"The science of gender bending and transsexualism"(1) has been and probably always will be controversial.  In this composition I will examine how that controversey usually plays out.  In short their are two points of view.  Call them science through dark colored glasses.  Where everything is about and directly related to sexuality (i.e. BBL theory or even Benjamin's work).  Then there is science through rose colored glasses.  Where nothing about being a transsexual has anything to do with sex....even though the theory they like is all about the "wiring" of the sexual centers of the brain.  Basically people wearing one kind of glasses don't like people who wear the other just because.  I am not immune to this effect myself.  So I made a mathematical model and have sumbitted it to a neutral, and peer reviewed journal.  The Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

Transsexuality Through Colored Glasses

Most people at scientific blogging may not be generally aware of this matter.  So I will give you some reference matterial on it.  I suggest that searching the Wikipedia articles "Autogynephilia", "Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence Theory", "homosexual transsexual" , and "BBL Controversey".  Note the LONG list of ad hominem personal attacks in the article on the controversey.  Their are open problems with Dr. Blanchards theory which are mentioned there as well.  What one get's is that the conroversey really is not about science it is all about different views of the same exact world.  Thus different colored glasses.  The root cause of this contorversey is like that.  One side's dark glasses filter out everything but sex and basic instincts, the other sides rose colored glasses filter out everything but high minded notions of "identity" and "brain wiring".

Think about this analogy.  Remember when you were a kid these "secret" messages that could only be revealed by looking thorugh a certiain color of glasses?  Their would be a chaotic mess of red lines and the message is in blue.  You hold up a red tinted glass and you can see the message.  Sometimes their would even be two messages.  

 Look up the term "Harry Benjamin Syndrome".  The people who advocate that term have on the rose colored glasses.  They hang their hat on the notion that the state of the BSTc makes one transsexual.  The BSTc is a sex specific nucleus of the hypothalamus.  Their rose colored glasses prevent them from seeing the obvious that if that part of a brain can be feminized why not the INAH?  Just how is it that such target specific feminizeation would occur and not result in a so called "homosexual transsexual".  The dark colored glasses of the other side are just as bad. They have been raked over the coals enough as it is so I will not add to it.

What Is really going on.

I have worn both kinds of glasses as I thought about the points of view of both sides.  I am a physicist, by traning, and nature so I put the problem in mathematical form.  No matter how I tried I could not build a model that made mathematical sense out of two and only two pure states.....  Not without adding in so much of the stucture it would take to make the model work aposteriori, after the fact.  {|HSTS>, |AGTS>} cannot span a hilbert space, and does not explain or model the fact, which bailey says in his book, that some people are more transsexual (TS) than others.  The model known as Harry Benjamin syndrome or "Brain Sex" does better.  It can explain and model a variety of transsexuals it has a well defined hilbert space...but it fails to account for the factually observed corelates between sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact it just asserts with no proof that they are not just separate but uncorrelated, and not entangled.  Which is rubbish from a bio-physical, mathematical-psychological point of view.  Such a model does not acknowledge the realites...

All one has to do is go to a well attended transgender community meeting.  I saw people who cut across all socioeconomic boundaries.  From Sex workers to social workers (and people who were both).  From ages 14 to 64.  The fact is as age of transition climbs so does the chance one is not a "homosexual transsexual".  The fact is looking across the races those who transition young in Chicago tend to be black or hispanic.   The fact is that all transsexuals felt they were the different gender from a young, pre sexual age.  The fact is that transsexualism is usually expressed differently by people of different sexual orientations.  Expressed in ways that correlate to those who are totally exclusively androphilic (say 6/6 on the kinsey scale) as biological males being more feminized than those who are not.  After all Two parts of their brain had to be feminized to make such a person.  The fact is there are exceptions to every rule  "jokers in the deck",  error bars on a measurement.  A good mathematical model should accomodate and even predict from the minimum of input all of the above.

Do I have a better idea.

Yes I have a mathematical model.  I wrote it up and sent it to the Jornal of Mathematical Physchology.  (fingers crossed) They will accept it and it will become part of the record. I have a rough version of it here (see attached file).

I felt it was necessary to contruct a new and better model.  One that by it's nature cannot have an agenda or be personally attacked.  Math does not lie and does not fudge data.  Math that is a clear cut (to a physicist anyway) as what I did in that composition just cannot lie.   

Some doubt that math or physics can apply to this problem.  I have to be suspect of the motives of such people.  Any and all scientist respect the power of mathematics to model the real world.  After all the stars and planets do what Newton, and Einstein say they should, atoms and molecules do what Fermi and Heisenberg say they should.  Why should we assume the brain to be any different.  (Don't give me "the mind is too complicated" so is nuclear physics and astrophysics especially when you get to really understand it as more than a cartoon .  Complex systems just need complex mathematics.)