A few years ago I read a book by Jay Prosser titled Second Skins .
While frauds like Bailey and Blanchard disguise their bigotry in pseudo scientific jargon Prosser points out how we have archetypal narratives. This is a variation on what a lesbian writing instructor taught me way back in the 1970s when she said, “All coming out stories are the same story, only the details are different.” Prosser’s thesis is that we need to trust our narratives.
Bailey and Blanchard’s position is that all transsexuals lie. On the other hand I doubt if an honest word has ever passed from the lips or pen of either Bailey or Blanchard.
While they accuse us of making stuff up because all our stories sound alike, they ignore the idea that they all sound alike because they are of an archetype that has a good deal of similarity to the gay or lesbian coming out story.
Common elements include awareness of both being different and feeling trapped in the wrong body dating from our earliest memories.
We share early memories of struggling to resolve this sense of difference by repression or by early exploration.
A coming of awareness that no matter what one does or accomplishes the feeling of being trapped in a body of the wrong sex will not go a way and that life isn’t worth living if one has to live that life in a way that is so empty and meaningless.
While the perverted Bailey and Blanchard look for perversion in others it is fairly easy to find non perversified reasons why one group comes out young and one waits until middle age.
If you like men you do not have a heterosexist society laying the whole number regarding your proper place in society upon you. You are already queer, in the words of Kris Kristofferson, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose.”
Granted it may not come down to just that, gay or hetero. Fear of loosing your family like so many transkids do is enough to scare many from coming out young. Then there is the justifiable fear of winding up a trannie sex worker because coming out has a high potential for trashing out the career your education has prepared you for. All these things are non-pathological, reasonable impediments to coming out when one is just entering adulthood.
There is something else that gets overlooked in the Bailey, Blanchard rush to pathologize.
Yes there are two statistical clusters regarding age of coming out. One group comes out upon entry into an adulthood and the other comes out in middle age. Perhaps if transsexuals were the only the only group re-evaluating their lives and making dramatic changes in their lives at that mid-life point then there might be grounds for looking for a zebra in the herd of horses. But mid-life is a common pivotal point where many people make life changing alterations in their paths.
Interestingly enough when one actually listens to the early life narratives one find the same sort of elements one finds in the narratives of those who come out young. Every coming out story is the same story only the details are different. Which may sound very Joseph Campbell,”The Hero with a Thousand Faces” , but the archetypal elements are there nonetheless.
Rather than mocking the moment of childhood satori that is present in the biographies of most transsexuals we should ask ourselves went we first had that moment of awakening to self knowledge.
Rather than suspect the narratives with common easily recognized elements and considering those narratives false, perhaps the narratives that should bear the most questioning are those that lack those elements. The narratives with a sudden awareness that happens only in middle age when one who has “never felt this before” suddenly awakens to this whether due to trauma or some other on the road to Damascus moment.
Particularly since these people so often embrace some of the most transphobic theories one can possibly find. Theories posited by pseudo-scientific right wing frauds with connections to NARTH and Opus Dei. Theories put forth by Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, Zucker, Recker, McHugh, Dreger, Cameron and Socarides.
Of course internalized transphobia coupled with a narcissistic personality could keep such people in deep denial of having anything in common with other women born transsexual. But one finds common elements among this group. Among others embracing BBZL etc have been Tirea, Laurent, Lisanne Anderson, Sue Ann Robbins and Willow, who is being allowed to speak but is moderated.
For these people everything is a pathology.
If post-ops commit suicide or engage in substance abuse it is due to a pathology on their part not to how hellishly hard society, especially the right wing Christo-Fascist bigots make it for people with transsexualism to survive with dignity. Must be pathology and not a life time of abuse.
That is internalized transphobia in action.
But as for me I trust ordinary WBTs with standard narratives not those with strange bizarre ones.
02/23/2010 at 11:21 am
Having also read Prosser’s “Second Skins” many moons ago (and if I err, my copy has long ago gone to a university collection so I cannot refresh my memory…), I drew some different conclusions from his work.
One of his major points was that the “standard narrative” was repeated so often that it served to give substance and form to those that followed.
One review summarized his work as follows:
“In Part 2, “Narratives,” Prosser takes the reader through three chapters in which he develops the idea that autobiographical writings of transsexed people demonstrate a process of self-justification for their sex reassignment. Prosser argues that such narratives work to validate the necessity of bringing self and body into alignment, and of bringing body image and the image of the body into congruence
In Chapter 3, “Mirror Images: Transsexuality and Autobiography,” Prosser remarks on the recurring theme of mirrors in autobiographical accounts by transsexed people. Mirrors play a central role because they reflect the dissonance or consonance of psychic and physical body
images. Further, he discusses how in all autobiography there is a disjuncture between the teller of the story and the subject of the story told, until such time as the story joins the teller in the present time. It is in this sense, Prosser explains, that transsexed people must bring themselves into existence through telling their stories in such a way that they may be read as always having been (at least internally) as they are, or will be, post-transition. Thus, he offers autobiography as the pivotal diagnostic symptom of the transsexed condition. It is only through the convincing telling of one’s story that one may come to be diagnosed as transsexed. However, most transsexed people would prefer not to be read as transsexed once their story has been sufficiently told to obtain the desired result; that is, once they have achieved a publicly readable version of a heretofore private story of selfhood and body. ”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Second+Skins:+The+Body+Narratives+of+Transsexuality-a054882523
Now, certainly Prosser’s text is thick and not easily to read and thus not easily interpreted. My own opinion is that he makes clear that the way in which TS present themselves to the world through written words draws reinforcement from earlier works by prior TS. To a degree, what we want shapes what we write. The way to SRS is a “convincing story”.
Nothing wrong with that at all. Perhaps, as a retired lawyer, I am only too well aware that a tale may be told in different ways to achieve different ends. In doing so, lawyers carefully edit, emphasizing that which supports their position and limiting that which does not. Prozzer, or so it seems to me, suggests that this process occurs within TS who are guided in what to say or write by prior autobiographies. This does not say what is written is false or a lie. It is, however, a highly refined version targeted at obtaining a desired result.
In recognition of the gods that dwell here, no comment on other issues raised in your post, save but one…
You write:
“But as for me I trust ordinary WBTs with standard narratives not those with strange bizarre ones”
As others have said of my story, it is certainly not standard and may be said to be “bizarre”. Yet here I be, almost nine full years after SRS, happy as a clam and sharing many of the thoughts, ideas and even feelings of both Tina and yourself, dissimilar as those are. A story that differs from the standard need not be false any more than a supposedly standard story need be true. We both know a certain JU in SF. She now presents a standard story, having changed her tale much over the years. Is her present version to be trusted only as it now is “standardized”. One might also point to Diedre McCloskey’s autobiography, a candid story that does not repeat the standard motif. Does that make it less that true, or perhaps more true?
We each have a tale to tell, some more similar than others. And, IMO, we each edit our tales at times and from time to times to present a desired form to those to whom we are telling or writing, just as a lawyer presenting a case,or even as a witness telling his or her version of events.
02/23/2010 at 7:05 pm
Perhaps Prosser was difficult for you to read. I did not find him at all difficult. Not in the way of the jargon laden Butler or the lie laden Bailey.
Actually we do not tend to use the words of others. Indeed I was a a nexus point that saw a gathering of what became the first modern “wave” of WBTs in the late 1960s early 1970s. We pretty much were limited to Benjamin’s book Green and Money’s. Christine’s Bio was so expurgated as to be useless. Aside from April Ashley’s tabloid bio there was nothing and yet we all had the same sorts of stories.
That your story is odd would mark you as odd not as disproving the thesis regarding the importance of a standard narrative.
Yet there is nothing wrong with being odd or different as humans are not clones but individuals.
02/23/2010 at 12:52 pm
I really have to make one more comment…
Suzan wrote:
“Of course internalized transphobia coupled with a narcissistic personality could keep such people in deep denial of having anything in common with other women born transsexual…. Among others embracing BBZL etc have been Tirea, Laurent, Lisanne Anderson, Sue Ann Robbins and Willow, who is being allowed to speak but is moderated.”
Look, as stated I am in a strange land here. But really, unless I was to rant and froth attacking others, does the expression of another opinion demand a diagnosis? Is it not possible that people can have alternative opinions without being mentally unbalanced? When I practiced law, I did not think of my worthy friend as having a mental condition as he spoke for the other side, nor do I dismiss those of other political persuasion as being unhinged.
Suzan, think on this. How many dismissed the in the past for not sharing their opinions? How many made nasty slurs on you for holding alternative views? How often did you wish that they would simply discuss the issues without so doing? Now, this is your place here and I do appreciate that I have been “allowed” to participate, even if “moderated”. Were you ever allowed to participate as long as you kept your real opinions to yourself? Were you able to do so or did you simply leave in a huff? If you stayed, did you feel the distinctive tang of tokenism?
To my way of thinking, if two or more people have differing opinions, discussion – full and frank discussion – leads to some harmony. If your position is as strong as you yourself think, how does the voicing of an alternative opinion shake that foundation? Indeed, is strength not found in adversity?
Am I that much of a threat? To what?
02/23/2010 at 1:32 pm
I am not a very theoretical person, at least with respect to transsexual issues, so I sometimes feel lost in or impatient with the internet debates. But for years I have read with some amusement the claims that “all transsexuals lie,” whether to the so-called “gate-keepers” or to others.
As a logical matter, the only thing we can really tell from a self-professed transsexual that says “all transsexuals lie” is that the speaker is a liar.
But seriously: Sometimes the stereotypical narrative is true! That’s how it gets to be the stereotype.
And for those of us for whom it is true, there often is little need to spend energy challenging the legitimacy of others.
02/23/2010 at 4:50 pm
It’s been a slice.
Knowing this shall not be posted (or assuming such) one final thought…
If your WBT concept is so very true, then why can discussion of it it not be open to alternative views? To me, this indicates a weakness. “Yes, I believe this but I cannot have any alternative view challenge my view”.
By chance, I am currently reading the three volume history of the Byzantium Empire. Hundreds of years spent arguing over the “nature of christ” – fully human, fully god or a bit of both. So truly stupid to we modern types. Yet we TS do just the same, arguing over who is or is not TS and definitions.
During my short stay here, I have pointed out how close we are on many points, just as the poor Orthodox were close on so many ways except one or two. The nature of christ… the nature of TSity.
Heck, I expected no different. Tina left one group when Lisanne refused her demand that I be forced out. I do wonder, when you were a roaring activist back in the sixties, what you thought when you were not allowed to speak, when your views were treated as you have done mine. But heck, it’s your sandbox and now you can be comfy with only those who agree with you.
Bye bye, and good wishes to all…
Willow
02/23/2010 at 7:20 pm
Willow
While you are moderated I have approved most of your messages.
Unlike some people I have a job. One where I do not check my blog from the company computer so as to keep my work life and private life separate.
Your alternative view is akin to that of a Jew embracing Nazism in 1936 germany. BBZL etcare the enemy. They are a bunch of lying scumbags and bigots. From numerous reports Lawrence is alleged to have engaged in questionable/unethical behavior. Bailey has the ethics of a Republican.
02/23/2010 at 10:21 pm
Suzan wrote:
“Your alternative view is akin to that of a Jew embracing Nazism in 1936 germany. BBZL etcare the enemy. They are a bunch of lying scumbags and bigots. From numerous reports Lawrence is alleged to have engaged in questionable/unethical behavior. Bailey has the ethics of a Republican.”
And your argument is?????????
02/23/2010 at 10:29 pm
Our arguments have spanned a year on this blog.
And are on going as well as closely related to the arguments presented by our friends Andrea James and Lynn Conway.
You mentioned Deidre McCloskey. She is another who has challenged Bailey’s lies.
02/23/2010 at 11:12 pm
Willow writes: “Heck, I expected no different. Tina left one group when Lisanne refused her demand that I be forced out. I do wonder, when you were a roaring activist back in the sixties, what you thought when you were not allowed to speak, when your views were treated as you have done mine. But heck, it’s your sandbox and now you can be comfy with only those who agree with you.”
I really do not remember that. Which list was it? Are you sure I left, or was I kicked off?
Again, I don’t remember anything like that. Not saying it didn’t happen — just don’t remember it.
Were you just waiting for the same thing here? Were you hoping to be kicked off — to prove one point or another?
Please understand, I have no say on any of that stuff — that’s Suzans job.
As far as I know, you have not been silenced. Do you want to be?
If so, talk to Suzan — she has full control, and say-so on this blog.
02/24/2010 at 8:16 am
Tina,
I mentioned posting to this list to Lisanne yesterday (she calls me almost every day and has for years). She reminded me of the event – it was a group that she ran back several years ago. Both of you and I were members.
Many moons ago – long since past.
Suzan,
Sorry, I made an assumption thus living up to the axiom that such word contains.
But really – Nazis, scumbags, bigots… and even worse, Republicans? Rumours of unethical behaviour? Easy to spread without foundation (I know all about that from experience). Rumours are as bad as my assumptions, referring to them often gives status to falsehoods.
And yes, I know of your friends as you know of mine; we each know the positions taken by our friends. Your sandbox – I shall refrain from any comment but seriously, Bailey is a Dem.
02/24/2010 at 1:32 pm
Well, I seem to remember the series of events rarher differently — but that is water under many, many bridges.
There was a time when you were much more militant, as was I.
Was this list also run by Erica? I just do not recall being on any list that belonged to Lisanne.
If I left, I must have felt it was the right thing to do. I rarely do things on a whim.
02/24/2010 at 3:52 pm
“And yes, I know of your friends as you know of mine; we each know the positions taken by our friends. Your sandbox – I shall refrain from any comment but seriously, Bailey is a Dem.”
So?
How does that little factoid make what he holds to be true any better, any less dangerous to our future here in the good old USA?
In an earlier post you defended him by stating what YOU believe about mental illness, etc. How does that change what other folks believe?
Does that make the statement by some yahoo in a state senate that disabled babies are gods punishment for aborting the first pregnancy any better? How does that lessen the insanity of folks who are calling for the DEATH of LGBT folks — including a “Miss Beverly Hills” – among others?
I’m really happy you have empathy for people who are different. That does not change the reality of the growing chorus of bigots in the “Good Old U.S.A.”.
Will those who embrace AP, AGP be next? Perhaps those who are intersexed? Maybe closeted TG people, or out LGBT folks — who’s next?
02/24/2010 at 6:01 pm
You are quite right – it makes no difference and I would not have even mentioned it had not Suzan referred to his “Republican ethics” (I did not know Republicans had any!!!). But that matters not. Nor do rumours of Lawrence and Jews of 1936.
Again, I think that our different countries give us each a much different perspective, for reasons already give. I mentioned I do not fear when I am out and about. The vast difference in those self-identified “evangelical chrisitans” – USA 45%+, Canada 10%-. We tend not to discriminated (as much) here, and the issue of mental illness is seen more as an illness or condition, not a stigma. Now, we are not perfect by any means, and our treatment of First Nations is horrid, but we did not have the hundreds of Indian Wars that you did. Still, that difference is reflected in our respective views. Vancouver, for example, has the highest number of “inter-racial” marriage in North America.
Since moving north, not one bit of discrimination – and I do not hide. If I am “stealth” it is accidental. I am a counselor for Coastal Health. (my catchment area is all of Northern BC) Of those that have come in, only one had major discrimination problems due to some idiots at her place of work, in a very male job (I’m proud of her – she graduated top of her class and was class valedictorian and immediately got a job in her new field. She had been a licensed mechanic). This in a traditionally red-neck town.
You ask about my attitude to mental health. Once again. our countries are different here as well. So the bigots in the USA are not my problem – the Westboro Church group got a cold shoulder when they tried their antics up here some time ago. Truly, you live in a violent place and I do not. And that fact is reflected in our differences – and in our shared opinions. I have to wonder how some of your senators get elected!!!
Anyway, the main point here I suppose is that we do live in different countries and as a result, my vies on DSM are bound to differ from yours. This may well be a case wher e what is good for those in the USA is not good for the rest of us in countries that have state medicare. That bothers me. Without DSM, there is absolutely no reason for any government health care system (Europe, canada , the UK, etc) to cover the cost of therapy and SRS. None.
Many moons ago, I made this very point to Andrea Jaes. She came up with a very weak argument that suggested SRS coverage would be covered even after such a change. I contacted “approving officers in various countries and all agreed with me – delete GID from DSM and no way a state would pay. As stated, I do not want our baby thrown out with your bathwater…
Me? Militant?? Never….
02/25/2010 at 2:23 am
It isn’t just a problem with Evangelical Christians. It is a problem with religion, period. Religion is a fiction based tool of oppression that supports not only homophobia and transphobia but also misogyny and the exploitation of the working classes by the rich.
I see little difference between the self appointed rev. Fred Phelps and pope Adolf. They are both misogynistic pigs.
I tend to view many in the psychiatric profession as pseudo-scientists at best as so much of the pathologizing performed by them is simply the same misogyny and homophobia/transphobia in pseudo-scientific instead of religious drag.
As for needing the GID diagnosis. I never had GID as they did not invent it until some 8 years after I had SRS. It is a fiction and many of the doctors performing SRS acknowledge its fictional status.
As for various nations performing such surgeries via a national health insurance would continue to perform it. Let those who feel the need to pay for “therapists” do so. Most of us feel that having to pay pseudo-scientists for unwanted and unneeded therapy in order to get a letter is little more than extortion.
As for private insurance in the US. In order to get coverage thapt pays for this it can not be a pre-existing condition. If it is something one is born then it is a prior a pre existing condition.
We have already had it disallowed as a disability thanks to a Republi-Nazi named Jesse Helms.
02/25/2010 at 9:05 am
Well, let’s not get into religion. Some seem to need it and be the better for it; others need it and become much worse as humans. And some of us don’t seem to need it at all – Hiya pardner! I am just as tolerant about religion as I wish they would be about those who are a bit different, if you can get what I mean.
A fiction perhaps, but as has been said, a “necessary fiction” under state provided medicare. It opens doors up here and elsewhere. Lock up those doors and you have a lot of very unhappy people.
Now, this is a unusually optimistic statement:
“As for various nations performing such surgeries via a national health insurance would continue to perform it.”
As stated, I have corresponded with those who do approvals, and none agreed with you but all agreed with me. It it is not in GID, it falls into cosmetic and thus is not covered. Nada. And if they cover it for a short time, budgets on state medicare would soon eliminate that, IMO. You do not live under such a program so you statement is at best a guess, made optimistic as that supports your position. As when Andra James first voiced it to me, support that comment. On what basis do you provide SRS if it is not due to a medical condition? Just because? The Thais will love you, that’s for sure….
Next:
” Let those who feel the need to pay for “therapists” do so. Most of us feel that having to pay pseudo-scientists for unwanted and unneeded therapy in order to get a letter is little more than extortion.”
After all the suicides we have known, what a cavalier remark. Firstly, the US is a rich country and perhaps- just perhaps – those who want it might be able to afford it. In other countries? Not so sure, especially as many TS fall below the poverty line in all countries. Personally, I think we need assistance in transition. In countries like Canada, the therapy is covered along with SRS, as are hormones and all other meds required.
“As for private insurance in the US. In order to get coverage that pays for this it can not be a pre-existing condition. If it is something one is born then it is a prior a pre existing condition.”
Well, that may be true. Up here in Canada, it is not and in countries with state medicare, “pre-existing conditions” do not stop treatment or payment for that treatment. In fact, the term has little if any meaning outside the USA. Maybe the answer is to fight for state single payer medicare instead of doing battle over DSM?
“We have already had it disallowed as a disability thanks to a Republi-Nazi named Jesse Helms”
Oh dear. Now, A few years back, we had a TS who had been in commercial radio. Lost job, unemployed, homeless. A TS from Montreal (Olivia) went to battle for her, got her disability and a subsidized nice home (right next to the Olympics as it turns out). Disability is available to TS just as it is for any condition that causes a person to be unable to find work. To be frank, I don’t know if that position would hold up now due to more acceptance, but it did before as a medical condition that had certain results. We don’t and didn’t have Helms. Totally right, in my view. If society elects to discriminate against us taking away our chances of working, society can pick up the tab as a society.
What emerges, Suzan, is that for countries like Canada, delisting GID under any name form GI is a very big gamble. Based on nothing at all, you voice an opinion which is nice, but lacks any support that I can see. And so much turns on the USA simply not having state medicare as any other civilized nation.
As stated, I do not want our baby thrown out with your bathwater. No way. Just as selfishly you in the USA want it delisted, selfishly we in other countries who understand the issue want it to stay.
State plans simply do not cover cosmetic surgeries – noses, boobs or SRS if the last is deemed not medically required.
Now, “I’m all right, Jack”. I’m finished and have gone on with life. But I would hate to have to advise those that I counsel that they could not get the assistance they now received due to the actions of a group of well-meaning but very selfish types in the USA.
As before, many of our differences on this issue stem form our places of residence. And not once – not once, mind – have I seen any understanding of this from American TS. Al I see is the bald statement such as yours above, that “As for various nations performing such surgeries via a national health insurance would continue to perform it ” with not one whit of support, not one statement to back up that position. My own research says you are wrong. Neither Andrea then nor you now have any idea – you just say it as you wish it to be true. And gullible types who do not think past there noses accept that.
02/25/2010 at 10:29 am
My blog. I get to set the positions including those on religion. I am a stone atheist who believes the anarchist slogan of “No god, No masters.” You are a reader not a contributing writer.
I know your love relationship with the pathologizing frauds.
You have zero credibility with me in virtually anything you ore your friends say.
For what it is worth the two nations that have delisted transsexualism, France and Cuba both continue to fund it. Great Britain funded it through their national health prior to the the psychiatrists deciding they could make a buck off of it and inventing GID.
Your non-standard history may well be why you feel the need to embrace this and if it works for you, then it works for you. You are not the ordinary one.
As for the suicides direct action including anti-discrimination laws and peer driven support groups would go further than the actions of non-trans professional leeches.
02/25/2010 at 11:21 am
Of course it is your sandbox. And I do appreciate our exchanges. I am not religious at all, by the way. But I do not deny that for some, it seems necessary.
On the issue of credibility, my statements stand as they are. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but facts are facts, even if stated by someone you don’t happen to like. How many now drive Volkswagens? How many know who’s doodle suggested the first prototype?
Yes, I did know of France and Cuba. It shall be interesting to see how that goes, agreed. France formerly held to another view, under Chilland. (It may well prove that the first step to removing coverage is to come out with a nice public relations statement). And two states do not a victory make – those of us who have had state medicare for SRS know well that budgets make choices necessary. In each province of Canada, we have had to fight for inclusion and coverage, lost it at times and won it back (with the help of those professional leeches that you like so much). Knowing governments as I do, I do not hold to their good faith. If budgets say cut, we are first on the list.
Unlike the general run of little know diseases or conditions, we have a huge public relations problem when it comes to SRS. Without a medical justification, it is an uphill battle. Even with medical confirmation, it is an unpopular battle.
Yeah, non-standard. Sure, that explains everything – not! Once again, a personal issue that does not go to the issue.
then you say “As for the suicides direct action including anti-discrimination laws and peer driven support groups would go further than the actions of non-trans professional leeches.”
I consider this a dream world fantasy. Like Utopia. Anti-discrimination must have education, and we are not the 10% + of the population that Blacks were when civil rights laws were past. Not only do we fight amongst ourselves, we battle against TG , IS and and GLBT as well – or many do (like JU in SF, as the outstanding bad example) . The same applies to peer driven support. Along with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
02/25/2010 at 11:50 am
Transsexualism as an innate condition is adequate justification. As are hare lips and other birth defects.
02/25/2010 at 2:11 pm
Willow, O.K. — you live in another country. Your coming out story is wildly untraditional. You feel the GID diagnoses has made it possible for you to get on with your life. You have a measure of protection from discrimination in most areas of your life. Folks who do have real problems can get disability benefits. Housing appears to be available. Medical care is available. Etc., etc., etc., etc.
In other words your experience is totally different than the experience of so many T-folks in the USA.
Does it really make any sense for you to put yourself up as some sort of “expert” on OUR experience?
Has being contrary, opposing folks who have had a very different set of experiences, helped you in any way? Or, is it just arguing for the sake of argument?
It almost seems you disagree with the folks south of you for the sake of arguing. Why?
In addition, I firmly believe you attempt to take over damn near any forum you join. It’s as if you are just WAITING to be thrown off.
Instead of always arguing, always looking for points of disagreement, perhaps, you could ask questions.
Why this, why that?
Or, maybe your thirst for combat is slaked by these internet confrontations —— leaving you sweet and mellow in your everyday life.
By the way, was that Erica’s list you were talking about earlier?
02/25/2010 at 4:40 pm
Tina,
You wrote:
“Does it really make any sense for you to put yourself up as some sort of “expert” on OUR experience?”
Where have I ever claimed to be an expert on your experiences?
What I do claim is that many countries follow the DSM ( or the one alternative). The large majority of those countries have state medicare. If DSM is changed as a result of your (i.e. American) demands, it will adversely effect the rest of us. That point is major to me.
Then:
“Instead of always arguing, always looking for points of disagreement, perhaps, you could ask questions.”
Check my posts. Frequently I have pointed out where we agree, and that is most certain on *most* issues. Nor have I engaged in any attacks on those here. I have not replied to attacks on me.
Questions? Heck, I am, according to one, “a Jew embracing Nazism in 1936 germany” and an associate of scum,bags, etc. What questions does that prompt?
My “point “has always been to have a discussion or dialogue regarding the TS issues *without* the personal attacks and accusations of nazism, scumbagism, and other ugly comments. A continuing series of ad hominum attacks does not tend to encourage such discussions – or any questions.
Foolish, I know. Never happen.
02/25/2010 at 5:02 pm
I just love how you are setting yourself up as spokesperson for the interests of all the non-US folks and are making removal from the DSM and depathologicalization an American thing when aren’t on the leading edge. It is a movement with roots in Europe as well.
Even if we had to pay for SRS being defined as mentally ill is a stigma that is far more burdensome than having to pay cash for SRS.
This is a blog not a discussion group. Something you seem to have difficulty recognizing.
02/25/2010 at 8:07 pm
Suzan,
I write under or over my name and give my opinions. I have never purported to speak for anyone else. I have never claimed otherwise.
It would be interesting to take a poll on your second paragraph, amongst those both in the USA and those without. Neither of us can know the answer to that, but I agree that such is your opinion. In Europe and Canada the majority of SRS is performed under state medicare, and I doubt that you speak for them any more than I do.
02/25/2010 at 8:20 pm
Ah but one of my best friends is involved in the European version of removing GID from the DSM over there.
02/25/2010 at 10:15 pm
Oh heck. The devil makes me write this….
Suzan wrote…
“…one of my best friends is…”
Sorry, but that is a rather classic line. “One of my best friends is…” Yep. Sure. That must prove your point.
02/25/2010 at 10:21 pm
Actually two including one who is a regular correspondent here and the other who posts occasionally.
And that line only applies to hypocrites.
02/25/2010 at 11:09 pm
Well, that makes all the difference in the world. Of course.
…but what exactly does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Or the point being discussed…
02/25/2010 at 11:17 pm
It means that people in Europe are also involved in the depathologizing effort.