Trans Bodies, Trans Selves

Yesterday I followed a link on Feministing to a book project I think we should all consider participating in.

In the 1970s women were dissatisfied with the level of knowledge they were able to glean regarding their bodies.  The medical books were mostly written by men as was the popular literature.  Many women came together with the Boston Women’s Health Collective and contributed to a project that produced the book , Our Bodies, Ourselves.

A number of people whose lives have been touched by trans-prefixed words, many of whom are Facebook friends and are people I personally admire and trust, are coming together to work on producing an equivalent titled Trans Bodies, Trans Selves

I know how I feel about answering studies, I generally feel like I am being manipulated into giving answers that validate some straight person’s foregone conclusions.  That the study’s main purpose is the further aggrandizement of the “researcher and that any supposed benefit to those of us who have had our lives impacted by transsexualism or transgenderism will be accidental.

Multiple choice questionnaires are the worst as they tend to show the naked bias in the limited number of acceptable answers.  Particularly those that immediately terminate your participation if you say you do not identify as transgender.  My one bone to pick with this survey is that you do have to cop to transgender or gender variant to get into the survey but after that one is presented with the opportunity to answer questions in ones own words.

It is a long survey and perhaps should be downloadable as a PDF with the opportunity to think about each question at length.

It does allow you to not be anonymous if you wish and includes a space for an e-mail address leaving open the door for answering questions in greater depth and at an increased level of participation.  I highly urge anyone interested in committing to participation beyond answering the questionnaire to do so.

This book represents the next step on the road to our regaining the control of the discourse regarding our lives for the psychiatric and even medical profession who have taken it upon themselves to define us.

I am fully aware that if you ask the opinions of a hundred different TS or TG folks on any given topic that you run the risk of getting a hundred different and often contradictory opinions.

Perhaps one of the most important results of this project will be the validating of the idea that there are many communities of different identities and thinking rather than just one united by a common shared identity.  In the space of time (13 months) this Blog has been pubishing I have watched more and more people start using transsexual and transgender instead of simply transgender.  Further I have seen greater usage of transsexual for those who actually have gotten or are in the process of getting SRS.

There is hope that people are starting to recognize that one paradigm does not fit all.  We have the opportunity being handed to us to show that those representing many different communities can work together on a project that could be beneficial to all.

Please go to this site and participate.  It is for us and by us.

I will be adding two links to Trans Bodies, Trans Selves one will be under Website and a direct link to the study will be under Petitions, Studies and Polls.

22 Responses to “Trans Bodies, Trans Selves”

  1. Véronique Says:

    A friend of mine sent me this link a few days ago. I want to participate (even though I do not call myself either transgender or gender variant), but I’m going to have block out some time. It looks like a long survey!

  2. Andrea B. Says:

    Filled it in.

  3. dianakat Says:

    I have come across a number of these kinds of surveys. Unfortunately, I fear that such surveys always will be biased by the insistence that all subjects label themselves as transgender or such. Even if a few corrected persons of transsexual history hold their noses and complete it, it is likely that this requirement overall will skew the sample seriously toward the more “colorful” gender identities. Almost inherently, there will be enormous body (and psychological) differences in such populations from post-ops. Conclusions drawn from such studies can lead to generalizations that are not helpful, or even adverse, to the interests of corrected persons.

    So I cannot bear to complete these things. And then I wait in dread to see what conclusions are drawn about me based largely on the responses of crossdressers, two spirits, part timers, gender queers, etc.

  4. Suzan Says:


    I have tried to take a less negative view. The best way to assure that women with a history of transsexualism get erased is to either ignore it or to answer in a way that comes off as insanely vile and hate filled.

    I believe this to be well intentioned. If you do not wish to participate then that is your choice.

  5. dianakat Says:


    You are right. When I opened it, I had the same impression. I went ahead and completed it.

    I suggested they at least allow a “transsexual” self-designation. That is a little easier to live with, at least anonymously. 😉

    It was a lot of work.

  6. Andrea B. Says:

    I filled it in and made it clear the whole terminology thing needs to be looked at.

    The terminology does discourage people from filling it out who are post op. I have noticed that almost every survey I have seen in the last decade is like that.

    It is like there is an attempt to invisibilise post operative people. I tried to give them ideas of how to get around that.

    Also I made clear that queer/trans theory and HBS/CT are all lunatics as in stating they are lunatics. It is up to them if they keep it or discard it.

  7. cassandraspeaks Says:

    Andrea, that was uneccessary if there is to be any progress towards making anything work it starts with being civil. Calling people lunatics isn’t at all useful.

    • Suzan Says:

      For what it is worth I consider the whole HBS?CT paradigm a huge pile of elitist bullshit. You’re a post-op trannie just like other post-op trannies. No better no worse. Get used to it and get over yourself.

  8. cassandraspeaks Says:

    Suzan, I am trying to be civil, I am trying to open some kind of dialogue that may become constructive.

    I am quite comfortable with myself and my life and it isn’t anything like what you seem to think it is.

    For what it’s worth, the project you are referring to may very well be sincere in it’s intent. But excluding any group because unconnected third parties have grievances is hardly going to further any common ground there undoubtadly is. Sure there are differences between our philosophies. I agree with a lot of what you say, some of it I don’t. But shouldn’t civilised people work with what there is in common and leave differences to one side for common good? Or is it that belief what makes me an elitist Lunatic? Let’s stop the fighting Suzan.

    • Suzan Says:

      Fair enough except you seemed to come here originally with several people who spend half their blog posting trashing me and calling me names.

      If that isn’t where you are coming from or maybe you don’t see their actions as representing you well.. You’re as welcome as most folks to come around here and I guess since Sharon and Lisa feel we are both welcome…

  9. tinagrrl Says:

    Let’s see, your blog has posted stuff like:

    ” This is not something we take lightly, it is a war for us every bit as real as a shooting war. We are fighting for our identities; we are asking to be left out of their politics, to be set aside from the transgender umbrella that we do not feel we are part of. We know there are transsexuals that identify as transgender and lesbians and gays, and we do not want to speak for them, we simply ask them to set aside their Transexuality from their affiliations to the transgender and GLB. Many say they are the same thing, we don’t see it that way. We see it as three very separate and distinct things.

    * Transsexual; a medical birth condition.
    * Transgender, a social ideology.
    * Lesbianism, a sexual orientation issue.

    There is no reason in the world that they all need to be lumped into one thing, and all the while they are, the transsexual war of independence will rage and disseminate out like a forest fire.”

    So, in other words, your heterosexuality has no bearing on your transsexuality? Therefore, the fact of sexual orientation has nothing to do with WHAT KIND of transsexual someone is, since it’s all about a very different issue.

    So, why do so many “Classic Transsexuals” make an issue about someone’s sexual orientation? Why is the fact of two women of a transsexual history being together made an issue by so many of your cohorts?

    Your friend at “Enough Non-Sense” has an interesting post with quotes about both Suzan and myself — totally agreeing with claims that we are “frauds” — a sample quote: ” “Just look at two of the names on your list: Suzan and Tina. The pair of them are little better than ventriloquist’s Dummies.

    They’ll cast themselves in the role of historical saviors with one breath, spout TG’ism with the next and spew personal abuse at those who disagree.”

    i do not think we have EVER “spouted TG’ism”, nor do we hew to ANY “party line”. As far as “personal abuse” – I truly doubt it. Perhaps some folks misunderstand constructive statements.

    Of course, Both Suzan and I have been banned by “Catkisser” after I posted an explanation of my position — in fact my goodbye was deleted.

    Now, after being savaged by various supporters of “HBS and “Classic Transsexual”, folks who you align yourself with, you speak of opening up a dialogue.

    What kind of “dialogue” — will we have to fill out a survey, renounce our alleged “TG leanings”, agree that our being two trans women together is the same as if we were gay men (another little gem tossed our way)?

    Will we have to agree that our support of expanded marriage rights is wrong? Will we agree to only support the marriages of our heterosexual sisters, while we languish without even the right of hospital visitation?

    I truly admire those who indulge in character assassination, then ask to open a dialogue that “might be constructive”.

    It’s almost as if folks first attempt to destroy us, then speak of “being civil”, and of the possibility of “constructive dialogue”.

    We have NEVER hewed to a “transgender party line”, nor have we ever supported the “transgender umbrella”, yet people you appear to be aligned with constantly say we do — with absolutely no evidence.

    Suzan has suggested we could all work together on issues of importance to all of us.

    I have said for over ten years that “there is no future being the ‘T’ in LGBT”. That does NOT mean that WBT’s cannot work with LGBT groups on issues that impact us all. In addition, the fight for equality is one of importance to us all. Equality means just that. We are ALL entitled to be treated as full citizens of our respective nations. I support the rights of LGBT, TG, TS, etc., etc., etc. folks. that does not mean I agree with the “T”, or the “transgender umbrella” — but I support their rights as human beings.

    Because of our individual histories, other people have made us a despised minority. There are folks who would force us to use names that have been legally changed. There are folks who would force us to be legally defined as “men” — something none of us are.

    There are still gay men and lesbians who do not accept us as “legitimate”. Places where we are denied services.

    That goes for both TtF and TtM folks.

    Then there are all the different self defined “TGish” folks.

    While all this has gone on — the major issues in the world of WBT/HBS/CT have been to savage one another.

    I understand it if someone says, “I don’t like you.”, “I don’t like your politics”, “I have difficulty accepting your lesbianism”, etc., etc., etc. —– but, to form a new definition of transsexuality, to set up classes of post-ops, to actually set up a hierarchy (to say, “We, the ummpa-lummpas are BETTER than you OTHERS” is setting up a hierarchy) because you do not agree with someone, or do not like them, is a bit extreme.

    I also think the absolute “othering” of people by folks who have been “othered” for most of their lives is so terribly sad.

    O.K. — you’ve finally found a group that is congenial. You’ve finally found support —– does that mean you have to attack those you have DECIDED are “different”?

    By all means, a “civil dialogue”

    Please begin..

  10. Sharon Gaughan Says:

    If someone says “Lesbianism, a sexual orientation issue”, wouldn’t it also be appropriate to say “Heterosexuality, a sexual orientation issue”. Why not just say that sexual orientation is irrelevant to transsexuality?

    Also, has anyone noticed that two very different social groupings can “say” the same thing but “feel” them differently?

    Perhaps it is because of an unspoken subtext?

  11. Evangelina Says:

    you raise valid points and ask valid questions to which I will respond. However it is the start of the weekend and that is when my professional life is most demanding of my time and I wish to give a full response.
    However in short I agree with Sharon when she says sexual orientation is irrelevant to transsexuality.
    I’ve been around too long and seen too much to believe otherwise. Thank you for beginning some civility, it’s much appreciated and long overdue from both of us.

  12. cassandraspeaks Says:

    I apologise for the length of time it has taken to get this reply to you Tina. As I said earlier my commercial activities require short periods of intense time pressure.

    Let me first make one thing plain before I say anything more. I once supported the concept of HBS that is true; I still believe it was good idea exceedingly poorly managed. When I became aware of the lets say “bad behaviour” of SOME of the participants and supporters, I left the group and no longer support that particular campaign. Too aggressive, too powered by hate and far too right wing for me to continue to support.
    Regarding sexual orientation I hold the belief that it’s irrelevant to transsexuality. A person may or may not be heterosexual or gay/lesbian. I do however have a hard time understanding or accepting the excessively high proportion of those who expect wives of many years to and umpteen kids to suddenly turn lesbian because they have decided at age 50 to transition. That stretches my comprehension beyond its limits.
    My reference to the “Transsexual War of Independence” was and is a reference only to the fight to remove transsexuality from the clutches of the transgender umbrella. Not to create a “master race” of classic transsexuals. There is no reason to treat transsexuality as a subset of what is essentially an extreme version of crossdressing ie transvestism. Tina, Suzan, I worked in gender counseling and saw first hand in a consulting room the very real trauma that transgenderism causes in those who experience it. The condition is real it is not a lifestyle choice it is however different to the physical dimorphism of transsexuality. So when it comes to saying transexual and transgender I believe we are on the same page you and me. The war I talked about is about separating the two. Right now it looks like your campaign and ours has had an effect because that is starting to happen. We must keep up that pressure or believe me they will slip back into their old ways; the leopard has not changed its spots.

    Back when Suzan first stated that she was prepared to work with transgender activists on common issues my fear was that the two conditions would again be conflated. Transgender activists have not in the past been ready to relinquish their claim to transsexuality as a part of their umbrella. In the USA Suzan has been a voice that spoke out about a “clear difference” between the conditions. All I can say is re read the comment I made at TS Si at the time. That is what I talked about. My fear that Suzan would be used up and dropped when the TG activists had finished with her, it’s there in my TS Si comment.

    One of the things I find frustrating is the sheer aggression and hostility that seems to flare up between the various factions involved in these issues. Way back at my roots when I believed I was the only one, when I yearned to meet perhaps one of the people I read about in the newspapers and magazines, Christine Jorgensen, Roberta Cowell, Caroline Cossey, Jan Morris I felt isolated and desperately alone. In so many ways even with all of the people present on the net I still experience some of that sense of isolation. Those I associate with on the internet do not always reflect my point of view. However I have respect for their right to express what they think even though I don’t always agree. Sometimes joining in or taking an opposite view only flames the anger and vitriol. Sometimes it’s better to let people let off their steam and reason with them later and perhaps persuade them to rethink their views. Once the emotional response has quietened reason can maybe prevail.

    There are really only two very thorny issues between us that I can see. Primarily the issue of extended marriage rights; my own position on this has been to support the UK model of civil unions, Marriage in all but name. Some of the group I associate with believe in full extended marriage rights. Your own position is very clear and I recognise your full right to campaign for what you believe. No you do not have to change your belief one iota I wouldn’t have the chutzpah to believe you should. It’s a difference of opinion not a reason to hate or fight.

    Sharon Gaughan and Lisa Thompson are both women with transsexual history who love each other and are interdependant and I consider them both friends. I have to say that I don’t understand how that comes to be perhaps its no different to any other kind of human love. But then my own attraction has always been to men so I really do not have any kind of reference point. The question is really do I accept their love and desire to be considered a partnership and should society recognise that relationship? My answer is a resounding yes it should and with full inheritance rights; full hospital visiting rights full everything. Why should I believe that you and Suzan are any different? I don’t understand but I do accept the reality. Is that an unacceptable position for me to take on the issue or do I have to change for hostilities to cease? I ask that question in the same way and spirit you asked yours of me.
    Finally, the issue of “hierarchy” and “othering” of some groups; I really don’t see this as saying one group or type is better than another, different yes, better or worse no certainly not. Why does it have to be some kind of hierarchy? What I do believe and I base this on my clinical experience in the field is that there are two core motivating forces powering a desire for SRS and other surgeries. One force can be described as transsexuality (classic is added simply to counter the historical confusion caused by conflation) the other transgender. Transsexual will always and without exception lead to SRS unless poor health or extreme financial hardship prevents it. In which case I believe a caring society should finance surgery. The second, transgender most often will not drive a person towards SRS surgery. Late transitioners most often fall into this category and I stress not all. It is for clinicians to make those judgements. I believe this is a point on which we may have to agree to differ. However, I still don’t think it’s a reason for us throw verbal “hand grenades” at each other. I will stop and I hope you both will too. If you like I will stop first ok? As to the others I associate with I cannot speak for them they are their own women and must act according to their conscience. I hope they will follow my example but I cannot make promises.

    Tina, Suzan this is a genuine attempt to make a peace we can both live with and even if we cannot unite at least we can respect each other and reduce hostilities to levels of being critical of points of view and beliefs without the rancour of the past months. If there is anything, anything at all that I have failed to address here ask and I will be happy to write further. I don’t tell people what to think or believe. I explain to others what I believe and hope that they may agree or if not may be persuaded by my argument. But if not should they then become my enemy? I don’t think they do unless they would cause me or my friends and family harm.

  13. tinagrrl Says:

    “Cassandra” writes: “A person may or may not be heterosexual or gay/lesbian. I do however have a hard time understanding or accepting the excessively high proportion of those who expect wives of many years to and umpteen kids to suddenly turn lesbian because they have decided at age 50 to transition. That stretches my comprehension beyond its limits.”

    That particular attitude only shows how far some newly out/transitioned folks have to go before they actually begin to understand what they expect of others. Attitudes like that, along with the “I have a female brain”, or, “I’m just another woman” statements are one of the reasons I said: “All new post-ops should be required to keep their mouths shut for a minimum of two years after SRS.”.

    It was said “tongue in cheek”, but there is a measure of truth in the statement.

    Fortunately most late transitioners learn after a few years of being treated like women.

    In addition, I firmly believe much of the “transphobia” these folks experience years after coming out is just stuff that most women experience all their lives.

    It’s a bitch to lose that very privilege so many claim they’ve never had.

  14. tinagrrl Says:

    Again, “Cassandra” writes” “Finally, the issue of “hierarchy” and “othering” of some groups; I really don’t see this as saying one group or type is better than another, different yes, better or worse no certainly not. Why does it have to be some kind of hierarchy? What I do believe and I base this on my clinical experience in the field is that there are two core motivating forces powering a desire for SRS and other surgeries. One force can be described as transsexuality (classic is added simply to counter the historical confusion caused by conflation) the other transgender.”

    That all sounds very good — BUT (didn’t you know I was going to say that?) — many of those claiming to be HBS or Classic Transsexual have worked at “othering” folks like both Suzan and myself. By setting themselves as THE TRUE “Keepers of The Flame”, they are setting up a hierarchy. we are “realer” than you – if you dare disagree with us.

    There is a new attack on one blog by a person who now holds herself up to be some sort of paragon of “post-op womanhood”, and a “true” classic transsexual.

    For G*d’s sake, this person started fighting with people long before I was ever on line. First “more than a crossdresser, but less than a transsexual”, then transsexual — but not going toward SRS, now a “True Classic Transsexual”. Perhaps there were other self definitions at various times. there seems to be a need to set apart, to get attention, to fight.

    Let’s be realistic — there are also total “newbies” attacking both Suzan and myself for supposedly saying things we’ve never said. There are folks calling us both names — who have no clue as to either of our histories, what WBT was, and is about, and how we were among the first to demand our rights to our own identities.

    Years ago, I said “self determination is the basis of all civil rights”.

    We were among the first to deny the reality of the”transgender umbrella”.

    We always asked for something as simple as “Transgender and Transsexual” — and were violently attacked for it.

    Now, as the long campaign seems to be bearing some fruit. As we begin to see that construction become more common, we have suggested the possibility of TG and TS/WBT working together for common goals. In addition, we support the HUMAN RIGHTS of ALL PEOPLE.

    Now, those who wracked their brains to come up with anything other than WBT, attack us as BEING “transgender activists”.

    That, is pure BULLSHIT. I cannot accept those who would throw out the baby with the bathwater for some sort of bogus “purity” — especially since many claiming this status are late transitioners, no different than I am.

    As far as “conflation” — come on now, transgender and transsexual are different. You have said it, I have said it, Suzan has said it. We’ve said it all along. To say you “feared we would “succumb” shows how little respect you have for us. You could have done something as simple as ASK!

    TS & TG are beginning to be accepted. Now, there are folks who want totally NEW nomenclature (both HBS and CT), and a whole new set of “rules”, along with (in many cases) a VERY anti-LGBT, anti-Lesbian stance. Please tell me anything constructive these folks have done.

    It’s like some of the “revolutionary” groups who fight against folks who are actually getting stuff done — setting movements back for years.

    Just more garbage.

  15. cassandraspeaks Says:

    Which attitude Tina? Theirs or mine?

    I simply think it grossly unfair to expect a wife of a 50 year old who may have borne children to begin a “lesbian” relationship because her spouse has transitioned. So often around the internet blogs and forums this is the kind of issue you read about. In the blogs and comments the transitioning partner complains and bleats that the wife involved is being unreasonable. It’s that attitude that smacks of mysogyny to me.
    “All post ops should be required to keep their mouths shut for two years after SRS” Yep! I can go with that! Should possibly be extended to pre ops in some cases! (tongue in cheek) But yes so much of the claimed “transphobia” is simply what women experience all our lives.

  16. tinagrrl Says:

    I have no problem with making peace. At the same time — I will not be very happy if our “peace” is punctuated by various and sundry “hand grenades”.

    I’ve wondered about much of this fight.

    When the “strange claims of intersex” post was first put up, I’m quite sure the people who took offense were NOT the targets. In fact, as I said in one comment — if you are not putting forth an improbable claim — what’s the problem?

    In addition, if you’ve gone ahead and had SRS as an adult. If you CHOSE to have SRS — agency, you know — you might as well join in with the transsexual bunch. In fact, it has appeared to me that claiming an intersex condition as your identity is directly opposite from saying you are a woman.

    It appears to be claiming you had a specific medical condition, and have decided it made sense to live your life as a woman.

    On the other hand, to be WBT is to BE a woman who happens to have been born transsexual. There is no hedging here — we go directly into the “girls queue”, the “girls line”. Granted, we may have gotten here differently, but as has been said about folks who choose to become Texans — “we got here as soon as we could”..

    WBT is about being “woman identified” — to be that 50 year old who DEMANDS “his” wife accept “his” (now her) “womanhood” doesn’t really work. It might just take the new post-op some time and experience to understand all this stuff — but, that’s why “transition” does not end with SRS.

    Just like every other woman, we all learn more and more with age and experience.

    So, I have no desire to be either CT or HBS — I just want to be a WBT who grows old with some measure of grace.

    So, let’s make peace — just, please, do not throw hand grenades, or accuse us of BEING “transgender activists” for supporting EQUALITY.

  17. tinagrrl Says:

    The new post-op, or the pre-op who expect their wives or girlfriends to enter into “lesbian relationships” are grasping at straws.

    There are times when the “significant other” will even say they will stay. They “pledge” to stay.

    After SRS, everything changes.

    Often people do not quite know what they are getting into.

    The new relationship is not what they expected. The new person is very different from that one they knew for years.

    In fact, if the person is not different, there might just be something wrong. in addition, often a brand new post-op needs some time to adjust themselves — that might put additional strains on any relationship.

    There is a growth period. There are the reactions of the “outside world”. At times there are “friends” who say, “oh you poor dear” to the spouse — then begin to distance themselves from the couple.

    With time comes some sense of proportion, some idea of how totally self-centered the entire process is. During it there is little time for others.

    Balance returns with time. Understanding can arrive rather slowly — especially for those who can’t quite understand why everyone else is not as happy for, and with, them as they themselves are.

    It can be a very painful process. Time is a wonderful teacher.

  18. cassandraspeaks Says:

    Yep I was kinda waiting for the “but” and it stings a bit! Probably because there is truth in what you say. Here’s my “but” there was a sense of betrayal that was felt because there was indeed respect present. Many folks looked up to Suzan and still do if you did but know it. I know more about Suzan than I do you Tina, I do not reside in USA so my knowledge on who is involved and for how long and in what capacity or movement has large gaps. UK campaigners I know about, USA a lot more sketchy.
    I wouldn’t mind taking a look at the blog you are referring too, I don’t believe I’ve seen it judging by your description.

    When you or anyone talks of Human Rights, I believe we should also always talk of responsibility and that means that the rights of one should never remove or dilute the rights of another.

    LGB organisations and campaign groups should in my opinion limit their involvement to gay lesbian and bi sexual issues. Transsexuality and transseuxuals must be allowed to speak for themselves and if in the case of yourself and Suzan who also happen to also be lesbian, the two issues ie TS and GLB not conflated. As long ago as 1985 (in UK) I was against and resistant to “T” being added to GLB. It was “sold” to us as giving our voice a greater numerical clout when campaigning on issues. All it served to do was give people the impression that transsexual is an extreme version of gay. Perhaps today in 2010 people are more educated but the religious right use it against us even though a great many christians understand the difference and a great many Churches have accepted gay lesbian into the clergy and Christian Church. The USA from the outside appears almost medieval compared to many places when it comes to religion. For the record I am myself quite atheist.

    To your final point, I would be quite content with “transsexual” that describes what I “cured” myself of 26 years ago. Today the main issues I face in life are women’s issues. I really don’t need to be involved in TS issues and conflicts at all. I choose to be involved because I wished to see seperation between the two conditions. If there is separation there is little need for additional qualifiers like Classic Transsexual or for that matter Woman Born Transsexual.

    I’m painfully aware that there is an area where we do have differing opinions and that is when an individual who one might otherwise describe as transgendered goes through SRS. Your opinion seems to say they are then unquestionably transsexual. In my opinion the jury is still out and a period of time should elapse while the person concerned settles into their life. I truly believe there is more than one reason why an individual may seek SRS. Again I base this opinion on clinical knowledge. I don’t think it is in anyone’s interest to give those who would cause all transsexual and transgendered people harm, weapons with which to beat us up. I have the zealots of the religious right wing in mind.

    BTW I didn’t say I feared you or Suzan would “Succumb” I said you would be used up and dropped. Not that you would be indoctrinated by TG dogma but that you would be used and abused. A bit different.

  19. cassandraspeaks Says:

    Tina Suzan, I will not be throwing “handgrenades” I cannot and will not speak for others I don’t control their actions or words I can only hope they will follow my example.

    Regards the intersex issue, I think the general assumption was that the article was refering to the comments that transsexuality as a birth condition was more correctly described as a version of intersex. I happen to believe that is the case. However that doesn’t make TS’s intersexed in the traditional sense.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: