Cut the bull... educated people talking here..

[echimandu]

Please read it again before you make moronic statements.

Please stop being a confrontational prick.

YOU FUCKING CIRCUS FREAK! SHUT THE FUCK UP. Did I say anything to you? No. Mind you're fucking business. And give up escorting and join the circus. Thats you're calling. Anyone that dates something like you should be held for observation. I've always found you to look and act repulsive, but I've been nice not to say anything to you. This is not an attack. You picked my quote to start something so you get what you deserve. Finally, I'm not a fag, therefore, I will not respond to any further ignorant retorts from you. No argument back and forth like you do with others here. I don't get down like that. Btw, the bearded lady wanted to know if you're available for a tour. Fucking carnival act!

[ottorocket]

Could it just be that human sexuality and its physical manifestations is broader than the narrow social/moral constructs we're taught to live by? Ignorant is the person that doesn't look out of the window, but is happy with looking at just 4 walls.

[MacShreach]

Could it just be that human sexuality and its physical manifestations is broader than the narrow social/moral constructs we're taught to live by?

Yes. You might want to compare the dualistic approach of many Western cultures to this with a pluralistic one, eg (but not restricted to) Buddhist-based Thai culture, on this.

[peggygee]

At this site you will find Lynn Conway, et al provide intensive, and exhaustive
insight and discussion on Blanchard and Bailey, replete with cites and
supporting material.

Speaking as a writer, I am very much impressed by Lynn Conway's work, the more so because it is not her major academic discipline.

The one this that is most striking about the issue of transsexualism, to me professionally anyway, is the incredible paucity of adequately funded, widescale research.

If you accept Lynn Conway's statistical analysis, and I do, the incidence of known post operative transsexualism in the US is AT LEAST 1:2500. Frankly if this was a recognised genetic disorder, a disease or psychological disorder affecting that number of people, we would be awash with scientific literature about it, and we really are not.

You have to ask why. (Well, maybe I have to ask why, because it's one of the things I do.) The fact that there seems no option for pharmaceutical companies to make megabucks out of it would only partially explain it. There must be another reason. It's a genuinely fascinating subject, so why are there not doctoral theses by the ream on it?

BTW Peggy I don't mean to slight what you say by snipping, it's just a habit from Usenet days.

No umbrage taken at your snipping my posts. I realize they are often
lengthy, and to quote them in their totality would take up much needed space.

On to your other point; Sadly too often people learn everything they know
about transgenderism from porn sites.

Equally sad is that there is much misinformation strewn in with the sexual
content, thus men as well as women don't always learn the basics about
a subject that impacts them so profoundly.

There have been studies, scores of them, and there is copious amounts
of material written on the topic. One has but to peruse http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
and enter the search term 'transgender' or 'transsexual', and hundreds of studies will come up.

There is even the International Journal Of Transgenderism to which one may subscibe to.

Admittedly some of these publications aren't intended for the layperson to
read, but many, many of them are comprehensible to the average
person.

When all else fails :google , but please people try not to learn everything
you know about transsexuals from porn sites, you do them and yourselves
a great disservice.

[Urian]

Blanchard is nothing more than a transphobic and Bailey was a monster that made a surgery in a small kid ruining his life until the point that the victim suicided.

[yodajazz]

Gynandromorphophiliac: whew, that's a mouthful. Great, so someone put together a few latin roots to get a word describing someone who likes transsexuals...

I think that it is ironic that the word “Gynandromorphophiliac” contains 8 sylables and the phrase “someone who likes transsexuals”, also has eight syllables.

Some one will always try to make scientific explanations to understand human behavior. Blanchard’s theories have been roundly criticized as falling short. And I agree with a lot of the critiques, however the explanation here has valid points. And most people here understand and agree with the statements about not being gay.

I think an important point is raised by this quote:
“(2) Sexual fantasies and the use of pornography do not necessarily
have any bearing upon personal behavior or real world sexual
preferences.”

This is important to understand that men can choose to be faithful in ltr’s. Other women that a man is attracted to can remain a fantasy, and not be acted on. Too many women, gg’s and ts think that a man cannot be faithful. Like many women would write off any man who comes to this forum. But that’s not the true case, even though some men do cheat.

As for the word Gynandromorphophiliac meaning "love of males in the shape of females", it could be put in many different forms rather than that. For example I would say: Men who love the female form, but include those with male elements.

[ottorocket]

Gynandromorphophiliac: whew, that's a mouthful. Great, so someone put together a few latin roots to get a word describing someone who likes transsexuals...

I think that it is ironic that the word “Gynandromorphophiliac” contains 8 sylables and the phrase “someone who likes transsexuals”, also has eight syllables.

Some one will always try to make scientific explanations to understand human behavior. Blanchard’s theories have been roundly criticized as falling short. And I agree with a lot of the critiques, however the explanation here has valid points. And most people here understand and agree with the statements about not being gay.

I think an important point is raised by this quote:
“(2) Sexual fantasies and the use of pornography do not necessarily
have any bearing upon personal behavior or real world sexual
preferences.”

This is important to understand that men can choose to be faithful in ltr’s. Other women that a man is attracted to can remain a fantasy, and not be acted on. Too many women, gg’s and ts think that a man cannot be faithful. Like many women would write off any man who comes to this forum. But that’s not the true case, even though some men do cheat.

As for the word Gynandromorphophiliac meaning "love of males in the shape of females", it could be put in many different forms rather than that. For example I would say: Men who love the female form, but include those with male elements.

^^Well said.

[MacShreach]

There have been studies, scores of them, and there is copious amounts
of material written on the topic. One has but to peruse http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
and enter the search term 'transgender' or 'transsexual', and hundreds of studies will come up.



Admittedly some of these publications aren't intended for the layperson to
read, but many, many of them are comprehensible to the average
person.

I was aware of PubMed, but thanks for pointing it out anyway....I maybe was not making myself clear; there is a clear dislocation between the number quoted for the incidence of transsexualism, which is normally quited at 1:30,000 and attributed to the psychiatric profession, and the numbers of post-op TS women we know to exist, which gives a rate of in the area of 1:2500, and Ms Conway provides satisfying extrapolatory evidence that when we include pre-op TS the incidence must be of the order of 1:1000 or higher.

Honestly there is really very little research when compared to other phenomena of similar incidence, if we take the above into account. Your suggested search, for example, produces some 600-odd papers, while a search for spina bifida, which has an incidence of 1 or 2:1000, or the same, yields over 7 thousand hits.

I'm just curious as to why that is, 'cause I'm a nosey old hack. It maybe is not that significant, but it is striking.

But as for the bit about not finding info through porn sites-- I could not agree with you more.

[peggygee]

There have been studies, scores of them, and there is copious amounts
of material written on the topic. One has but to peruse http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
and enter the search term 'transgender' or 'transsexual', and hundreds of studies will come up.



Admittedly some of these publications aren't intended for the layperson to
read, but many, many of them are comprehensible to the average
person.

I was aware of PubMed, but thanks for pointing it out anyway....I maybe was not making myself clear; there is a clear dislocation between the number quoted for the incidence of transsexualism, which is normally quited at 1:30,000 and attributed to the psychiatric profession, and the numbers of post-op TS women we know to exist, which gives a rate of in the area of 1:2500, and Ms Conway provides satisfying extrapolatory evidence that when we include pre-op TS the incidence must be of the order of 1:1000 or higher.

Honestly there is really very little research when compared to other phenomena of similar incidence, if we take the above into account. Your suggested search, for example, produces some 600-odd papers, while a search for spina bifida, which has an incidence of 1 or 2:1000, or the same, yields over 7 thousand hits.

I'm just curious as to why that is, 'cause I'm a nosey old hack. It maybe is not that significant, but it is striking.

But as for the bit about not finding info through porn sites-- I could not agree with you more.

I'm seeing your point a little more clearly now.

I believe the transsexual census is skewed with people from the
transgendered community claiming to be transsexual, and then
compounded by transsexuals who go go stealth and get the hell
out of trannyville at their first chance.

On the second point, about the search results; I believe I recently
read where the formal study of transsexualism is about thirty years
old. I'm not sure how old spina bifida is, but I can see your point that
there should be a much larger volume of material on transgenderism.

As you alluded to in a previous post, there is a lot of money to be made
in the treatment of gender dysphoria: Mental health counselling, HRT,
cosmetic surgery, etc. So one would assume there would be more studies.

[Paladin]

Wait sooo im a male in the form of a female...hmm okay so then as long as guy looks like a girl(even if its just for one day or even one hour)....they are transsexuals...okay...wow. Im tired of all these Harry Benjamin Bullshit. These people are not even transsexuals themselves and the people that are transsexuals that are involved are probably just brainwashed by all of this non transsexual people making this shit up.


(I know I am not acting like my usual self but I feel like speaking what I think today about everything!)

This is all about being called Gay if you're in to TS.. which is BULLLLLLLL

Get it right, you're only gay if you are into TS bring "into" you - literally :P