TV or not TV ...... that is the question? "

[youngblood61]

Be happy and ignore all the none sense ...Doesnt matter how people sees you good or bad ...As long as they talk about you ,means you exist ...Stay happy

You always make good sense Adriana!

[MacShreach]

So you're a transvestite?

No.

Unless wearing a kilt occasionally counts....

[KatherineRusTS]

Thank you all for participating in this thread! I am pleased to see that there are still people who are not indifferent. I like that you left your voice not only Like but do not like it. This means that I didn't stay out of work!!! Very happy that finally the matter was resolved!!! Those who voted against me special thanks)): come to visit me and I'll be with you good girl)))

[amberskyi]

A photo is superficial and tells you nothing about how a person views their gender which after all is what separates a ts from a tv.

Photo shows the end result : TV you or Not TV . Photo already talking about how you feel emotionally !

( I want to make a personal note : we are different people and grew up in different cultures , we have different understanding and perception of the world . From the very beginning we did not understand each other . I ask you to consider these points : because of this, there is a misunderstanding between us)[/QUOTE]

That misunderstanding has nothing to do with my opinions on this thread hun lol.i firmly believe one can not truly tell ones gender identity from a pic.
You think boobs would be an obvious sign but there are "girls"out there who only "transitioned"for some perceived financial again with out ever really feeling like a woman.this is a phenomenon that i heard is common in Thailand and Brazil.i suspect one of my friends is just such a person.
The only thing that matters is how you feel inside luv.

[jennylicious]

No.

Unless wearing a kilt occasionally counts....

Well it's just funny that you quote Blanchard, whose topology was generally debunked from the outset and for which current understanding is moving further and further away from it.

I assumed that you were a transvestites to be able to talk about it with such authority. I mean, don't get me wrong, you've obviously read on the subject, but unfortunately even the most intelligent people reading the wrong things can end up with the wrong conclusions.

The biggest problem is that Transvestism will always be associated with Transvestic-fetishism, however it is now believed that the percentage of the transvestite community that suffer from this particular fetish is tiny. It's also the case that Dual-Role transvestism is probably more prevalent and this comes in the same diagnosis section as Transsexualism.

Anyone who has read the comment proposals for the recently published DSM revision and the future ICD version (along with the comments made about combining them into a single volume) can see that there are recommendations to fold them into the DSM GID category. Actually, the whole thing looks like it is going to end up in a bit of a mess for everyone. While the ICD has made a distinction between fetish transvestism and gender linked transvestism, ultimately in the future it will probably end up like the DSM indicating there are some gender issues where transition is recommended, and some where it is not.

This then has the side effect that people will only think transvestism is linked to a fetish, and that makes the "not recommended" people what exactly? If Blanchard is going to be used to define what a transvestite is, they certainly don't fit into that category. People like Richard O'Brien and Eddie Izzard who are famously Transvestites, but who have also had to have gender counselling.

Also, reviewing the comments going into the DSM and ICD, it's clear that there is a tempest of dispute going on amongst various fractions, and it is clear that there isn't a definitive answer to what a transvestite actually is and a reasonable about of ignorance is still present.

Not that I think Blanchard made it up, and he makes some interesting observations, but the population samples that people are working with now are going to be much bigger than he had access to.

One thing we do know, is that if you got 100 transvestites into a room, you might find 100 different reasons for why they dress and maybe a 100 different pieces of information which would conflict with Blanchard's conclusions. Even if you were a transvestite, it wouldn't be safe to try and define why transvestites dress.

Needless to say, though I enjoyed your article and thought it was intelligent and well presented. The only really sensible thing to do, as things stand in the expert community, is not to try and say what it is at all. Let them argue it out, and maybe they'll know more in our lifetime. In the meantime, we're all human beings, and probably shouldn't be looking at divisions, and instead focusing on how we all get along on this planet.

[MacShreach]

Well it's just funny that you quote Blanchard, whose topology was generally debunked from the outset and for which current understanding is moving further and further away from it.

I assumed that you were a transvestites to be able to talk about it with such authority. I mean, don't get me wrong, you've obviously read on the subject, but unfortunately even the most intelligent people reading the wrong things can end up with the wrong conclusions.

The biggest problem is that Transvestism will always be associated with Transvestic-fetishism, however it is now believed that the percentage of the transvestite community that suffer from this particular fetish is tiny. It's also the case that Dual-Role transvestism is probably more prevalent and this comes in the same diagnosis section as Transsexualism.

Anyone who has read the comment proposals for the recently published DSM revision and the future ICD version (along with the comments made about combining them into a single volume) can see that there are recommendations to fold them into the DSM GID category. Actually, the whole thing looks like it is going to end up in a bit of a mess for everyone. While the ICD has made a distinction between fetish transvestism and gender linked transvestism, ultimately in the future it will probably end up like the DSM indicating there are some gender issues where transition is recommended, and some where it is not.

This then has the side effect that people will only think transvestism is linked to a fetish, and that makes the "not recommended" people what exactly? If Blanchard is going to be used to define what a transvestite is, they certainly don't fit into that category. People like Richard O'Brien and Eddie Izzard who are famously Transvestites, but who have also had to have gender counselling.

Also, reviewing the comments going into the DSM and ICD, it's clear that there is a tempest of dispute going on amongst various fractions, and it is clear that there isn't a definitive answer to what a transvestite actually is and a reasonable about of ignorance is still present.

Not that I think Blanchard made it up, and he makes some interesting observations, but the population samples that people are working with now are going to be much bigger than he had access to.

One thing we do know, is that if you got 100 transvestites into a room, you might find 100 different reasons for why they dress and maybe a 100 different pieces of information which would conflict with Blanchard's conclusions. Even if you were a transvestite, it wouldn't be safe to try and define why transvestites dress.

Needless to say, though I enjoyed your article and thought it was intelligent and well presented. The only really sensible thing to do, as things stand in the expert community, is not to try and say what it is at all. Let them argue it out, and maybe they'll know more in our lifetime. In the meantime, we're all human beings, and probably shouldn't be looking at divisions, and instead focusing on how we all get along on this planet.

I'm not a flag-bearer for Blanchard. His typology has many flaws, including lumping (his terms) late-presenting HSTS in with (his terms) AGTS, and arranging his questions to back this up. He took no account whatsoever of the socio-cultural factors which may cause transwomen to attempt to live as cis-men, such as peer and familial pressure, religious conditioning etc. However Blanchard was not really challenged from the beginning but from the publication of Mike Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003.

What I would say about Blanchard is that he did identify, or at least develop the identification of, two categories of people who may be transsexual. His error was in trying to insist that these were the only two causes, when in fact at least IMO, there is a spectrum and not only that, individuals aqre quite capable of displaying the characteristics of several types. Having said all of that (phew) Blanchard's assessment of autogynephilia still is valid. There are clearly people who fit that profile, just as there are clearly people who fit the HSTS profile.

In terms of understanding the socio-cultural phenomenon, there is a need to analyse it; however in terms of helping to alleviate the discomfort of people, the attempt to psychologically pathologise transsexuals (however they got there) is of no help at all, and a pragmatic approach that this is a medical problem that can be helped with endocrine and surgical techniques with a very high success rate, seems far more reasonable.

This is broadly the position in the UK, where the Psychological Society has rejected what it sees as the excessive medicalisation apparent in the DSM revisions, and in France, where transsexualism has been completely declassified as a mental disorder. It's now simply regarded as a physical one.

[amberskyi]

After reading about him in not a big fan because most of his research seems to focus around the idea that sexuality and sexual attraction is what motivates a ts woman.
Also obviously I'm not a fan of his use of the term "homosexual transsexual".

[MacShreach]

After reading about him in not a big fan because most of his research seems to focus around the idea that sexuality and sexual attraction is what motivates a ts woman.
Also obviously I'm not a fan of his use of the term "homosexual transsexual".

You would not be alone in that.

Some people prefer the term 'androphilic TS' to indicate the same thing as 'HSTS'. It is a little more polite.

[EvaCassini]

I like kilts, though I never wore one, but they look dashing!

[amberskyi]

You would not be alone in that.

Some people prefer the term 'androphilic TS' to indicate the same thing as 'HSTS'. It is a little more polite.

Right, because referring to us as just woman (ie. A ts woman attracted to men would just be a straight ts woman) would be too confusing smh