Curtis E. Hinkle of Organisation Internationale des Intersexués (Oii) has written “Zucker: Manipulation of Young Feminine Boys ” . To me this reads like just another attack on the very concept of the feminine young transsexual. Basically he reviews the papers that have been published on childhood gender variance in relation to adult transsexuality and homosexuality. In these papers it is found that the majority of boys brought in for gender variance in childhood turn out to be homosexual few become transsexual. That is not in dispute here.
To keep things short the major conclusion Mr. Hinkle draws and I think is clearly rubbish is.
Since as we have discussed, transsexualism cannot be identified in childhood, it’s abusive that this change of transsexualism in adulthood to GID of adulthood uses homosexual boys to pathologize adult transsexuals.
To that I present the following rebuttal.
The way he defines being a transsexual is by seeking out and obtaining SRS. Well that is far from a universal description. It leaves out non-op transsexuals. Women who ID as women but just don't feel that genitals define them. (There exist a whole subculture with it's own parlance of which such women are an integral part. Look at these video's , and any of these, tell me that many femme queens don't have a feminine identity. )
Myself (A picture of me where I seem to clearly know I want to be a female scientist when I grow up.)
Jazz ( 20/20 “My Secret self” ) . A transsexual child being allowed to live as a female by her parents and school.
I can think of dozens of people I know personally who now live as women some of whom went through a period where they tried living as gay males (both openly and as closeted as such a feminine male can be).
All I can do at this point is ask why? Why call people like me liars when clearly and provably we are not? What thinly veiled hatred, misogynistic, femiphobia can motivate such people? It is to people like this the transsexual community should trust it's future? God have mercy on us all if they have their way.
Consider this by Sharon Gaughan " What About Non-op Transsexuals? A No-op Notion":
Changing your hair style, installing silicon breast implants, altering mode of dress, and so forth, are surface flash. This has nothing to do with whether you are transsexual. Even taking hormones may not be an indicator of transsexuality if the other steps remain unplanned.
She goes on to imply...
For if they have their way the only way to get hormones or SRS legally would end up by denying any sexuality at all and paying lip service to a concept innate feminine gender identity (Which can be hidden inside without raising even a little suspicion over the persons sexual and gender identity). People who do not pay lip service to this could end up with lesser legal protection than those who do. After all most people I know who define being transsexual by op status alone seem to think that a non-op lives part time as a man or something. So they would not need the same non-discrimination protection or so it has been reasoned. Thus perpetuating the very class/race/cultural division I wrote on earlier and making it a matter of law. Where people like Ms. Gaughan is legally defined as being the true woman and I am just a gay boy in a dress (Take a long look at my picture and at her's and think about that for a minute.)
That's it for this for a while. I promise my readers my next blog will be on physics and another video is comming soon.
Comments