Harry Benjamin Syndrome Revealed: The naked bigotry of some transwomen against others.
    By Hontas Farmer | May 24th 2009 03:48 PM | 56 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Harry Benjamin Syndrome, at first a uncontroversial and innocuous idea that transsexual brains are different from other brains, has morphed into a platform for some to denigrate others under a cloak of true pseudoscience proposed by laypeople and supported by not one reputable sexologist, psychologist, or psychiatrist.  What some of them have done is take to attacking anyone who does not fit with their ideal of what a real "woman born transsexual" is (Like a transsexual who does not want sexual reassignment surgery.All they while complaining about how oppressed they feel.  This is just a little snapshot of the bigotry, hypocrisy, and lies of these people.

    "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is what some people would like to call transsexualism.  They feel that having this condition thought of in medical, physical, neurological terms, would lead to more acceptance than the current, psychological, understanding.  That in and of itself is not a bad thing.  It is a notion that depends on the fallacy of biological determinism..."biology is destiny".   The same basic mode of thought which said, girls/women are weak, not good at math, like pink, etc, etc.  This contrast with actual reputable neurological research which has found that the brains of transsexuals are by some means or the other feminized (Male to Female) or masculinized (Female to Male) at birth, other research cast doubt on this.  The science involved is inexact and still unsettled.  I am not going to go into the merits of HBS.  This website by Laura does a very good job of that.

    What I am here to reveal, for the record, is some bigoted comments made by prominent supporters of HBS in relation to Wikipedia.  I am also going to reveal how one author of books popular to transsexual people is willing to misrepresent facts, lie, to make her points. 

    Like so many other generic terms from the past that modern thought and
    research has now retermed more precisely HARRY BENJAMIN SYNDROME is the
    correct and only term suitable for the concerned group. HBS sufferers
    are the only people who have felt to be trapped in the wrong body
    consistently as far back as they can remember which is consistent with
    Harry Benjamin's research and practice with many genuine sufferers of
    what must be named Harry Benjamin Syndrome to distinguish them from all
    the other 'transgendered' who only came to desire to wear female
    clothing as puberty made them susceptible to arousal from the
    phemerones from their mothers and sisters unwashed lingerie in exactly
    the same way dogs will sniff at the crotches of both boys and girls.
    Phemerone science was not available to Harry benjamin or he would have
    spotted its link to most crossdressers, transvesties and
    transgendered's love and masturbatory arousal to lingerie. It is shame
    at having to admit this thast is the cause of the hostility shown by
    transgendereds to the much smaller group of genuine HBS. Fleur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurblack (talkcontribs) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Verbatim)
    DIFF of the quote a permanent record of who wrote what when.

    This comment was made in the context of a deletion discussion.  The result was that when you look up HBS on Wikipedia you will be redirected to transsexualism.  As you can tell from the quote, they won't like that one bit.

    Now how about some hypocrisy from well known author Joanne Proctor.

     Joanne Proctor, or someone claiming to be her, actually agreed with me about the deletion of the Wikipedia article on "Harry Benjamin Syndrome". 
    I have no problems with this page being deleted. I think that the
    person who created the original entry was ill advised. HBS is a
    grassroots movement that will be best left to develop organically.
    Furthermore I can see better uses for this page, which the public need
    not be prevented from reading merely because it is not on Wikipedia.joanneproctor 14 May 2009(Verbatim)
    Then she went to her blog to complain disingenuously about how the mean ol Clark/Northwestern clique, of which I supposedly am an integral part... suppressed her! 
    Finally, Under the pseudonym 'Denise Tree', Kiira Triea was one of the original perpetrators of the "transkids"
    hoax. On that occasion Triea was assisted by Hontas Farmer, aka
    'BrendaQG'; aka 'Aisha X'. Currently Farmer can be found working in
    tandem with James Cantor, another CAMH employee, rewriting Wikipedia
    entries to align them with Blanchard's theories. (Verbatim)
    The ability to refactor history and make some people angels and others
    devils does not exist there.
      For at least as long as the Wikimedia
    foundation exist the record of what she actually said in that moment will exist.  She could have fought and volunteered to improve the article herself.  The editors of Wikipedia are all volunteers and if you don't like what's there or think it is an injustice or just bad writing.. WP:SOFIXIT yourself. 

    As for my interactions with James Cantor on Wikipedia they have been civil, nothing more.  It is a Wikipedia policy that one must be civil to fellow Wikipedians.  All I have done is be neutral in how I edit Wikipedia, and civil to persons on both sides.  Apparently to people with HBS, if you are civil and fair to the psychologist who they don't like you are "on their side", you are "against them".   I am no psychologist but that sounds like classic paranoia.  Now I know how a Born again Christian who believes in Darwinian evolution would feel!  To these people to be a member of their community means believing just what they believe no variance no freedom of thought.

    These are the kinds of people who some "women born transsexual", and indeed some proud transgender women think are great hero's.  HBS women think of themselves as real women unlike dirty transgender's (who tend to be black or Hispanic and have had a very hard life) like me.  It is an irony that most of the people who embrace that idea had absolutely no sign of any neurological gender variance at all before they came out at a ripe old age.  :smh: 

    By the way I am not the first one to call these people out as being bigots, or hypocrites.

    I would like to hear from other scientist and academics who have been accused by laypersons of belonging to some ridiculous conspiracy (to hide "the truth" as crackpot conspiracy theorist often say).  How did you handle it?


    I would like to hear from other scientist and academics who have been accused by laypersons of belonging to some ridiculous conspiracy (to hide "the truth" as crackpot conspiracy theorist often say).  How did you handle it?

    I would handle it as you have done: by giving links to sources.

    I note that the article is under discussion for deletion.  I note also that your quote is verbatim: the spelling mistakes are in the original.  From the style of the article I would say it has a strong appearance of being agendist rather than factual.

    HBS?  Hogwash and BS?
    HBS?  Hogwash and BS?

    Careful my friend.  Next thing you know you too will be branded a member of the evil  Clark/Northwestern clique.  I'm only half joking about that. :-)

    Oh yes, I'll definitite note that those quotes are verbatim.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    No worries!  In my time, I've been branded everything except 'bigot'.  I've even been accused of being too macho, which has me falling about laughing, since, although 'straight', I'm a keyboard-hugging dyed-in-ye-olde-wool word-nerd, and about as un-macho as a teddy-bear.
    As Hontas is happy to live and socialise face to face as a woman she is actually Harry Benjamin Syndrome 6 so why she insists on classing hereslf with the transvestites and crossdressers who are only Harry Benjamin 1, 2 or 3 must be due to some inner feeling of being a fraud - or maybe as she aligns herself with malignant bisexual JMichael Bailey and homosexual Dennis Treia she feels some sort of slave-master relationship.
    Hontas you face the world as a full time woman...that makes you HBS6...enjoy the label and distance yourself from all the homosexuals, transgenders, manginas, and trannies and go live a woman's life - if you don't want to do that you are just deluding yourself.

    she is actually Harry Benjamin Syndrome 6 so why she insists on
    classing hereslf with the transvestites and crossdressers who are only
    Harry Benjamin 1, 2 or 3
    So says lilacwoman.

    Oh, how we humans just love to squeeze each other into mental boxes.  Simply by dividing the world into 'them' and 'us', we remove all hate, solve all conflicts.  Let's expand that idea.  We can invent lots of categories - none of them based in any abiding scientific reality - and use them to determine who will, during "public encounters" engage in conversation with an official representative of the current political masters.

    Let's go one better: let's invent a categorisation scheme.  Now let us ask people which of our invented categories they fit into.  Since these people have now in a manner of speaking, categorised themselves, let us call these "self-defined categories".

    After WW2 and after apartheid, no rational person would want to go that route, would they?

    Source: PACE - COP - Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice, Annex A
    As insane as that racial categorization sounds it's more reasonable than one where Maria Carey and Denzel Washington are considered the same based on a rule used to enforce Jim Crow laws.  Yet here in the USA mostly as a show of solidarity born from oppression most people with any known African Ancestry ID as African American.  (Though even within the African American community there is still color based friction no matter how one ID's themselves.)
    As for lilac woman.  Her pejorative way of writing about trans gender people who do not meet her standards only demonstrates the point I made in this article.  The people who buy the HBS notion just want to separate themselves.  They are the modern version of the tragic mulatto but this time a mix of genders rather than races.  They try so hard to fit into the dominant scheme.  Yet they by their nature don't.  They try to fit as just another queer person.   Yet by nature they aren't.  So they go crazy.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    It all comes down to terminology. As Harry Benjamin wrote in "The Transsexual Phenomenon" :
    "True transsexuals feel that they belong to the other sex, they want to be and function as members of the opposite sex, not only to appear as such. For them, their sex organs, the primary (testes) as well as the secondary (penis and others) are disgusting deformities that must be changed by the surgeon's knife."
    Harry Benjamin, The Transsexual Phenomenon. (Ch. 2)
    Therefore no person can claim to be a transsexual while wanting to retain a penis. that is an oxymoron. "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is nothing more than another name for what Harry Benjamin in his own words called a "True transsexual.

    I am not talking about the merits of HBS in my post.  What I am talking about is the hypocritical and bigoted way they express their opinions of who they term "transgender's".  
    Laura let me take what you said about Dr. Benjamin's true transsexuals and turn things around on you.  You left out Dr. Benjamin's requierment of his type 6 True transsexuals that as males they be feminine and in his words homosexual.  That they be in short..."homosexual transsexuals".   You can't have it both ways take what Dr. Benjamin wrote which you like and then discard those parts you don't like. That was one of his requirements.   But of course that one is taboo and I use it here as a example of the duplicitous ness of many HBS supporters.  

    Unlike some other people I have parlayed with who totally dismiss the notion of one type or the other of transsexual being more true more real than others.

    HBS people portray themselves as the grand high arbiters of who is what, they are the true females in male bodies, and anyone who disagree's with them is evil and transphobic. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Ah yes, the confusion between gender identity and sexual preference is a common one. Transsexuals can have the same variations of sexual preference as the general public. For male to female transsexuals we can be either lesbian, bi-sexual, or straight. It does nothing to change who we are as women. Also, look at the chart again. Type 6 says nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality. Type 5 says "or passive homosexual activity" so that isn't exactly a requirement, and it isn't clear what homosexual activity meant. From the viewpoint of an observer what may appear to be pasive homosexual activity before transition, to a transsexual would be heterosexual activity.

    As far as what people call themselves, I believe accuracy is important. Persons who wants to feminize themselves and live full time as women yet keep their male parts intact could be called transgendered or gender variant, but not transsexual. Transsexual is a term requiring a specific treatment, namely hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. Unfortunately, the gatekeepers to the required treatments are psychologists who see many people who present themselves as transsexuals but enjoy having their male parts. There are many more of them than of those who require SRS. One estimate is that only one out of 30,000 people are transsexuals. This makes us a tiny minority when compared to those who are transgendered. The confusion of just what a transsexual is, is partially caused by people who are transgendered and gender variant but not transsexual, presenting themselves as transsexuals to the medical community and the public. This leads to so much confusion that the result is that many people who truly transsexual are being hindered in getting treatment. We are told that we should learn to live with our anatomy like other transsexuals do.

    I think that many transgendered people are unaware of the differences between the words transgendered and transsexual, and mean no harm by using the terms interchangeably, but there are others who go out of their way to attack transsexuals who try to defend the meaning of the word.

    The term HBS is merely an attempt to find a term that hasn't been co-opted like the term transsexual has, so that the medical community and public will no longer be confused. HBS is looked upon as a term whose diagnosis would require hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery. Some may look upon this term as elitist, but in reality it is an attempt to separate us from those who do not require surgery, due to the concern that treatment could be denied us in the future. Also, those of us with HBS tend to blend in with society rather than try to change it, so the political motivations within the transgendered community usually don't concern us after our transition is complete.

    All that being so.  How do you account for the people who believe in HBS who are more than willing to say horrible things about what they think of as transgender people?  Worse things than what BBL or any transkid ever wrote?  How do you explain why Joanne Proctor would attmept to lie as she did.  Write of the horrible ol camh clique re writing wikipedia to do XY or Z...

    (The fact is that if all of the people who complain about the things that are written on wikipedia came there and tried to contribute they could have an effect.  Literally anyone can edit it, though wikipedia has rules about what kind of content is desired there and will not be deleted.  It has to be reliably sourced, verifiable, notable, and written of in a neutral voice...meaning you can't trash or praise anyone.  Some people have confused actual neutrality for support for one side or the other.)
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    There is a wide variety of people who wish to promote HBS as the preferred term for what used to be known as "classic transsexualism". We are not a homogenous group. I know of a few who are extremely conservative, and dislike anything to do with those who are in the GLBT movement. Others are more like me and have a "live and let live attitude. I do dislike it when GLBT activists try to speak for us and include us within their ranks.

    As for BLZB, how are we supposed to reply to the attacks that they launch at us? According to Zucker, I am a homosexual man without a penis, and am suffering from a paraphilia. He calls a transitioned transsexual a bad outcome for a gay man. According to Lawerence, if I were a lesbian I would have autogynephilia. Bailey and Blanchard support those views. They can't seem to separate sexual preference from gender identity. I knew that I was a girl from my earliest memory. I knew nothing about adult sexuality, and had no erotic feelings until many years later. What did my identity as a girl have to do with erotic feelings of homosexuality, lesbianism, autogynephilia or whatever. Why must they eroticize innocent children in that way? Calling me a homosexual man without a penis is the ultimate in disrespect, invalidates me and my core identity. It refutes everything I know about myself. They all try to eroticize our identity, and blame our parents and upbringing for our "disorder". What is really disturbing is that these people have a lot of power, and will help to determine what goes into the DSM-V.

    If you believe any of the scientific evidence that our gender identity is innate and determined in the womb, how can you condone the reparitive therapy that TS/HBS children are forced to undergo at CAMH under the direction of Kenneth Zucker. I consider this cruel treatment in the extreme. I can only imagine the torment I would have undergone if that had been done to me. Imagine being told "You are not a girl and you will never be a girl, so get that idea out of your head right now!" Talk about jabbing the knife in and twisting it! That's the type of mental pain I would have felt. It's a type of brainwashing that should be classified as cruel and unusual treatment.

    You posted a link where someone posed as Joanne Proctor and agreed with the removal of the HBS article on Wikipedia. My own belief is that post did not come from her. It is inconsistent with her hard work to improve that article. I doubt that she even knows about that posting, but even if she denied it, there are probably some who would not believe her.

    As for that Wikipedia article, I added several internal and external links substantiating facts that were in the article. I read the complete article and didn't notice anyone being trashed or praised. I had other ideas on how to improve the article, but now it is gone and can't be retrieved or improved. I have looked at the article on transsexualism and it is such a mess that I wouldn't know where to start with it. Facts that are established in one section are refuted in another with outdated information. It's just a confusing mess.

    Simple edits are easy on Wikipedia, but other things appear to use html which I don't have a clue about. It took me a long time to figure out how to insert a link of the simplest sort., and the tutorials are very cryptic to me and hard to understand, so things like improving layout etc. are beyond me.

    I can condone what BLZB write because 1.) They have done some kind of academic if not scientific research to back up what they say...indeed their research lead them to say what they said.   2.) They dont make value judgements the way so many in the HBS camp are willing to make. 

    As for Zucker and his reparative therapy,...., I will not point this out to you but the transkid known as cloudy and a couple other people who think their way have commented here.  Look through my colum to see it.  They and I also condemm what Zucker is doing. While we do not think that a gender identity can be determined in the womb.  Gender identity is influenced by culture in many ways.  Identity is a social construct, it depends on common consent.  Transwomen who pass are transwomen who are accepted as women by common consent based on their looks, behavior etc.

    In a nutshell the core beliefe of those who are not sooo offended by Blanchard Bailey etc is that transsexuality has a neurological , psychological, and sociological component.  All of those things brain sex, self concept of gender, and social construct of gender are all at play.  Biology is only one of those things.

    Somoene who will emphasise biology for realness as a woman in one culture.
    Will be a Hijra who is nirvani (castrated) in another culture.
    Will be a proud Thai Kathoey in another culture...

    Do you see?  Or will you ignore that and try to give western notions of gender the "blessing" of being the biological and true genders.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I use the term gender identity with the emphasis on identity, not culture. I do understand that gender per se is a social construct, and is not inborn. What I am referring to is the core identity that tells me that I am a woman. That feminized part of my brain that tells me what peer group I belong to. If we lived in a world in which all persons wore the same clothes, used a neutral term for personal pronouns and in every way treated men and women identically, I would still identify myself as a woman. That is what I am talking about. I'm sorry about my inaccurate terminology. I was "socialized" by my parents to be a boy, but despite that programming, I knew I was a girl. And yes, I do believe that it was determined in the womb.

    Do you agree with BLZB that I am a gay man?

    How can you agree with what BLZB write and then say you condemn what Zucker is doing, while Blanchard and Bailey support what Zucker is doing. I don't know if Lawerence does or not. I don't think you can have it both ways. Their theories deny brain sex and go with nurture exclusively, rather than nature. They say that children at birth are blank slates and that everything we are is determined by our experiences. You have already said you believe in brain sex. These are mutually exclusive ideas.

    Their theories fall flat when it comes to me. I did not come from a disordered family, I did not have an overbearing mother and a weak father. I was not abused. My parents had a good loving marriage for 55 years until my father's death. I was the first born, and I know they wanted a boy. I have one brother who is completely normal and happily married. I have no sisters. How was it that I knew I was a girl? When I was with other children why did I prefer to play with the other girls rather than with the boys? How did I recognize my peer group? Brain sex.

    Maybe a better term than brain sex would be intersexed brain condition.

    I have been doing some studying and here are the definitions of gender identity and gender role. You are confusing gender role with gender identity.

    Gender identity refers to how one thinks of one's own gender: whether one thinks of oneself as a man (masculine) or as a woman (feminine.) It is biological and innate. It is determined in the womb.

    Gender Role:
    Society prescribes arbitrary rules or gender roles (how one is supposed to and not supposed to dress, act, think, feel, relate to others, think of oneself, etc.) based on one's sex (whether one has a vagina or a penis.)

    So gender role and gender identity are two separate things. Gender role is what is determined by society and how we are raised by our parents.

    Loooooots of truth! Sometimes the thing sounds much like a religion . Doesn´t it? Who´s the true beleiver! Who´s the true worshiper! I´m a transgender woman because to sport male genitalia under my skirt doesn´t make me an inch less woman! You want to get rid of the crown´s jewels? Good for you, sister! You reject to be called a transsexual woman after all the cutting and suffering? I back you! Now you´re a full fledged woman. So what? You think you´re any better than me? Fuck yourself ! You´re beyond political motivations involving "all those sissy boys and girls together"? Good for you. Get a husband but don´t forget to buy him a dog, for you´ll never deliver a son to him. And that day you´ll repent for all this shit, LADY! He´ll get the divorce and run after the girl round the corner and you´ll wonder what she had that you didn´t. Be humble. You´re not any greater than me!

    +1  You tell em.  We have sat back and let a certain group speak for us all for far too long.  They began to read and believe their own press that they alone were "the transgender community". They now want to call themselves intersexed, as if that would make them superior, when they are not.  I have news for them they are not either of those things.   We are too diverse for any small vovcal self appointed caucasus to truly speak for.  God help you if any who say the things that I have, they will try to destroy you. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    ¿at first a uncontroversial and innocuous idea that transsexual brains are different from other brains?...¿a cloak of true pseudoscience?... ¿ laypeople and supported by not one reputable sexologist, psychologist, or psychiatrist. ?

    Have you read?

    The Transsexual Persons And The Brain., Rafael Salin-pascual, 1847992722

    No I have not. 

    I thogut I made it clear in my blog posting that there is some evidence that some neurological cause or causes are at the root of transsexualism (There would also be some psycholgical differences...  why difference has to be a disorder is beyond me...but that seems to be the way psychology/psychiatry work.) 

    The concept of brain sex, and the HBS concept are NOT the same thing.  HBS is a little bit of brain sex... and 90% wishful thinking by some transsexuals about how they would like the medical profession to treat them. 

    What I take issue with in this blog is the way that some HBS true believers think they are better than other people with non-standard gender and sexual histories. 

    Tell me why make the statements that I quoted above?  Why would a HBS supporter write what they wrote?
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    The way I understand it is that the term "disorder" rather than difference is necessary, otherwise treatment with hormones and SRS would not be indicated.

    You are correct in saying "The concept of brain sex, and the HBS concept are NOT the same thing." I would place the concept of brain sex at a much higher percentage. The whole premise of HBS is that gender identity is determined in the womb. I personally believe it is a continuum, and a chart of it may be somewhat shaped like an M, with the most extreme male and female identities at the extreme ends, and most men and women falling within the two humps. Those diagnosed with HBS would be the ones who fall into the hump opposite the physical sex and who desire SRS. This would include those who for certain reasons such as bad health or financial problems can't get SRS, but still desire it. These are the people who are described in the first link in your article:
    As the article states, "saying someone is a non-op transsexual who chooses to be non-op presents us with an oxymoron." It also mentions some who call themselves transsexual but don't desire surgery, and says "This view redefines transsexual as a lifestyle choice, rather than a compelling birth condition with a medical solution." The studies dealing with brain sex show that gender identity is not a lifestyle choice.

    You are also right in that there is some wishful thinking involved. I personally wish that TS could reclaim it's original meaning. Then we wouldn't need the term HBS. That doesn't seem likely.

    I am with you in that I believe that other people with non-standard gender and sexual histories should be treated with respect. I am disappointed with the language and tone of Fleurblack's post.

    I wish you would not paint all of us who believe in HBS with such a broad brush. We are individuals, and we are all different.

    I now understand you. You are in lock-step with people like Alice Dreger who has said that surgeons should not mess with perfectly healthy genitals. All of you arguments stem from your disgust with anyone who would alter their genitalia. You are automatically opposed therefore, with any opinion I might have on this subject. I on the other hand can't understand why you who identify as a woman, prefer to keep your male genitals.

    Laura R.

    No what I am is out of step with people who are full of BS!

    So you are willing to excuse the biggoted words that I cite in my article.   All because a person who said them believes in an invented intersex condition which happens to stroke your ego and plays to your sex negative bio deterministic POV.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    An invented intersex condition? HA! Do you deny all the scientific evidence showing how the human brain differentiates sexually in the womb and how the brains of MtFs are the same as genetic females? if you do then you are in the same category as those who still believe the world is flat. I can provide you with links to relevant scientific papers if you want.

    When you add the fact that when my surgeon performed my GRS he found I had a vestigial vagina, my body confirmed what my mind already knew. You can't attribute that to cultural upbringing.

    Also, you might study up on how exogenous chemicals such as DES affect fetal development and gender identity in genetic males. That was my case since my mother was given DES throughout her pregnancy with me. Here is a link to a relevant 5 year study of DES sons.
    Scroll down to the results and you will see this:
    Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Concerns 150+ 30%.
    30% of males in the study reported gender identity problems.
    Scroll down a little further and see how many of the group are MtF. Pretty bio deterministic I would say.
    That is statistically significant, as the normal number of people like me in relation to the general population is 1 in 30,000.

    As for sex negative, I'm not sure what you mean. My husband and I are very positive about sex, and we have been happily married for 20 years I might add.

    Laura R.

    The brain gender differences are the one shaky nail that HBS'ers hang their hats on.

    While I am confident that there are differences in the human brain.  HBS is not just that.  It is supposed standards of care and a single issue advocacy of people who think themselves superior to other LGBT people. 

    Furthermore a difference in the brain is not an intersex condition it is a neurological condition.  It is a condition of the physical structure of the brain. A variation on the themse mail and female.  It is not a "female brain in a male skull".  It is at best a small less than pea sized region which has been feminzed.  That is all it is. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Why do you hate us so much that you work so hard at de-legitimizing us? Why do you NOT want us to have access to Gender Reassignment Surgery? You yourself have had breast implants. You showed the scars on YouTube, yet you do everything you can to give the surgeons excuses not to give us the surgery we need.

    What is your stake in this de-legitimization process. My reason for advocating for our cause is because I know the suffering we go through, having to live a lie in the wrong gender. I know how many times I wanted to kill myself. I know how many times I wished I had never been born, how many times I cried myself to sleep, and prayed to God that He would change my body so I wouldn't have to live like that any more. My hope is that children like I was, could have their gender identity recognized as their true gender, so that they can have early intervention and support by parents, by endocrinologists, and eventually surgeons. I don't want them to have to go through the same pain that I did.

    Remember David Reimer?
    I'm sure you know his story, a normal boy, one of a set of identical twins. As a baby, his penis was destroyed during circumcision. The infamous John Money convinced his parents to have him surgically changed to a girl and raised as a girl without telling him what had happened. It didn't work did it? He never felt like a girl no matter what his parents did. He never accepted the gender role forced upon him, and eventually converted himself to a man. Gender identity is innate, no matter where in the brain it resides, and It can't be changed by reparative therapy or by any other means. Gender identity can be repressed temporarily on the surface, by intimidation and punishment, like my father did with me, (I was the first born. and my parents really did want a son. I tried to be the son my parents wanted, but I still knew I was a girl, and inside I was miserable.) Gender identity, as it turns out, is not just a social construct. It involves a deeply personal sense of self that has roots far deeper than our ability to manipulate.

    Most people aren't aware of their gender identity, because it matches with their body. They just don't think about it. It is only when it doesn't match that it becomes so painfully obvious. Those whose bodies are intersexed know the problems of gender identity/body mismatch, but with them it is much more complex. They are given genital surgery while still infants because of the protocol developed by the previously mentioned infamous John Money, and assigned to a particular gender by the surgeon. Sometimes the surgeon gets it right, and sometimes the surgeon gets it wrong. Sometimes the intersexed person's mind is just as ambiguous about their gender identity as their bodies. They fall somewhere in between male and female in their gender identity. Their brains are as intersexed as their bodies. Many times they resent the surgery that was forced upon them without their consent. Those who were assigned to the wrong sex and complain about it, are looked upon as mentally ill. I suppose the doctors are afraid of admitting to a mistake because of the fear of malpractice lawsuits.

    Many studies on the brain have focused on, and found, sexual differentiation in many different areas of the brain. You are very inaccurate in saying it is only one small area of the brain. You seem to want so desperately to ignore the fact that the brains of those who identify as female were the ones who had the feminized areas of the brain. You totally ignore the published conclusions of the studies. I believe that there can be no amount of evidence that will open your eyes. As the saying goes, there is none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

    Can you tell me where in the brain, gender identity resides? No! Are you an expert on brain development? No! Do you know what constitutes a female brain or a male brain? NO! How then can you deny the conclusions of those scientists who do study the brain? You are only using empty words to try to harm us and de-legitimize us.

    You really can't deny that our condition is neurological because you said it yourself. You are correct. HBS is a neurological intersex condition. It is also physical and intersex because of the mismatch between brain and body. Not all intersex conditions are visible at birth. Take CAIS as an example.

    You say that we think ourselves superior to LGBT people. You seem to think that different equates to superior. You are wrong. Different just means different. There is no judgment of superiority or inferiority. We are very different from the LGBT group. Our goals are very different from yours. Being under the control of the LGBT movement does not serve our purposes, and confuses our needs and concerns with your political movement. Our needs are different. You in the LGBT movement are so much more numerous than us, that you don't need us in your movement, and you don't need to fear us. We are not a threat to you. Those in the LGBT movement want to change society. Those in the LGBT movement are usually in it for life. That is not for us. We just want to get our hormones, get our surgery, and blend into society as our true gender and live our lives in peace.

    You on the other hand try to recruit us into your ranks, you try to get us to call ourselves transgendered, and out us whenever you get the chance, and keep us outed by spreading the word about our past. And when, as a result of our being outed by you, we are discriminated against or beaten up, you offer us security only if we join your activist groups. I personally know of this happening. Does the LGBT community have any sympathy for us? No. Do they support us in our need for surgery? No. We are ridiculed for it. They say "Your genitals are perfectly healthy, why would you want to mutilate yourselves?" No, the LBGT people don't understand us and don't seem to want to try. It's no wonder that animosity builds up between you and us.

    I thought the word transsexual was a perfectly good term to use for our condition, until people like you stole it from us. What are people who call themselves "transsexuals" yet love their penises, but more excuses for surgery to be denied to us. You put a link in your blog to an article about "a transsexual who does not want sexual reassignment surgery."
    You should re-read it, because you sadly misrepresented it. Read this part again:
    "However, saying someone is a non-op transsexual who chooses to be non-op presents us with an oxymoron. That is, a figure of speech that combines two contradictory terms (e.g. “almost pregnant” or "deafening silence"). So, the non-op oxymoron proclaims people who want to become the other sex yet don't want to become the other sex. Worse, it does not define people by what they are, but tags them with a description of what they are not. What makes the “non-op transsexual” oxymoron so arresting, and so different from a mere contradiction, is the intentional use of rhetoric to force an unnecessary distinction. In this case, a distinction pointed at transsexuals who really are pre-op, even if perpetually."
    The article goes on to say this:
    "A person may live full time as, and simulate the presentation of, another gender. If the person has the time, place, health, and money to have SRS but chooses not to do so, they may be transgendered, but they are not transsexual." (That fits you, by the way.)
    And this:
    "If an individual wants to have SRS, but lack one of the prerequisites (time, place, health, and/or money), and this lack prevents obtaining SRS, the individual is a pre-op transsexual."

    "Facts are stubborn things and words matter when trying to talk about the facts. We humans sometimes find ourselves gripped by a vocabulary not of our making. Occasionally, this vocabulary leads to destructive ends.

    We must have a special concern about the behavior of non-transsexuals who pose as transsexuals and publicize themselves as non-op. A common assertion has it that SRS is merely an option selected by individuals at one extreme end of a gender spectrum.

    Pseudoscience & Public Policy

    Asserting that SRS is an option for a person born transsexual, even when all other factors are favorable, promotes pseudoscientific approaches to public policy. Denying the underlying medical reality of transsexuals has the consequent effect of characterizing SRS as elective surgery that is minimally cosmetic and not reconstructive.

    This unscientific denial stymies initiatives to obtain research attention for transsexuals, improve medical practices, secure legal protection, and provide a variety of needed social services.

    Let transsexuals be transsexuals.

    Transgenders can be themselves and garner respect for their good will if they cease trying to co-opt the space needed by transsexuals to fix their birth condition."

    So you see, you have totally misrepresented the article in your blog. Self protection is not an attack. Asking for our own space is not an attack. Using our name against us IS an attack, and that is what you have done. We are fighting for our lives, and you make a mockery of us, and seem to delight in it. I don't think you realize how serious this is.

    We do resent those who attack us and try to prevent us from getting GRS and have the proper changes made to our birth certificates so we can live our lives peacefully and without prejudice. We do resent the HBS/TS bashers who have no idea what we go through in our lives, and seem to make a hobby of putting us down. What is the up side for you? Why do you feel such a driving need to go after us? Only sociopaths enjoy hurting people and prolonging their misery for the fun of it.

    Laura R.

    Where have I ever ever written that I want you to not have access to SRS?  Quote it, and provide the hyperlink to where I actually wrote it.

    Second.... Explain and justify what I quoted from the Wikipedia discussion of the article on HBS where a supporter of HBS felt it relevant to call transgendered people perverts.  Please do.  I have never said anything like that about anyone.  (The only thing that could be taken for that is my dispassionate and cool headed manner of discussion of Blanchard's hypothesis.  Some people seem to take that as agreement with his every point.)

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    From a post on my Blog. Apologies for the length.

    I can't give you "the" picture of HBS. I have some significant differences from may others on the issue.

    For example, I believe that the gender binary is merely a very good approximation. Just like it's best to treat the Earth as being flat, locally. It's not, but it works best when walking to the corner shop if you treat the journey as if it is.

    I believe that gender is in the brain, and so is sex, and sexual orientation. But again, though it's really useful to make categories of "male", "female", "straight", "bi" etc, and while those definitions may be exact, not just approximate, descriptions of most people, for a large proportion they are only approximations, and for a small minority, bad approximations at that. So bad they're not just useless, but counter-productive.

    I believe that it's most likely that "typically female" or "typically male" patterns of neural development, stereotypes to which individuals conform to a large degree (usually) happen as the result of the foetal hormonal environment, as modified by genetics. Atypical development may happen, and we're talking only about the lymbic nucleus here, the brainstem, hypothalamus etc , areas whose development is mostly or completely set before birth.

    These lymbic patterns affect later development of the cerebral cortex (in ways we don't understand - insert much handwaving here, though not elsewhere), in particular lateralisation and connections in the corpus callosum. In addition, the typically female or typically male instincts and emotional responses dictated by the pre-natally hard-wired lymbic system later on lead to the child comparing themselves with peers and adults, and consequently developing a male or female "gender identity" based on who they most resemble.

    Just to complicate things... the brain is such a complex organ, that in this case it's useful to see it as an assembly of different organs, much as the reproductive system isn't a single organ, but an assembly, where different parts can conform to different degrees to either of the standard stereotypes. And just as the reproductive system changes morphology, and is to some degree "plastic" and subject to environmentally caused change (notably at puberty), so are the higher brain structures. Yet no new structures develop, the basic pattern is set before birth.

    So an individual, whether cissexual, transsexual, or intersexed, will usually have a brain that conforms strongly to a masculine stereotype in some areas, and weakly to a female stereotype in others, or the reverse. The areas will differ between individuals though, and what evidence we have from cases of 5ARD and 17BHDD is that perhaps a third of people can function in either gender role. I wish we had more to confirm this. For that matter, I wish we understood what gives rise to left-handedness or ambidexterity, areas of brain development post-birth that are equally as radical (neurologically speaking) as many of the bimodal sex differences.

    In practical terms, one of the most important areas is that of body image. Most will have a strong body image conforming to one stereotype or another, but some will not. This is observable in Intersexed people, many of whom "want to be normal", but some of whom object strongly to the concept of having their genitals surgically altered, even though they may be atypical. In the worst case, an Intersexed person who "wants to be normal" has had their genitals surgically changed to make them as abnormal as they can be, to be those of the opposite sex to the stereotype given by their "body image".

    Where I radically differ from the standard HBS model is that the evidence to me shows that while there is a strong correlation between stereotypes-conformity in all parts of the brain, it's not exact. As just one example, it's not just possible, it's inevitable that there will be some people with strong male identities, whose brains in general conform to a typically male stereotype, but whose body image is that of a female to a greater or lesser degree. Some men feel most comfortable having feminised genitalia, and some women feel most comfortable having masculinised genitalia. And many more are just afraid of surgery, and want to live with whatever they're lumbered with, even if it's not optimal. All-consuming desire for typical genitalia is *not* a reliable touchstone for determining gender, any more than chromosomes are a reliable touchstone for determining sex. They're just really, really good approximations.

    The standard HBS model, as I interpret it, as over-simplistic. There are male brains, and female brains, period. If you have a male brain, you *NEED* (not just desire) male genitalia, and if you have a female brain, you *NEED* (not just desire) female genitalia, and that's all there is to it. Everything else is "psychological" and any ambiguity or anomaly a "mental illness". I don't agree with this, as it results in trying to coerce observations into fitting what is almost a religious theory rather than a scientific one. It's basically correct, but only as correct as saying the Earth is flat. The further you go from the local area, the less useful such a view becomes. Go far enough away, and it breaks down completely.

    One more thing, which may colour my interpretations of the data. This is the Australian HBS group, and in Australia, it is the medical and legal position that what is termed "transsexuality" is a form of neurological intersex, where (parts or a part of) the brain is cross-gendered compared to the majority of the rest of the body.

    Zoe -B  long time no type :-)

    What you describe in your posting really is the concept of brain sex. I do not disagree with that in fact I embrace it.  However HBS diverges from that basic scientific concept and has become more like a beliefe system.  The brain sex research is the kernel of science it is anchored on... Built on top of that is a system of thinking where those who call themselves HBS women merciliessly disparage those who do not buy their spiel.  Not unlike true beliveers in some religious railing against the infidels!.  You should see what some of the HBS people say about TG activist such as Andrea James and Lynn Conway.  Objectively far far worse than things said by BBL supporter

    What I need explained is not the conepts of HBS.  Though That does make this blog posting more complete and I thnak you for contributing it.    Can you explain to me why the one calling themslves Fleurblack would comment as they did.  Why would Joanne Proctor go on WP agree with me about the deleltion of HBS's page (it's not yet to the point of being encyclopedia matterial yet.)  Then go on her blog and afer agreeing with me write that crap about the supposed conspiracy of me and James Cnator?   What fools must they take the rest of us for?

    As this posting on this blog details I have for a long time had my very own theory for how all of this works.(Published here in 2007.  The theories prediction was confirmed by experiment which I emailed the research team (Ivanka Savic et al) about in 2008.  Though The research team only did research on gynephilic transsexuals to fully test my theory they would need to do the same on androphillic transsexuals.  Unless they just assume their researhc on homosexual males is sufficient?  I await my call from Sweden with baited breath.) 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Is my declaration that I am a woman born with HBS part of the spiel that you don't buy? In this statement I am a "true believer", and I will defend my core identity. Those people like BBL and Z do attack me and my identity by calling me either an autogynephile or a homosexual man without a penis. How can you defend that?

    I do not condone Fleurback's post, and I do not believe that Joanne Proctor made the post you refer to.

    Do not misrepresent what my position is. 

    I DO think that you and I and every other transsexual have some neurological difference from non-transsexuals.

    I DON'T buy all the rest of the spiel of the HBS movement.  Which implies that only biology matters... that it is somehow hardwired for women to dress a certain way and do certain things.  99% of the behavior you call hardwired gender identity is 100% learned socially constructed gender role.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I have not said, and I have never heard anyone in the HBS movement say that culture is hard wired into the human brain. Our identity as to what sex we are is hard wired however. Its more the idea of "who I am" rather than "who I want to be". It is not a choice.

    The English language is limited when it comes to talking about sex and gender, and the terms can be used interchangeably in some instances. My definition of gender identity has nothing to do with culture, and apparently yours does. Just understand that when I use the term "my gender identity", I am not talking about culture. I am talking about what I was born with in my mind that tells me that I am a woman.

    I am a believer in HBS, and I also agree with what you stated in your post. See in one of my previous posts where I talked about a continuum of gender identity. My idea of HBS or transsexualism is that it describes a specific subset of the Gender identity continuum. Specifically, those of us who identify as members of the opposite sex and also desire SRS, or SAS as HBS advocates like to call it. Desire is too mild a word in my case. I am sure that I would have eventually committed suicide if I had been prevented from having my surgery. I feel that a specific term that describes us is necessary for the continuing access to the medical care we need.

    The term transsexual is now confused because there are transgendered people who call themselves non-op transsexuals. I don't have a problem with the people themselves, only their use of the term transsexual. The argument about who is or is not a woman has no place in the discussion and gets us nowhere, in my opinion. It is simply the dilution of the term transsexual that has drawn me to the term HBS. If the term transsexual could be disambiguated, I would be happy with that.

    It's like you said there is a continuum.  Non-op transsexuals I am sure you note.... Do absolutely everything but have the surgery, live as women full time, get their documents changed (weather it's lawful or not in their state for a non-op to do so) and so on.  Often living a womans life more successfully than many post-op's I have seen.  In my book that's a transsexual...whereas a post op like Gregory Hemmingway is not.  See where I'm coming from?

    The problem is when people who don't do those things claim to be a transsexual....or it is claimed that there is no difference between a full time post almost everything woman.... and a person who goes clubbing on Tuesday in some weak drag.  Heck even people on the drag ball scene have different words for full time including post op women and part timers.)

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    This is the crux of the problem: terminology. Why must you use the term "non-op transsexual"? Isn't transgendered or gender-variant good enough? This is the very reason we want to abandon the term transsexual and adopt the term HBS. The very idea of a transsexual woman wanting to have a penis damages our ability to get SRS. It makes SRS even more controversial, and doctors more confused. Why can't we as a group of people who need SRS, have our own name? It that too much to ask? It would seem so, as we are met with such opposition. A specific diagnosis with a specific treatment. This is all we want.

    "Often living a womans life more successfully than many post-op's I have seen."
    If a woman born with HBS, because of the effects of testosterone or whatever is having little success living a woman's life, it is unfortunate and a cause of great distress, and they should not be ridiculed.

    "or it is claimed that there is no difference between a full time post almost everything woman.... and a person who goes clubbing on Tuesday in some weak drag"
    Of course there is a difference. Why do you not see a difference? It's not terrible to have differences. Different doesn't mean better, it just means different. We who identify as the opposite sex, want to live as the opposite sex, and have surgery to align our bodies with our minds are different too. Can you accept that and allow us to have a name that defines our group? If you don't like HBS, then what would you suggest?

    The problem with using transgender for someone I would describe as a non-op transsexual is this. 

    Transgender people as you seem to use it are by definition part time.  Transgender people as the "umbrella term interpretation puts it are still mostly drag queens, transvestites, etc who are only acting out in an effeminate way when they are dressed.  (With transsexual added almost as an afterthought.)

    Non-op transsexuals on the other hand live full time as women, which makes them transsexual.  They have had or plan to have most every surgery available to them except SRS, which makes them non operative.  Likely have every doccument that can be changed, it would surprise you what you can get changed without having SRS.  Hence they are non-operative transsexuals.  Transsexuality is not defiened by medical procedures alone (Take Gregory Hemmingway as an example of someone who had SRS but is not a transsexual because they didn't live like a woman.)    
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    When have I ever said that transgenders are part time. It matters not whether you are full-time or part-time. It matters not how many documents you have had changed. If you don't like the term transgender for what you are, find a new name. Just don't take ours.

    You have tried to undermine the medical and scientific foundations that support the surgical remedies for transsexualism/HBS by trying to refute all the scientific work that has been done. It is your insistence that non-op transsexuals exist, and that you are a non-op transsexual. This undermines our ability to get SRS by relegating it to an elective surgery. What are people who call themselves "transsexuals" yet love their penises, but more excuses for surgery to be denied to us.

    Transsexuality is not defined by medical procedures alone, but by the need for GRS because of the biological causes of TS/HBS. You are not transsexual because although you call yourself as a woman, you remain, and desire to remain, a male.

    Just as type I diabetes is a medical condition which requires certain treatments, TS/HBS is a medical condition which requires certain treatments. You can't say you are a type I diabetic if you don't need insulin. You can't say you are a transsexual if you don't need GRS.

    I have a special concern about the behavior of non-transsexuals who pose as transsexuals and publicize themselves as non-op. The result is that SRS becomes merely an option, an elective surgery that is minimally cosmetic and not reconstructive.

    Asserting that SRS is an option for a person born transsexual, even when all other factors are favorable, promotes policies that are detrimental to transsexuals. Denying the underlying medical reality of transsexuals which you do continually, has the consequent effect of characterizing SRS as elective surgery, and eliminates it as a needed treatment.

    Your denial of transsexualism/HBS as a medical condition stymies initiatives to obtain SRS, research attention for transsexuals, improve medical practices, secure legal protection, and provide a variety of needed social services.

    Let transsexuals be transsexuals.

    Transgenders can be themselves, whether full time or part time, and garner respect for their good will if they cease trying to co-opt the space needed by transsexuals to FIX THEIR BIRTH CONDITION."

    This is the way it is: You have changed the definition of transsexual to include people like yourself, thus harming our cause. In a direct response to this threat to us obtaining SRS, we introduce a new term, HBS. Then you go after the HBS advocates calling us elitists and haters, and further try to undermine the biological causes of TS/HBS. Why do you fight us no matter what we do? If we used another name for HBS/TS, you would go after us for that too. You are like a pit bull that won't let go.

    It is obvious that the effects of all your work on this matter work to ultimately deny us access to SRS.

    Laura R.

    That's all your pure unscientific opinion on the causation of transsexualism.

    Second the word transgender is almost universally understood as a umbrella term.  Like it or hate it is and in that case it is in apropriate for non-op transwomen.

    Thrid I myself am not non-op I am pre op, and money is what will stop me from having the surgery.  However when I hear some blow hard who looks like Barney Frank in bad drag talking about non op transsexuals I take umberage.  Because most of those non-op's she speaks of are in many ways more sucessful convincing women overall than they will ever be.   I will stand up for the right for anyone to label themselves however they want.  However I draw the line at some  group of formerly privillaged white males come females thinking that they can take command of a term and own it and tell other people what to do!  Think again missy.  You WWBT's as trasgriot calls you all can suck eggs.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    That's all your pure unscientific opinion, bashing the scientific causation of transsexualism.

    You seem to have a habit or reading only parts of what I post. Here is what I said:
    "If an individual wants to have SRS, but lacks one of the prerequisites (time, place, health, and/or money), and this lack prevents obtaining SRS, the individual is a pre-op transsexual." DO YOU SEE THAT?

    You are not non-op, you are PRE-OP, if you desire to have SRS/GRS. Non-op means that you don't want GRS, and those people are not transsexuals.

    Transsexuality is not defined by medical procedures alone, but by the need for GRS because of the inborn biological causes of TS/HBS. TS/HBS is a medical condition, not a lifestyle.

    I have a special concern about the behavior of non-transsexuals who pose as transsexuals and publicize themselves as non-op. The result is that SRS becomes merely an option, an elective surgery that is minimally cosmetic and not reconstructive.

    Asserting that SRS is an option for a person born transsexual, even when all other factors are favorable, promotes policies that are detrimental to transsexuals. Denying the underlying medical reality of transsexuals which you do continually, has the consequent effect of characterizing SRS as elective surgery, and eliminates it as a needed treatment.

    The transgender umbrella doesn't cover any transsexuals whether pre-op or post-op.

    What an elitist you are by basing a person's worth by how convincing they look.
    You are being extremely petty and hurtful by mocking a person's disability. Testosterone affects some people more harshly than others. You seem to delight in their unfortunate circumstances and are demonstrating an elitist attitude based on personal appearances.

    And then you have the audacity to try to play the race card with me, miss elitest? You don't know what race I am, and I will have you know that transsexualism affects everyone equally. There is no racial bias with who transsexualism affects. Your statement about privileged white males is ridiculous.

    I am not going to provide a forum for you since you evidently have not read a word I wrote. IN YOUR LAST POST YOU CITED RESEARCH WHICH HAS TO DO WITH BRAIN SEX AS IF I DID NOT KNOW OF IT.  I CITED THAT IN THE BLOG I WROTE. 

    Any post that demonstrates that you have not read and comprehended what I wrote will be summarily delted without comment.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    When the word "disingenuously" appears in an article, this is a warning that the argument is getting much too deep for me.  However, one particular sentence sounded out like a clarion:
    Now I know how a Born again Christian who believes in Darwinian evolution would feel!
    Which prompts me to draw attention again to a late article of G.K.Chesterton, "The Return of the Angels".  It has an interesting perspective, especially in the second paragraph which contains the following:
    Of the thousands of brilliant and elegant persons like ourselves who believe roughly in the Darwinian doctrine ...
    How true to experience would you say is this description of how one comes to take on board a scientific theory?
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    If you are saying that the first sentence was in the HBS article, it was not in the article when I read it, and if it was it should have been removed. It is not neutral in the slightest.

    saying that the first sentence was in the HBS article
    Is the confusion perhaps that you understand me to be referring to the Wikipedia article, rather than the main text of this present blog?

    I simply found the sentence in question rather striking.  However, were I to  comment on the main topic I would be joining the ranks of those

    who know nothing about anything, but always have something to say about everything.
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    The whole HBS idea is dangerous to the trans-community. It is nothing but a sad try of biologistic essentialization designed to undermine our human freedom.
    Suppose a happy and succesfull transwoman, well adjusted in her feminine life, would volunteer to get her "brain wires" tested for HBS ... and would have to learn that her brain is not as "femininely wired" as the one of some other transwomen and much closer to the brain of a heteronormative man.
    Such a case is actually highly probable since all research done on the connection between brain structures and transsexuality points towards a flowing continuum of male and female brainstructures (including brainstructures seen as "typical" for heterosexual men, homosexual men, transwomen, heterosexual women etc.) and not towards hardwired and clearly distinguishable "syndroms".

    Suppose that "you" were this transwoman.

    In the scenario that HBS supporters wish for "you" would probably be denied all medical services important to transwomen and all professional support.
    Furthermore, "you" would be exposed as a "fake transsexual" by those whose brainstructures may point towards a "truer HBS" and "you" would be robbed of all access to things important to "your" personal happiness.

    I see no benefit in having HBS officially registered as an intersex condition.
    It makes much more sense to simply accept that people should have the freedom to live in the gender role and to chose the physical appearance that is best for them in all ways, regardless of the underlying biological or psychological causes of transsexuality.

    Some people here say that the term "transsexuality" stigmatizes the community and people would be less stigmatized if HBS would be recognized ... .
    I disagree strongly:
    Social stigmatization is tied to ideologies, not to words. The level of stigma changes with the context, not with the word itself ( note the different social uses of the N word ... or the development of the word "gay").

    People who don´t like transwomen will never like them anyhow and will always be able to defend their prejudices and hold on to them. That´s the pure nature of prejudices. And being intersexed has no social benefits over being transsexual (ask people from the intersex community about this, please, before you want to become part of it! ... or ask some sterotypical Born Again Christian from the Bible Belt what he thinks about intersexed people).

    Here here and well said! 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    If we were to ignore the brain research, abandon the term HBS, and join the lifestyle choice bandwagon of the transgender and LGBT movements, the result would be a cessation of all medical services including surgeries for us. We would be playing right into the hands of our enemies. We might as well all commit suicide because that would be the result. Will we get sympathy from the LGBT movement because we can no longer get the surgery we need? I don't think so. In fact, we are ridiculed by them for our need to have surgery, and our need to live in anonymity as our true sex and blend into society without fear of being "outed". The problem is that the LGBT movement just doesn't understand people who are born with HBS.

    Those who promote HBS point to the brain research in order to assure that proper medical services will not be denied to us in the future. There are many who are working to deny us those services on the grounds that transsexualism/HBS is a lifestyle choice, and they try to discount the research as Hontas Farmer does. The fact that the brain research shows that HBS is a biological condition and that every new study reinforces the conclusions of the previous studies, counteracts their arguments against letting us have surgery.

    It is not my desire for anyone to be denied any medical services that they seek. I am not against the transgender or LGBT movements. I just wish they would leave us alone and stop attacking us. People who are attacked feel the need to counter attack, and sometimes they do. Why can't we call a truce?

    I never had a problem with the word transsexual until the meaning changed. I have a problem with the definition including people who are non-op (not to be confused with pre-op). It's just another reason to deny us surgery on the grounds that it is elective. HBS and transsexualism used to mean the same thing. So many people now use the word transsexual to mean whatever they want it to mean, that it has become a useless term.

    You said:
    "And being intersexed has no social benefits over being transsexual (ask people from the intersex community about this, please, before you want to become part of it! ... or ask some stereotypical Born Again Christian from the Bible Belt what he thinks about intersexed people)."

    I understand that all too well. I am part of the intersex community also, in addition to HBS. In many ways we are treated worse than people who are HBS, by the public and the medical community.

    It can be argued that since HBS has biological causes it should be included as an intersex condition. Intersex and HBS are biologically caused, and are not lifestyle choices. That gives us much in common with each other, and we can work together on common issues. In that respect recognition of HBS as an intersex condition would be beneficial.


    First of all you keep trying to make this about brain sex.  I do not dispute that some brain differences are at play in determining transsexuality.  (Where you and I differ is that I also think that a persons sexual preferences are set by neurology as well.  Thus being gay straight, or a transsexual who prefers men over women are not due to hormones, or gender but are independant and immutable.)

    Second psychologist who believe in all kinds of psychological theories have given letters of support to transsexuals.  Simply because they know from experience that transsexuals are 99% of the time MUCH happier after SRS than before.  (This is as true of Randi Ettner as it is of the infamous Bailey.)  What they all have in common is a greater concern for the happiness of their patients and a lack of transphobia. 

    At the same time psychologist who have knowledge of the same theories. The same exact theories.. can be transphobic and think of a way of curing transsexuality based on it.

    Let us suppose HBS is 100% true and people with such and such a inborn natal brain condition will inevitably be transsexual.  If that is true then it is likely that there could be a test devised to detect this in utero.  If that is true it would then be possible and some would advocate for the termination of such pregnancies...even seemingly liberal people who are pro choice and not transphobic in is different when we are in the family.  So even HBS which some WWBT's talk about as so automatically good can be used to justify evil. 

    Compare that to Blanchard's theory.  That there are two types of biological males who benefit equally from sex reassignment surgery.  A non transphobic psychologist/surgeon will look at that and grant operations to practically anyone who ask.   While a transphobic one will look at that and think Ah HA!  They are all nutz. 

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I am not calling towards abandoning brain research. Like Hontas I do see it as very likely that there is some connection between specific brainstructures and the occurence of transsexuality.

    I´d rather say that imho it is the HBS fraction which ignores the scientific research and which is not in touch with the latest data.
    First of all the fraction ignores all the signs given in the data of brain research that points to an etiological connection between transsexuality and homosexuality,
    second it ignores the already mentioned character of gendered brainstructures as only a certain statistical occurence and a fluid continuum and not as hardwired clearly separable entities (that´s a scientific fact which alone already gives us a pretty strong damnation of all HBS musings!)
    and third ... maybe most importantly ...:
    It ignores that the latest realizations of brainresearch show us that individual brainstructures themselves are in continuous development and restructuring for a long part of a human life and that it is highly unlikely that gendered brainstructures are really in any fixed and static state before the end of puberty (maybe even up to oldage, according to some scientists).

    In this regard one simply can not compare "gendered" (or "sexed", if you like) brainstructures with unusual chromosomal combinations or ambiguous genitalia which are a given fact from the womb on.
    There may be some influence of the hormonal milieu of the womb on the later development of "gendered" brainstructures and homosexuality or transsexuality of an individual, I do not deny that!
    But such an influence has never been proven.
    The biological causes of transsexuality are in any case not as definit as the causes of intersexuality.
    Sorry, I´m just stating the facts.
    The HBS fraction presents us with a very superficial reading of brainresearch data and ignores many points that become more and more important to neurologists these days.

    As already written, I think that the HBS idea would probably lead to the denial of medical service to many deserving transwomen. As stated, I do not only think so, I am even pretty sure that this would be the exact outcome if the HBS idea would be accepted. And you yourself could be one of these transwomen.

    The LGBT identity, on the other hand, has never been a threat to medical services.
    I am not a resident of the US, I live in Europe.
    You may know that over here the healthcare system works much better and offers much more financial support for transwomen. Transwomen over here are generally quite happy with it and feel quite comfortable with it.
    And many transwomen over here detest the idea that transsexuality should be registered as a form of intersexuality because that would give us only disadvantages.
    "Transsexuality" (nowadays officially interpreted strictly as a psychological syndrome) is wellcovered by our superb healthcare system.
    The psychological angst and inner pain that transsexuality can cause is enough to make it an issue of medical service.

    No need at all to register transsexuality as some form of intersexuality. That would only complicate things and, again, would endanger medical services given to us because intersexuality can but does not necessarily lead to angst, depression and inner pain and intersexed activists (as much as more and more medical specialists in contact with them) these days more and more move towards a "no surgery...embrace your ambiguity" position.

    I also have to say that it gives me a bad aftertaste when I see you using the word "lifestyle choices" in connection to the LGBT community.
    That reads like rightwing rhetorics to me.
    Being "transgendered" (no matter if a heterosexual transvestite, a gay drag queen, a non-op transsexual or whatever) is never simply a lifestyle choice.
    Each and every gay and transgendered individual that I met has a history of struggling painfully with family and society, of overcoming many fears, of feeling a lot of inner wounds and of learning a lot of courage
    You don´t want to go through all of this if it is just about some "lifestyle".
    Here a heterosexual transvestite or a gay drag queen has a lot in common with you and me!

    I can see very much that heterosexual transvestism is definitely related to some forms of transsexuality and gay effeminacy definitely to some other forms of transsexuality and that is why I also agree with Hontas when she writes that the Blanchard typology makes much more sense and should be able to give much more comfort to the transcommunity than the HBS fantasy.
    I also think that in the end there is some common physiological root or at least trigger to all forms of transsexuality AND transgenderism and homosexuality and that much scientific data (psychological and neurological) supports this viewpoint while there is only very few data supporting a connection between intersexuality and transsexuality.
    (Also note that intersexuality is much much more of a superficial umbrella term than tg. It lumps together severaly types of totally unrelated syndroms.)

    And, finally, I simply don´t understand your problem with non-ops.

    I can only again mention our excellent healthcare system over here which all through its decades of financially supporting traswomen never used the existence of non-ops to deny surgery to others. Actually, what it doesat times is the direct opposit:
    To use the existence of post-ops to deny payment of hormones etc. to non-ops.
    Majority society does not want non-ops, it only wants post-ops because it is not willing and able to live with ambiguities and therefore the non-ops will always be the underdogs and the post-ops will always be the lucky elite.

    "Transsexual" has not become a useless term. It is commonly used exactly in the sense for which it was designed. Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld used it without any clear demarcation from gay or heterosexual transvestism and it was only designed to refer to those who, in some sense or the other, wished to live beyond (Latin: trans) their biological sex (Latin: sexus).
    It was never designed to be used strictly in reference to those seeking surgery.
    Surgery (except in a rarely practiced and very rudimentary form) didn´t even exist when the word "transsexual" was coined.

    Furthermore, most non-ops that I´ve met have much more legitimate reasons to be non-op than being (as you wrote in another comment) "proud of ones penis". Actually, I never met a non-op who was proud of her genitalia.
    Most non-ops that I know would have highly preferred it if they would have been born with a normal female body but still they have good reasons to reject the process of surgery.

    I met e.g. some intellectual non-ops who are highly critical of the manipulation of bodies in our current culture and therefore, similar to some intersex activists, chose to embrace their physical ambiguity,
    I know of some religious non-ops who simply believe that they should enter their graves with the same genitalia that God created for them in the womb
    and I know of some who simply (rightfully) contemplated the many dangers of surgery and who think that to them there are more important things to risk their lives for.
    But I never met one who kept her genitalia for the sake of simply having a penis.
    That´s such a ridiculous prejudice ....

    And, finally, no data has ever indicated that there is a connection between certain brainstructures and a desire to seek surgery.
    Femininity in males may be related to some brainstructures but the desire to seek surgery is definitely culturally constructed.
    It does not even exist in many other cultures, even though transwomen are born and grow up to a fulltime feminine life in these cultures as well.
    Even within our current culture we know of no scientific data indicating that those transsexuals desiring surgery have brainstructures wired in some way significantly different from those who do not desire surgery.
    On the contrary, the scientific fact is:
    Many gay men may have a condition related to what you want to call HBS, many non-ops may have what you want to call HBS and some post-ops may not have what you want to call HBS or may have it only to a small degree.

    You said:
    " (Where you and I differ is that I also think that a persons sexual preferences are set by neurology as well. Thus being gay straight, or a transsexual who prefers men over women are not due to hormones, or gender but are independant and immutable.)"

    You also said:
    "Let us suppose HBS is 100% true and people with such and such a inborn natal brain condition will inevitably be transsexual. If that is true then it is likely that there could be a test devised to detect this in utero. If that is true it would then be possible and some would advocate for the termination of such pregnancies...even seemingly liberal people who are pro choice and not transphobic in is different when we are in the family."

    If all of the above is true, then we all, including all of us who are intersex as well, are in danger of being wiped out before we are born. When pro choice turns into eugenics we all need to worry.


    Now that I can agree with.  Consider this study from on a cohort of XXY males from Denmark. 

    The fact that the great majority of the Klinefelter males have managed quite well in spite of this and that no remarkable differences were found between them and a control group is of great importance for genetic counsellers, especially for prenatal counsellers. Up until now, in 75% of cases in which sex chromosome abnormalities, including Klinefelter's syndrome, have been diagnosed prenatally in Denmark abortion has been induced. We believe this is mainly due to insufficient information about the many positive aspects of the development of individuals with sex chromosome abnormalities.

    Denmark is not a socially conservative place compared to america,  I'll bet that 75% feared a son with gender or sexual differences.  They'll meet Caroline Cossey and not be hostile to her, but let little Bjorn want to be come Gerta and look out!


    Do you see some of the negatives of the approach followed by many HBS supporters including the originator of the idea?  Many but not all, use the notion of HBS to exclude.  You either have HBS and are a real Woman born transsexual, or you are a pervert/ gay male in drag.  (interestingly HBS people have been known to make use of that bit of blanchardian terminology yet they get a pass on it.  Afterall they have provided the sought after third type.)   It is short sighted.

    When it comes to the research of eitology I have come to the same conclusion as Julia Serano, who I met once and wrote about here.    At a talk at Northwestern, right in the lair of the beast no less! J. M Bailey's home turf.  Anyway she wrote this....

    Why do transsexuals exist? Why are we motivated to change our sex? Is it due to genetics? Hormones? Upbringing? Living in a plastic-surgery-obsessed culture? Or maybe it’s just a good old-fashioned mental disorder? Such questions represent the intellectualization of objectifying transsexuals...For me the question of why I am transsexual has always been a source of shame and self-loathing. From my preteen years through young adulthood, I was consumed with the question - it was directly related to the fact that I did not want to be a transsexual. Eventually, I realized that it is a pointless question - the fact is that I am transsexual and I exist, and there is no legitimate reason why I should feel inferior to a cissexual [i.e., a nontranssexual] because of that. Once I accepted my own transsexuality, then it became obvious to me that the question “Why do transsexuals exist?” is not a matter of pure curiosity, but rather an act of non-acceptance, as it invariably occurs in the absence of asking the reciprocal question: “Why do cissexuals exist?” The unceasing search to uncover the cause of transsexuality is designed to keep transsexual gender identities in a perpetually questionable state, thereby ensuring that cissexual gender identities continue to be unquestionable. -Whipping Girl, pages 187-188
    This I agree with.

    More over our eitology is a question the proposed and supposed answers to which are far too often used to deny our existence.  No matter how well intentioned they are, someone somewhere will take a theory like HBS, brain sex, or Blanchard's and twist it to the transphobic purpose.

    If we are motivated by sexual urges, sex is a drity invalid reason to do anything (according to socially conservative folks), therefore we should be done away with.

    If we are driven by neurological difference,  then it is abort us... eventually it will be how can we rewire the brain for "normal" function. 

    So you see HBS offers no real difference in the perceptions of the truly transphobic.

    Furthermore I am afraid that the removal of TS ism from the DSM will accomplish little.  Joe the plumber thinking we must be crazy likely has nothing to do with any psychological or neurological theory.   Some people just aren't going to like us no matter what the eitology is said to be.  Heck even if it's neurological the only semi good thing that does is garner that "oh poor mentally defective baby" kind of sympathy.  I don't want or need that.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    To M:Italiano

    Rephrase your post into terms that show it in relation to what I wrote as if you read what I wrote.  You have your own blog I'm sure. 

    I commented on how some people who have taken to heart the notion of HBS have no problem with deriding all of the rest of the TG community. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I'd like to counter a comment that was made way up-thread about Anne Lawrence and J. Michael Bailey conducting "research". I'd also like to show that the bigotry is being fed by some of the people being lauded as "heroes" of transsexuals.

    I was acquainted with Anne Lawrence when she first came out with her own theory of autogynephilia and I responded to her second request for "life stories" by people who were autogynephilic. I'm into doing science and felt that responding would improve the "science". Once the stories were all posted as the second batch, she didn't bother collecting any more of them. Those two batches of stories, as I recall, became the core narratives that she used as the basis for further work. I didn't think at the time to suggest that she "poll" the community for contradicting narratives because it didn't seem like the thing to do (it was her research). The result has been that transsexual women with a contradicting narrative (and I'm the only one who made it into either batch of stories, and only then as a fluke because I knew Anne from before she had SRS and responded even though I didn't fit the profile she wanted) are accused of being in 'denial' of suffering from autogynephilia.

    At some point in time later, I ran across J. Michael Bailey. This time I tried to engage Dr. Bailey in a discussion of AGP and the point that I'd failed to raise with Dr. Lawrence, in regards to feminine-acting, gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals. Dr. Bailey humoured me up until the point that I pressed the issue and suggested that he specifically target for study the very group that he claims doesn't exist -- the gynephilic, male-to-female transsexual with a verifiable claim of having had a feminine childhood. He's not returned any of my e-mails since. In none of his presentations or discussions does he even hint that there are gynephilic transsexual women who actually were perceived-feminine both as children and into adulthood.

    Denise Tree (a/k/a Kiira Triea) who had been heavily involved both with Dr. Bailey, as well as with Alice Dreger, would later admit to having manipulated transsexual women during her discussions with them. She also (as I recalled) using our e-mails to "prove" the theories being advanced both by Drs Bailey and Lawrence, claiming that we were acting in 'denial' of something we claimed to be true, long before we were informed we had to claim it to be true -- it was MORE acceptable to have had a "hypermasculine phase" in the '80s and '90s. Denying a time existed when I was perceived-masculine, much less perceived-hyper-masculine, was counter to my needs for "medical-surgical validation." But what I learned towards the end of the build-up in the BBL controversy (which keeps on going) to my concluding that most everything said about transsexuality is a scam, and that I needed to just 'check out' for my own mental well-being (and I have -- BBL+Tree are abusers and I have no need for abusers in my life), was the extent to which Ms. Tree manipulated others. In Late '96 or '97, Ms. Tree told me to intentionally lie to my parents about having an intersex condition. I forget how the topic made it into the discussion, but I'd shared with Denise that my recently-divorced wife like calling me "XXY Man". The ex-wife has a degree in biology, I don't, not to hard to figure out where THAT went, but Ms. Tree definitely encouraged it. Ironically, later I would be diagnosed with an intersex condition (a relative died from a cancer common to XXY males -- I had a nice genetic counselor a visit). It would later be learned that Ms. Tree was not the age she claimed to be, and that many of the life experiences she claimed to have had would have been impossible. She neglected to mention that she told some of us to lie, then used our "lies" to prove her theory, all the while having lied about most of her life.

    The last of the people I saw mentioned here would be Alice Dreger. I don't know Dr. Dreger from Eve, but I do know that Dr. Dreger has been vocal in her support of Ms. Tree and Dr. Bailey. She's also been a harsh critic of some of the few people who've had the spine to stand up to BBL+Tree. True, neither Dr. Bailey nor Dr. Dreger are much on irony and I wasn't surprised that the tit-for-tat of some who oppose BBL+Tree was taken as some huge injustice, but in the light of what's since been learned about Ms. Tree, and what I've written above about BBL, I don't think it's fair to say Dr. Dreger "likes" transsexuals -- unless they are neat and tidy BBL+Tree approved transsexuals.

    NOW. Why all this?

    If you want to understand the horizontal violence between groups of transsexual men and women, you must understand what is being done TO us, from how many sides, how much institution power they wield, and just how willing they are to lie, falsify research, condone abuse, and so on.

    I am not exactly what here you are applying too.  It could not be my article because nowhere do I call BBL "Heroes".  I write of my interaction with some people on both sides in the process of writing the articles for wikipedia on this very subject.  At this point I must call them the definitive wikipedia accounts as noone has answered my call to stop complaining and start writing.  That work was done in collaboration with BOTH Andrea James, and James Cantor as well as one other user who's real name is unknown to me.  We had disputes one side took my findings against them personally.  The other did not.  One side tried to smear me the other did not.  While one side seemed to try to influence me by favor the other by threat I was unmoved and arbitrated every single word an NOONE has found a way to make a improvement or change to the articles I have worked on relating to BBL. 

    Now as for your story of being manipulated by people on the BBL side.  While you present only an anonymous story I am not going to say I totally disbelieve you.  However if you think that the Anti BBL side does not try to distort or manipulate facts you are being too innocent.  

    Let me give you an example.  Objecting to the characterization of certain individuals as prostitutes... then talking about them on a website as "transsexual womens success stories". Stories which omit a salient fact of life for many transsexual women.  While an unflattering portrayal it is at least partly true. Until recently a video of one of the ladies Bailey labeled a homosexual transsexual was available on the internet.  In this video she refers to herself as having been a shemale. The reasons she was able to "prostitute herself"  include in her words: 

    I enjoyed it, I liked men, my sex drive was pretty high, and I made allot of money.  
    Another person who likely complained is advertising somewhere right now even while post op.  I agree that it was wrong for them to be written of as if they were hookers and nothing more.  They aren't quite mother theresa either.  
    My dirt is already out there people.  I have written about it on this very blog site use search.  I have left these ladies names, pseudo names or anything else out.    I have no beef with them.  What I don't like is people fronting like they are perfect or something.  What I like less is other people appropriating the looks and life stories of others, manipulating them, then trying to call them evidence or data.  That is a total sham.  Were I offended enough I would expose all I know.  I see no reason to use such a "nuclear option".  Those stories do more good than harm right now. 

    I am certain you will likely think of me as the wicked  -itch of the west.  I'm totally 100% ok with that.  

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    We have a neurological difference related to the physical sex. Our gender is conformist and non-variant, but the genetic cascade gave us the correct neurology and the wrong phenotype. And I knew very young that I was really a girl.

    And don't play the minority victim card. I too am a minority. I grew up very poor. However, never once was I tempted to have ANY sex while preop, nor even sexually interested. I never used being poor as an excuse to live a disordered, gender-variant, sexually promiscuous life. Except for those kidnapped and forced to turn tricks at gunpoint, very few poor people actually have to turn to immoral sex acts and sex for pay.

    Most TGs (non-TSs) in the US are white, privileged, middle-class males with lots of disposable income. A lot of TGism is rebellion against that very privilege and any sympathy these TGs have with the lower income classes and minorities is all pretend, just like their femininity, and a type of self-hate. True-TSs tend to be more disadvantaged, more likely to also have mental illness or physical disability, and struggling from paycheck to paycheck. They barely break even between pay checks, let alone save for SRS. There is a huge difference between a non-op TG (gender variant and hates even the idea of surgery while loving his penis and non-op sex) and suspended preop TS (needs surgery more than anything, has mainstream, cisgendered values, but unable to get surgery). Perpetual preops are poor, sick, and/or minorities, while TG non-ops are mostly rich white men. Yet the rich white men in drag accuse the poor preops of being racist and classist.

    Then don't you see how it is just as wrong to invent HBS or some other designation and then use it against those people you call privilleged white males?  I know they throw their weight around the TG community and do things that make minority transwomen unwelcome in many ways.  However HBS like thinking is not the answer.  
    The very people you criticize are the primary movers behind HBS in the United States of America.

    I actually sympathize with much of what you say.  For a transsexual/transgender person of color or low socioeconomic status matters of bare survival in this country come into play.  We can't sit there and look a mess and demand to be treated like women then in the next breath throw around manly weight the way many of the people you describe do.   We don't have the money to sue, we don't have the money for most things without having to earn it on our knees or backsides.  

    For myself... I considered myself pre-op TS for years, then relapsed into being a sort of bigender male for the last many months, and am now realizing that I may just have to be happy as a non-op TS.  I couldn't see affording quality surgery anytime soon in my situation.  I realized lately that I still after many months off hormones and trying to gain weight that I still have more of a bikini body than a trunks body.  What does that make me?   Perhaps I am a bigendered male bodied person who's body is very feminine and I should present myself accordingly?    

    We have to respect that this journey is not going to be the same for everyone.  There is no formula or protocol that has any basis in nature to follow.  Just follow your instincts and your heart in making these decicions and respect others choices. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Let us be clear about what is and what is not Harry Benjamin Syndrome. It is not an association with fetishism although many who might be involved with that overpowering driven conflict of desires often use the term transgender to incorporate even those not in the vein of those like the 'Transgender' promoter of the term, Charles 'Virginia' Prince, (the hetero male married to a female who published the magazine 'Tranvestia' and lived in feminine finery although never wanted the removal of his pleasure device.)
    To demand that those who knew from childhood, long before puberty, that their sex was not in accord with their gender is a fictitious application designed to mask reality. Every HBS KNEW long before the onset of sexual mood someone drastically was different, very different. They just did not accept themselves in reflection of how others may well have seen them.
    Yes, a person might be born with a brain designed female while also being born with opposite sex genitalia (holds true for both sexes). And further there is scientific proof, often condemned by the ignorant, that backs up those findings.
    Does a person have to be fully aware they were born with a brain and genitalia in conflict. No, not always! But if one is not aware of feeling sexually different before the onset of puberty then it must be said they may well not be HBS. The advent of 99% of the transgender behaviors arise during or shortly following puberty and therefore is a result of a sexual prod rather than an inborn hypothalamus misfire.
    Oh, but here is where we hit the wall. Yes, often transsexualism is linked to HBS and that may well be caused by either of three possibilities: 1, The person who assumes they are transsexual never really understood what HBS really meant and how it might apply to them; 2. A matter of ignorance usually in an effort to deny that a reasoned anomaly might well exist that does not include them; 3, Here is where we find the high numbers: many who claim to be the representative terminology of 'all but a little different' mentality would falsly use those with an inborn anomaly, add them to their ideal but to hide themselves in the behavioral cloak of Transgenderism; a social construct not really in any way attached to a rare medical phenomenon which has been advanced as being a neurological intersex condition.
    The journey for anyone born with HBS is not to live in satisfaction but to address the issue with a favorable result that might bring them closer to a melding of brain and genitalia. To make claim that one need not think in that manner is a fallacy designed to hide behind the accepted sexual desires more oft associated with fetishism or sexual comfort and not at all in conflict with the actual sex of the brain.
    Why is it so condemning for someone to know they are HBS? It seems the attacks are coming from those who would never entertain the idea of actually correcting their sex for to do so would be a lie unto themselves. They hide behind a material cloak rather then know what others know of themselves.

    What's condeming is not that people who say they have HBS just know they have HBS.  It is that so many people who are on that bandwagon then go out and bad mouth others.  

    Usually the face of HBS is European, Australian, or Euroamerican people who have economic means, bashing the gender expressions of non euro descended persons.   In particular those who's culture does not require them to have SRS.  It is as if the only valid outlook is the strictly binary one of Europe.  

    That's what makes so many of you sound ignorant and look like bigots.  I am not the only one that has notice this by any means.

    So how about this.  If you write things like the comment above without the last paragraph that would be good for HBS.  If you can stop the HBS people who say such ignorant things about anyone who's different that would be even better.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.