July 28, 2012

Can marriage survive one partner transitioning?

Photo from Photos.com
I do not believe there is a clear line between crossdreamers and crossdressers on the one hand and transsexuals on the other.

There are crossdreamers and crossdressers who identify fully with their birth sex and who do not experience sex dysphoria.

But there are also those for whom the dissonance between their body and soul becomes unbearable. They are truly transsexual.

Many of them have made heroic attempts at fitting in and playing the role society expect of them. Those of them who are gynephilic (who are attracted to women) are probably more likely to try to fit in, as excelling in the male role may seem to be the only way of finding love with a woman.

Some manage to bridge the gap between their inner psyche and the external world, but for others the gap becomes too wide. They have to chose a new life or go under. That choice is not easy. Not for themselves and not for their family.

 I don't think there is an easy or correct "solution" to their dilemma. But I do believe we have to talk about it.

I got the following email from "Mary" the other day. I have the permission to republish it here at Crossdreamers. I have made only small changes to the text by anonymizing it and by adding headlines. Any constructive comments are welcome.

 Jack

Hello Jack,


My name is Mary [name altered]  and I wrote a comment on your crossdreamers blog yesterday. You did comment on what I wrote and I wanted to elaborate somewhat however I am not sure it is best to do it there or privately as I do not want to upset anyone. Also I have yet to come across anyone who wants to say what I need to say. So here I am. 


Married to a transwoman

I wrote that I am a straight female living with a straight man who crossdresses and is now taking medications with the intention of transitioning sometime soon. What I did not say is I am 53 years old and he is 63 years old, he is masculine,always played football,snowboarding, has always surfed and still does, ran a pub and a restaurant. His voice is deep, his body is wiry, his arms muscular and he is definately not outwardly feminine . 


I have know him for 20 years, lived with him for going on 8 of those and it wasn't untill we became interested in each other romantically that he told me of his desire to change gender. My reaction was 'Oh good, that gives me a new girlfriend, what fun'. 

I was aware of the diversity in genders out there of course, had gay friends, seen movies, read books etc and continued on without the faintest clue as to what it meant. In 8 years I have learned the difference between understanding something and comprehending something. 

None of this happened straight away either, the older he got the more pressing it has become.What started out as occasional crossdressing and vague talk about possibly transitioning has evolved into full blown, every day need to do something about it, and sooner rather than later.  

Emotional drain

You see Jack, its not about the actual crossdressing,  people do all sorts of things in private and mostly it is only a small part of what they do each day like having a shower, playing squash after work and well, you get the picture. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY IT TAKES TO LIVE THIS WAY. 

I fell for for my partner for all the usual reasons, he is male, makes me laugh, intrigues me, I liked what was presented to me and learned fast that it is somewhat of an illusion, something he learned to do to fit in when young as being himself didn't seem acceptable to others although he couldn't work out why at the time. 

The real person behind

What does that have to do with now? Well, there are 3 people living here and I have had to accept that for as long as we are together, that indeed will be the case until he changes over completely. Now I am not good at dating 2 people simultaneously, always been a one man woman, its just my way, but this, I have to say is very strange and I find myself out of my depth on a daily basis. 

Here is the wierd part - Who am I living with??  Is the man I fell in love with not real or am I in love with a woman and did not know it?? People say you love the soul or spirit of a person not the gender and they are one and the same but I am here to tell you they are not interchangeable as I now know. 

Being able to relax into who he / she really is at home, changes who they are/were outdoors into who they really are, surely thats the point? One has expectations that if for example they walk to the corner shop enough times that it will be the same walk there and back, not a lot will change, thats expectation! I have expectations that the man I have known for 20 years and am living with is, well, the man I am living with. 

It makes my head ache trying to unravel this mess.  I often think if I am having trouble with it then what must he be going through? Which part is the dream and which part is reality? 

To be fair though, he has had a lifetime to work out a way to live like this, I am not as practised in the art of how to keep the various parts separate as he is. Then comes the daily frustration of not being able to just tell people.

Keeping this secret 

I cannot tell my children, not for the usual reasons, they know the gist of it already but they are my children and its not my place to expect them to sort their own mother out on an emotional level, parents do that for their children not the other way around. 

His children don't know much, just that their dad is more of a free spirit than most and he is not quite ready to tell them that their dad intends to disappear forever although she will still be there, just female.  Expectations again! 

Intimacy

Then there is the problem of intimacy. Gosh, where do you begin with this one? What are the choices? I am not interested in women so does that leave celibacy and a lifelong partnership as close friends? He says I could be open to him still being who he is on the inside, that will not change, just the same person with a different form. He says no two people are the same and we need to find our own way. 

He is right I suppose, but I am still not going there . Here is another worry, what if, as I have read, he changes his orientation after being on hormones etc,[he has been on hormones and blockers for 3 months] and wants to experience being a woman sexually with a man. 

I could not be upset if that happened because I believe he should finally get to experience all the things that make up being a woman just as I have. Hell, he has waited long enough!! I am not a hypocrite, I can't say go, be you, but there are boundries. 

Could I cope with being left behind? He says tht is not on his horizon ever, I say he hasn't been there yet to make such definate statements. 

Silence
No one talks about this as much as I would like....Its not the shock of what he is going through or the ' How could you do this to me?' its more, 'How can we save what we have'? 

While I have read Helen Boyd and others, [we are reading Jennifer Finney Boylan as I write this]  I have found that most writers tend to write either about their divorces and they end up with same sex partners who have bi-sexual leanings or ...add label here..... or they talk of their success stories, albeit with the struggle discussed as well but not really indepth enough and like Helen Boyd, the partner hasn't gone all the way yet because of the very situation I am talking about. 

After 8 yrs I can't seem to get any further ahead. So, in a nutshell I love him and I like him too but I like the package that he came very much and I need to see if there is a way forward that could suit us both. Perhaps I am a tad envious of what he is doing, seeing both sides is not available to me but then again its a hefty price to pay isn't it? 

Lastly, we shop for lingerie, shoes, clothing together, get our hair streaked together, eyelash tints, waxing, although he still dresses male we are not too shy about going that far in public but he cares more about the publics reaction than I do when all is said and done. 

Straight and lesbian

To dumb it right down with lablels and a bit of humour -How can a straight woman live with a gay woman who was once a straight man and survive? 

Anyway if you have any thoughts I would love to hear them and if you think my letter is appropriate to post online please do. 


After 8 years I am still unsure as to the correct way to go about things. My political correctness is somewhat out of alignment these days because I am seeing things from the point of view of someone who is way too busy living what most people only read about and breathing when I can so I ask you to forgive anything I have written here that could offend.  


Kind regards .. [Mary]

52 comments:

Jack Molay said...

Here is some parts of my email reply to "Mary":

Dear Mary,

Full disclosure: I am living a life that is somewhat similar to your husband's, the main difference being that I have -- for many reasons -- chosen not to go down the path to transitioning. This is neither a better or a worse choice. It is just different. But I guess the difference throws some light upon the dilemmas we are facing.

Your husband may be able to unite the two sides of himself into one coherent whole, which is female. When this happens you lose at least parts of the man you love. I will have to live with the male and female personalities side by side, which means that my girl friend will be able to keep her man, but at the price of seeing him sundered. None of these alternatives solve your (or my girl friend's) problem.

(...)

Even if I belong to the other side of the equation, I believe I can relate to the pain and confusion you feel right now -- at least parts of it -- and I know it is hell.

Although the human race is an adventurous and creative species, we need a safe home base if we are to explore, and some of us need this security more than others. Culture (and to a certain extent nature) gives us at least some kind of predictability, giving us roles to play, patters that we do not have to question every day, and gender and sex belongs to the most basic roles of this kind.

In our case, routine has been replaced by a constant revolution. That becomes exhausting in the long run. It is exhausting for us transgender people too.

I guess the very core of your question is this: Where is the man I fell in love with? Will he still be there when he changes into this new human being?

Maybe the answer is both yes and no. I have spent much time recently writing about transgender psychology. These post are not the most popular on my blog, mainly because it all becomes so damned complicated, but I think I have learned an important lesson:

The process your husband is going through is a process of healing where a split soul tries to heal and become one. It is not as if the woman replaces the man. It is more like the woman merges with the man, although in a "new" female body and with a female sex identity.

The reason I can say this is because I have learned to differentiate between the sex identity and the psychological profile of a human being. Most of us have a clear sex identity ("I am a man" or "I am a woman"), but as for our temperament and our psychological traits and inclinations these are not limited to one gender only. Most of "the personality profile" remains.

cont...

Jack Molay said...

...continues:



In other words: Much of what defined the man you love will still be there, although in a radically new wrapping.

I realize that both him and me have learned to play our roles as men, and we have learned to play them well. In this sense our "persona" or mask has been false. You have -- in a way -- been the victim of "false advertising", although it was never intended as such.

But in this way transgender people are no different than other people. Most of us use a mask to hide our real self, and we normally take off this mask with people we trust and love only.

I guess most love relationships are about finding out what is behind the facade of your lover. Your husband has taken off his mask and showed you what is behind, and given the stigma attached to transgender condition that must have taken a lot of courage and a lot of trust. That is a sign of his love for you, right there.

But none of this solves the main, and painfully practical, problem. Are you ready to live your life with a woman? After all, you are not a lesbian, and you did not sign up for a lesbian relationship. It seems to me that this is one of the main reasons for such relationships breaking up (in addition to the important trust issue).

And I do not think anyone will blame you, whatever you decide. This is real life. This is brutal. You do what you have to do, and I am certainly not going to tell you what that is. Only you and your husband have the information needed to make that decision, if any.

(...)

Remember that you have the right to make demands, and protect yourself, too. If you end up sacrificing your life and your happiness on the altar of his self realization, you are in essence moving his pain over to you. I doubt that this is what he wants.

(...)

Jack

Miz Know-It-All said...

Jack
Two things that pertain to this, both of which are always overlooked/ignored.

The first is that for some, not all but some, crossdressing is addictive! For them their dressing serves a much larger purpose than just sexual. It is the thing they use to manage other issues in their lives just as others use alcohol or drugs. Yes there is very real pain there, but if you dig deep enough, the pain is not from their gender, other than perhaps their not fitting into what they perceive to be their social role...

For them, as it is with any addict, the drug of choice cannot address the real issues in their lives so as the drug become familiar it takes larger and larger doses to achieve the same results. And as it is with all addictions this is a bell curve and so becomes quickly unsustainable!

Which leads to the second part of this and the reason my heart goes out to this poor woman... Her husband is not going to be the same person he was before... That seems to be a constant refrain from these late transitioners who want to keep it all while they are upping the dose to unsustainable levels. "I will still be the same person you married!" Just a woman!" That Jack is blanket denial at it's very best, or very worst depending on your view because there is no way in hell he can or will stay the same! He is in the throws of being consumes by his addiction and it is not going to be for the better... Pity is that this tragedy and it is a tragedy, is hitting her now at a time in her life when starting over is all but impossible. She has tied her boat to his and now it comes down to how much can she tolerate... How much is she willing to sacrifice for him, or should I say for the person he once was? Sadly, it is going to be far more than she can possibly imagine!

Anonymous said...

If autogynephilia has a biological core, then so does apotemnophilia, autonepiophilia and every other kind of autophillic fetishism possible. Whilst we are at it, lets throw in every other kind of fetishism as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

The other autophillic fetishists claim just as much dysphoria as the feminization fetishists. The difference from general fetishes being that autophillic fetishism correlates with many subjects displaying body-dysphoric psychological investments.

It is true that Jack is desperately in denial, the only people that believe in him are either also in denial or are hopelessly clueless. Can't a guy (or gal) enjoy masturbation without being labelled as bodily dysphoric??????

Jack Molay said...

@ Anynymous

"If autogynephilia has a biological core, then so does apotemnophilia, autonepiophilia and every other kind of autophillic fetishism possible. Whilst we are at it, lets throw in every other kind of fetishism as well."

it is fascinating to see how theories and concepts developed by people how have absolutely no understanding or sympathy for transgendered people constantly and systematically is used to denigrate the lives of all kinds of people.

The association of all these different "fetishes" and "paraphilias" are in the head of these scientists. They are just lumping everything they do not understand and do not like into one heap and call it science.

History tells us how this works. It is not that long ago that women who wanted to become academics were labelled hysterics. If they got angry they were hospitalized and sometimes lobotomized or sterilized. If they expressed their sexual desire, they were labelled sick nymphomaniacs.

In the US homosexuality was a perversion in the same way "autogynephilia" is now all the way up to 1973. So according to your logic homosexuals were actually perverts up till 1973, because the manual says so.

Indeed, these theories are systematically used to persecute ALL transgender people, including transsexuals.

Admittedly, Ray Blanchard, the paraphilia fetishist per excellence, reckons that androphilic tranwomen are not paraphiliacs, as they -- according to him -- follow the stereotypical pattern of of having feminine looks and mannerisms.

He does not consider them women, though, but "homosexual transsexuals". Is that they kind of man you would use as an authority for determining who is mentally ill and who is not?

I know there are crossdreamers who prefer to be called fetishists, as the alternative -- to them -- is so much more threatening. By doing so, they contribute to the general stigmatization of all trangender people, as demonstrated in your comment to this post.

That does not mean that all male to female crossdreamers and crossdressers are transwomen or gender dysphoric. But some are, and that fact alone tells me that the autogynephilia theory is very bad science, indeed.

Dear Anonymous, if you want to be considered a perverted wanker, i cannot stop you, but if you insist on dragging the rest of us down into the mud with you, you are not welcome here.

As for Miz-Know-It-All's comment, I must just say that I am extremely disappointed to see a transwoman make herself a judge over other transwomen, believing she can distinguish between the real and the unreal.

I suspect that this is exactly the same thing transphobic persons has done towards her throughout her life, and here she is, doing the same thing.

Miz-Know-It-All, you are mixing cause and effect. Yes, many transgender people struggle with depression and -- in some cases -- obsessive behavior. So did many homosexuals before they were accepted (and some of them still do in oppressive societies and sub-cultures).

The hysteria of 19th century women was in some ways real. There were hysteric screaming and fainting, for the simple reason that these women were never allowed to express themselves. When the persecution stopped, hysteria disappeared.

That others use the effects of the suppression of transgender lives as proof of them being mentally ill, I can understand. This is how people who struggle to defend the status quo always behave. But you should know better!

And please note that no one has said that a transwoman remains the same person after transitioning. In this case her husband has not said so. I have not said so. Nor does Mary believe this to be true. All persons change, and people transitioning change more than most. The point is simply that there is still a continuity of feelings, ideas and personality traits.

Kelly Jameson said...

Love is a movement toward complexity and away from the
superficial,it is specific otherwise it is nothing but appetite and or fear that many can satisfy.

You meet someone and you begin to
realize that they fit you like no
other and the longer you stay together the better the fit because each shapes the other.

It is not a transitory experience but has substance whose weight is determined by the awareness of our own value. The quality of our love for others is born out of the quality of love we have for ourselves which must be earned by the standards we hold for ourselves.

Love is a response to value

Your words sound like two people who have found this love and for it to continue each person must support the quality of love they have for themselves so you protect each other by protecting yourself.

It is not disloyal to want happiness even when that means the
relationship must change.

The love each of you has for the other will endure if you do not
box it in with expectations (unless
it is the expectation of your values that you base your own love of self on) not being violated.

Love must always remain a gift never an expectation.

Allow for change because change is life.

Sushruti said...

I have a husband of 20 years who recently has transitioned to a woman. We are perfectly fine having a lesbian relationship. Infact, even long before he came out I had always known that he was feminine (not effeminate). (S)he was more of a woman in the relationship than a man. I did want a man in my life but in her case, I felt different. I did not feel odd or uncomfortable because she acted masculine outdoors. She does it even now and sees herself as a rather butch transwoman even if before transition, she was quite feminine for a man.
One thing I have basically come to the conclusion is that nature has intended to create LGB transgender people to make better caregivers for their wives (in case of FTMs for their husbands). Considering that a majority of transgenders recently coming out are actually also gay/bi/lesbian rather than straight, it stands to reason out that transgenders have been created by God to act as faithful partners of their spouses. I am sure my fem husband (whether living as a woman or not) makes a far better and more understanding partner than a masculine man could ever be.

Anonymous said...

"it is fascinating to see how theories and concepts developed by people how have absolutely no understanding or sympathy for transgendered people constantly and systematically is used to denigrate the lives of all kinds of people."

It is fascinating to see how you are willing to take any (hilariously)vague statement of body dysphoria or desire for self-feminization as unequivocally indicative of a genuine underlying biological discord, yet compartmentalize that crossdreaming is experienced solely as a fetish for a large fraction of people. You understand the predominant plasticity of one's being and emergence, but because of your crusade you ignore the truth right in front of you, that fetishism can (and does) influence one's being, especially in the case of the emergence of bodily dysphoria in autophillic fetishists!

"if you want to be considered a perverted wanker, i cannot stop you, but if you insist on dragging the rest of us down into the mud with you, you are not welcome here."

Stigmatization of trangender people or not, truth is what matters. It looks like the only "truth" that you will accept is that which is comforting. I masturbate over the same stuff as you do (www.rebeccamolay.com) and to label that which one's (or our) sexuality as "perverted" or "muddy" is manipulative slander.

Anonymous said...

Really Jack Molay! You have the Chutzpah of the Devil himself. You call out MKIA for allegedly defining you and your kind and in the very next sentence describe her as a "transwoman" You damned hypocrite! Talk about male misogyny.

You Jack Molay a self confessed AGP get to define woman while women themselves cannot define herself. You degenerate piece of chauvinistic dirt. How dare you? There is no connection whatsever between transgender and transsexual. The source motivations are entirely different. Proven fact as demonstrated by the private narratives of hundreds of women who were once transsexual and have been cured. The difference? The vast majority will not make their lives a public spectacle. Why should we? It's none of your damn business. Post this you creep I dare you.

Cassandraspeaks

Jack Molay said...

@Anonymous (1)

"...you ignore the truth right in front of you, that fetishism can (and does) influence one's being, especially in the case of the emergence of bodily dysphoria in autophillic fetishists!"

We seem to have reached an impasse. I simply do not believe that the fetish theory has the explanatory power needed to explain body dysphoria.

That does not mean that crossdreamers cannot have fetishistic fantasies, which are influenced by culture and personal experience.

What you consider the cause, I consider the effect, and I am afraid many crossdreamers are tricked into accepting the ruling psychiatric paradigm, as they see no alternative.

I am pointing out that there is a much more rational and believable alternative. You may not like that, but I am sorry, I am not here to please everyone.

"...to label that which one's (or our) sexuality as 'perverted' or 'muddy' is manipulative slander."

I am not the one calling your or mine sexuality "perverted" or "muddy". Ray Blanchard is, Ken Zucker is, J. Michael Bayley is. The people that promote the fetish and autogynephilia theories are the ones that call us "paraphiliacs" (i.e. perverts), and you are the one using their unfounded theories to label us all as perverts.

Do not for a moment think that these so-called scientists have our well being in mind. They look at us as fascinating specimens in a menagerie of perversions, and you are doing your part to make their reductionist and unproven hypotheses "truth". That is destructive for all of us.

I suggest you take a closer look at the research underpinning these theories. Believe me, I have read it all, and none of it holds water scientifically. Some of their observations may be correct, but their explanations reek of sexist prejudices.

Jack Molay said...

@Anonymous

"Really Jack Molay! You have the Chutzpah of the Devil himself. You call out MKIA for allegedly defining you and your kind and in the very next sentence describe her as a 'transwoman' You damned hypocrite! Talk about male misogyny."

Well, if Miss Know-it-all is not a transsexual woman, I apologize. I am afraid I considered her strong defense of transwomen as a sign of her having transitioned herself.

You see, for me the term "transwoman" simply mean a woman that has been born with a male body and who now has had this incongruence rectified. It means nothing more and nothing less.

I have repeatedly underlined that I consider Miz-Know-It-All a woman, 100 percent, and that I consider ALL transwomen women. If believing that transsexual women should be respected as women makes me a 'degenerate piece of chauvinistic dirt', I guess I will just have to live with it.

As for this talk about "male misogyny", I am afraid that does not work on me. I have been a feminist all of my adult life. On this blog I have systematically aimed at showing how a patriarchal society suppress both men and women.

But I guess you haven't really read this blog, have you? You are just here to get your own prejudices confirmed, which is why you so eagerly hold on to my use of the word "transwoman".

Anonymous said...

"We seem to have reached an impasse. I simply do not believe that the fetish theory has the explanatory power needed to explain body dysphoria."

lol, the only difference for you of claims of bodily-dysphoria between (for example) apotemnophilic fetishists and a feminization fetishists, is your sentimental bias of the feminization narrative. Your ideological and simplistic drive to take any claim of bodily-dysphoria at face value, to essentialize it and to utterly ignore construction when it suits yourself.

Why shouldn't autophillic fetishism influence bodily-dysphoria? Because you don't like it... well. You don't think my utter utter humiliation in early childhood, being forced repeatedly to wear a diaper and my sisters clothes in front of family and friends doesn't have the power to traumatize and sexualize? Oh you think that I secretly wanted that to happen to me (lol)? None of the sort. You don't think that the EXACT SAME PROCESS doesn't happen, for example in the production of a balloon fetishist?

You don't think that a lifetime of arousal over the very trauma wouldn't correlate a psychology of well-being, pleasure, sexual gratification with that very trauma of self-feminization? What about that area you have difficulty reconciling with.. The humiliation fantasies?.. Well I be damned, it is the very same trauma which has become sexualized, only the narrative is elaborate enough to recognise it beyond the obscuring cloak of its connection to arousal. The fetish IS that very trauma.

Unless you can find something essentially different, you will have to start looking for your justification for these other bodily-dysphoric autophiliacs being just as grounded in biology as you (want to) claim for crossdreaming.

Lindsay said...

@Jack,

Is there a way to only accept non-anonomous posts. It's getting really hard to tell one from another. Or are they just one person? Or are they someone who is registered and are trying to avoid recognition?

Anonymous said...

Oh 'Lindsay'

Does this help?

http://lostintransgender.blogspot.com/2012/07/hair-loss-feminization.html

A Mad Tranny
...as opposed To Anon. 1

Lindsay said...

@Anon 1
Unless you get an account, I refuse to respond. Until you do you're just some troll.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jack Molay said...

@Autogynephilic Anonymous

"Your ideological and simplistic drive to take any claim of bodily-dysphoria at face value, to essentialize it and to utterly ignore construction when it suits yourself."

I am afraid this line of reasoning does not work with me.

I have been working on this blog for close to four years. In this period I have gone through nearly all that is to read about this topic, and I have presented most of it at this blog, including a broad discussion of "autogynephilia" and "fetishes".

I have also let all kind of perspectives room in the comments, including yours. So no, accusing me of being unfairly biased does not work.

But this discussion has also given me a pretty good insight into the mechanisms that underpin this debate, and I am afraid the science you point to has no credibility. I have explained why in several posts.

That does not mean that there is no fetishism among crossdreamers. In this way we are no different than cisgendered heterosexuals and homosexual men and women.

The great variety and diversity among crossdreamers as regards life stories and life trajectories and their fantasies, leaves ample room for culture and personal experience.

Maybe you should have started out with telling your childhood story. That is much more constructive than making demands on what others should think.

It is a grotesque story, and that kind of maltreatment and neglect must have caused immense suffering. I have no doubt it has colored your way of expressing yourself.

But please note: The great majority of crossdreamers have not experience anything like this.

Most crossdreamers experience the exact opposite: Their parents and friends systematically condition them to avoid feminine expressions and associations.

I can assure you that my parents never put me through anything like this. I do not think they were capable of coming up with the idea.

Still, I do have a photo of my grandfather, taken sometime in the 1910s. He stands on a chair looking into the camera, all dressed up in a dress.

In his day and age that was completely normal. Even Winston Churchill spent his first years dressed as a girl. Heck, the British Empire was built by men and women who had spent their early years dressed as girls. Admittedly the social context was different, but feminine clothing in the early childhood is not a sufficient cause for crossdreaming.

Then there is, of course, the fact that siblings raised in the exact same environment often develop very different expressions of gender, sex identity and sexual orientation.

Unfortunately we have no good data on this, but even if there are "anecdotal evidence" that crossdreaming (in the same way as homosexuality) can run in families, you rarely hear about crossdreamer siblings.

This has lead me to the conclusion that trauma is not a sufficient cause for crossdreaming.

I guess we could forward the hypothesis that crossdreaming can be caused by completely different sets of causes: Purely psychological among some, and with a biological component in others.

It is not impossible, but I think you and I will agree that it is unlikely, given Occam's razor and all.

Jack Molay said...

@Mad Tranny Anonymous

Please stay civil and on topic. I have removed one of your more childish pranks.

As for your reference to Mandi McKee and her idea that Propecia turned her into a woman, that is actually a rather interesting case, but not for the reasons you think.

Only one person has reported this change, which tells me that Propecia does not make you a woman (even if it can mess with your hormones). So what caused Mandi's change?

I guess you would argue that this is another example of male fetishism, but it might just as well be a case of true transsexuality. Mandi finally found a legitimate way of expressing her true self without guilt.

I would also like to remind you that adding links to web pages presenting "weird transgender" does not help your case. This only makes you look bigoted.

For every "strange" case you might bring up, there are thousands of "invisible" crossdressers and crossdreamers who do their best to help their families and friends, living seemingly normal lives (not that living a normal life is a goal in itself).

@Lindsay

"Is there a way to only accept non-anonomous posts."

Yes, there is, but so far I has not gone for that option, for the simple reason that the controversial aspect of crossdreaming forces many to say anonymous for legitimate reasons. I had hoped it would be unnecessary to force them to sign up for a fake Google account.

I will encourage the "anonymous" to sign their comments, though.

Caroline said...

Simple answer, yes.

Living with a contented person no longer depressed and unable to concentrate on life is far more preferable.

The core identity and personal values do not change but are given more freedom of expression. I am constantly told that I am a much improved version of the old me by everyone who knew me before.

Initially my partner was not overjoyed to have me transitioning but all that she has lost is the fake male facade which has been replaced by a three dimensional female who everyone has accepted.

Anonymous said...

"In this period I have gone through nearly all that is to read about this topic, and I have presented most of it at this blog, including a broad discussion of "autogynephilia" and "fetishes"."

You have never substantially addressed fetishism in itself, how anything can become sexualized, and I don't mean something becoming sexualized by virtue of its association with something already sexual, but the emergence of an isolated sexual singularity. Mainly because you want to ground everything in a grounded essentialist bodily-dysphoria. Only a fool wouldn't agree that claims of bodily dysphoria CAN BE totally constructed, psychological, vague and mistaken. Your own claim of alienation of your male shell, looks nothing short of naivety, in terms of how you simply wish to privilege the "feeling" of an "inner woman" as transcending construction.

"I am afraid the science you point to has no credibility."

lol, that bodily-dypshoria can not be constructed, or that fetishism can not have any influence with one's being? How about your "science" on sexualization or fetishization of notions or experiences, whether for crossdreaming or other fetishes? Or as to why the trauma subjected to a child of a balloon popping produces a balloon fetishist, but for no reason you discount the obvious (and HUGELY correlatively anecdotal) cause of feminization fetishism as being a sexualization of trauma? Do you know what the self-amputee fetishists claim? Just what the feminization fetishists claim, that they were always meant to be an amputee, and when they have fulfilled this desire they will finally be complete! Then look at the other autophillic fetishists for more of the same. Still think that autophillic fetishism can not influence self-identity? (hah!)

"That does not mean that there is no fetishism among crossdreamers. In this way we are no different than cisgendered heterosexuals and homosexual men and women."

I doubt that either men or women are overwhelming sexually fixated (letalone the humiliation) by the idea of being thought of as masculine or feminine. As I posted before, it is the very same trauma(experience(s) which has become sexualized, only the narrative is elaborate enough to recognise it beyond its obscuring connection to arousal. The fetish IS that very trauma.

Anonymous said...

"I have no doubt it has colored your way of expressing yourself."

"Self expression" is irrelevant here. Such fetishism is a repetition of the trauma itself. The horror is replaced by the correlation with arousal, so the object of trauma becomes "positive" or "overcome"... that is unless the fantasy narrative is elaborate enough to recognise it as it actually is (the humiliation of being thought of as feminine).

"But please note: The great majority of crossdreamers have not experience anything like this."

This can only be a lie or deception. I have an extensive experience of other feminization fetishists reporting the actual event that fucked them, and almost every other has reported a life time of self esteem and emasculation issues. The important thing is the sexualization of these very events, as it is these events which is what is arousing.

"I can assure you that my parents never put me through anything like this. I do not think they were capable of coming up with the idea."

Are you inferring that trauma can only happen under the same conditions and that every person experiences everything the exact same way? Practically ANYTHING can deeply affect a child, let alone an adult, in ways that can not be expected.

"but feminine clothing in the early childhood is not a sufficient cause for crossdreaming."

"This has lead me to the conclusion that trauma is not a sufficient cause for crossdreaming."

Really? And a balloon popping doesn't create a balloon fetishist? Or to take it to extremes, that child abuse doesn't produce adult fetishists that want to vicariously experience abuse which they inflict on children? This trauma-fetishization mechanism is a real thing, but you do not want to accept it because it doesn't comfort yourself.

I think it is high time to stop to elevating feminization fetishism to something it is not. No matter what happens to the individual or what pain it causes, it's category does not change. The anxiety or similarities to other things does not change what it is at its root, a fetish.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight. Is Molay proposing that autogynephia/crossdressing is not a fetish?

Does this mean that autogynephilia is preferable or less of a mental/social issue than a simple paraphilia/fetish?

Hmmmmmm......Excuse me for being such a simpletonbut what am I missing here and how does this relate to guys who get off wearing women's underware?

And Propecia "made HIM into a HER"!!!??!?!??

You ARE kidding, aren't you? Puleeese! Tell me you are kidding.

A Mad Tranny

Jack Molay said...

@Anonymous

Propecia did not make HIM into a HER. That was my point. She was probably a "her" already, and this gave her a perfect opportunity to express herself. Do I know this? No. Do you know otherwise? No.

Molay is definitely arguing that "autogynephilia" is not a fetish. It can be expressed through a fetish, yes, but the cause is found somewhere else.

What is even more interesting is that the man who developed the concept, Ray Blanchard, is of the same opinion.

The reason Blanchard coined the term was that he was unable to make the body transformation fantasies fit any of the existing definitions of "fetish".

This was NOT primarily about the clothes. He therefore turned the whole concept upside down, arguing that crossdressing etc. was caused by another underlying condition, called "autogynephilia".

You know of my arguments against his explanation for "autogynephilia", but in this I am certain he was right.

Blanchard puts it this way:

"Freund’s term cross-gender fetishism came closer to
describing this phenomenon than the familiar term transvestism, in that the definition of cross-gender fetishism explicitly included the element of crossgender ideation. Freund’s concept of cross-gender fetishism still, however, implied the presence of a fetish-object, even if it allowed that object to be some
symbol of femininity other than clothing....The
term cross-gender fetishism therefore did not seem quite satisfactory for my
purposes. I was becoming increasingly convinced that, at least for some men, the
idea of being a woman was central to their erotic excitement, and that the specific objects they used to symbolize their femininity were secondary and interchangeable."

This is also probably why the DSM-5 proposal has changed the headline from Transvestic Fetishism to the more neutral Transvestic Disorder.

The DSM-5 text is still the result of a compromise, however, as "autogynephilia" continues to be one of three expressions of the transvestic disorder.

I guess this reflect disagreement within the expert group: Some would like to believe this is a purely psychological phenomenon. Blanchard, on the other hand, believes -- like me -- that "autogynephilia" is inborn.

Let me repeat this: Blanchard believes AGP is inherited.

If you want to use "autogynephilia" to bolster your arguments, you'd better learn to know what "autogynephiia" is.

"Does this mean that autogynephilia is preferable or less of a mental/social issue than a simple paraphilia/fetish?"

Yes, as soon as people like you learn to embrace the diversity of life and stop insisting on defining everyone who does not fit heterosexist ideas of "normal" as mentally ill, this will pass -- as did hysteria in women and the stigmatization of homosexuals.

EVERYONE is fetishists. Freud demonstrated this quite elegantly in his Three Essays on Sexuality. But explaining crossdreaming as a fetish does not work,
because crossdreaming goes far beyond the erotization of objects and external body parts.

Finally: I am getting tired to all these accusations of me being self delusional and naive. You'd better come to grips with the idea that I have actually considered all of your arguments and found them lacking.

Would it be constructive if I turned the table and argued that you live in denial, afraid of your fragile male identity, afraid of being transsexual? If I argued that this is why you get so emotional and aggressive about this? I think not. So let's stick to a more constructive way of discussing!

Jack Molay said...

This post was about a married couple struggling with the fact that the husband is a transwoman.

I published this post in the hope that we could get a constructive and helpful discussion on how to handle this.

As is often the case, the debate degenerates into a shouting match where both separatist transwomen and fetish-oriented crossdreamers do their best to reduce this transwoman's life to a fetish and a perversion.

Maybe it is time to consider the following: If a male bodied person at this age finds that transitioning is the only way of getting a liveable life -- knowing what it will cost socially, physically and psychologically -- maybe that is a sign that this is much, much more than a kink for female attire?

I would like to thank those of you who contributed with helpful and compassionate comments, including Kelly Jameson, Sushruti and Caroline. I am sure these comments will be of help to the couple.

Anonymous said...

"Molay is definitely arguing that "autogynephilia" is not a fetish. It can be expressed through a fetish, yes, but the cause is found somewhere else."

For myself and many, many others it is nothing more than a fetish, or if you don't like the historical paraphilic connotation of the word "fetish", a part of one's sexuality, or something that strongly arouses a person. Simply because our fetish has a theme of selfhood&femininity, are you proposing that it has its origin from an essentially different place from apotemnophilia, balloon fetishism, or cuckoldism? LOL!

Is Blanchard supposed to hold some sort of absolute authority? I am anti-essentialist and pro-fetishism (all sexuality is fetishistic). The female body, as well as every other facet, in the work of feminization fetishists functions as a symbol of the feminine social imaginary.

"But explaining crossdreaming as a fetish does not work,
because crossdreaming goes far beyond the erotization of objects and external body parts."

It DOES work, simply because one's sexual being can (and does) influence one's being in general.

"Would it be constructive if I turned the table and argued that you live in denial, afraid of your fragile male identity, afraid of being transsexual?"

I am indifferent to the labelling of my self identity. I can imagine this exact same conversation on a apotemnophilia website! :D

"both separatist transwomen and fetish-oriented crossdreamers do their best to reduce this transwoman's life to a fetish and a perversion."

Truth over comfort. Even in my claims that bodily dysphoria is routinely influenced by autophillic fetishism. I do not claim that the produced bodily-dysphoria is bound by its origin. The plasticity of being.

Jack Molay said...

@Anonymous Fetishist

"Is Blanchard supposed to hold some sort of absolute authority?"

Of course he isn't! But you have to make up your mind: If you want to use the term autogynephilia, you are also signalling that you support Blanchard's view of the world.

"I am anti-essentialist and pro-fetishism (all sexuality is fetishistic)."

Yet another reductionist who cannot handle the complexity of the world! And you call me naive....

Although we are all fetishists, there is much more to sexuality than fetishes. There is, for instance, the natural need for belonging, nourishment, protection and (dare I say it?) love!

You would probably benefit from taking a close look at modern neurophysiology, which is making great strides forward these days.

This research proves beyond doubt that physiological, psychological and social phenomena depend on the interplay between body and mind.

Environmental and social factors may turn genes on and off (epigenetics), influence the timing, amount and uptake of hormonal production etc. On the other hand the genes determine the limits to personal variation.

This applies, for instance, to the development of temperament, which also influence the way an individual interacts with the world.

Sexuality is definitely part of the same bio-social system, and within this system it makes perfect sense to postulate some kind of female sexual wiring in a male body.

I recommend the books of V.S. Ramachandran and Jordan Smoller. Ramachandran even has a non-fetishistic theory of apotemnophilia.

Anonymous said...

AGP or crossdreaming, perhaps we should just return to unconvoluted "feminization fetishism".

"there is much more to sexuality than fetishes."

Convoluting again. If not for the vague and inconsistent claims of bodily-dysphoria, autophillic fetishism is experienced universally like any other fetish, an isolated and fixed sexualized structure.

"Yet another reductionist who cannot handle the complexity of the world!"

The "complexity" of the world... A reduction to female biology (and vague nonsense about "expression") doesn't sound reductionist? Dude..

I am very familiar Ramachandran. He fails to address apotemnophilia in terms of sexual arousal and sexualization. Very much like any kind of bodily-"dysphoria" in itself fails to account for a fetish.

Sexualization is primary, not inconsequential factors or side effects.

http://passionandsoul.com/journal/trauma-as-fetish

http://www.nospank.net/dugan2.htm

Lindsay said...

So, the "fetish" people say that all sexuality can be reduced to a fetish. What about heterosexuality? I don't think a fetish can explain that. That's just basic biology. The next step would be homosexuality. Do you want to explain that away as a fetish too? That was disproved 30 or 40 years ago. So it seems to be much more believable that basic sexuality is biological. But to claim that someones basic sexuality was determined by some remote, forgotten event in the past seems wrong, it may partially explain the great variation in sexual turn ons, but not sexuality.

There are biological males and females out there for whom crossdreaming is a fetish, both hetero and homosexual. It's hard to argue that there are not. But what about transsexuals? It seems natural that they would be sexually aroused by the same things as their identified gender. In their case it shouldn't even be considered crossdreaming, just normal.

Anonymous said...

"What about heterosexuality? I don't think a fetish can explain that."

All sexuality is fetishistic, even that which is transmitted retains the same fetishized structures. The part played by biology is abstract.

"But what about transsexuals? It seems natural that they would be sexually aroused by the same things as their identified gender. In their case it shouldn't even be considered crossdreaming, just normal."

Whether apotemnophilia or feminization fetishism, these autophilic fetishes commonly influence psychologies of bodily dysphoria. The arousal is not identical of "typical" female sexuality. What I am aroused by is a repetition of the traumatic humiliation I was subjected to in early childhood.

http://annamalicesissy.blogspot.co.uk

Lindsay said...

@anonymous

Wow, I can't believe you just said that heterosexuality is a fetish. Saying that you loose all credibility. How can a basic biological instinct be a fetish? At best fetishes just add spice to someones pre-exiting sexuality.

By saying that one thing (fetishes) influences all sexuality you are putting on blinders. The reality is that many things influence it.

Anonymous said...

@Lindsay

Please define a singularity of sexual arousal, in terms of phenomenological and biological emergence, as well as how both interact.

Anonymous said...

"All sexuality is fetishistic, even that which is transmitted retains the same fetishized structures. The part played by biology is abstract."

Whoever said this is TOTALLY lost in space! Or totally spaced on the AGP/TG Kool-Aid.

BIOLOGY is the fundamental driver.

"Fetishism" is the,"extravagant, irrational devotion to, and/or
the pathological displacement of erotic interest and satisfaction to a fetish."

A "fetish" is...
a: an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly: a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b: an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession c: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2: a rite or cult of fetish worshipers

A Mad Tranny

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
@Lindsay & A Mad Tranny

Please define a singularity of sexual arousal, in terms of phenomenological and biological emergence, as well as how both interact.

Anonymous said...

Jack. I do not subscribe to your AGP rubric or any of the theories proposed by the the infamous Gang of Four or 'BLZB' for short.

Blanchard, Lawrence, Zucker and Bailey have no understanding whatsoever of what it means to be born trans SEXED and are instead FIXATED on attempting to explain/justify their own particular personal paraphilias.

And therein lies the problem for the true transsexuals, who simply restructure their bodies/genitalia to conform to their actual gender/sex, and then quietly go on to live happily conforming to gender binary.

Transsexualism has nothing to do with the, "singularity of sexual arousal, in terms of phenomenological and biological emergence, as well as how both interact". Or.......any other fantasy psuedo-science.

As for Mary, the unfortunate wife of a 'crossdreamer', she has my heartfelt simpathy.

Anonymous said...

From DSM-5

Transvestic Disorder

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from cross‑dressing, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause marked distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if:

With Fetishism (Sexually Aroused by Fabrics, Materials, or Garments)

With Autogynephilia (Sexually Aroused by Thought or Image of Self as Female)

With Autoandrophilia (Sexually Aroused by Thought or Image of Self as Male.

A Mad Tranny

Lindsay said...

@anonymous

Please define a singularity of sexual arousal, in terms of phenomenological and biological emergence, as well as how both interact.

I don't answer questions from anonymous posters.

Lucy said...

Hi Jack,
I just found your website via "T-Central". I am a spouse of a recently transgendered M to F. I am in the same place that Mary is in. I am choosing to stay in the marriage as I love my partner very much.
To be honest with you I skipped over all the comments your post bought because I get very overwhelmed these days. Among the many great points and questions that Mary addressed is not being able to talk about it to anyone who could possibly understand. Please feel free to direct her to my blog and she can certainly email me. This road is too hard to go down it alone.
Thanks Jack!
www.thetransgentlewife.com

Jack Molay said...

@Lucy

Thank you very much! This is very helpful.

I have added your blog to the blogroll and will inform her directly by email.

Anonymous said...

I’ve written extensively on this subject and by this subject I mean the whole war that has constantly raged between “Transgender and transsexuals” I’ve studied the whole phenomenon extensively and interviewed a great many transvestites and quite a few type V transsexuals. In my life I have met a mere half dozen type VI Transsexuals. They are like comets you may meet one in a lifetime even then probably would not be able to distinguish them from regular male or female. The etiology is in fact elementary, female brain, psychology and personality locked in a partially male body. For a type V the syndrome displays itself with a little less intensity, there may be physical challenges for the individual to overcome. Nonetheless, drive towards a complete and total sex change is present. The etiology of both types is quite similar.

This is what I discovered in my research and it matches that of Harry Benjamin whose book I read a short while after I completed my study. I was searching for a reason for my own overwhelming need to be a complete woman. In that regard science has so far failed to provide us with a fully satisfactory answer perhaps one day. For female to male transsexuals the problems are even greater since it is not yet feasible to create human tissue where none has existed before; not to a full enough extent anyway.

Society when first confronted by transsexuality in 1950’s with the publicity that surrounded first Christine Jorgensen and then Roberta Cowell (even though Roberta preceded Christine) actually understood and accepted them as women. Albeit women who had changed sex they were accepted as women. For the few who followed in their footsteps in USA government administrations throughout the country changed documents to match their corrected status. There is documented evidence that for a lucky few even UK quietly changed the birth certificates of transsexuals until the justice Ormrod verdict in Korbett v Korbett established a precedent subsequently adopted in much of the western world. The general public however still to a great extent understood transsexuality.

Gradually since 1980’s transvestite men who for years had been marginalized as perverts have sought to attach themselves to transsexuality in order to attain for themselves the lingering acceptance society has or had for the condition. Narratives stolen from the biographies of Jan Morris, Christine Jogansen, Aleisha Brevard, Caroline Cossey, April Ashley (the other Korbett) and many others have been parroted to na├»ve psychiatrists by transvestites to obtain hormones and even some partial surgeries searching for the ultimate “pass”

Psychiatrists who happen to be homosexual such as J Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard and perhaps Ken Zucker who may or may not be have careers vested in the issue have formed convoluted theories (and that’s all they are theories) linking transsexuality to extreme transvestism. Even against the protests of many hundreds of women who know in their heart of hearts and at the base of their being that the theory is way off beam where it seeks to include them. Since when however, have men ever listened to women? So the war of words continues and the terms and theories become ever more complex and coated with jargon and pseudo science in the attempt to justify simple obsessive cross dressing.

My college professor once said to me “If you cannot explain something in a way everyone can understand, you do not understand the subject well enough” I have learned that lesson. It seems some people have not with their use of unnecessarily lengthy words and explanations.

Once transsexual women have no desire to deny you access to the treatments you seek. No desire to tolerate your being beaten or ridiculed or ostracized by society. All we ask is that you seek acceptance on your own terms and do not use and abuse us in the process. Claiming we are all a part of the same etiology is like trying to claim all animals are human. Stop it cease desist and we will leave you alone and may even support you.

Cassandraspeaks.

Lindsay said...

It's really hard to understand why the "classic transsexuals" feel so threatened by the transgendered community. Most transgendered have no intention of ever undergoing hormone therapy, let alone SRS. But reading these posts it sounds like they think that it is all the transgendered want. Most transgendered don't really care about "classic transsexuals", they only know about them because once a year they crawl out from under their rocks and falsely accuse them of terrible things.

They seem to feel somehow threatened because the transgendered are searching for knowledge. Threatened by the transgendered because they trying to be accepted and not viewed as freaks.

It seems to me that "classic transsexuals" want to be considered as true women. If they are true women they don't need to come here and berate us. For some reason they must feel insecure in their femininity and need to belittle us to make themselves feel more womanly.

The one thing that really bugs me is this part of their definition of a real transsexual: "locked in a partially male body". So they're saying that if you look too masculine you can't be transsexual. Who determines this? Is there a panel somewhere that draws the line? Whose definition of beauty are they using? What arrogant elitist tripe.

Anonymous said...

The one thing that really bugs me is this part of their definition of a real transsexual: "locked in a partially male body". So they're saying that if you look too masculine you can't be transsexual. Who determines this? Is there a panel somewhere that draws the line? Whose definition of beauty are they using? What arrogant elitist tripe.


There is so much wrong with this paragraph it’s hard to know where to start. However I’ll deal with the fist sentence.

The vast majority of type VI transsexuals appear to be quite normal girls when very young. Their appearance and mannerisms and interests greatly follow that of their female peers. Often puberty brings on changes to their bodies that cause great distress due to the physical changes that puberty inflicts. I thought I made it clear in my last comment that this applies mostly only too type VI. For type V the intensity is less and physical appearance may not be as strikingly female. Both types are nonetheless “transsexual” since in both cases SRS and full transition will take place.

Now to your second sentence: It is not transsexuals who are the determining “panel” but society at large. If the transsexual is able to live successfully integrated into society and is able to “self perpetuate” vis a vie “Maslow” then all will be well. The real life test was established to provide a period during which the individual and their supporting Doctor could evaluate if this was likely to happen. Success during this time is not necessarily judged by appearance but rather the individual’s ability to function in society and to thrive. Whether the real life test is successful or not it is the patient who decides whether they continue along the same path and probably not the Doctor though some physicians may advise additional time for evaluation.

So where exactly am I being arrogant? I am not setting myself up as any kind of judge in this. I have to say however, that I can spot a fake a mile off. How and why? Well because the narrative of type V and VI especially VI transsexuals is remarkably similar. The reason women like me come to blogs like this and make comment is that a great many men who identify as transgender seem to believe that transgender is the politically correct term for transsexual. It isn’t and never has been though a great many believe that it is. To your credit Lindsay I think you understand that.

Now the purpose of my coming here was simply because here there is a discussion going on about a wife is struggling to cope with a husband who is hell bent on transitioning to female. My heart goes out to her. What her husband should do if he has any humanity is to first understand just what a transsexual is because if he does not both he and his wife and presumably kids are in for a very very rough ride. Let me tell you here and now, if any husband of mine began transition he’d be out on his ear before eh could say “panties” because I know from bitter experience what is going to happen.

cassandraspeaks

Lindsay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lindsay said...

@casandra

I'm really enjoying your paternalistic, father knows best style of writing. You can barely write a paragraph without passing judgement on something.

The vast majority of people who comment (and I'd hope, most of the readers) on this site know exactly what the definitions of transsexual and transgendered are. We do a very good job of straightening out newcomers. Most of us aren't transsexual, we know it and we will never transition. Do you somehow feel we stole the term transgendered from you?

In my opinion transsexuals are women and I think that is yours too. I think your time would be better spent convincing the general public of this than wasting ours

Anonymous said...

"Do you somehow feel we stole the term transgendered from you?"

Nooooo....We are very much aware that the term was originally used by a Dr. Lohman, PhD., (AKA Virginia Prince, an over-the-top transvestite), to DISTINGUISH himself from those 'perverted' transsexuals who 'mutilated' their bodies in their deluded efforts to "be women".

What IS of serious concern however, is how "transgender" has been intentionally conflated to include and describe women who happened to have been born with a female psyche and a male body, and most importantly, have physically corrected that genital incongruity.

IMO, if the transgendered community in all its variety were to again clearly and loudly and proudly SEPARATE and DISTINGUISH itself from the transsexual in need of medical intervention, the war of words would end on the spot.

Crossdressers, crossdreamers, autogynophiles and other 'gender-varients', by claiming and pretending to be that which they as not, have as much credibiliy as a cat screeching at dogs claiming that dogs are 'elitist, hateful separatists' for not barking up to the standards of angry cats, thinking they are dogs.

A Mad Tranny

Anonymous said...

..so the date one chooses to alter their body somehow has something to do with the authenticity of the presupposed "gender" of one's psyche, which is itself supposed to somehow magically be self-evident?

Mad Tranny is Mad

Anonymous said...

Oh OW! A personal attack. I am soooooo wounded. NOT!

All kidding aside however, I must inquire as to why your response is laced with so much rancor and spite.

A Mad Tranny

Anonymous said...

"I must inquire as to why your response is laced with so much rancor and spite."

What I thought we were doing that now?

Lindsay said...

@AMT said:

"..so the date one chooses to alter their body somehow has something to do with the authenticity of the presupposed "gender" of one's psyche, which is itself supposed to somehow magically be self-evident?"

I love the way the list of requirements keeps getting longer. It looks like marital status has been added. And don't forget beauty!

Anonymous said...

""..so the date one chooses to alter their body somehow has something to do with the authenticity of the presupposed "gender" of one's psyche, which is itself supposed to somehow magically be self-evident?""

"I love the way the list of requirements keeps getting longer. It looks like marital status has been added. And don't forget beauty!"......????

AMT

Mary said...

Hello Jack and everyone here, I would like to thank those people who responded to my letter.I am just an average person trying to understand a situation that I have not come across before. My partner and I try to avoid using labels as it seems to muddy the waters somewhat. Gosh, it is complicated enough as is stands don't you think? My partner has felt different since childhood and choose to put that feeling on the back burner in an effort to fit in. As time passed he understood more however by then he was married with a family.He is sensitive to the needs of others, especially his children so decided to put them first. Time passed and the need to express his true nature began to take on a more demanding aspect to the point that he is taking the first steps towards transitioning. Does he dress for sexual reasons? Perhaps along the way there was a sexual element to it some of the time but having said that he equates dressing in feminine clothes as
much more than that. He tells me to imagine having to wear a suit,tie and lace up shoes every day when I would rather be wearing high heels and a dress. Could I maintain that lifestyle? Of course not! I like heels!!!
Am I in this relationship becuse I will be alone, well, I was single for 5 yrs before him, after a marriage breakdown, and it was my choice to do so, not because I wasn't asked out. In a nutshell I was hoping someone out there may be able to give me some direction, something to work with. I ask for a glass of water and the waiters want to argue amongst themselves as to what type of water it should be. Its simple, I just want a glass of water! We are just two people trying to deal with the cards we have been dealt.I have learned today that there is a massive amount of pain out there, its not right that people just cannot be allowed to just be who they are. We are all so much more than what the world sees from the outside. Anyway, thankyou for your time and for your help. Mary

Anonymous said...

"I ask for a glass of water and the waiters want to argue amongst themselves as to what type of water it should be." ~Mary

"stories like yours frankly terrify me, because it is exactly what I'm trying to avoid."~Mitchell

Both these quotes represent cries for help from those drowning in a sea of "gender confusion".

Is it a 'fetish' or a 'paraphilia'?
Is the sufferer 'transgender', like Jack, or a "classic transexxual" whose only hope for survival is a complete transformation their entire life, including their body. There IS a difference and that difference is vital.

It is that 'difference' that determines the most appropriate treatment. In addition, Time is of the essence. What we see in the case of Mary's partner is an individual who has 'delayed and denied' for essentially a lifetime...and is now confronted with not only his own demons, but is asking a sympathetic woman to share his pain and unavoidable pathos.

Mitchell, on the other hand, has the irreplaceable advantage of youth, and consequently, Time.

My hope is that in both cases, these individuals will proceed with a high degree of due diligence. After all, it is only the rest of their lives that hang in the balance.

Mary might do well to explore these links for some possible perspective from those who have actully found themselves in similarly dire straits.

http://sheismyhusband.blogspot.com/

http://caroline-in-search-of-lost-time.blogspot.com/

http://crossdresserswife.com/

Forestier said...

Three years have passed since the last comment. I could be in the opposite situation, the one of Mary's husband. Any update? (I have not read all the blog, though; I may have missed it).

Join the Crossdream Life Forum!