonal feminization of the pprenatal brain.

Obviously this doesn't add up, but there's more. Since the paternal 2D:4D ratios are similar to those of the autistic children, and that is determined by prenatal testosterone exposure in the first trimester, this exposure can't be the only factor. A good theory is that other prenatal disturbances, hormonal or otherwise, trigger the syndrome.

Getting back to my case, I was born underweight and prematurely with a fraternal twin sister who was closer to normal weight. If that doesn't raise any red flags as far as prenatal disturbances go I don't know what does. While the condition for the 2D:4D ratio that all autistic and AS children have is a family that has quite a steady history of prenatal testosterone exposure, perhaps what draws the line between the three--keeping in mind that autistic 2D:4D ratios fall below those normal within the family and AS ratios lie above--lies later in pregenancy, with different hormonal exposure and other disturbances or the lack thereof. Perhaps that's where the answer to the question of neurological gendering lies too, and perhaps these are related.

--Kathica 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just published: Comorbidity of Asperger syndrome and gender identity disorder. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;14(5):292-6.

Still doesn't change my veiw above, but it is pertinent to the discussion as this definitely shouldn't fall under the Wikipedia:No original research rule. NickGorton

Examples of Deep Stealth and other changes

Not even close to NPOV. While it is obvious you have an issue about the decision to go deep stealth...NickGorton

I do hope, having started on your hormone therapy (trans)'s discussion page, you are not going to pursue me with baseless personal incivilty[2], changes and reversions statedly intended to drive me away, everywhere I write on Wikipedia. I left that article to you because it was already flagged as dangerous and there are far better resources, and I don't do abuse slanging matches, but there are other people editing here.

Stealth was just the first section that seemed to deserve assistance. I think I'm avoiding the main one that does.--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

...I do not see the kind of claims of 'dishonesty' and 'betrayal' from the lions share of the trans community heaped on people who choose to do so.NickGorton

You have misunderstood that the section as I wrote it is not only about your community in San Francisco (which is very different from my community), but honestly trying (and I had another version 90% finished when you changed the one posted) to refer to society as a whole, which is very likely to be an evolving subject. Your saying "I don't really see that..." clearly shows you are writing your own POV, just as your hormone page is your own prescribing policy, for your patients in the gender clinic.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed the part where you cite your sources for your statements. Accusing Nick (or anybody, for that matter) of POV writing and making unsubstantiated claims yourself does not look too well, I'm affraid. I also agree with Nick on the hardly-existing claims of dishonesty and betrayal - and I am definitely not from San Francisco. [AR]

Those particular claims were clearly only part of a spectrum of attitudes being discussed. Perhaps, being out and proud, and in 'Frisco, where, I see it constantly asserted, it is virtually impossible to be simply stealth, since everyone is so clued-up and connected, you are less alert to the very common implications laid against stealth by those without the experience to know. They are probably virtually "common parlance" there. Please realise that the "out" are more motivated and in a far better position to propagandise, whereas those who are stealth very much know that it is an individual thing, and rarely see any need to, or value in advocating it, or defending it. But here, in articles, there has to be NPOV.--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

So this was changed to reflect what most people believe, that neither is better and both have risks.NickGorton

That would be an over-simplification. What is your evidence on what is the balance of opinion? Sample size, selection of sample, quality of questions, margin of error? Or was that just your POV?

Where's your proof? [AR]

If stealth is a matter of personal need, or choice, of what importance, against that, is what you think some undefined community believes? Is that not unjustified pressure to conform, which would, by definition not be NPOV?

I see I'm also going to have to argue the issue of actually describing a man or woman post-transition, and especially stealth, as transsexual, since you put it straight back in as an adjective at the top when I had assumed that it would be realised that I was using simply "man" and "woman" as NPOV. Well, not neutral as far as those who believe there is no dysphoria, or change, and that we're all just perverts or psychotics are concerned, but I don't see anyone being NPOV for that, here. It is surely obvious in this article that we are referring to people who are, or have been transsexual. Does that need restating constantly, even when discussing post-transition?

Sorry again - but just using "man" and "woman" is just as POV - after all, it is clear that we are talking about transsexual people here, and not cis* people. And you know, to compare those who have a problem with the POV that after transitioning, we are "just normal women or men", or assume that you can be "have been transsexual" with hatemongerers who call us all perverts or psychotics is not exactly the kind of thing that implies either assuming good faith or anything resembling NPOV on your side, either. [AR]

Am I going to have to lay out that controversy in the article too? And are you going to deny that exists, too? All the stuff about "is someone TS (or, as another issue, TG) before surgery, or only after, or always, regardless of how they feel or self-define"? About whether anyone can ever emerge to simply being a man, or simply a woman? "Once a trannie always a trannie"? Laying out all the theories and politics and medical questions? Like, in what way, if they don't identify as transsexual still (ie if they are not "out") how are they still transsexual if they are no longer dysphoric and only have the same medical issues as some others of their sex have? To be honest, the only (non-bigot) people I can find objecting to a post-transition stealth person simply being termed as they identify are those really anxious to use them politically, against their will, who obviously try to portray that as being for the greater good. But that doesn't make it NPOV.

That rant doesn't exactly sound NPOV, either - not to mention the simply false dichotomy here. Those who claim that transsexual people after transitioning are still different from cis-people are not just people who want to use post-transitioned people as political tools or anything. They simply have a more realistic outlook, and probably have run into people for whom this illusion just didn't work. [AR]

If we agree that transsexuality is a medical condition that, once successfully handled becomes just part of one's medical history (as opposed, say, to a life-long psychosis that gets assuaged by transition but might emerge again at any time), isn't it enough, generally, to, where relevant, say that? Something like "with a transsexual history", instead of constantly applying the label?--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Well, I dunno about Nick, but you and I, we don't agree here - not only is the body not quite what it looks like (if everything worked OK), we are missing 10, 20, often 50 years of history of cisgender people, too. Sorry, but you are no more an ex-transsexual then you can be ex-black or an ex-alcoholic. And yes, I met people where deep stealth just didn't work too well - and I still consider going deep stealth a right every transgender person has. They should just know the problems assicoated with it. After that, it is up to them. [AR]

Consider the person who was born blind because of, e.g., congenital cataracts. If that person has vision given them via surgery in adulthood, should we continue to label them as 'blind'? Their vision is not the same as the vision of someone who has not had to have cataract surgery. If you say they should be labelled in some way: why? Who would gain, what would they gain, and do they have a right to such gain at the expense of the labelled person (since, as the late Irving Goffman pointed out, imposed labels rarely benefit the labelee)? [AD]

Also, while you suggested that there was no way to verify that some people are truly deep stealth, there are many examples of people discovered only at death, Billy Tipton being one that is well known.NickGorton

You completely misread that paragraph before changing it. The inabilty to verify because people are inaccessible referred to the allegation (which was previously stated as a fact and apparently not objected to by yourself) that deep stealth results in anxiety and depression. Those are specific mental problems that are not only claimed to be the most common additional issue in all trans people upon presentation but are also very common in the general population. It is not only unverifiable, without access, that deep stealth people particularly have such issues, post-transition, but also unverifiable that if they were to have them that it would be caused by being deep stealth. Therefore it can only be an allegation, and it is a very typical example of the common, and usually unquestioned smears bandied about, which are actually harmful because they are used to pressure people in important personal life decisions. It is part of the abuse, the lack of respect for boundaries, from various sources, that most trans people are subjected to, to varying degrees. And it stood here unchallenged for months. I din't think, in view of that, it was right to simply delete it as unfounded. But you entirely replaced my discussion of that with a completely different discussion.

Why would you think that I was suggesting no one is deep stealth'? Thanks to the Net I know (in anonymised terms), and respect, people who are deep stealth. I guess I must have taken NPOV too far... :-)

Uhm, rants don't make your arguments look too good ... and nobody claimed that all people in deep stealth are unhappy or anything, but "being found out" is certainly an anxiety about all of them suffer from. That's not a "smear" or an "abuse" or anything, just a fact, verified many times. BTW, you shouldn't really try to claim your POV is NPOV, because nobody's is - ranting and howling "NPOV, NPOV!" however are the known hallmarks of people who are nothing but trouble, because they just don't understand what NPOV is in the first place. [AR]

I didn't cite deceased (regretably) examples because they lived in previous times and the whole page seems phrased in current terms. But Tipton would seem to be an example of mental problems NOT being a result of living deep stealth, unless one interprets his anxiety about going to a doctor as clinical, which, since he died as a result I guess is arguable. Personally I would presume that, with his particular degree of need to be a man that he had no choice, at that time in that location. Is an unmet need a clinical anxiety, or a failure of provision and equal treatment? I guess it depends who has the power and writes the history.

Sorry, but Billy Tipton died in 1989, that is not exactly that long ago. Also, the same problem still exist, as you ought to know if you really knew that many deep stealth people as you claim. [AR]

The history you cite does suggest a larger medical problem. Everyone I know who has had such issues has dealt with them by consulting a doctor a distance away, or, in recent years, using the Net for information, and perhaps supplies. Most medical issues were not problematic in any other way than they are for anyone. But before surgery was available, and now with non-op and TG there are more problems being deep stealth, and I'll try to incorporate that, bearing in mind that the article is transsexual, and that it doesn't seem meant to be a "how to", nor an "everything bared", nor "how to spot a stealth trannie"... --Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

I also did a few edits for readability and converted a few run on sentences so several shorter ones.NickGorton

I'm not yet sure how much tinkering with another person's writing style is considered OK here. There was nothing actually wrong or unreadable about what you changed. But I'll bear in mind your preference for short sentences in the new version that is currently in progress.

Of course it is OK - everybody can and should edit everybody elses sentences to improve readablity and clarity and facts if needed. That is what Wikipedia is all about. [AR]

Now, is anyone else wondering why one person's personal site, even if it is called transsexual.org, particularly deserves being linked at the bottom of the article, and twice too?--Bluegreen 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Personal site? What exactly makes you consider this page a "personal site"? Just because one person maintains it, and says so, instead of a "webmaster" or a group? Just because the author says "I" a lot in some articles does not mean that the page does not contain enough valuable information to be counted as not just a "personal page". But my guess is you just don't like a few of the articles. If I am mistaken here, correct me - and give some arguments, too -- AlexR 9 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

BlueGreen, I am not interspersing my comments because it didn't fit well that way, because some of the same comments are germane to different points.

You make the incorrect assumption that I have only lived in the transgender community in California. Moreover, my comments are also based on discussions with people at transgender and LGBT conferences, both in the US and internationally. With regard to the ability to be out and proud in areas other than the bay, I think I am pretty familiar as I came out and transitioned while working as a physician in a suburban community hospital in Louisiana.

Regarding the decision to refer to people who are post-operative and post therapy as transsexual, it has nothing to do with the idea you suggested that I think transgender people are perverts or psychotic. It is simply that I recognize that successful treatment of a disease does not make it cease to exist. That is, when I take medication that keeps my blood pressure in the normal range, I do not cease to have hypertension, but rather I have treated hypertension. Similarly even though I am successfully treated with hormones and with surgery that does not somehow magically make me an ex-transsexual. That I take testosterone to treat GID and atenolol to treat hypertension makes neither disease actually cease to exist. It just means I am less likely to have negative symptoms or outcomes because of them.

Moreover, from a purely medical perspective, to do so is inappropriate. For example, regardless of how 'stealth' they are, my transsexual women patients over fifty always get a yearly digital rectal exam to check their prostate. Failure to do so and to treat them exactly the same as a cisgender female is neglectful to the point of malpractice.

So describing people as transsexual is not evidence of a biased point of view, but rather simply accepting that it is not possible to completely change an individual's body from male to female or female to male. Ignoring the physical reality of the body an individual has and pretending it is some ideal that one wishes is simply sticking ones head in the sand.

One of the limitations of current western medical training is the tendency for its graduates to think in biologially-oriented, tightly-focused, essentialist ways rather than holistically taking social contexts into account. Some labels stigmatise, and should not be used except for people in the untreated grip of some condition. A person who gains sight via surgery or hearing via appliances is no longer 'blind' or 'deaf' within the context of daily life, so why should they be forced to wear the label around their neck? Similarly, why do you need to label some XY person 'transsexual' in order to check an internal organ? Why wouldn't 'with a history of transsexualism' do the job in the same way 'a family history of breast cancer' triggers extra care in breast examination? [AD]

However, there is one important difference in your assumptions and mine: I don't assume that being a transsexual or transgender woman makes a person not a woman. That is like saying that a man who has had a penectomy for cancer is no longer a man or that someone who has had bilateral leg amputations is no longer a person (because a man has a penis and a person has two legs.) Whether one is a man or woman is based in my mind in the identity of the person. What makes you a man or woman or even a human is not your body, but what sits between your ears.

But then this also means that I recognize that the homeless transgender man who I see who cannot afford hormones or surgery, but who nontheless has a durable male gender identity, is a man as much as the wealthy transgender male who has had every surgery in the book. Your view however, judges the true or real maleness or femaleness of an individual not by his or her actual inner gender identity, but by the ability to acquire hormonal and surgical treatment.

Regarding the source of my information about the views of the transgender community, that is, as I said, personal experience as well as readings by transgender authors. Of course you know there is no statistical evidence to support either of our statements. However, mine is supported by the transgender popular literature (ex: “Becoming a Visible Man” which discusses this at length.) However, I also did not say that your POV was non-existent, but rather that the majority of transgender people are accepting of an individual's choice in this regard. The majority accepting something implies that a minority does not.

With regard to psychopathology in people who are 'deep stealth' there are individuals that I have treated (now or in the past) who were completely stealth with exception to their interactions with me and possibly a few others. They were uniformly anxious and fearful of detection as well as hypervigilant with regards to maintaining their status. I am acquainted with one other physician who is a transman who is so deep stealth that he wont even bring himself to post on a transgender medical professionals group anonymously. He has told me that I am the only person with which he communicates and sometimes expresses a great deal of fear and anxiety about detection. So yes, its there. Of course one cannot quantify it for the reasons you expressed, but it is most certainly there.

Moreover given the fact that Billy Tipton allowed himself to die of exsanguinating hemorrhage rather than risk detection, I think we can safely say this was a big fear for him. And a life spent in constant fear of discovery is simply not emotionally healthy.

And lastly, with regard to editing for readability, that's one of the best parts about wikipedia! Not every reader has to slog through the same difficult prose if someone along the line makes it flow better. Nick

If we must go into matters of right and wrong in this article, although they are rather irrelevant given that encyclopedias are supposed to impart information, I shall put up the concept, whether i agree with it or not, that "Any member of society should be allowed to do whatever they wish assuming that by doing so one does no easily avoidable harm unto other members of this society". Now, taking this stance, which in itself would support transexual's choice for change, I must point something out: in a number of forms, stealth has the issue of sometimes not conforming with this ideal. Take first the fact that although by many transexuality is considered perfectly acceptable, by many it is not. Then we look at the fact that any relations a transexual under complete stealth has with any other member of society will be under the pretext that this transexual has never been a member of the other sex, and that they were born into the sex they now have. Although this pretext may not matter to a lot of people, to some it may a lot. Whether or not they SHOULD worry about it is irrelevant. To some, the idea of having relations with a transexual is deeply disturbing. Again, whether or not they should feel this way is irrelevant. The fact is simply that they do, and in many cases may not be able to help it, the same way a transexual may be unnable to help but identify with the opposite of their assigned sex. Just because by some members of the community a transexual is now seen as their desired sex, one must simply accept that by some a transexual will always be considered as the sex as which they originated. I must stress here that i am not advocating either of these views. I simply point out that people have different feelings on the matter. So in this situation, we can see that through the act of stealth, the transexual is highly capable of causing other people serious mental anguish, or even persecution by their social groups. Giving a palpable example: a man of traditional values, with bigot friends, has intercourse with a transexual woman, not knowing the fact that she is a transexual. He subsequently discovers the fact, as do his friends. As a result, he is extrodited from his friends, suffers from anguish as a result of going against his values, and later commits suicide. Obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless an entirely possible situation in certain areas. Getting into personal perspectives now, I know that anyone in a number of my social circles would be ridiculed to the point of humiliation were they to engage in activities with a transexual. Just as one shouldnt be blindly bigoted, neither should one blindly believe that everyone else should believe in our tolerant ideals.

-Anonymous User 8888, post made on the 13 of November, 2005

That was a very lenghty way to say, "Transsexuals should be upfront about their past to avoid hurting transphobic people's feelings". You're right though, the whole "right and wrong" thing probably doesn't have much place in an encyclopedia, which is why I'm confused as to why you're bringing it up. Anyway, I have to disagree with you. Transsexual people have to go through a lot to get to point where they're comfortable with who they are and how they interact with the world, and I don't think that should be thrown away so that we can avoid making other people uncomfortable. As far as the extreme example you provided, I think the more likely event would be that a really bigoted man would harm the transsexual woman he slept with. --Cog05 16:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

critical perspective?

This entire article is... if you will, fanboyish. Every outside criticism noted in its contents seems to come from the position that transexualism is perfectly acceptable but merely has yet to gain the acceptance of the majority, who are backward and/or close-minded people. I'm something of a bisexual myself, and am pro-gay across the board, but I find transexualism to be one of the most horribly perverse and ludicrous ideas in the world. If there is an seperate article about this, I didn't catch so as much as one link to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B. Phillips (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So then you think it is good that the homosexuality page should have a similar tag since there is nothing there that says that the AFA and Fred Phelps find it 'perverse and ludicrous'? Great, why don't you tag that? Or perhaps the article about Switzerland? It was certainly appropriate that you reverted that vandalism, but I don't see a link to an article that discusses possible Swiss complicity with Nazi Germany.

Also, if you tag a page as not NPOV, it is customary to say what the alternative POV that you feel to be pertinent is. Other than that you feel it is yucky, I am not seeing that. If you think there is another valid and voiced POV about this, perhaps you should write that page. Otherwise, whining that 'this isn't NPOV because I think it is icky' is a bit lame. -NickGorton 20:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that probably like 95% of people in the world find transexualism to be disagreeable, to say the least. There's no denying that its one of the most taboo things in the universe, wherever your personal position on it is. That the article doesn't have two words mentioning such popular sentiments is a lie at worst and a grave oversight at best. As my personal feelings on it are a bit more nuanced and shared by maybe about 1% of people, it would be innappropriate to make a wikipedia page about them. Pointing to other pages of controversial subject matter, like homosexuality in general or the Swiss, is no defense.

And for the record, since you asked, my personal views are that transexualists, rather than practically assert an identity for themselves, instead have surrendered to the gender roles foisted upon them by society. In doing so, they buy into the ultimate consumer culture and many go to inhuman, and frankly, unnatural lengths to procure the identity that society has sold them, including surgeries and hormonal treatments that have absolutely no parallel before modern 20th century "medicine". In my view, they are the pinnacle of the moral, mental, and spiritual weakness, and worst, for reasons they need not even be.

Don't let my philosophical beliefs get in our way of making wikipedia a better, fully contained, beautiful collection of our human knowledge and culture. --B. Phillips 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• yawn* That is all you have to offer, the old "transsexuals have fallen into the partriachalic trap" crap, added with a bit "and I am sure others don't like them, either"? You might want to get an update on your prejudices, you are running an old version. A really obsolete version, actually. Not that this 70s hate rant has all that much to do with reality, at least the reality of the majoriy of transsexual people, but hey, who cares about facts here. Like the fact that it's funny, but many transsexual and transgender people experience about 95% of people to be anything from at least polite to downright friendly and supporting; so I guess your "moral majority" has deserted you, at least in civilsed countries. Oops ... -- AlexR 02:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, since I hadn't been born in the 70's and I have not forayed too deeply into the classical transsexual philosophy which apparently batted down my personal moral and ethical systems 30 years ago, maybe you could make something resembling an argument of your own to refute my ideas, which I admit have not had much testing in the realm of interpersonal logical discourse. Perhaps you could also do so without blatantly putting words in my mouth and labeling my ideas "hate-speech" when they are not. I might add that the so claimed 95% of people who are "polite" does not approach in any way "mainstream acceptance" of transsexualism. The vast majority of people are "polite" to homosexuals, but are at the same time, however inappropriately, privately disapproving and even disgusted. --B. Phillips 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

B. Phillips, Classical transsexual philosophy? What's that? Maybe you can write an article on it.

BTW, where did you get that 95% number from? --Cornince 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

My (sarcastic) allusion was to this mythical school of thought that according to AlexR definitively chewed up and spit out every possible objection to transsexualism 15 years before i was born. The 95% is a figure of AlexR's, of unknown origin. --B. Phillips 21:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny, but on reading this "debate", it seems to me that both the 95% figure and the 15 years come from your edits, not mine - I just picked up your 95%. BTW, if you find it inappropriate that people disapprove of and are disgusted by homosexuality, can you tell my why you obviously think that it is perfectly OK to disapprove of and voice your disgust on transsexual people? I might also mention that so far you have not advanced anything resembling an argument against transsexual people that goes beyond "transexualism [as] one of the most horribly perverse and ludicrous ideas in the world". Not even your idea that transsexual people somehow "buy" anything that is "sold" to them is either new nor in any way confirmable by facts. Nor do you have a clue about pre-20th-century gender-variant people, it seems. True, about the only medical measure available before modern medicine was castration (which was done, since ancient times in fact), but then, there was no cancer treatment available either, or treatment for disfiguring diseases, and would you claim those are "unnatural" as well, just sold to guilable people who "don't really need them"? And what, BTW, makes you think transsexual people don't need them? Lemme guess: All poor oppressed homosexuals, really, who just can't face what they "really" are and therefore fall into the traps of the "transsexual industry". Say, why don't you get a clue before you spit your outdated vitriol into places where it might be read? Might really help ... -- AlexR 22:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are not here to defend or attack trans-sexualism, but to document it. That it is abhorent to some people is of no more interest to us than the fact that eating pork is abhorent to others. Haiduc 01:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"...transgender people experience about 95% of people to be anything from at least polite to downright friendly and supporting;"

"Not that this 70s hate rant has all that much to do with reality..."

You are indisputably the source of these two remarks that you now challenge as if you'd never said them. What parallel universe are you living in? It seems to be a universe where there is no such thing as figurative language and nothing surpassing a 5th grade reading level and where you are free to put words in the mouth of anyone you please. First, my "however inappropriate" clause is merely to dismiss our personal opinions on the topic then at hand, as they seperate from the issue. Also, I do have a clue about pre-20th century genital mutilation, as it were. That a number of cultures happened to cut off little boys' junk, etc. belongs more to the schools of bizarre social phenomena than that of gender studies. In almost every case, its nearly impossible to argue that the victims bear any similarity to latter-day transsexuals; their choice in the matter of genital excision rarely existing in any way, along with a lack of confused gender identification before undergoing physical processes that devastate natural hormonal processes. Your cancer argument is almost entirely invalid. When someone is afflicted with cancer, there something wrong in the body's functions. My argument is basically that "gender-identity disorder" isn't a problem, or atleast one that needs to be solved with the current solution. I think I see however, that you aren't seriously interested in discussing any of this, and would rather just throw bombs at anyone who disagrees with your irreversible life choice. Good luck with that. --User:B. Phillips 21:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

B. Phillips, you originally said: “I think it's pretty obvious that probably like 95% of people in the world...” Then AlexR used your figure of 95% to make a facetious comment. And now you are saying that originated with him?

You do realize that the rest of us actually read the comments made by you and AlexR. And you do realize that you now look not only like an bigot, but also as a complete moron when you say that AlexR is: “indisputably the source of” that comment.

Lastly, we are so glad you shared your opinion that GID is not a real problem. Now myself, and the rest of the medical professionals who actually treat transgender people as well as the people who actually are transgender and have an intimate understanding of the unique morbidity and mortality of this problem would like you and your pet theory to run along. Of course if you are interested, I'd be happy to offer you a chance to actually learn some about the condition. Perhaps you can get your guidance counselor to let you get credit for it if you'd like to spend a few hours working with me in clinic?-NickGorton 21:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

B. Phillips,

With GID, there is a problem. The person's gender doesn't match their sex. The best solution is to allow them to change their sex and go on living in their new sex. --Cornince 13:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am the source of the 95% figure. I didn't actually check what I had previously written before that other response, and assumed AlexR extrapolated it from my less concrete estimate, although I might add that the 95% number was applied to different contexts. I would almost certainly take you up on your proposition if I lived in your area, but since I do not, I may look into something similar around where I live. Also, if I come off as overly abrasive, which I'm sure I do: I don't hate transsexuals and my interest in the topic is part of a larger interest in gender issues and apparent continuum between it's two poles, not from a need for a scapegoat for all society's ills or anything like that.

You originally said: "I'm something of a bisexual myself, and am pro-gay across the board, but I find transexualism to be one of the most horribly perverse and ludicrous ideas in the world."

• Perverse: "depraved: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good."
• Ludicrous: "absurd; farcical; completely devoid of wisdom or good sense"

So you don't hate transsexuals, you just think they are depraved, horribly immoral, and frankly absurd. (Gee, that sounds overly much like 'hate the sin, love the sinner.')

However, if you would like my read of the situation, you consider yourself a fairly progressive-liberal member of the queer-intelligentsia. Perhaps you are a college or grad student who is into queer studies. But you just don't get transsexualism. You find it really icky. So you posted that comment a few days ago, not thinking of what the implications are, or how you would come off. Now that your implications have been writ large by several of us here, you really don't like what it does imply, so you are trying to back-pedal and cover up so you don't have to think about the implication: that your feelings about TS people are not unlike those of homophobic people about you.

My personal suggestion would be to do just that - challenge your own cognitive dissonance defenses and ask yourself precisely why TS people make you so uncomfortable. -NickGorton 13:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is biased because it attempts to convince the reader that transexuals are born that way and have no choice in the matter, despite the fact that there's no evidence to support that that is the case for all or even most transexuals. Edrigu 23:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is evidence: if you compare the number of XX people who get it vs the number of XY people, you see a classic Mendelian proportion, indicating that one of the causal factors is recessive on the X. [AD]

Well, my guess is that all the psychologists that have worked with transsexuals would disagree with your assessment. If there is a choice in the matter, it's between a miserable existence and a happier one. But since it's such an established fact that people just wake up one day and decide to transition, bring up some evidence. Try it out yourself, since you're so sure. --Cog05 16:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No need for the rudeness, I'm not interested in an argument. I simply think the article could be a bit more NPOV, that's all. Edrigu 23:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The last thing I want is a flamewar, but I hope you realize this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people. That being said, I still have a problem with your statement. You say that it is a fact that there is no evidence of transexuals being born that way. But as I said, the experience of those who treat transsexuals, on average, would appear to contradict that statement. There has also been some research that points to a neurobiological cause of transsexualism. And even if there was no evidence for gender identity being inborn (and there is), that still wouldn't equate "no choice" which is highly subjective anyway. So, if you really just want to make the article more NPOV, please cite specific examples of what you perceive as bias, produce evidence to disprove it, and present a more neutral alternative. --Cog05 00:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

New comment

Before making any points, I will first make something clear to avoid being responded at visciously for a percieved attack on people´s lifestyles: none of this is any criticism to how anyone lives, or to anyone's point of views. It is just a point of concern of mine that this article is extremely biased. Perhaps it is correct, or righteous, as far as anyhthing can be, but the fact is that it has a large number of personal views. Do not assume here that I agree or disagree with them. I simply think I should point out the fact. Entering controversial grounds here, playing devils advocate, one can point out that simply because a view is unnacceptable in our society, it doesnt make it any less valid. Therefore as much as one can say that it is a valid view that transexuality is a perfectly acceptable condition, to be treated by modern medicine in a manner corresponding to any health problem, one could say that it is a horrific abomination that should be wiped from the earth. In this article, I prescribe to neither of these views, as what I think on the matter is rather irrelevant: it would simply be a POV. To finish, I point out that things should be kept to pure facts, whereas this article is riddled with personal sentiments. Most notably, if i recall the article correctly, one can find ideas of what is right and wrong. Whether one's opinion is bigoted or tolerant, it remains a POV.

-Anonymous User 8888, post made on 13 of november, 2005.

Alright, perhaps my first response to Edrigu was a bit harsh. I'm mature enough to admit that, and I apologize. But this is the third post that says that the article is biased. There probably are things that can be done to make it more NPOV, and if you want to work on that, no one's stopping you. But just keep in mind that it's really hard to reduce something as complicated as this topic to "pure facts" because so much of it has to do with people's experiences. On a somewhat unrelated matter, I'm not sure what you were getting at about how just because a view is unacceptable doesn't mean it's not valid. You're right, but that's obviously not to say that all views are equally valid. If someone doesn't believe in gravity, you know, that's fine, but they're still wrong. But yeah, by all means, any specific suggestions you have on how to improve the article would be appreciated.

--Cog05 02:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Heading "PUBERTY" revised

I have removed section which generalises trans youth pre-pubescent experiences. Even before puberty, the rigid gender stereotypes are reinforced again and again. Many trans kids feel severely out of place even at this early stage, and to suggest that they do not is incorrect. I have not edited the puberty section because this is largely correct in that most crises are triggered by the distress of puberty. Hardylane