Primary and Secondary Transsexualism–Myths and Facts

Notes on Gender Role Transition

By Anne Vitale Ph.D.

Primary and Secondary Transsexualism–Myths and Facts

January 22, 2000

It is with dismay that I continue to encounter individuals with gender identity issues using the terms Primary and Secondary Transsexualism as diagnostic indicators. The terms show up repeatedly in Internet chat rooms, in the Internet news groups, in my email, and by individuals presenting to me in my private practice. The individuals who self-identify as Primary Transsexuals are usually using the term to mean that they are “Benjamin Type VI, true transsexuals.” Those who self-identify as Secondary Transsexuals are usually trying to diminish their condition and to find some way to deal with their gender dysphoria without having to face the possibility of transitioning. As we shall soon see, neither term has ever had anything to do with severity or prognosis. There is no hierarchy of transsexualism. There are no Primary Transsexuals or Secondary Transsexuals. There are only gender dysphoric individuals who need help.

Never-the-less, important information about the variations of behavior within transsexualism has come to light from the efforts of those authors who thought the severity of gender dysphoria was quantifiable. But before we get to that, here is a short history of these classification attempts.

Sex researchers have been trying to classify people who display gender-variant behavior since the early part of the Twentieth Century. They started by naming the more obvious subgroups such as male cross-dressers and effeminate homosexuals. Later as more individuals came forward seeking help regarding gender rather than sexual orientation issues, a host of authors tried to come up with umbrella terms to distinguish those male individuals seeking sex reassignment who display, what is referred to as “innate” or “core” feminine behavior from those who display behavior that is indistinguishable from non-gender-dysphoric males. As a result, we are left with an array of awkward terms ranging from automonosexualism (Rohleder 1901), homosexual and non-homosexual transvestism (Money and Gaskin,1970-1971 ), primary and secondary transsexualism (Person and Ovesey 1974a and 1074b; Stoller, 1980; Levine and Lothstein, 1981) and now androphilic transsexualism and autogynephilic transsexualism (Blanchard, 1989a).

The terms Primary and Secondary transsexualism came to be the most commonly used. Meanings for those terms were those described by Ethel Person M.D. and Lionel Ovesey M.D. in two papers published in the 1970s (1974a, 1974b).

What has interested clinicians most about Person and Ovesey’s study was that they clearly showed that, along with what everyone considered to be the “classic” effeminate homosexual transsexual model, there existed an even more prominent group of non-homosexual genetic males seeking sex reassignment. Although for some it seems counter-intuitive, Person and Ovesey designated the non-homosexual group Primary Transsexuals and the homosexual transsexuals, Secondary Transsexuals. Looking beyond the terminology, here is what they came up with.

Essentially, Person and Ovesey define a Primary Transsexual as one who is functionally asexual and who progresses resolutely toward a surgical resolution without significant deviation toward either homosexuality or heterosexuality. They define a Secondary Transsexual as one who is a homosexual and effeminate from early childhood into adulthood. Within the Secondary classification they identified two sub-classes: Homosexual transsexualism and Transvestitic transsexualism

In discussing Primary transsexualism, Person and Ovesey note that of the 10 non-homosexual transsexuals in their study sample, 9 showed no evidence of effeminacy in childhood. Each member of the sample was clearly identified by both male and female peers as a boy and was never referred to as being a sissy. They participated in rough-and-tumble behavior as required and did not engage in girls’ activities any more than the other boys in their peer group. All 10 of the sample were socially withdrawn in childhood, loners who read a great deal, watched television or occupied themselves with private hobbies. Each of the sample admitted to being envious of girls and fantasized being a girl, but the authors note that none of the sample actually believed he was a girl.

In the second part of the study (1974b) the authors report that the homosexual transsexuals they studied resembled the clinical and then-perceived stereotypical transsexuals. These genetic males were effeminate from earliest childhood. As children they preferred girls as playmates, avoided boyish pursuits and were “mother’s helpers.” Crossdressing began in childhood, initially for narcissistic satisfaction, but later at puberty to attract male sexual partners. Cross-gender fantasies were frequently tied to identification with movie actresses and drag queens. The authors note that the homosexual cross-dresser wants to be noticed and to this end often wears flamboyant and colorful clothing and engages in theatrical endeavors.

Also included in the Secondary classification, were those cross-dressing transsexuals who were characterized as never being effeminate in childhood but instead were appropriately masculine, and occasionally exceedingly hyper-aggressive and hyper-competitive. They neither played with girls nor engaged in female pursuits. They fantasized about being girls when cross-dressed, but valued their assertiveness and maleness.

Given the number of later authors who attempted to classify transsexuals as either primary or secondary, it is obvious that they also believed that one form of gender dysphoria was more significant than the other. However, these authors differ radically from Person and Ovesey over which sub-type should qualify for which classification. For example, Stoller’s primary transsexuals fit the description of Person and Ovesey’s secondary transsexuals. Stoller further asserted that Person and Ovesey’s primary transsexual should be referred to as secondary transsexuals. The following year, Levine and Lothstein (1981) described a condition they called “primary gender dysphoria” in genetic females. Neither Person, Ovesey nor Stoller agreed with Levine and Lothstein.

Given these important differences of opinion, Primary/Secondary terminology has largely been dropped from the literature. It has instead been replaced with sex researcher Ray Blanchard’s more descriptive and non-hierarchical Autogynephilic and Androphilic transsexualism. (More on these classifications in a future work.)

Conclusion

Despite efforts to classify transsexualism hierarchically, neither sexual preference nor a history of feminine behavior have been shown to have any bearing on whether or not an individual will or will not profit from treatment. The work of Person and Ovesey was helpful in describing the range of behaviors and orientations to life that transsexuals may experience. From this we have learned that transsexuals can be widely different from one another, yet show a common need for their condition to be understood and helped. There are no primary transsexuals or secondary transsexuals. There are no true transsexuals or “wannabe” transsexuals. Being gender dysphoric in a society that barely acknowledges the existence of such a condition requires the development of coping mechanisms. Some coping mechanisms are more overt and obvious than others. But no matter what the individual does to survive, one thing is certain, everyone who suffers from gender dysphoria must eventually come to terms with his or her situation.

REFERENCES
Blanchard, R. (1989a). The classification and labeling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias. Arch. Sex. Behav. 18: 315-334.

Levine. S. B., and Lothstein, L. (1981). Transsexualism or the gender dysphoria syndromes. J. Sex Marital Ther. 7: 85-113.

Money, J., and Gaskin, R. J.(1970-1971) Sex Reassignment. Int. J Psychiat. 9: 249-269.

Person, E., and Ovesey, L. (1974a). The transsexual syndrome in males. I. Primary transsexualism. Am. J. Psychotherapy 28; 174-193.

Person, E., and Ovesey, L. (1974b). The transsexual syndrome in males. II. Secondary transsexualism. Am. J. Psychotherpy 28; 4-20

Stoller, R. J. (1968), Sex and Gender, London, Hogarth.

Stoller, R. J. (1980), Gender identity disorders. In Kaplan, H. I., Freedman, A. M. and Sadock, B. J. (eds.), Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 3rd ed., Vol. 2, Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins.

Rohleder, H. (1901) Vorlesungen uber Geschlechtstrieb und Geschlechtsleben des Menschen [ Lectures on the Sexual Drive and Sexual Life of Man], Fischers medizinische Buchhandlung, Berlin.

Copyright, 2000 by Anne Vitale, PhD
Dr. Vitale is a Licensed Psychologist specializing in gender related issues. Dr. Vitale’s office is located at 610 D Street, San Rafael CA 94901, (415) 456-4452, Email: Contact Dr. Vitale. This note may be reprinted in any non-profit organization’s newsletter if Dr. Vitale’s name and address appear with it. Other publications must obtain written permission from Dr. Vitale. A copy of any reprints must be sent to Dr. Vitale.

16 Responses to “Primary and Secondary Transsexualism–Myths and Facts”

  1. Brandi Parker Says:

    You’ve got to be kidding me like I would put any stock in what someone who uses “Blanchard” as a siltation. The author of this piece is just as loony as Blancher or Zucker.

    • Suzan Says:

      “Siltation”? Brandi, your spelling skills are as poor as your comprehension skills. Siltation is an intransitive verb meaning : to become choked or obstructed with silt —often used with up.

      I believe the word you are searching for is citation. In this case Anne Vitale is citing Blanchard in order to refute him.

  2. Willow Arune Says:

    To start, it has always appeared to me that typing of transsexuals is a valid diagnostic tool. Causal observation clearly shows at least two types of transexuals.
    BUT…
    As I observed years ago, “primary” or “secondary” are mere adjectives, of no more import that “Canadian” and “American” or any other adjective. Only in our strange world would these become “better” and “worse”. If it were not for our very peculiar hostilities, no one would care. Regardless of which adjective is used, both are transsexual.
    No, the problem is not with the typology, it is with the subjective imposition of better and worse, good and bad and all that follows that is decidedly wrong. It is as bad as the division of our mutual citizens into Franco-Canadian, Anglo-Canadian and all the other various hyphen types. As long as all are treated equally, there is not problem. Indeed, such divisions add much to our mosaic. The abuse stems not from this typology, but from the ugly use to which it may be put.
    So the question that follows is simple – does the typology have a useful purpose? IF it does, then fine. Well, you south of the border are now involved in a census, part of which will add hyphens. Are you Afro-American, etc? For diverse reasons, this information is deemed important. And, I submit, the same applies in the medical application of the terms BUT for no other reason. Just as we divide people according to the type of virus they catch, or whatever, the diagnbissi leads to differing treatments.
    Of course, if no medical application is deemed necessary, tehn the adjective is of no use at all. And that is where our paths diverge…

    • Suzan Says:

      I have found the differences tend to be based on sets of decisions made and actions taken at various turning points in life. Hence people doing xyz come out at the turning point of entry to adulthood and those doin abc tend to do it at that point in mid life where people re-evaluate their lives.

      When straights do it they call it mid-life crisis. For what it is worth there are a number of books regarding women coming out as lesbians at that same mid-life point.

  3. Andrea B. Says:

    Willow, as usual you are taking through your rectum.

    There is two types of people who have Sex Reassignment Surgery.

    There is transseuxal people for whom SRS is a good thing and necessary to allow them to live there lives completely. Transexual people are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and can be asexual.

    The second type are not transsexual at all, they are in fact extreme panty wankers who have been consumed by there fetish.

    They are autogynaephiles who are so consumed by there fetish invented by Raymond Blanchard, that they resort to surgery to appease there fetish even further, being further encouraged by clincians. They are so self hating that they then go on to impose there fetish on everyone else.

    I personally have no issue with anyone who wants to dress up in a cheerleader outfit and pom-poms, people who wrap themselves in bubblewrap, get surgery to fulfil there fetish or anything unusual that people get up to in there own time.

    I do however have a problem with people like that when they try to impose there fetish on me without my consent. That is sexual assault and I will defend myself against perverts like that.

    Sex tourists also really piss me of. I think people who go to other countries to pick up kids, teenagers and abuse people should all be shot.

    Clinicians imposing there personal fetishes on transsexual people such as people from Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence imposing there personal paraphilia’s onto transsexual people against there will, I consider to be the lowest form of pond scum there is.

    The people they control and there sock puppets, really should be put in institutions and cured by all available means.

    Transsexualism needs to be removed from the DSM permanently and all clincians who have acccepted it as a mental disorder need to be made to apologise for there bigotry.

    Sexual Projection Disorder by clinicians by which clincians such as the BBL impose there own paraphilia’s onto entire groups in society, needs to be put in the DSM as a paraphilia. I personally think Sexual Projection Disorder is a subset of or directly related to paedophilia and should be treated as such by the police.

    As for the paedophiles trying to put make pederasty seem more accceptable by removed it from paedophilia and renaming it hebeophilia, I think those people should be immediately jailed along with the paedophile priests they are trying to protect.

  4. Willow Arune Says:

    It is my own belief – and nothing more than that – that there is a biological cause to being TS. I have also always assumed that the same causation applied to all transsexuals, primary or secondary or whatever. In early manifestations, the TS “bug” gets out of the box early; in later TS it manifests later. The similarities are the result of the same bug; the differences the intensity and thus the onset. And no, I have no science to back up that belief, none whatsoever. Oh yes, I suspect that for many, the bug remains dormant until triggered later in life by subjective stress.
    It is also my belief, based on the same splendid research, that many have the bug but few are triggered.
    The “bug”? Caused by any number of influences, in utero or out. DES? Sure, why not? Any other chemicals normally found in alligator infested water in Florida? Sure. In the brain? Well, that is a good place for it. Placing this bug in a foot would be rather silly.
    In fact, I will easly accept any causation and any resultant bug created or activated anywhere in our bodies. The point being, my “theory” is almost as good as any other.
    So, later bloomers are the same as early ones, differing only in the time of manifestation, and that leads to differing issues with socialization and a host of other effects.
    Simple, eh? No problem at all. Sexual targeting? Early + opposite, as a general rule. Later bloomers are conditoned differently by life and thus tend to be lesbian, attracted to other TS, or not attracted to anyone or everyone – take your pick, its Thursday. Many differences can be easily explained by the socialization that we all experience. Years spend in male locker rooms and such tend to to make attraction to males a moot issue (We know what they are *really* like…).

    • Suzan Says:

      Except half or more of the young ones are also lesbian or bisexual.

      And the real reason is why would any one want to trust or fall in love with males when males have been the source of most of their childhood pain.

      Bisexuality is more common in women than in men. That works for WBTs too. From that bisexual capacity comes the very ral act of political lesbianism or “Why would I sleep with the enemy?”

  5. Willow Arune Says:

    Oh dear, Andrea B…

    Who, pray, is trying to impose a fetish upon you? My goodness! How terrible. Did it happen in a dark alley?

    “The second type are not transsexual at all, they are in fact extreme panty wankers who have been consumed by there fetish.”

    And you, I suppose are the one to make that distinction? Might I ask how you intend to make that judgment? Are you not once again trying to divide TS people? Frankly, remarks like that are sheer nonsense.

    Sexual assault? My gawds. That is terribly insulting to any person who has actually been sexual assaulted. Did the words penetrate you? If you want people to listen to your opinions, it might be a good idea to avoid such drama. Or are you a drama queen by nature?

    And what, pray, does sex tourism and the like have to do with the issue? I have spent two years in a country where sex tourism was a major industry. Have you? In other words, do you know what you are talking about?

    Apologize? What nonsense. Thus far in our history, like it or not, these people have facilitated our transitons. Take them away and you have … nothing.

    Excessive…

  6. tinagrrl Says:

    Dear Willow, do you have a problem with people being upset by sex tourism?

    What Andrea said was: “I do however have a problem with people like that when they try to impose there fetish on me without my consent. That is sexual assault and I will defend myself against perverts like that.

    Sex tourists also really piss me off. I think people who go to other countries to pick up kids, teenagers and abuse people should all be shot.

    Clinicians imposing there personal fetishes on transsexual people such as people from Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence imposing there personal paraphilia’s onto transsexual people against there will, I consider to be the lowest form of pond scum there is.”

    So, as one person who has been sexually assaulted to another — don’t you think someone imposing their fetish on you, against your will, is sexual assault?

    What else would you call it?

    How does that description, an accurate one at that, make someone a “drama queen”?

    Also, how is it “insulting”?

    Just because the absolute intensity MIGHT not be as great, does not make the description less than accurate.

    There did not appear to be any intent to engage in any sort of “oppression Olympics”, just a clear statement.

  7. M Italiano Says:

    Dear Suzan, I am not sure why you keep discussing
    “classical vs. non classical” transsexualism, “true transsexualism vs. non-true transsexualism” and primary vs. secondary transsexualism”. There are alot of forms of transsexualism out there. Leo Wollman once said on a talk show that he has treated 4,000 transsexuals. Well, OK if we are going to call them transsexuals. But why are you not discussing individuals who have total psychosexual inversion-you know the ones who actually are trapped in the wrong body, have the opposite sexed brain, and who reallly need to have the operation. Lots of people say they are transsexual. But total psychosexual inversion is probably so rare that most people will not even encounter someone like this. Do you like Ira B Pauly’s article on total psychosexual inversion? What about the ones who can’t even get an erection? Assuming they of course don’t have an intersexed condition, that shows such an alienation to one’s penis, that they don’t use it for sex, don’t stand to urinate. These people with total psychosexual inversion
    often have trouble sounding like a guy, looking or acting like a guy in routine activities, and so on. Don’t you think they have the actual mental, emotional, feelings and instincts of a woman? They don’t have Harry Benjamin syndrome, since there are alot of typologies
    under transsexualism that Benjamin described from non-ops, to high intenstities and so on. HBS by definition of what Benjamin described includes alot of typologies. Often, son’t you think that HBS PRESENTS like Bailey’s homosexual transsexuals who we see on Springer? Likewise don’t you think that some of the asexual transsexuals are actually male oriented and have total psychosexual inversion?
    Pauly described alot of them as being undersexed. Seems they don’t have sex in a body that is “all wrong” since they don’t get erections….like the one example treated by Benjamin in 1948 (called Sally) in Schaefer & Wheeler’s Arch Sex Beh article in 1995.
    For Willow, just because they are undersexed doesn’t mean they fit Blanchard’s so-called asexual, bisexual or heterosexual type either. Banchard used Bentler’s data of (Arch Sex Beh 1976) to suggest that asexual transsexuals were not male oriented. But he ignored THREE BIG criteria in table 1 on page 570 that shows that the asexual transsexuals are actually more like the male oriented transsexuals. Some of these are likely women whose entire psychosexual development has been transposed (TPI-total psychosexual inversion). There are alot of WBTs out there. But that doesn’t mean they have the extreme case of TOTAL psychosexual inversion, now does it. I don’t doubt that many types of transsexualism are “women born”. For that matter the 4,000 transsexuals that Wollman may have seen could have all been WBT. In Fisk’s clinic, the term the gender dysphoria was coined…and they all could have had a born woman TS condition. But again, what about total psychosexual inversion? Don’t you think we need a new group for those who legitimately have this condition, which is probably quite rare when compared with HBS, WBT, primary, secondary, classic, non-classic, and so on? I will probably get misrepresented as being a herbalist again with a fraudulent clinic. But without ad hominem attacks, are you capable of doing an article or something on total psychosexual inversion and how it compares with what is too commonly called transsexualism, GID, WBT or HBS nowadays?…and as for classic or primary vs non-classic or secondary, the former are homosexual boys to Stoller and are asexual and autogynophilic to Person & Ovesey and Blanchard respectively. But again, do any of them have TPI?

  8. Willow Arune Says:

    Ah dear, Tina. I suspect I am an old debater, always taking the other side of any question…

    Sex tourism. As regarding children, very bad indeed. No debate there at all. But to go further, to condemn adults having sex for money? Sorry, I think it should be legal – and in fact, in Canada it is. Prostitution is legal here. “Soliciting for the purposes of…” is illegal – go figure. I think Germany and Holland have the right answer and I do not have a bad view of those involved in the trade. Nor do I believe that morality has any place in the bedrooms of the nation – to quote one of our PMs. Travelling for sex with adults is no better or worse than travelling to view Grizzleys.

    Be that as it may, the issue of sex tourism is not the question here, surely.

    I also believe that forced sex is very bad, but fail totaly to see that opinions expressed in words is in any manner equal to rape. Thus, “I do however have a problem with people like that when they try to impose there fetish on me without my consent. That is sexual assault and I will defend myself against perverts like that” is gross hyperbole, a distortion that makes further discussion of the issues almost impossible. I personally fail to see how mere words can be equated to forced sex. To do so denigrates the real victims of such assualts. It is like (to borrow from the news) comparing Obama to Hitler, the Democrats to Nazis, and all the other Beckisms.

    No one has ever attempted to impose a fetish on me – or anyone else. That some consider some aspects of TS/TG to be fetish is a matter of opinion, not assualt. Exaggerations such as that destroy any attempt to reason or discuss, much as Beck destroys any rational discussion. Emotions not reason….

    So, someone out ther thinks that TS/TG have a fetish. So? Someone out there thinks all TS/TS are going to hell, along with GLand B – and no doubt much worse. I may agree or not agree, but it is hardly the stuff of a physical assualt – in my opinion, that is. I also fail to see why anyone’s opinion or theory is an attempt to force anything on anyone. Easy enough to voice another opinion. Where’s the force?

    Pond scum? Really? Save that for Westoboro church types and their ilk.

  9. Ishtar Says:

    Greetings unto thee Willow! (In Mercian-West Saxon English) Andrea surely speaks truth hwonne saying þæm some do indeed impose hiera fetishes unto others. lóclóca J Michael Bailey’s “Man who wouldst be quean.” a bóc þæm adds gylta unto þæm leity. Gylta þæm is of Bailey! ney us. Ic nam me to gemynde þa gewritu and þa word, þe se Bailey þæt ic scolde be like unto woman but be as mann. “Suited for prostitution” he saith. Tourism of lust? Thus gylta? Why? He doth add gylts þæt hath non meaning! Except unto him?

    OK speaking plainly now, why does Bailey describe people as “Especially suited for prostitution”? Is that what he fancies? Transsexual folks or transgender folks form part of his own fetish. I would say Andrea was right about that there are a lot of “Experts” out there who seem very eager to impose what sexually interests them on those they describe. I consider this to be the main problem with the people doing the DSM-V right now. It all seems to be about them not the people they are discussing. Which is actually very scary, verily indeed.

    I am curious why do you sometimes use old English expressions?

  10. Susanna Boudrie Says:

    Hi Andrea,
    Don’t steal SPD from me! I had hoped to get rich as the inventor of the diagnosis. There must be a big market for lobotomy, trancilizers and anti-depressants to all these sex researchers with SPD

    Susanna

  11. Willow Arune Says:

    Ishtar, I am an old bat who lives with another old bat and my partner was born and raised in a small English village. Some has rubbed off.
    Heck, the researchers have studied for years. It seems natural to me that they as much as those they study develop ideas and even opinions. But I do not agree that this is “all about them”. Their views certainly, but they cannot impose those on others. I tend to seek out those views, even where negative to my own thoughts, for we do not learn by only hearing views that coincide with those we ourselves hold. I have never been sexually assaulted by an opposing viewpoint. Hearing only those you agree with is what develops Tea Baggers…

  12. Ishtar Says:

    Hello willow

    Well I have always had a fascination for old languages, mainly because I have an interest in calligraphy and manuscript illumination, it is a hobby though, I would love to do that professionally but the opportunities are seldom there.

    I think what is being said about sexual assault is more to do with the way the DSM-V committees seem to be talking in deeply pathologizing terms that do seem to have more motivations behind them than just professional detatchment.

    Anne Lawrence is a case in point, I seem to remember either WPATH or the APA appointing her on some board dealing with intersex children. This is after she was dismissed from a clinic for having an unhealthy interest in a patient’s genitalia, specifically talking about genital surgery.

    I wonder what we are supposed to take from that. I have encountered many abusive therapists in the past and quite frankly the DSM-V as it is evolving gives them license to abuse even more.

    Why for example do we have newer terms for child abusers like “Hebophile” Which are clearly designed to be less pathologizing. While at the same time Transgender, Transsexual and Intersex people are all defined by what are now blatantly derisive terms?

    Some do say it is because people want to protect child and teen abusing psychiatrists and in the case of transgender, transsexual and intersex children and teens, blame them by saying they were “Asking for it by being the way they are”.

    If I am honest at present there is a lot of evidence to support those allegations against the DSM-V committees, that is how it looks. When we find Bailey publishing howlers like “They are especially suited for prostitution” or “Particularly suited” (Which means the same thing really) what other conclusion can people draw from all this.

    It does look a lot like the APA are setting things up so certain types of patients can be easily abused while protecting the abusers. It is not about opposing ideas it is about how things are going to play out if the DSM-V ends up the way it is heading. That is about setting up clinical practice (Or malpractice) rather than ideas.

  13. Anna Says:

    M Italiano: “Dear Suzan, I am not sure why you keep discussing “classical vs. non classical” transsexualism… But why are you not discussing individuals who have total psychosexual inversion-you know the ones who actually are trapped in the wrong body, have the opposite sexed brain, and who reallly need to have the operation.”

    I’m not Suzan but I am curious why you would think that such an outdated and offensive term would be relevant today? The only use for it would seem to be to cause further and useless division.

    To assist others the paper is Pauly, I. B. Male psychosexual inversion: Transsexualism: A review of 100 cases. Arch Gen Psychiatry 13, 172-181 (1965). URL http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/13/2/172

    Female brains are not inverted male brains. The term tried to reduce us simply to a sexual orientation, denying our being the gender with which we identity, yet gender identity and sexual orientation are completely independent. Research during the many years since that term was used have shown that the brains of transsexual people have at the least many characteristics typical of the brains of others of the sex of their identity, and not those of homosexuals of their sex of birth.

    M Italiano: “Lots of people say they are transsexual. But total psychosexual inversion is probably so rare that most people will not even encounter someone like this.”

    People who really need SRS are not all that rare. I know of 8 T->F from the city of 100,000 where I grew up, and that’s hardly an exhaustive count. Or are you implying most of us shouldn’t have had SRS?

    M Italiano: “Do you like Ira B Pauly’s article on total psychosexual inversion? What about the ones who can’t even get an erection? Assuming they of course don’t have an intersexed condition, that shows such an alienation to one’s penis…”

    No, it shows a blood circulation problem. The process of genital engorgement is physically the same in males and females. Someone transsexual who does not engorge pre-SRS will likely suffer a lack of genital engorgement post-SRS too, and other, serious, circulation problems.

    Pauly was working in ignorant times, with very small and unrepresentative samples, and before many important discoveries.

    M Italiano: “These people with total psychosexual inversion often have trouble sounding like a guy, looking or acting like a guy in routine activities, and so on. Don’t you think they have the actual mental, emotional, feelings and instincts of a woman?”

    Not if they want to look and sound like a guy.

    M Italiano: ” … Likewise don’t you think that some of the asexual transsexuals are actually male oriented and have total psychosexual inversion? Pauly described alot of them as being undersexed. Seems they don’t have sex in a body that is “all wrong” since they don’t get erections….like the one example treated by Benjamin in 1948 (called Sally) in Schaefer & Wheeler’s Arch Sex Beh article in 1995.”

    Many transsexual people don’t want sex whilst they are in the wrong body. Its a very common symptom. But that doesn’t make them “undersexed”. Libido (thinking about sex) varies considerably in the general population, with about 30% across the board having a variation of the gene for the D4 receptor that considerably increases libido and the rest having an lower libido, but normal for them. Transsexual people can have that too, or not. Before having the right body it probably causes a greater urgency to get the right body, not, in my experience, a desire for sex in the wrong body.

    M Italiano: “There are alot of WBTs out there. But that doesn’t mean they have the extreme case of TOTAL psychosexual inversion, now does it.”

    You seem to have misunderstood the term women born transsexual.

    I’m one, I identified with women from age 2, and wanted SRS from first hearing of it at 6, if praying to wake up a girl didn’t work. I was totally alienated from it and tried not even to touch it. Pauly’s term seemed wrong and insulting, and likely to misinform and mislead when I first read it in 1969, and it still does. He was saying it was a psychiatric condition, when Benjamin had been clear it was not. He used all the wrong pronouns. He seems to consider one has to abandon all concern for anything else in life to qualify, which is pathological, not normal. I think he had the wrong ends of several different sticks. I think Ramachandran’s neurological explanation ( http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2008/00000015/00000001/art00001 ) pretty much right. I think we were girls born with a physical defect (transsexuality) that we naturally strove the have corrected. No other term needed.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: