August 12, 2012

I have had enough of the extremists

Lately there has been a lot of discussion about the real nature of crossdreaming on this blog.

There is particularly one aggressive activist who feel extremely offended by my suggestion that crossdreaming has a biological core. There are also others who take comfort in "the fact" that crossdreaming is "only a fetish".

Blank slate

The underlying premise seems to be that the very concept of a inborn "sex identity" is bogus.

We are facing another variant of "the blank slate" theory, which says that both sex and gender identity is nothing but a social construct, forced upon us through upbringing and social conditioning.

Jack in denial

The fact that I think otherwise must therefore be caused by some kind of denial on my side. According to these people I cannot stomach the idea of being a fetishist and therefore construct a fantasy where male to female crossdreamers have an inner woman waiting to be born.

The fact that it is easier to adapt to the expected role as a man if you have a feminization fetish rather than an inborn transgender condition, makes the "denial" argument hollow, in my opinion, but that does not bother the  "militant fetishians" or the separatist transwomen, who both attack me for being naive.

Transphobic crossdreamers

Some of the "post-structuralist" even go as far as to arguing that all transsexuals are nothing but fetishists living in denial, an argument that is so grotesquely offensive that its like can only be found in deeply sexist and racist subcultures.


Which is ironic, as the main objective of the post-structuralist  philosophers I have read is to open up for diversity and acceptance, and not to reinforce the sexist stereotypes found among the most bigoted of moralists and scientists.

I am no longer going to accept transphobic or homophobic statements in this blog. I have never accepted racist and intolerant statements about Jews, Africans, Muslims or women, and I am not going to accept sexist crap about transsexuals. It is evil and destructive, and those of you who do not see that, will simply have to go elsewhere.

Crossdreamers is to be a place for self understanding and healing, not hate and bigotry. I know enough about transgender conditions to see the difference. If you are not able to distinguish between the two, you have become part of the problem and not the solution. You are not welcome here anymore.

And no, playing the "it is all about the truth" card does not work on me. The aggression and the contempt expressed by both the fetish and transsexual separatists tell me that this is not about the truth, this is about ideological purity and fundamentalism, and I think the world has enough of that crap already.  If you are unable to be civil and respectful, leave!

An holistic approach

I do, however, welcome a discussion on the origins of crossdreaming, and I have nothing against those crossdreamers who believe their condition is purely psychological, with roots in childhood trauma or the like.  Personally I think their explanations are insufficient. That does not stop their arguments from being useful, helpful, interesting  and legitimate.

I am also convinced that crossdreaming is colored by what we experience as children. The main difference between me and the fetish enthusiasts is not the understanding of social and cultural input to gender formation (i.e. our ways of expressing ourselves as men and women), but our understanding of the development of a sex identity (the inner sense or conviction of being a man, a woman or someone outside these categories).

Yes, I am going to provide you with more proof of the existence of the inborn sex identity later on. It is really not that hard to find.

Miscommunication

It might be that my open and "listening" approach to the transgender debate, has made some of my readers believe that I have no clear ideas about what the transgender conditions are about.

Or maybe the fact that I am writing about so many aspects of sex and gender, has made some of my readers misread me.

They have found me writing about the history of gender expression and believed I am a post-structuralist "everything is culture" thinker. Or they may have read my presentation of brain studies,  interpreting that to mean that I think everything is inherited. This leads to  disappointment when these readers realize that I do not share their core beliefs, after all.

To make it clear: For me all transgender and gender variants are the end result of an interaction between social, environmental and biological conditions. This is why I report on both gender and sex research. This is why I am interested in culture as well as biology, psychology as well as neurology.

The reason the nature/nurture debate has become more acute lately, is not that I have become more biologically oriented. It is simply because "whyxlup" and some of his fellow fetishians have forced me to focus more on the biological side. Their own extremist position forces me to respond, and it is in the nature of short blog posts and blog comments that you cannot say it all, every time.

I would really ask those of you who are trying to pigeonhole me to read more than one blog post before you conclude.

An open dialogue

I started this blog as a place for exploration of transgender and gender phenomena, and -- believe me -- it will continue to be one.

But do not mistake that for spinelessness. I have learned a lot from working on this blog. I have learned a lot from those who make comments, those who write to me and from the reading of science and transgender literature.

And I can assure you, all that learning has also contributed to the development of my own understanding of what is going on here, both as regards the development of crossdreamer souls and the dynamics of the transgender community.  I am not going to suppress that learning just to keep the extremists happy.

I do not expect everyone to agree with me. That would be boring. But I do expect people to accept that my arguments are based on careful analysis and not some some kind of wishful thinking.

48 comments:

A.Gottesman said...

"The underlying premise seems to be that the very concept of a inborn "sex identity" is bogus."

It is not the underlying premise.

"he fact that it is easier to adapt to the expected role as a man if you have a feminization fetish rather than an inborn transgender condition"

Dude, its just something that is arousing. You look foolish trying to assert that a gender flavoured fetish necessarily denotes an underlying gender problem. As much as any arousing idea denotes an underlying condition.

"Some of the "post-structuralist" even go as far as to arguing that all transsexuals are nothing but fetishists living in denial"

I am not aware of ANYONE making that claim. A case a been made repeatedly that what one is aroused by should be open to influence how one how they relate to themselves. An argument solely addressing autophilic fetishism and its link to bodily dysphoria.

"crossdreamers who believe their condition is purely psychological, with roots in childhood trauma or the like. Personally I think their explanations are insufficient."

That is truly bizarre. As if it isn't widely accepted to account for a large amount of things that people are aroused by. An unbelievable ignorance of fetishism and sexualization. A sexually imprinted neurological structure is obvious, the best argument you could propose is that the sexualized trauma is the shame of a perceived suppressed identity, but the problem with that is the shame of being thought of as feminine doesn't necessitate that one is actually feminine at all, simply it is the fear of the thought of being thought of as feminine which is sexualized and is the very underlying structure of enjoyment of the feminization community.

Jonathan said...

The thing that surprises me is how people get so dogmatic when we theorize our own identities, so sure that they're right and we're wrong.

If there's one thing I've learned in my nearly 50 years as a transvestite, it's this: You can't speak for anyone else on these matters. You can't tell people who they are, what they are, why they are. One, because it's rude. Two, because most of the time you'll be wrong.

This is a common mistake. Having reached an understanding (usually hard won) of who we are as individuals, and being so convinced of its correctness for ourselves, we assume that it must be correct for everyone else. It isn't.

There are many possible truths here, and which holds for which person is not for anyone but them to say. In this I think it should be as Patrick Califia once wrote: "The best we can do is speak our own truth, make it safe for others to speak theirs, and respect our differences."

A. Quiet Voice said...

"Benjamin does not deny the sexual slant to crossdressing. He also upholds the traditional theory that there are fetishistic transvestites, i.e. where the main focus of interest is on feminine garments. This he considers a sexual deviation. But at the same time he has a category of transvestites with a latent transsexual trend, where there is a "gender disharmony" ~Jack

Indeed. He then goes on to describe those as his Types II and III transvestites, IE": crossdressers, which you prefer to label 'crossdreamers'.

Kelly Jameson said...

I like the phrase "Inborn sex identity" I find that useful.

I call it a constitutional energy
that I was born with.

As a child I fought against it either by hiding it or trying to change it because I sensed it was dangerous to me because it seemed to make others hostile,angry, irritated,annoyed,rejecting
ect..

I realize now that my way of being
when I was male bodied frightened
people because it was the opposite
of what they would expect to experience(find) in a boy/man.

This energy also was frustrated by
the body it resided in and could not grow or be expressed completely
(experienced and enlarged).

It is not a passive energy but receptive. Active through connectivity without ownership so
does not objectify which is the domain of masculine energy.

It is relational by being a part of
a greater whole instead of being relational as separate and outside.

Our energy decides how we earn our
right for inclusion into society but I could not because I was not
given the right to have this energy
in a male body and even if all of society changed and accepted this right I would still be suffocated by the male form I reside in so even in perfect freedom (respect)
I would still not be able to enjoy that freedom.

I was not useful to society (others) and I could not use myself.

This for me is the experience of being transsexual.

It is limiting so cannot sustain life unless ways are found for its
expression.

Concerning those who have a fetish
relationship with an "object" and anything can be an object there seems to be a great deal of self
loathing that is projected onto others by insisting others accept
their "truth" to free them from their own feelings of guilt,
disgust,contempt,ect..

Those who suffer from addiction have a similar behavior.

This is driven by the same fear of the fundamentalist who suppress their own doubt and self lies by
controlling others in the defense of their beliefs, they are at war with themselves so sacrifice others
on the alter of their own cowardice to face truth squarely.

Where there is aggression there is
fear and fear is always selfish.

A whole (not divided against themselves) person does not need to act against others but only
prevents those who are not whole from acting against them.

Kathryn Dumke said...

@ Jonathan

"This is a common mistake. Having reached an understanding (usually hard won) of who we are as individuals, and being so convinced of its correctness for ourselves, we assume that it must be correct for everyone else. It isn't."

I completely disagree with this notion. Transsexualism is a condition that can be healed through very specific therapeutic action.

The idea that every person is different may be true for those seeking their own expression and related acceptance but it is a fallacy in describing a medical condition which is well defined.

The relevant part about transsexualism is that the persons gender is fixed and their body must be made congruent. It is simply not a question of expression.

No transsexual I am aware of "theorizes" about their own identities.

@ A. Gottesman

Quite frankly you seem to have it ass backwards in your last paragraph.

For some of the gender variant, especially those that are locked in their sex but fluid in their gender experience, guilt and shame over non-acceptance appear to be an integral part of the condition because it cannot be fixed. The irreconcilability of fixed sex and gender fluidity is like this never ending search for a sense of certainty and security. It reveals itself in expressing their gender fluidity through clothing and other means. Because only social acceptance can in fact bring security to those suffering from this condition emphasis on trans-ness must be part of the solution because it is not congruence that is sought but acceptance. While transsexuals demand "fix me by any means possible" gender variant's demand is "accept me as I am".

A huge difference.

The idea of sexualization rooted in the "feminization" community as you call it actually appears to be de-masculanization and humiliation fetish rather than a "feminization" fetish. "Feminization" is in fact the threat that causes humiliation which is the source of arousal. The hateful lever if you will, which expresses itself in resentment of the female. In a sense it is a form of mysogyny.

Crossdreamers are quite a different group. I leave it to Jack to elaborate on this.

Jack Molay said...

@Gottesmann

"I am not aware of ANYONE making that claim. [Some of the "post-structuralist" even go as far as to arguing that all transsexuals are nothing but fetishists living in denial]"

Sure, one discussant that calls himself whyxlup has repeatedly made this claim explicitly here and over at Crossdream Life.

As for the more serious post-structuralist philosophers, none of them seem to use the word "fetish", as far as I can see. They know perfectly well of the negative connotations associated with that word.

If you read Judith Butler, however, you will see how a post-structuralist approach coupled with an undigested Freudian libido-theory unavoidably leads to the conclusion that there is no inborn sex identity among transsexuals.

To her this is all about the shaping of an undefined flow of desire through social construction and personal life experience.

Her chapter on David Reimer in Undoing Gender contains an excellent analysis of the mindset that forces intersex children into gender appropriate roles.

She never admits to Reimer being born a man, however, to the point of repeatedly using the wrong name and pronoun. How can she? According to her not only gender, but also sex, is a social construct.

She is very careful in wording her appraisal of David's self understanding, but in essence she does not accept his male identity:

"To do justice to David is, certainly, to take him at his word, and to call him by his chosen name, but how are we to understand his word and his name? I this the word that he creates? Is this the word that he receives? And are these the words that circulate prior to his emergence as an "I" who might only gain a certain authorization to begin a self-description within the norms of this language?"

All these question-marks ensure that the reader gets the point: David is not really born a man. His understanding of himself as a man is a product by language only, not nature. In the chapter Butler systematically undermines David's understanding of himself, doing him no justice at all.

As we have seen on the discussions taking place here lately, this leaves an opening for those who want to use post-structuralist philosophy to force transgender people into the most repressive and negative of all medical typologies: A typology where all deviations from the norm is reduced to sexual paraphilias or perversions.

I find this both fascinating and depressing. It is strange to see the thinking behind the close to anarchistic "desiring-machines" concept of Deleuze and Guattar, being used to reducing transgender people to fetishists.

I guess these post-structuralist would deny that they are reinforcing the sexist dogma of Freudians, behaviorists and social biologists, arguing that in their case everyone is a fetishist. If everybody is a fetishist, no one should feel offended.

But that is dangerously naive, and tells me that these thinkers understand nothing of the power of language and belief systems. You cannot use the concepts of your oppressors and expect the world to interpret this as something else.

A.Gottesman said...

@Kathryn Dumke

"For some of the gender variant, especially those that are locked in their sex but fluid in their gender experience, guilt and shame over non-acceptance appear to be an integral part of the condition because it cannot be fixed."

Shame and trauma (in terms of the production of a sexually arousing idea) doesn't denote that one it actually feminine at all, merely the thought of being so.

"The idea of sexualization rooted in the "feminization" community as you call it actually appears to be de-masculanization and humiliation fetish rather than a "feminization" fetish. "Feminization" is in fact the threat that causes humiliation which is the source of arousal."

De-masculinization doesn't do the job in itself, the presence of femininity is essential. I also believe humiliation or social anxiety is intrinsic to arousal, as it is the original experience itself which is sexualized. The socially-stigmatizing thought of being thought of through femininity.

"The hateful lever if you will, which expresses itself in resentment of the female. In a sense it is a form of mysogyny."

It is unfortunate yet innocent and involuntary that the thought of being feminine is traumatic. Though for the most part the presence of arousal obscures the trauma, so the experience of femininity is positively mediated by the arousal. Usually it is only the more elaborate fantasies of which the trauma is explicitly recognisable. For some, humiliation is more present than for others for example

http://sissycockmilker.blogspot.co.uk/

"Sure, one discussant that calls himself whyxlup has repeatedly made this claim explicitly here and over at Crossdream Life."

I have almost looked through every thread at Crossdream Life as well as comments here. I do not see anyone making that claim. Perhaps you can copy and paste where this has been stated.

"In the chapter Butler systematically undermines David's understanding of himself, doing him no justice at all."

Much of her work is great. There is much nonsense of "knowing oneself" or even that oneself is self evident that is rightfully attacked. Nonetheless this isn't at all to deter people from living how they wish to live.

"A typology where all deviations from the norm is reduced to sexual paraphilias or perversions."

Actually a rejection of the notion of norms vs deviates. No perversions, just creative forms of sexual arousal.

""desiring-machines" concept of Deleuze and Guattar, being used to reducing transgender people to fetishists."

You are mistaken again, or perhaps your goal is misinformation. Again there has not been (there could not be) an argument that what one is aroused by is the sole cause of self-identification. Only the case has been made that pre-existing autophillic arousal influences gender idealization and dysphoria.

"You cannot use the concepts of your oppressors and expect the world to interpret this as something else."

An equivalent word to "fetish" without its negative historical connotations? Have you got any ideas?

A.Gottesman said...

Has my message from earlier today been deleted? Why?

@Kathryn Dumke

I was referring to the production of an arousing notion. The trauma (and sexualization) of the thought of being thought of as feminine need not denote that one is actually feminine.

Misogyny? It is unfortunate, yet innocent and involuntary that the thought of being thought of as feminine can have such a painful psychological affect. Though it must be acknowledged that after sexualization the arousal connected with self-feminization obscures the trauma, and that trauma is only really explicitly recognisable in more elaborate humiliation (or socially anxious) fantasies. For some the social anxiety(trauma) is more present than for others, for example;

http://sissycockmilker.blogspot.co.uk/

http://saragirlsissyconfessions.blogspot.co.uk/

@Jack Molay

"Sure, one discussant that calls himself whyxlup has repeatedly made this claim explicitly here and over at Crossdream Life."

I have looked over almost the whole of Crossdream Life as well as the discussions on this blog, and I have never seen the claim. Could you copy and paste the claim? I have not seen the claim that what one is aroused by is the sole cause of how one identifies, rather simply that pre-existing autophillic sexual tendencies routinely should (and does) influence how one identifies.

"Butler systematically undermines David's understanding of himself, doing him no justice at all."

She has done some great work. There is much nonsense regarding self-identification in terms of being self-evident that is a legitimate intellectual target.

"A typology where all deviations from the norm is reduced to sexual paraphilias or perversions."

""desiring-machines" concept of Deleuze and Guattar, being used to reducing transgender people to fetishists."

Rather it is rejecting the norm vs perverse distinction, in favour of sexuality as creative, positive and affirmative. Even where self-identification is influenced by what one is aroused by, it doesn't necessitate that it is bound by it nor even reducible back to it.

"You cannot use the concepts of your oppressors and expect the world to interpret this as something else."

Despite its unfortunate negative historical connotations, I struggle to think of an equivalent to the term "fetish". Any ideas?

Jack Molay said...

@Gottesman

No comments have been deleted, but I see that two have been caught by the spam filter (I have no idea why).

"I have looked over almost the whole of Crossdream Life as well as the discussions on this blog, and I have never seen the claim."

See, e.g. http://www.crossdreamlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=451&start=50

The reason is simple: Since whyxlup thinks bodies are socially constructed the transsexual experience of having a body of the wrong sex becomes unreal -- an end result of a kind of language game at best, or of sexual desire.

Given whyxlup's, Butler's and Deuleuze's use of some kind of undefined, content less, sexual, life force as the driver of human development, the self understanding of transsexuals becomes impossible. After all, this libido is pre-language, and if language is the only basis for self understanding, it cannot contain the self-identification the transsexuals claim. So yes, if we use the terminology of whyxlup, all transwomen are fetishists.

To me the flesh and blood life experience of transmen and transwomen are much more believable than this hyper-intellectual, mirage of a philosophic theory.

However, I do get why especially French and American philosopher's painted themselves into this corner.

Having reduced the realm of knowledge to language and semiotics they have no longer the tools needed to say anything sensible about the world of flesh and blood. That is fair, if your objective is some kind of absolute certainty.

But it is a hue logical error to jump from the idea that "my understanding of the world is depending on language" to deny the effect of the physical body on the mind.

It is as if these philosophers say that "Since I cannot say anything objectively about the body's effect on the mind that is not socially constructed, everything is socially constructed."

That is your intellectual lock in, right there. And that is why discussion will lead nowhere.

A.Gottesman said...

"Since whyxlup thinks bodies are socially constructed the transsexual experience of having a body of the wrong sex becomes unreal"

There is no such claim there. The problem being that you seem to think that because something is constructed then it is in some way inauthentic or false. Fetishism isn't presented to be the sole force of self-identification, only when there is pre-existing autophillic fetishism is it claimed that it is a substantial influence of self-identification.

"To me the flesh and blood life experience of transmen and transwomen are much more believable"

The very "lock in" which you recognise and yet seemingly compartmentalize when it suits yourself, it will and does make self-identification and judgement, no matter how desperate, a matter of uncertainty and intrinsic vagueness.

Jack Molay said...

"The problem being that you seem to think that because something is constructed then it is in some way inauthentic or false."

No, I have never said that. Not only do all beliefs have to be socially constructed (as in being formulated in language or symbolic imagery), but there are also valid beliefs that refers to other "constructed" beliefs.

My argument about the fallacy of post-structuralist thought is one such belief. Indeed, when it comes to deconstructing text and language post-structuralist philosophy present very useful tools. I use them all the time.

My point is simply that there are aspects of being human that is not anchored in a language game or a semiotic system.

There is input from flesh, from blood, from instincts and biological drives, and these are as important as any cultural input. We are not only semiotic machines. We are animals.

Based on all I have experienced, the research I have read and the input I get from others, it is completely unreasonable to argue that gender dysphoria is a social construct only.

I have argued for why this is the case in many posts. In my next post I will give you additional "proof" for why this is so.

But do you know what? I won't matter. Regardless of how thoroughly I document the biological input to transgender conditions, no post-structuralist believer will ever buy it, for the simple reason that their paradigm does not allow for such non-semiotic factors.

As for "uncertainty and intrinsic vagueness". That is part of the human condition, and applies to all of us. It has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting a biological component to human behavior.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Sounds like the "twinkie" defense to me. "The devil makes me do it".

Jack Molay said...

@A Quiet Voice

'Sounds like the "twinkie" defense to me. "The devil makes me do it".'

Are you applying that logic to "true transsexuals" as well?

A.Gottesman said...

"There is input from flesh, from blood, from instincts and biological drives, and these are as important as any cultural input. We are not only semiotic machines. We are animals."

We are much more of semiotic machines than our counterparts. I have seen you repeatedly abstract cultural phenomena and place its origin within the biological under the vague guise of "instincts". The biological does utilize culture in terms of imprinting or mediation, but it only relates abstractly or indirectly to it, itself can only function and influence indirectly within the very same pre-existing culture.

I am yet to see a fallacy within the poststructuralist framework itself, rather the same compartmentalization or inability to utilize it correctly within biology.

"Based on all I have experienced, the research I have read and the input I get from others, it is completely unreasonable to argue that gender dysphoria is a social construct only."

Gender dysphoria can be a construct of any kind like any other. It is simply wishful to necessitate an underlying discord.

"for the simple reason that their paradigm does not allow for such non-semiotic factors."

The factors consistently prove to be semiotically crude and naive.

"As for "uncertainty and intrinsic vagueness". That is part of the human condition, and applies to all of us. It has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting a biological component to human behavior."

It does. One can not judge whether the presence of a dysphoria is anything other than a construct.

Jack Molay said...

Discussion of instincts here.

"One can not judge whether the presence of a dysphoria is anything other than a construct."

Philosophically: probably. But that you cannot judge does not mean it IS a construct, as you seem to believe.

The only rational conclusion from this way of thinking is to follow the Zen way and shut up: Nothing truly true can be said about anything, anyway, as it is all Maya -- an illusion

Actually, this is probably true, but in the mean time -- back in the world of sweat and blood -- crossdreamers and transsexuals are committing suicide because of their suffering.

In that world we do not need perfect, objective, knowledge. We make use of what we have, weigh the cons and pros, and use our intelligence and common sense to find our way through the chaos. And in that world natural science is as useful as abstract philosophy.

A.Gottesman said...

The suffering of crossdreamers and transsexuals must be placed within the context that one can not judge whether the presence of a dysphoria is anything other than a construct.

In addition a construct can be a long term psychological investment, of which may justify bodily modification irrespective of whether it was rooted in sexuality.

Lindsay said...

@A.G. said
"The suffering of crossdreamers and transsexuals must be placed within the context that one can not judge whether the presence of a dysphoria is anything other than a construct."

As a lowly scientist, it makes sense that suffering (a dysphoria) is constructed. But the suffering is caused by an underlying condition. That condition could itself be constructed but it could also be biological, instinctual, hormonal, etc... Phenomenism is largely based on philosophy and as such can't be disproved by scientific data and a true believer can't be swayed. We all have our pet theories and we are spending an inordinate amount of time on this. We should just agree that we'll never agree, shake hands and move on.

A. Quiet Voice said...

"'Sounds like the "twinkie" defense to me. "The devil makes me do it". ~A.QV

Are you applying that logic to "true transsexuals" as well?" ~Jack

Obviously NOT! That is YOUR fantasy fabrication. "I am Jack Molay and I am a man dreaming about having a female body."

A. Quiet Voice said...

Here is just a tiny glimpse into some history and IMHO, some very astute observations. No fancy pancy 'theory' required.

http://ts-si.org/component/content/article/18754

Raju Mahanta said...

Hello Jack Molay,
The idea of finding women's clothing a turn-on,especially a form of sexual turn-on is an extremely scary idea for many pre-op MTF trans people when they are in the process of exploring themselves.This is because, they find it hard to understand why that kind of excitement must happen in a sexual way and they also start fearing about sexual excitement because they fear it makes them "manly" and less womanly.See this Lauras playground chatforum discussion here for instance:

http://www.lauras-playground.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18339

I however, don't agree with Ray Blanchard's theory of 'autogynephilia'. Autogynephilia is a crap or junk science and it is simply a bogus phenomenon which I feel has been invented by some traditional minded dumb people who wanted to ensure that non-androphilic transsexual women are not recognized as real women,either by society or by therapy centers.
I know this conspiracy as I have been a cruel victim of this myself. I have been denied my true identity as a woman by my pschologist back in the 90s when I had accidentally spOken out that forbidden truth- that I AM ATTRACTED TO WOMEN!
She had already asked me more than ten questions and each of my answers had suggested I had a clearly feminine bend of personality. But the moment I had mentioned I am attracted to women, she had it totally off. Now I was no longer a real woman in her eyes.
It was difficult to convince her after this, and I had to change the doctor.
I believe that even for crossdressers who get turned on by wearing female clothing, there is much more than just a fetish, even if many people wouldn't agree with that, sometimes, not even the crossdressers themselves!(I see a lot such posts here).
We must remember that excitement is the real thing-whether sexual or non-sexual. Sexuality is just an extension of what we feel excited by in general.So instead of focusing overly on the sexuality aspects, we need to concentrate on why a certain thing excites us in general. And for crossdressers or extreme transsexuals or anything in between-it is certainly due to a feminine type of psyche.

Raju Mahanta said...

See also this post for a detailed discussion on autogynephilia. You will also find may other interesting posts about us non-androhphilic transwomen in forums such as Lauras.

http://www.lauras-playground.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18683

A.Gottesman said...

@Raju Mahanta

"I believe that even for crossdressers who get turned on by wearing female clothing, there is much more than just a fetish, even if many people wouldn't agree with that, sometimes, not even the crossdressers themselves!"

You are wrongly asserting that particular fetishes must be "more" than fetishes.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Raju.

I followed your link and read many of the very sweet, supportive comments....
"I am not able to live as a woman full time but I can say there is nothing about being male that I would miss. I love myself as a woman--I love being a woman. I love looking pretty and feminine as a woman----in short I love just being me. I was never a happy guy. I am a happy woman."

I suggest that you consider the source of these comments. I agree with your assessment of the Bailey/Blanchard's theory concerning AGP and again ask that the reader consider the source, a gay man.

The problem as I see it is that there are so few voices speaking to the transsexual experience as it actually exists and is experienced by those very few individuals who have actually survived this life threatening condition.

The unfortunate result of this dearth of real life lived experience is this cacophony of conflicting theories all attempting to explain, (or "mansplain"), a behavior, (crossdressing), which is a source of such yet to be explained anxiety and sexual angst.

My thinking is that AGP is a valid adjunct to the "fetish" construct when applied to the vast majority of those who find crossdressing and/or crossdreaming to be erotic.

What tends to confuse the issue is that just like many if not most natal women, women who have medically corrected their congenital defect also take great delight in being percieved as 'sexy', or sexually attractive.

A. Quiet Voice said...

In addition, rather than adhere to the principles of Occam's Razor, (parsimony, economy or succinctness of thought), as can be found here...
http://ts-si.org/component/content/article/18754...
our host Jack allows himself to be derailed, (intentionally perhaps) by engaging such archane post-structuralist, semiotic and even phenomenological debates.

Jack Molay said...

@Raju

Thank for your comment and links to some very interesting discussions.

It is fascinating to see how even professionals mix up sexual orientation with sex identity, using the heterosexual couple as the norm.

Blanchard & Co have now accepted that being gay is OK, but now try desperately to fit all transsexuals into the new dichotomy.

Because of this androphilic transsexual women are OK (simply because they are considered effeminate submissive gay men), while gynephilic transsexual women are not (as gynephilic men they have to be masculine and dominant). In order to make this work, Blanchard has to ignore masculine gay men and feminine lesbian women.

It is interesting to see that Blanchard's supporter Bailey, tried to explain away masculine gay men by arguing that they had suppressed their own femininity. He is not willing to make the same argument for gynephilic transsexual women, simpy because it does not fit the stereotypes of this particular science community. It is truly a mess!

Raju Mahanta said...

"It is interesting to see that Blanchard's supporter Bailey, tried to explain away masculine gay men by arguing that they had suppressed their own femininity. He is not willing to make the same argument for gynephilic transsexual women, simpy because it does not fit the stereotypes of this particular science community. It is truly a mess!"

This is what stuns me totally. He has brazenly claimed we are just men who have some perverted fantasies. Something like, instead of fancying the woman outside, we have started liking a woman inside. I find such explanations totally bullshit because such claims can only be valid when the stereotype of masculine men being attracted to women is true universally,ie., attraction to women is a masculine quality in humans.
The existence of both masculine gay men and feminine lesbian women totally shatters this stereotype. So, if masculine cis-men can be into men exclusively and feminine cis-women can be into women exclusively, why can't the same thing happen to transsexual women and men?

A. Quiet Voice said...

I am confused here. I was under the impression that folks here are stalwart supporters of the B/B-L "autogynophilia" theory.

"Crossdreaming and Autogynephilia
I am Jack Molay and I am a man dreaming about having a female body. For crossdreamers (also known as "autogynephiliacs" and "autoandrophiliacs") and crossdressers, the need to understand what it is all about is imperative. This is a place where they can explore their "inner woman" or their "inner man"."

Jack Molay said...

@A Quiet Voice

"I am confused here. I was under the impression that folks here are stalwart supporters of the B/B-L 'autogynophilia' theory."

Ah, that explains a lot of your comments.

No, I am not in any way a supporter of Blanchard. The reason you find the word "autogynephilia" in the heading is because this is the first word crossdreamers come across when they search the net. I would like them to find this blog and get an alternative view of crossdreaming.

My review of Charles Moser's critique of autogynephilia captures much of what I feel about this extremely offending concept.

I'd better change the heading.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Oh! Now I understand why you refer to normal heterosexual women as "androphylic", or "non-gynophilic".

No wonder everybody is so confused. Your convoluted command of this arcane language makes it sound like I have a "phylia", or a fetish for my husband because I am aroused by him.

Why not use simple English to make your point? What is your point by the way? Is it that tire old meme, that because crossdressers have brains and their "philias", (feelings), are chemically/biologically based, (as are ALL thoughts and feelings), that by gummit! WE ARE ALL THE SAME!!!!!

Why not be honest and say that you feel really weird about feeling so weird and you will claim ANY legitimate explanation no matter how much you have to "bend" the language.

But hey! Go for it. Can you give it to me in a nut shell? You know like in a couple of paragraphs? can you do it without insulting me and accusing me of "hate speech"?

Please note that I disparage your ideas, not you. I have not painted you as a TV, CD, or TG? he truth is, your blog is so convoluted, I have no idea where you lie on that infamous "gender/rainbow spectrum"

Jack Molay said...

@A Quiet Voice

"Oh! Now I understand why you refer to normal heterosexual women as 'androphylic', or 'non-gynophilic'."

I use words like "androphilic" and "gynephilic" in order to help my readers understand the sexual orientation of the various people I write about.

The reason for using these words is the confusion caused by researchers like Blanchard who call androphilic transsexual women "homosexual transsexuals", in spite of them being clearly heterosexual.

To avoid this confusion I follow the practice the more tolerant researchers, who use terms like "androphilic". I often add terms like "man-loving", "sexually oriented towards men" to explain this to new readers.

I think the reason you find my blog so "convoluted" is that I have come to realize that the interaction between nature and culture is "convoluted".

Much of the suffering found in transgender circles is cause by us not recognizing this fact.

People are forced to play the role of someone that is not really them. This also applies to transsexual women, who are expected to act like "real men", even when they are not men.

I do not believe in a simple spectrum with hyperfeminine women on the one side and hypermasculine men on the other and androgynous gender queers in the middle.

Most MTF crossdreamers do not fit into such a spectrum, mainly because they are sexually oriented towards women (they are "gynephilic").

This is the main reason gynephilic crossdreamers are considered perverts, while androphilic transgender people are not. The gynephilic crossdreamers do not fit the common understanding that "normal women" should be attracted to men.

The traditional image of the perfect transsexual woman remains the androphilic one. Admittedly, Blanchard think of them as "effeminate gay men", but he does not consider them perverts or "paraphiliacs".

Transsexual women are often denied SRS if they admit to being "lesbian", and I believe this is because in the mind of most people "lesbians" are masculine or "butch".

A male bodied person who says that she is a woman, but admits to loving women must therefore be masculine and therefore a man -- a pervert.

This discrimination against gynephilic MTFs also applies to non-transsexual transgender people, including MTF crossdreamers and crossdressers.

These male bodied persons have done their best to fit in as men, mainly because they want to find a woman to love, and most women want a regular guy, and not a man that has a female self.

Since they have worked so hard to be men, they do not have all the tacit knowledge required to pass as a woman. Moreover, their bodies betray them, and they are therefore ridiculed for being masculine perverts.

When they also admit to being crossdreamers (being sexually aroused by the idea of having sex as a woman) their fate is sealed. Real women apparently do not dream about have sex as a woman (go figure!).

I am not saying that all MTF crossdreamers and crossdressers are transsexual women, but many are gender dysphoric, and many of them are truly women. Putting them in a box labelled "pervert" or "fetishist" or "paraphiliac" is a crime in my book.


A. Quiet Voice said...

Jack claims that..."This is the main reason gynephilic crossdreamers are considered perverts, while androphilic transgender people are not. The gynephilic crossdreamers do not fit the common understanding that "normal women" should be attracted to men." ~Jack

Let's translate, shall we?

This the main reason gynephilic crossdreamers, (women loving/heterosexual MEN, who dream of having female bodies), are considered perverts, while androphilic, (men loving) transgender people, (men??? men AND women???, crossdressers??? Those who present in a gender opposite from that normally expected from those with their sex assigned at birth??? Fetishists??? Gender Queers???)...are not.

Ignoring the subtle change of population from straight men to a convenientlyUNDEFINED, "transgender"/all-inclusive/ill-defined/ambiguous, collection of people...We are now assumed to have accepted your conclusion that yes, of course, this MUST be the only conclusion and your logic is sound, when clearly it is based on false and fraudulently presented premises.

You see, my assessment of your theorizing as 'convoluted' is base on how you try to control the language by mixing and confusing terms and ideas. The above is just one example of many that I could glean from your ramblings.

"I am not saying that all MTF crossdreamers and crossdressers are transsexual women, but many are gender dysphoric, and many of them are truly women" ~Jack

You see! There you go again! You spent your entire comment obstensibly claiming that not, "all MTF crossdreamers and crossdressers are transsexual women," BUT..."... many of them are truly women" ~Jack

You see jack. You cannot have it both ways and expect anybody with an open functioning mind and more than half a brain to buy into your particular brand paraphilias, pandering to those who share them.

Just saying...

Lindsay said...

AQV said:

"You see jack. You cannot have it both ways and expect anybody with an open functioning mind and more than half a brain to buy into your particular brand paraphilias, pandering to those who share them."

Here's a quote from one of your previous posts:

"Yes Jack, we get that Benjamin never intented that his "Types I-VI" be used as an absolute.

Nor did he intended that it be blended and blurred so that those at one end could claim kinship with those at the other."

You seem to want it both ways too. It's a continuum when you want it to be. But when it goes against your case it suddenly isn't. You seem to be the expert of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You criticize Jack for wanting it both ways when in fact he is just presenting a balanced case. I think you're the one with the agenda. We would be fascinated to hear about it.

This community needs to start actively exploring who "A.Quiet Voice" is and what her motivations are. She doesn't seem interested in opening up on who she is, so until she does, she has provided us with a wealth of interesting stuff we can use to fill in the details. It seems her main intention is to shut this community down.

Raju Mahanta said...

@A QuietVoice,
People like you will go to any extent in wanting to malign as well as invalidate our claims of being women or something in between, by labelling our kinds as mere fetishists.
You have totally ignored my above post earlier where I said that sexual arousal does not necessarily mean a fetish. It simply is an enhanced form of mental arousal, which due to the intense testosterone may just excite or stimulate the sex organs leading to what we call 'sexual arousal'.
Most crossdreamers have had intense feminine feelings at age 9-10, even before their sex drives started.
Now, since I am myself a strong believer in the gender non-binary system wherein, we have more than two genders, I don't believe in the rigid idea that every "crossdreamer" necessarily has to be 100% female. There are many ways of being female and male at the same time. If we say a total transsexual woman is 90% female and 10% male,there is no reason why a 60% female person in a male body cannot exist.
Infact, more often that not, it does and any rational unbiased person willing to look through false social facades can very well see the truth.
Not just that, diversity is a rile rather than any exception and so there is no need to put people into rigid boxes either.Jack may experience one type of transgenderism, I another type and you another. Let us unite in diversity rather than deliberately creating factions which will only serve to reinforce the stigmas already prevalent in society due to researchers like Blanchard who are well set to malign and deny our true nature.

A. Quiet Voice said...

I have expended a fair amount of effort in bringing to light some of the many factual inaccuracies cleverly obscured in Jack's manipulation of the language.

Why is it that you Lindsay find that so discomforting that youust insert yourself in a fairly civil discussion and attack the messenger, who frankly has done little more than question Jack's construct.

On the other hand you Lindsay, are attempting to make this personal. You have resorted to false accusations, ("You seem to have 10 or 20 derogatory terms for us"), and demonizations, ("I can't say anything with out insulting us or implying terrible things about us".) None of this is true and not only you, but the readers of this blog know that.

Why is that? Why are you so hateful towards people who hold different values than you?

Ignoring your unseemly and distasteful rallying cry to violate my privacy and ferret out my identity, (why would you want to do that? to harm me?)...let us rather focus on my two statements that you quoted.

"...we get that Benjamin never intented that his "Types I-VI" be used as an absolute." ~AQV

I agree. Benjamin clearly stated that there existed 'blurry' areas between the Types. There was no sharp line of demarcation.

"Nor did he intended that it be blended and blurred so that those at one end could claim kinship with those at the other." ~AQV

This is also a true statement with which I also agree. Benjamin defined his six "Types" in an attempt to distinguish and differentiate between fetishistic transvestites, (type I) and those suffering from a full blown psycho-sexual disconnect, (type VI).

How am I to understand your accusation that, I want it both ways"? I dd not write Benjamin's book. Harry Benjamin wrote the book.

I am not maligning anybody. I am not the one using such terms as "pervert" or "freaks". Nor have I labeled anybody as, "mere fetishists".

I will leave those esoterical, phenomenological and post-structuralist arguements to you experts.

A.Gottesman said...

@Raju Mahanta

Crossdreaming looks to be intrinsically sexually fetishistic in the position sense of the word. All sexual desire is phenomenologically fetishistic. I have been sexually aroused by the traumatic humiliating thought of being thought of as feminine from as early as 4-5 years of age. I do not believe that we are born with a substantial degree of gender, but that we are gendered through socialization.

Lindsay said...

@AQV

"Yes Jack, we get that Benjamin never intented that his "Types I-VI" be used as an absolute.

Nor did he intended that it be blended and blurred so that those at one end could claim kinship with those at the other."

Again you skirt the issue with your convoluted double speak.

Benjamin is saying that his categories are a continuum. But for some reason you want to have a "special" break between categories 5 and 6 so you will not be associated with the perverts in lower categories. That's the only explanation I can come up with for your statement.

Not being absolute means there has to be blurring between the categories. There are going to be some type 5.5's and 4.7's. You ARE distantly related to the 1.0's whether you like it or not.

Oh, and most readers here know I'm not making false accusations about the insults that you pelt us with both as AQV and anonymous. We can only take so much abuse.

A. Quiet Voice said...

No, Lindsay. It seems that it is you who have a phobia for your fellows which you clearly regard as perverts and from whom you are desperately trying to separate yourself from. To me it seems that it is you who, "want(s) to have a "special" break between categories 5 and 6 so you will not be associated with the perverts in lower categories. That's the only explanation I can come up with." ~Lindsay

On the other hand I have clearly acnowleged that 'blurryness.

"...we get that Benjamin never intented that his "Types I-VI" be used as an absolute." ~AQV
I agree. Benjamin clearly stated that there existed 'blurry' areas between the Types. There was no sharp line of demarcation.

Dr. Benjamn never spoke of a "continuum". In fact he further separated his six types into three distinct groups. Have a look at pg. 19. It might help.
http://tgmeds.org.uk/downs/phenomenon.pdf

Speaking of help, could someone please explain the differnce between a sexual fetish and a sexual paraphilia as there seems to be much argument over that distinction.

Oh and BTW do most readers know that you still continue to beat your dog. Please do not, or deny that you don't hate dogs or even own one. It is common knowledge that you do.

Sorry. I could not resist.

A.Gottesman said...

@A. Quiet Voice

A sexual fetish is something that arouses oneself sexually. A sexual paraphilia is something that arouses one sexually and also causes distress to the individual or harm to others.

Lindsay said...

AQV

Thanks for the link it's very enlightening! I suggest everyone read at least thru the first 30 pages or so:

http://tgmeds.org.uk/downs/phenomenon.pdf

Particularly enlightening is the explanation of the table on page 19 that I found on page 15 which I quote:

"The Sex Orientation Scale (S.O.S.) likewise lists seven categories or types (not necessarily stages), the zero, however, separately, as it would apply to any person of normal sex and gender orientation for whom ideas of "dressing" or sex change are completely foreign and definitely unpleasant, whether that person is hetero-, bi-, or homosexual. It must be emphasized again that the remaining six types are not and never can be sharply separated. The clinical pictures are approximations, schematized and idealized, so that the TV and TS who may look for himself among the types will find his own picture usually in between two recorded categories, his principal characteristics listed in both adjoining columns. Type I, Type II, and Type III would belong to the original Group 1. Type IV would be Group 2 and Types V and VI would equal Group 3, as the accompanying Table 2 shows."

I leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusions. It's pretty self explanatory.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Glad to be of assistance. :-)

Lindsay said...

Here's some more misinformation from AQV:

AQV said

"Dr. Benjamn never spoke of a "continuum". In fact he further separated his six types into three distinct groups. Have a look at pg. 19. It might help.
http://tgmeds.org.uk/downs/phenomenon.pdf"

She references a book written by Dr. Benjamin that clearly disputes this (see my above post quoting the paragraph on page 15). It seems that all she has done is look at the chart and not read the supporting text.

Dr. Benjamin does not use the word continuum, but what he describes clearly is:

"It must be emphasized again that the remaining six types are not and never can be sharply separated. The clinical pictures are approximations, schematized and idealized, so that the TV and TS who may look for himself among the types will find his own picture usually in between two recorded categories, his principal characteristics listed in both adjoining columns."

She makes it sound like he further broke up the table into three groups. But the text reveals that the 3 groups came first and the 6 groups are a further refinement based on Kinsey's heterosexual/homosexual scale. So the 3 groups were not an attempt to segregate the groups.

From Dr. Benjamin's book, page 13:

"In previous medical publications, I have divided all transvestites into three groups according to the clinical picture they presented. First there are those who merely want to "dress," go out "dressed," and to be accepted as women. They want to be allowed to do so. Their clash is with society and the law. Most of them feel, live, and work as men and lead normal, heterosexual lives, often as husbands and fathers.

Group 2 constitutes a more severe stage of an emotional disturbance. It could be interpreted as an intermediate stage between transvestism and transsexualism. These patients may waver in their emotions between the two. They need more than merely "dressing" to appease their psychological sex with its commanding and demanding female component. They want to experience some physical changes, bringing their bodies closer to that of the female, although they do shy away from surgery and the alteration of their genitalia. Such a desire, however, can play a part in their fantasies and daydreams. Like those of Group 1, for them the penis is still an organ of pleasure, in most cases for masturbation only. They crave some degree of gynecomastia (breast development) with the help of hormone medication, which affords them an enormous emotional relief. Psychotherapy is indicated but the patients frequently refuse it or fail to benefit from it. Their clash is not only with society and the law, but also with the medical profession. Relatively few doctors are familiar with their problems; most doctors do not know what to do for them except to reject them as patients or to send them to psychiatrists as "Mental cases."

This clash with society, the law, and the medical profession is still more pronounced and tragic in Group 3, which constitutes fully developed transsexualism. The transsexual shows a much greater degree of sex [9] and gender role disorientation and a much deeper emotional disturbance. To him, his sex organs are sources of disgust and hate. So are his male body forms, hair distribution, masculine habits, male dress, and male sexuality. He lives only for the day when his "female soul" is no longer being outraged by his male body, when he can function as a"

As these 3 groups were defined before the "6 types" Dr. Benjamin's comments that they "never can be sharply separated" obviously still apply.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Thank you for making my point.

Group 1: "First there are those who merely want to "dress," go out "dressed," and to be accepted as women. They want to be allowed to do so. Their clash is with society and the law. Most of them feel, live, and work as men and lead normal, heterosexual lives, often as husbands and fathers"

In Benjamin's subsequent publication this group included Type I-III Transvestites.

Group 2: "It could be interpreted as an intermediate stage between transvestism and transsexualism. These patients may waver in their emotions between the two. They need more than merely "dressing" to appease their psychological sex with its commanding and demanding female component. They want to experience some physical changes, bringing their bodies closer to that of the female, although they do shy away from surgery and the alteration of their genitalia. Such a desire, however, can play a part in their fantasies and daydreams. Like those of Group 1, for them the penis is still an organ of pleasure, in most cases for masturbation only."

These were later dscribe as Type IV

Group 3: "...which constitutes fully developed transsexualism. The transsexual shows a much greater degree of sex [9] and gender role disorientation and a much deeper emotional disturbance. To him, his sex organs are sources of disgust and hate. So are his male body forms, hair distribution, masculine habits, male dress, and male sexuality. He lives only for the day when his "female soul" is no longer being outraged by his male body, when he can function as a woman"

Included in Group 3 were your Type V an VI "true/high intensity transsexuals.

Again thank you for helping me clarify Dr. Benjamin's seminal work.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Excellent observation. Dr. Benjamin further refined his three goups into 6 "sub-types, I-VI".

"The clinical pictures are approximations, schematized and idealized, so that Type I, Type II, and Type III would belong to the original Group 1. Type IV would be Group 2 and Types V and VI would equal Group 3, as the accompanying Table 2 shows." ~Harry Benjamin

N.B. "...the TV and TS who may look for himself among the types will find his own picture usually in between two recorded categories, his principal characteristics listed in both adjoining columns."

Is this what you trying to use this to dispute my assertion that he did NOT intend, "that it be blended and blurred so that those at one end could claim kinship with those at the other."??? ~AQV

Lindsay said...

@AQV

I like the way you carefully re-edited Dr. Benjamin's quote to serve your needs. By changing the order and leaving out the most critical part you attempted to change the meaning. But even in your edited version you can still see that Dr. Benjamin was not setting up the categories as absolutes. Here's the part you edited out:

"It must be emphasized again that the remaining six types are not and never can be sharply separated."

I can see why you edited it out. The meaning of this is crystal clear. Each category is not an absolute. It is a point on a sliding scale with no breaks. A continuum. Do you think that each group is an absolute? With maybe just a few outliers? Again Dr Benjamin is clear "are not and never can be sharply divided". Dr. Benjamin had interviewed hundreds and maybe thousands of TG's and classified each one. When he graphed the data he saw a line. He doesn't show his graphs but as a scientists I understand what he is saying. It was either straight, with or without a slope, or a curve. He did not see a graph with 6 blips clustered about the categories.

Another clue that he didn't see 6 clusters of data is that he seems fairly unconcerned with the number of groups. He started with 3 and later expanded it to 6. He had students who came up with groups of 5 and of 7.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Lindsay. As you well know, Jack has requested that I no longer comment here on his blog.

Therefore I will no longer respond to your desperate attempts to "interpret" Dr.Benjamin's work to fit your particular proclivities and needs. His works stands on its own merit. Neither your POV, nor mine has any merit beyond our own personal opinions based on our own personal experiences.

Your efforts to demonize me by accusing me of doing those things which you yourself are guilty of, (like referring to your fellow crossdreamers as perverts and freaks, and accusing others of doing the same), serve only to highlight your own insecurity and failure to come to terms with whatever gender demons haunt you.

Your fellow readers deserve better and should not be afraid to explore other alternatives to the ones offered by those who blame society for not accepting or buying into their particular brand of "gender theory".

To those few readers here who are genuinely struggling to come to terms with who you are, my advice to you is to follow not only your heart, but your BRAIN. Seek other counsel. Get a second opinion.

Be well, all of you.
A Quiet Voice

Lindsay said...

@AQV

"Therefore I will no longer respond to your desperate attempts to "interpret" Dr.Benjamin's work to fit your particular proclivities and needs. His works stands on its own merit. Neither your POV, nor mine has any merit beyond our own personal opinions based on our own personal experiences."

Dr. Benjamins work is quite clear and not open to interpretation. AQV has been trying to change Dr. Benjiman's meaning by taking his statements out of context and by extrapolating conclusions that he never made. If you haven't read his paper, I strongly urge you to so you can draw your own conclusions:

http://tgmeds.org.uk/downs/phenomenon.pdf

"Your efforts to demonize me by accusing me of doing those things which you yourself are guilty of, (like referring to your fellow crossdreamers as perverts and freaks, and accusing others of doing the same), serve only to highlight your own insecurity and failure to come to terms with whatever gender demons haunt you."

I hope my fellow crossdreamers know that I have never thought of us as perverts and freaks, this is just one of AQV's tactics to try to fracture us. I will actively stand up to people who do try to pin those labels on us. I am an ardent support of the crossdreamer cause. I believe that we are normal people. AQV has never told us what she stood for.

A. Quiet Voice said...

Your RIGHT Lindsay. I have never formally introduced myself. Until I am invited to again comment here by Jack, out host, I will politely decline.

FINALLY, since you, just like any man who has been challenged by a woman, cannot let this go and seem obsessively compelled to continue tue bait me by posting outright distortions I will leave you with this simple fact.

Please note that EVERYTHING that I referenced from Benjamin's work is accurate and is without any agenda driven editing. I will admit to CORRECTING your HIGHLY EDITED QUOTE by re-inserting the word "woman", which you so carefully OMITTED".

Your MIS-quote: "He lives only for the day when his "female soul" is no longer being outraged by his male body, when he can function as a".

My "edited", IE CORRECTED, quote:
"He lives only for the day when his "female soul" is no longer being outraged by his male body, when he can function as a W O M A N". (Emphasis mine).

So WHO exactly, "has been trying to change Dr. Benjiman's meaning by taking his statements out of context and by extrapolating conclusions that he never made?

Lindsay said...

@AQV

Thanks for discovering my cut and paste error. The omission of the last word from the paragraph doesn't change the meaning.

Join the Crossdream Life Forum!