On the Science of Changing Sex

These Transsexuals Were the First Banned…

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 26, 2017

Kay Brown 2010… from the US Armed Forces.  Here’s what they did next.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I always interpreted this, our 2nd Amendment to our constitution to actually mean that the right to serve in the defence of our country, could not be “infringed”.   But clearly, bigotry and prejudice have prevailed over the centuries… as they did today when our current “Commander-in-Chief”, spouting more lies, but really serving the interests of bigots, re-instated the ugly and wholly unnecessary policy of excluding any and all transsexual and transgender people from military service “in any capacity”.  I believe whole-heartedly that this policy is unconstitutional on the face of it.

This policy has touched upon my own life and that of many other transfolk, both those I have known and admired, and those unknown, but still worthy of respect.

When I was in my mid-teens, my mother would leave brochures for the Navy around for my brother and I to find.  She tried very hard to get us both to join up.  I knew that was NOT for me, as I was trying desperately to transition as soon as I possibly could… and joining the Navy would not help in that effort.  Plus, hey, as an obviously gender atypical androphilic male, there was no way that I could pass as a straight man.  As it was, on my 18th birthday, my father came over to give me a combination birthday and high school graduation gift of a clock-radio, the only gift that I was given by anyone on this occasion.  He also informed me that I was no longer welcome to live in my mother’s house.  How brave of my mother to use my father to deliver the message.  I would not be welcome to stay at my father’s small apartment either… as it was too close to the family.  I would be given a small allowance if I remained away from the family from then on… to be a “remittance man”.  So, as I struggled to maintain myself, my brother soon joined the Navy to be trained as an avionics technician.

When I was 22 years old, in 1979, during a time of much stress, as I had been intermittently homeless and living in rather unsavory conditions at times, I was working as a very low paid electronics repair tech, a skill I had learned coming up the ranks from electronic assembler.  I had very skilled hands and could delicately remove and replace microelectronic components that most men could not.  One of our customers was an Air National Guard unit who didn’t have anyone who could fix the type of radios that I could.  One of their non-comms responsible for their electronics maintainance tried very hard to get me to sign-up.  As a pre-op transsexual, I knew that I could never do that as it was then well-known that the DOD policy was that no homosexuals nor transsexuals were allowed.  Being both androphilic and a pre-op, I would be considered doubly unqualified.  But I could REALLY have used the money and experience of serving.  (No soup for you!)

That year, I would meet two transwomen who had served in the military and both been discharged for being trans.

Joy_Candice

Dr. Joy Shaffer and Kay Brown in the mid-80s

The first was Joy Shaffer.  She had joined the Air Force as a teenager and served for something like 18 months before events unfolded in which she admitted that she was trans.  She was administratively discharged, honorably, such that she was eligible for G.I. benefits which she used to earn a degree in biochemistry from CalTech, with honors, in only three years, transitioning there as a student.  When I met her a few months after her graduation, she was working as a research assistant for a scientist working to understand the biochemistry and epigenetics of osteoarthritis.

clar05aThe other was Joanna Michelle Clark.  Joanna had been in the Navy, rose to Chief Petty Officer, thus our favorite nickname for her, “Chief”.  She, like so many other ‘late transitioners’ had been married.  But, as her gender dysphoria grew, she divorced, left the Navy, honorably, with no reference to being transsexual, and began transition.  She sought treatment at the Stanford Clinic in the early ’70s.  (She has some amusing stories about her own interviews with Dr. Fisk.)  Afterwards, she was recruited into the Army National Guard.  She had fully disclosed her earlier identity, medical status, and experience in the Navy.  As there were no policies concerning transsexuals at the time, she was inducted.  Ah… but folks at the Pentagon finally noticed her existence about a year and a half later.  They changed the policy and then booted her, dishonorably, for having violated the new policy!  She fought back but managed only to get her discharge changed to honorable, as she had never lied about her medical status at any point and it was the DOD who had changed their policies… and attempted to apply an illegal ex-post-facto charge against her.

This experience radicalized Joanna to become a true activist.  One of the first things she did afterwords was convince and work with Willie Brown to change California law to allow transsexuals to change their ID, including their driver licence, before SRS.

ACLUIn 1980, Joanna Clark, Joy Shaffer, and several other transsexuals, including myself, founded the ACLU Transsexual Rights Committee, with Joanna as the Committee Chair.  The committee worked on a number of initiatives including the issue of access to medical care which was under serious threat at both governmental and private insurance providers.  (Our nemesis, author of The Transsexual Empire, Janice Raymond was one of the culture warriors on the other side, writing transphobic whitepapers arguing against coverage for transition medical services.)  A key argument against medical coverage for SRS was that it was “experimental”.  I had insurance through my employer that should have covered my SRS, which I had gone deeply in debt (relative to my meager income at the time) to pay for.  But my carrier refused reimbursement based on “experimental”  I and an FtM transman who had been also refused reimbursement using this same “experimental” clause agreed to contest this rejection.  The committee put together a case for class action suit with ACLU backing and myself and the brave transman as key plaintiff.  But the insurance company stymied us by paying our claims and admitting that our surgeries were no longer “experimental”.  I thought we had won!  No, we got snuckered, the insurance companies started writing specific exclusionary language into all future policies.  We calculated that the cost of doing that exceeded the costs of coverage.  This was done out of bigotry, not rational business, just as the exclusion of LGBT people in the military is one of bigotry.

Joy went on to earn a medical doctorate at Stanford Medical School, became board certified in internal medicine, later to found a large private LGBT friendly medical practice in San Jose.  As well as having the largest transgender private practice in the world, Joy served on the front lines against the HIV/AIDS epidemic taking on patients when others wouldn’t.  When anti-retro-viral drugs started saving lives, she celebrated telling me, “We are fucking curing AIDS!”

Joanna, deeply moved by the growing death toll of the early AIDS epidemic went on to a new mission in HIV/AIDS education.  Violating copy right law, systematically pulled scientific and medical papers from behind paywalls and placed them on first a BBS then later a website, to disseminate lifesaving information on HIV/AIDS, work that she continues to this day.

Had the DOD not changed their policy so as to boot Joanna and Joy, both the transgender/transsexual and gay communities would have lost the services of some of our greatest champions and heroes.  Some good has come out of evil bigotry.

So, back to today’s announcement.  How many transsexuals, you know, the ones that actually “change sex” and need medical intervention are there in the U.S. armed services?  Forget those silly numbers that have been thrown around.  Using proper statistics of how many transfolk have actually transitioned in the U.S., the total is only 90,000 out of close to 300 million residents; with only 2 million Americans in uniform, that means only 600 transsexuals.  That’s it.  600.  Wow, that’s going to cost… far less than they already spend on little blue pills for men who can’t get it up.  And the DOD knows it.

Further Reading:

Wikipedia Page on Joanna M. Clark

Essay on the true number of transitioned transfolk in the U.S.

Scientific American: Cost of Medical Care for Transgender Service Members Would Be Minimal, Studies Show.

Comments Off on These Transsexuals Were the First Banned…

I’ve Done My Research…

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 18, 2017

20106662_827148660781856_9051171404874056968_nOr… Bringing a Plastic Picnic Knife to a Gunfight

If one were to trust the discussions on various internet fora, and even occasionally a direct email, one would think everyone in the trans* community was an expert on trans* sexuality and experience.  One would think that they all have read the science papers and have considered the evidence.  One would be very wrong.

One transwoman told me on a forum (my own facebook page of all things) that she had read all of Blanchard’s papers and knew that they were all bogus.  I then mentioned another paper by Freund… whereupon she jumped down my throat about how stupid I was to use psychoanalytic arguments.  Oopies… “Gee,” says I, “I thought you said that you had read of all Blanchard’s papers.  If so, you would know that I was referring to Blanchard’s early mentor and collaborator, co-author of his early papers on trans*, Kurt Freund, NOT Sigmund Freud!”  I had caught this individual in a flat out lie.  She had never actually read Blanchard’s, or anybody else’s, papers on the science.  No, she was regurgitating what she had read about Blanchard, from authors who had written about Blanchard after having read about Blanchard from other authors who had written about Blanchard, etc., many suggesting that Blanchard and his cronies are in a conspiracy to defame transwomen.  (Hint:  No, they are not.)

Of course, it is not just Blanchard’s papers that need to be read and understood if one is to understand the hypothesis and evidence involved.  One also must read the papers that followed up on Blanchard’s papers.  And one must also read the papers that preceded his, of which Blanchard was following up upon (for example, Freund’s).  There are literally hundreds of papers that one must read and understand, deeply understand.  It helps if one has a very strong background in psychology, biology, and neurology.  (Did I mention that I have a degree in psychology, strong minor in biology, as well as the degree in physics?)

Oh, for certain there are a few who have actually read the papers… but mostly in an attempt to refute, rather than understand.   Many, perhaps most, don’t actually read the papers, but just skim the abstracts.  This is understandable since many of these papers are behind paywalls.  But this is not a useful means of understanding the evidence, since many of the abstracts were written with the intention of ‘spinning’ the evidence, either into something more exciting than the data actually supports, or attempting to downplay what it actually supports.  From this, a number of trans* commenters have created a mountain of misrepresentations of the papers.

For example, that most risible of “papers” that purported to demonstrate the existence of autogynephilia in non-trans women put out by Moser, if you trust the abstract, one gets a completely different conclusion than what one gets when one reads the actual paper with an understanding of how such science should be conducted, and know that in this case, it wasn’t.

But another example I was confronted with by email just recently, was a part-time cross-dresser angrily contesting my use of the Nuttbrock study as further evidence that supported the two type taxonomy of MTF transgender.  Unwinding the misconceptions that he had, it became clear that he based his contention that Nuttbrock did not support the two type taxonomy on the title and abstract of the paper.  He had never actually read the paper, nor had bothered to follow the links I provide to essays I wrote that quote and organize the DATA from the Nuttbrock study.  The data I had because I wrote to Nuttbrock asking pretty please for a copy of the paper and was graciously provided one.

inah3Another problem is trusting the authors of papers when they cite other papers to correctly interpret what those cited paper’s data actually support (or refute).  For example, I keep seeing papers (and transwomen on internet fora) citing Swaab’s earlier papers on transsexual brain studies as though they supported the brain sex hypothesis for gynephilic transwomen, when in fact, they do not.  (As a reminder, all of the subjects had been on HRT for years and we now know that HRT causes shifts in brain structure.)  To spot these errors, one has to understand the entire corpus of published papers and carefully, and yes, skeptically, construct a picture of what the collective evidence does and does not support.

Unless one has done that, coming at the so-called “Blanchardists” ( including myself ) saying that you have done your research… well, that’s just bringing a plastic picnic knife to a gunfight.

Further Reading:

Essay on Moser’s purported study on autogynephilic in women

Essay on Swaab’s BSTc and INAH3 papers

Essay on Nuttbrock study

 

Comments Off on I’ve Done My Research…

Baby Hunger…

Posted in Editorial, Transsexual Theory by Kay Brown on July 9, 2017

female_scientistOr, Rubbing Salt Into the Wound

A couple days ago, a young androphilic transwoman from Portugal, who has been a correspondent for several years, since her late teens, wrote to me asking my opinion of androphilic transwomen’s desire for children.  She, like me, definitely has always desired to be around and to mother children.  She had recently been employed as a caregiver at a children’s group home and had loved it.  She recently entered nursing school and looks forward to someday marrying a loving man and adopting children, preferably babies.  She thought it was be a good idea for me to write an essay on this topic.  So, here it is.

Stoller, in his 1968 book, Sex And Gender, described androphilic transwomen as ardently wanting children including mothering, indeed bearing, infants,

sex-and-gender-the-development-of-masculinity-and-femininityThe ultimate progression for the transsexual … has not yet been reached in our society: he would not only like to have is body appear completely female but he would like to have his internal organs so changed (for example, by transplants) that he would now have is own functioning ovaries and uterus, ultimately to bear a child truly his own.

Stoller described a typical androphilic transwoman and concluded with “The patient is now married and hopes to adopt children.”

When I was first interviewed by Norman Fisk at the Stanford Gender Dysphoria Clinic as a 17 year old in early 1975, I told him of my hopes and dreams of finding a husband and adopting children.  I recall telling him about how much I enjoyed the two summers I had spent as a swimming instructor teaching very young children and of the then previous summer employed as a nanny taking care of two boys, aged four and ten, from early morning to dinner-time.  I had of course, actively sought out babysitting jobs all through Jr. and Sr. high school, with a promise to all of my regular families that I would break any previous engagement for a job.  I don’t remember him making fun of me.

I achieved both of these goals, though it took a lot longer that I had anticipated.  There were many things that had to be achieved first and many pit-falls to avoid along the way.

There are many obstacles for androphilic transwomen to overcome before becoming an adoptive parent.  First, one must have the social stability, an excellent support network, and sufficient family income to afford to raise a child.  Many never reach that goal.  Having a husband with a good income is a dream that is often out of reach.  Second, one has to navigate a system that would much rather find a home for a child with non-LGBT parents, especially for newborns.  Adopting a newborn, even for middle-class non-LGBT families, is difficult as there are always far more prospective families looking to adopt a baby than there are babies available for adoption.  It is becoming easier in some locales for LGBT people to foster-adopt older hard-to-place children, but it still requires surviving an extensive vetting process.  That process will black-ball any who have even the most minor of criminal records.  One also has to have the temperament and above average parenting skills to take in a child who will come with emotional challenges and maladaptive behaviors from early life experiences in a chaotic birth home.  In many locales, in spite of recent legal and social advances for LGBT people, being transsexual will mean not being seriously considered as an ‘appropriate’ placement.

Candice2

Kay Brown with her adopted daughter Liz

I first became a licenced foster parent in California in 1984, almost by happenstance when Cassandra, a 14-year-old lesbian, needed a supportive home of the sort that I could provide.  Now, 33 years later, she still calls me her Mom.  In the early ’90s while living in Oregon, I sought to become a foster, hopefully adoptive mom of a younger child and carefully researched the possibility.  I put out on the transgender social networks looking for any who had been able to do so.  I found exactly one androphilic transwoman on the east coast who was fostering her sister’s children while her sister was in prison.  (Children’s Services gives priority to relatives for placement whenever possible.)  That was it.  One family.  Special case.  I was breaking new ground when seven-year old Liz was placed in my household.  (There were several women living there.)  Liz was adopted on her ninth birthday.  I have since found one other androphilic transwoman who foster-adopted three siblings sometime after me.

There is always the possibility of surrogacy.  But that takes even more socio-economic status.  I have only one reference that may qualify as surrogacy.  Dawn Langley Simmons, who was white, married a black man then apparently faked pregnancy timed to the delivery of a mixed race baby.  The sire may have been her husband or the baby may have simply been unwanted.  We don’t have the details.

There have also been tales and hints that some androphilic transwomen have been aided by close relatives or friends volunteering to be gestational surrogates.  But those stories are kept very private for good and sufficient reasons.

There was a private effort in the transsexual community to develop ethical  biotechnology that would allow transwomen to carry a child to term in ways not too different from that prophesied by Robert Stoller… but that research did not reach our final goal.  Now, there are new developments regarding uterine transplants that may offer the final key.  Sadly, I’m too old now to participate, but I most certainly would if I were younger.

We have enough evidence here to show that at least some androphilic transwomen do have an intense interest in being mothers of both infants and small children.  But actualizing that desire is extremely difficult for most.

So, we see that though it is difficult for an androphilic transwoman to find a loving husband and build a family through adoption, it is not impossible.  But one wouldn’t know that from reading the literature on transsexuality when they discuss whether transwomen are interested in children, have maternal feelings.

In the 1974 paper describing psychiatric grand rounds at UCSD, “Gloria”, a 20-year-old androphilic pre-op transwoman already in a stable relationship with a straight man reported that she too hoped to adopt a new-born, to which an oh so ‘kindly and understanding’ physician throws shade on her coping skills, her character, and her motives for wanting to raise a child,

No matter which way this goes, Gloria is going to have trouble adjusting. A normal woman has trouble when she bears a child or adopts one; this new woman is going to have many more troubles.  At this point she wants a baby because that is part of her image of being a woman. And yet I do not know whether she really wants a baby or whether this is just the image, just as she stated that she doesn’t feel sexy if she doesn’t have a vagina.

But then we come to the most ugly of all comments coming from John Money in an abstract of a case series paper from 1968 in which we can easily discern that he is lumping together androphilic and autogynephilic transwomen together when he writes,

“All 14 patients desired adoptive motherhood, with a preference for small children, though not newborn babies. In general, the group appeared to possess a feminine gender identity, except for a masculine threshold of erotic arousal in response to visual imagery and an unmotherly disengagement from the helplessness of the newborn.”

Remember how hard it is for a post-transtion transwoman to become a mother, especially of newborns?  Remember how the clinicians made fun of “Gloria” for wanting to be such a mother?  Now, do you think it is possible that transwomen can pick up on that negative attitude, perhaps realize that if they state a desire for what is clearly unlikely to happen that it might be interpreted as having unreasonable life goals?  (One of the selection criteria that clinics used in the ’60s was whether their clients had reasonable expectations for their lives post-op.)  Further, is it in fact a good idea to pine for what can never be?  So… calling them “unmotherly” for looking to adopt hard-to-place children rather than hoping for that one-in-a-million chance to adopt a healthy baby was just rubbing salt into the wound.

So ingrained is our view that interest in children is a measure of womanly virtue it effects how autogynephilic transwomen attempt to portray themselves.  A few years ago, continuing my search for transwomen’s experiences regarding adopting children, I chanced upon an online forum where a number of transwomen were discussing how one could tell the difference between a “transsexual” and a “wannabe” [sic] by whether they noticed small children or not.  Of course, they all congratulated themselves on their interest in small children, telling stories of how they had noticed children in social settings, as did the women, while the men in their company, or even other (presumably “wannabe”) transwomen, had not.  Curious, I traced down each of these transwomen’s identities (people leave a lot of breadcrumbs behind them) and discovered that every one of them was in fact a late transitioner and more than one of them had very masculine occupations and interests.  They had not evinced any notable efforts to pursue being motherly, indeed, some had barely maintained contact with their own children from marriages prior to transition.  Their participation in this discussion was more in line with social desirability bias, impression management, and self-enhancement than in honest self-evaluation.  It fits with the well-known (to cognizant clinicians at least) phenomena of autogynephilic transwomen editing their history, experiences, and desires to more closely approximate those of “classic transsexuals”.

We need to conduct research on whether transsexuals and transgender people of all kinds are interested in being parents.  Interestingly Michael Bailey suggested a great instrument for this task in his book the Man Who Would Be Queen:

TMWWBQ CoverINTEREST IN CHILDREN
1. I greatly enjoy spending time with young children.
2. I get a lot of pleasure from holding babies.
3. I would enjoy taking care of a baby for a friend or relative.
4. I daydream about having a baby of my own.
5. Often when I see babies, I experience warm, positive feelings.
6. When I think about it hard, I have strong doubts whether the
rewards of raising an infant are worth the work and responsibility. (reverse scored)

This could be seven value Likert scored from “Definitely Do NOT Agree” to “Definitely Agree”.  Any interested in conducting the survey?

Further Reading:

Essay on Robert Stoller’s description of a “typical” androphilic transsexual.

New York Times Obituary for Dawn Simmons

Scientific American: How a transgender women could get pregnant

References:

Judd, et al., “Male Transsexualism”, (1974) Western Journal of Medicine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1130141/

MONEY, JOHN Ph.D.; PRIMROSE, CLAY, “SEXUAL DIMORPHISM AND DISSOCIATION IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MALE TRANSSEXUALS” (1968) The Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease
http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Abstract/1968/11000/SEXUAL_DIMORPHISM_AND_DISSOCIATION_IN_THE.4.aspx

 

Comments Off on Baby Hunger…

Because Boys Must Be Boys…

Posted in Brain Sex, Editorial by Kay Brown on July 5, 2017

Teenage-brain…Its a Fact of Human Nature, and Girls Must Grow Up to Be Mothers!

Over the years that I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve deliberately avoided using the popular term “gender non-conforming”, using the term “gender atypical” instead.  It may have struck some of my readers as odd and idiosyncratic, given that so many others use the “GNC” term.  But, I have done so for several important reasons, some based on science, some on political-philosophical grounds.

The scientific reasons are easier to explain.  There is no “standard” to which behavior should “conform”.  There is only behavior, period.  However, if we look at, study in depth as scientists, a species we can say that there are behaviors that are far more commonly performed by them than other behaviors seen in other species.  These we can label as “typical” for that species.  If we see a behavior in a given individual of a species that is uncommon for that species, we may label it “atypical”; but we would never label it “non-conforming” since we can’t really say what standard that a given species should “conform” to.  Behaviors are selected by evolution depending upon whether they increase the reproductive ‘fitness’ of the individuals exhibiting them.  The same logic applies to sexes within a given species.  We may observe sexually dimorphic behaviors in a given species.  That is, we will label a behavior sexually dimorphic if we see that it is much more commonly performed in one sex than the other.  If we see an individual performing such a behavior that is uncommon in that given sex, we may label it “atypical” for that sex; but to label it “non-conforming”?  That’s smacks of invoking an outside agency which has the authority to define a standard for such behavior that the theory of natural selection does not provide.  Just as with non-human species, humans do not stand outside of nature.  There is no agency that defines for our species a standard by which to judge whether a given behavior does or does not “conform”.

The political reasons include my personal objection to the very notion that there should be such a “standard”.  But even deeper, is my objection to the post-modernist idea that there are no intrinsic sexually dimorphic behaviors in humans, that there are only socially constructed roles.  This notion would state that since all differences in behavior observed between the human sexes are socially constructed and maintained, there must be a socially defined standard to which we can conform or not.  Another idea that I object to is that of a divinely ordained standard that we must conform to, which has the same effect.  Thus, both of these ideas reduce any behavior that is seen in an individual that is uncommon in that person’s sex to an act of “gender non-conformity” either by accident or by will… but never by nature.  I find both the notion that we stand outside of nature to be scientifically preposterous and philosophically offensive.   Further, those who seek humane treatment for gender atypical individuals will find that they must contend with those who hold these ideas often falling back on unquestioned prejudices, the nature of which is determined by which value system through which they view such gender atypical individuals, post-modernist or religious.

Before going into details about the nature of the prejudices and what we must contend, let’s explore how we know that human beings do have sexually dimorphic behaviors that have both neural correlates and developmental pathways leading to them.  It’s important to differentiate between behaviors that are demonstrably sexually dimorphic because of neural correlates and those that are merely cultural role enactments and false gender stereotypes.  Thus, for purposes of this essay, I differentiate between a strong social construction hypothesis which says that all differences in behavior are purely from culture and a weak social construction hypothesis that says that some behaviors and gender roles are socially constructed around truly sexually dimorphic behaviors and gender role limitations built around cultural prejudice and false stereotypes.  It is the strong social construction hypothesis that I will show is not supported by the evidence.

In other pages of this blog, I’ve made reference to the single most sexually dimorphic behavior in humans: androphilia (sexual attraction to adult males).  In female humans, it is extremely common to be attracted to men.  Approximately 98% of women are attracted to men while only approximately 5-10% of men were attracted to men.  One could object to this being a ‘natural’ phenomena and say that social expectations have defined this.  But it would not fit the evidence that has been amassing that sexual orientation is neither “chosen” nor “taught”.  Further, why should humans be unique in the world?  Most mammalian species are sexually dimorphic in their sexual attractions.  (No, I’m not denying that same sex behavior occurs in non-human species… only saying it is not as common as other sex attraction.)  But, this isn’t the end of the story.

Sexual orientation in adults is presaged by gendered behavior as young children.  That is to say, that humans have sexually dimorphic behaviors as young children and that sexual orientation is highly correlated with those behaviors.  Children that grow up to be homosexual evince notable gender atypicality.  The key behaviors that are noted to be gender atypical in boys are avoidance of rough and tumble play, avoidance of physical aggression, preference for female playmates and play style, etc.  But here is where we start to see the issue of having to contend with those prejudices.  Some cultures attach serious negative stigma to gender atypicality while others do not.  Most of my readers will likely live in cultures that do and will recognize the ugly recriminations in the song, “Boys Will Be Boys”; “You bloody sissy, who said you could cry?” down to the call to an authority defining the standard to which a child must conform, “Doctor, Doctor, tell me where did we go wrong?”.

But we in our enlightened age know that the parents did nothing wrong… (yes, you may take that to be sarcasm).

In other essays on this blog, I’ve explored some of the science that shows that sexual orientation is correlated with childhood gender atypicality, the Fraternal Birth Order Effect, etc.  I’ve discussed possible etiological hypothesis.  I have in the past written about the disappointment with using the 2D:4D digit ratios as a means of exploring the possible effect of varying androgens as being correlated with sexual orientation.  But now, I want to share a really amazing bit of evidence that shows that perinatal exposure to androgens is likely to be responsible for masculinizing the human brain and its absence affecting early childhood gender atypicality, as Vicky Pasterski puts it,

By now, the majority of scientists studying the topic likely agree that homosexuality is definitely not a choice and probably not due to socioenvironmental factors. At the same time, there appear to be no physical indicators of disrupted fetal sexual differentiation in homosexual men that would fit with the basic premise of the hormone theory of sex development. However, it is possible that alterations in the androgen surge that occurs in the early postnatal period, also called mini-puberty, could have effects that are not immediately or physically obvious. Based on the finding that penile growth in the first three months of life correlates with a concomitant surge in serum testosterone levels considered the possibility that penile growth may act as a proxy for neonatal androgen exposure and that change measurements may be related to later neurobehavioral outcomes. In a longitudinal study of 81 typically developing boys, we found that the strength of the early postnatal androgen surge, from birth to approximately three months of age, predicted masculine behavior at 4 years old. By controlling for effects of prenatal androgen exposure using measurements of penile length and anogenital distance (AGD; sexually dimorphic and roughly twice as long in males compared to females) at birth, we showed that penile growth in the first three months of life, but not thereafter, accounted for significant variance in later sex-typed behavior. In the overall regression analysis, which controlled for various factors, penile length at birth was not related to sex-typed behavior. This suggests that disruption to male mini-puberty could have implications for future sex-related outcomes that are masked by a typical appearance at birth. Further, this provides support for the hypothesis that early (postnatal) hormone exposure influences aspects of sex-typed development in men, in a similar fashion to prenatal hormone exposure that is presumed to affect women.

1-s2-0-s0018506x15000033-gr1_lrgIn Pasterski’s research, she divided the boys into three groups (tertiles) based on their gendered behavior from the Pre-School Activities Inventory and mapped against the growth rate of their genitals in the first months after birth, which has been shown to correlate with androgen exposure.  (Though to be complete, it may also correlate with androgen receptor sensitivity, but for my purposes, that would have the same epistemic value.)  The results are dramatic, we see with no ambiguity that the rate of growth of genitalia is positively correlated with gender typical behavior.   That also means that the inverse is true.  Gender atypical behavior is inversely correlated with perinatal genital growth.

Had the strong social construction hypothesis of all gendered behavior been true, there would have been no correlation.  We can reject this hypothesis.  At best, we have a weak social construction hypothesis of gender roles around very real sexually dimorphic differences.  Those that lampoon this conclusion by calling it “Lady Brain” theory are just plain wrong.

It has been previously noted that gender atypically behaving children have differences in facial “attractiveness”.  This fits well with the above research as male children who have not had this intense “mini-puberty” would likely remain neotenous and thus feminine in appearance.  This likely also extends past adolescence to explain the rather dramatic differences in passability between androphilic transwomen and gynephilic transwomen.  Being gender atypical in brain organization, it would naturally lead to later androphilia, gender atypical motor skills (feminine walk and hand gestures), and gender atypical vocal production (feminine or “gay lisp”).

Given the religious (or related social views of gender) prejudice, one can easily see how children who exhibit these gender atypical behaviors are placed under tremendous pressure to “conform” to gender behavior standards that tend to skew to the gender typical, or even an exageration of typical behavior.  Children who meet this standard are prized and praised above other children.  That is to say, extreme gender typicality is valorized as well as held as the gender normitive standard and granted privilege over children who fail to meet this standard.

Here I opine, perhaps even hypothesize, that this pressure to conform to normative gender role standards has distorted what would be the natural course of development of gender atypical children and has led to the creation of the artificial gender normative role of Western Gay and Lesbian culture, especially the “Straight Looking / Straight Acting” Gay male standard to which otherwise gender atypical male children are required to adhere.  To the non-gay community members, the benefit of artificial standard was originally to force gay people to remain deep in the closet.  As the Western Gay Liberation movement gained ground, those who had tacitly accepted this standard began to subtly and not so subtly enforce it.

One would, at first glance, believe that those who hold the strong social construction hypothesis as true would then have no qualms about accepting gender atypical children and adults without reservation as breaking stereotypes.  But, as we can easily discern, they often do not, as demonstrated by the minority movement within the gay and lesbian (mostly lesbian) communities of being “gender critical”.  They philosophically approve of people being gender atypical… but only to a very specified point, accepting the gender normative roles that were established during the early Gay Liberation Movement.  The moment that an individual steps past that point, there will be those who will denounce them as hewing to the very stereotypes that they break, but in the opposite gendered sense, denying that underlying sexually dimorphic behavior as valid.  In some cases, public denouncements of the very existence of gender atypical males have been made (e.g. Jean O’Leary’s public denouncement of Silvia Rivera, early androphilic transactivist, as “mocking women” at the 1970 Stonewall commemoriation for wearing feminine clothing).  On the internet today, this same gender role proscription is made where androphilic transwomen are chastised in the ugliest terms, “just because you’re a gay man doesn’t mean that you can be excused for objectifying women (by looking and acting like one).”  Thus, we see that gender role policing based on accepting gender normative standards exists even in the modern LGB communities.

Further Reading:

Essay on motor movement in gender atypical males.

Essay on vocal production in gender atypical people.

Essay on passability differences between gynephilic vs. androphilic transsexuals.

References:

Pasterski, V., “Fetal Androgens and Human Sexual Orientation: Searching for the Elusive Link”, (2017) Archives of Sexual Behavior
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-1021-6

Pasterski, V., et al., “Postnatal penile growth concurrent with mini-puberty predicts later sex-typed play behavior: Evidence for neurobehavioral effects of the postnatal androgen surge in typically developing boys”, (2015) Hormones and Behavior
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X15000033#f0005

Song Reference:

Boys Will Be Boys
(Leon Rosselson)

Boys will be boys, it’s a fact of human nature
And girls will grow up to be mothers

Look at little Peter, isn’t he a terror?
Shooting all the neighbors with his cowboy gun
Screaming like a jet plane, always throwing something
I just can’t control him. Trouble – he’s the one.

Ah but boys will be boys, it’s a fact of human nature
And girls will grow up to be mothers

Look at little Janie, Doesn’t she look pretty?
Playing with her dolly, proper little mum
Never getting dirty, never being naughty
Don’t punch your sister Peter, now look at what you’ve done

Ah but boys will be boys, it’s a fact of human nature
And girls will grow up to be mothers

What’s come over Janie, Janie’s turning nasty
Left hook to the body, right hook in the eye
Vicious little hussy, now Peter’s started bawling
What a bloody sissy, who said you could cry?

Because boys must be boys, it’s a fact of human nature
And girls must grow up to be mothers

Now things are topsy turvy. Janie wants a football
Peter just seems happy pushing prams along
Makes you feel so guilty. Kids are such a worry
Doctor, doctor, tell me, where did we go wrong?

Because boys must be boys, it’s a fact of human nature
And girls must grow up to be mothers

Comments Off on Because Boys Must Be Boys…

Cognitive Dissonance and Vector Transform Miscalculations in Transgender Tensor Space

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on June 2, 2017

Kay Brown 2010Tension said the Tensor
Tension said the Tensor
Tension Apprehension and Dissention have begun

I am turning 60 years old this week.  This means that it has been 42 years since I transitioned full time the same week I turned 18, graduated from high school, and was informed that I was being kicked out.  Much has happened since then, both personally and within the transsexual and transgender communities.  In the vein of “ya either laugh or cry”, offered for your consideration are random dialogs and events over the decades.  The events were real, only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Candice_Caltech

Kay Brown in college

I’m at a “Grooming Seminar” at the Stanford Gender Dysphoria Clinic in late ’77.  I attend in the hopes of getting my “letter” approving me for SRS.  One of the events specially scheduled for this day is a make-over session in which a make-up expert has been brought in to demonstrate how to use make-up to allow one to pass.  She asks for a volunteer.  As the only ‘young transitioner’ in the audience, well known to the others to wear almost no make-up beyond mascara and eye-liner, I was by general acclamation “volunteered” with much cat-calling and barely suppressed jealous jeering, as I was literally compelled toward the stands by gentle pushes and shoves.  As I join the make-up artist on the stage, this young woman does a serious double-take.  She looks at me, looks at her make-up selection, and despairs.  I later learn from her that she had been told to expect that she would have to cover heavy five-o-clock shadows and course ruddy complexions.  She examines my face, noting that I was as smooth skinned as she is without a trace of beard (I had never grown one, never needed electrolysis.)  She asks,

“You have such lovely complexion, what do you use to cleanse and moisturize?”

“Cold cream and rubbing alcohol.”  I answer honestly.  I could barely afford to eat, much less buy expensive skin creams!

“Really?” she asks incredulously, pausing to consider what to do, ” I don’t know what to do.  I don’t have the right make up for your face!”  Which brings more titters and cat-calls from the far older transwomen in the audience who are clearly enjoying her discomfiture, likely having anticipated this development.  I feel my face blush pink from embarrassment.  “Hold on, I know…” as she grabs her purse and pulls out her own personal travelling make-up kit.  Turns out, we have identical coloring.  She makes-up my face such that I look like a beauty magazine model.

ACLUAt a political gathering in the summer of 1982 of several dozen transsexuals, mostly ‘late transitioning’ transwomen and their wives, a woman asks my college roommate Joy,

“Where is your Significant Other?”

“I’m single.”

“Oh, then who did you come with?”

“My roommate,” pointing at me. 

“I’m confused.  Then why are you here?  Most of us only came to support our SO’s,” having decided that I wasn’t transsexual.

“I’m a member of the committee.”

“Oh wait, you mean that YOU are TS?  OMG!  I’m sorry, I thought you were one of us.”  (meaning, one of the natal female wives and girlfriends)

At an FtM conference in late ’99, where I had been invited to give a talk on TransHistory, a very similar dialog occurs as a transman and his wife ask,

“Where is your husband?”

“He’s at home.  He’s not interested in these sorts of events.”

“Ummm… then when are you planning to transition?” as looks me over, obviously both admiring my trim figure in a cute feminine outfit while frowning in confusion and some disapproval.

“Transition?  I did that over twenty five years ago!”

“You’re MTF?  Wow!” as he gives me an even more admiring gaze, “Wow!”

Young transitioning, androphilic transwomen, being a small minority, get this all of the time.  We don’t look “transgender” and even other transfolk aren’t that familiar with us.

Late transitioning transwomen believe that there is only one type, so they tend to make invalid assumptions.  During a group discussion where all of the ‘late transitioning’ transwomen are discussing their military service, one snags me and asks,

“So when were you in the military?”

“What?  They don’t let TS folk in the military!”

“Of course not, I meant before the change…”

“They don’t let minors join either.”

CedarStar_porch

CedarStar

On another day, it doesn’t matter when, and I’m having a discussion with a transwoman I invited over for coffee at my house.  She makes a comment about my roommate, assuming that she is my wife, wondering aloud if she will mind that she is there.

“What makes you think that she and I are an item?”

“Well, you live together.  And it’s obvious that you are affectionate with each other.”

“We have separate bedrooms.”

“But….”

“We have separate bedrooms.  I’m not into women.  I’ve been dating men since I was a teenager.”

“But, if you are only into men, how come you’re hanging out with me?”

“Because I thought you were interesting as a person.  This isn’t a date!”

Serious misunderstandings between myself and late transitioning transwomen have happened repeatedly in my life.  It is understandable, if one knows that people tend to project their own motives and world view upon others as their working assumption until proven wrong.

Candice2

Kay Brown with her adopted daughter Liz

I’m with my adopted daughter, Liz, at a large social gathering at the private home of a much older transwoman, literally a rocket scientist, that includes a fair number of late transitioning transwomen in Silicon Valley.  Everyone there is “cool” about transgender folk and I’ve been introduced, and thus ‘outed’ as being trans before I got there.  A middle-aged woman approaches me,

“Your daughter is so well behaved and lovely and looks so much like you.”

“Yes, it’s amazing.  I guess we both just got lucky that way.”

“So where is her mother? Is she here, or is this your weekend to babysit?”

“I’m her mother.”

“Oh… oh yes, of course you are.  I meant her real mother.”

“If you mean her birth mother, I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met her.”

“Huh?”

“I adopted Liz.  I’ve never met her birth parents.  And no, this isn’t my weekend to ‘babysit’.  I’m her mother!”

I wanted to scream at this woman who was so completely clueless on multiple levels.  First, she assumed that I was Liz’s sire.  I wanted to scream, “NO, I’m not her FATHER.  I’ve never even FUCKED a woman in my entire life!  Oh for fuck’s sake, I transitioned a decade before Liz was even born!”

189511_1005083648024_5819_n

Jeff and Kay saying their vows

I’m at a trendy wine bar in 2013 in Sacramento the evening after having spoken, by invitation, on a panel at a women’s conference earlier.  The conference organizer is drunk, loudly outs me to several other women, then tells me that she has dated transwomen before, making it very clear that she finds me attractive.  She and her friend stand on either side of me, penning me in as they proceed to hit on me, her friend taking my hand and suggestively stoking it for a moment, then puzzled, notes my wedding and engagement rings, soldered together as one, asks,

“What’s this?”

“My wedding ring.  I’m married.”

“You’re married?”

“Yes, I’m married.  His name is Jeff.  We have a daughter, Liz.”

“I thought you were transgender…”

I wave my hands, shaking my head, as I pull away to make a timely exit to walk back to the B&B for the night.  The next morning, I have a very serious talk to the conference organizer about her inappropriate behavior, explaining why it is not cool to out transwomen in public, nor to hit on them, assuming that we are all sexually attracted to women.  She was shocked.  She sincerely thought that ALL transwomen were attracted to women.

Over forty years of embarrassing misunderstandings.  I sincerely hope that with greater visibility of transkids, they will experience far fewer of these…

Further Reading:

The Invisible Transsexual

Comments Off on Cognitive Dissonance and Vector Transform Miscalculations in Transgender Tensor Space

Say That Again Please?

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on May 10, 2017

female_scientistIt normally takes me weeks to write an essay once I’ve found a paper (or three) that seemed worthy of being used as the focus.  But today, I ran into disturbing paper that hits very close to home.  I’m hard of hearing.  I’ve been hard of hearing all of my life, but I’ve been wearing hearing aids since my very early 30’s, mostly because that was when Kaiser finally saw fit to give me my first a really basic analog device.  IT was a revelation; wow, so many birds chirping out in the garden!  I couldn’t hear them before.  Today, I wear some really nifty high tech digital hearing aids with BlueTooth remote control in both ears.  And yeah, I paid for them myself… and worth every penny.

Just this week a new paper came out that suggests the HRT for menopause is correlated with increased risk of hearing loss.  I don’t have access to the full paper and I haven’t figured out who is the corresponding author yet.  But given that transwomen use HRT in higher doses and for longer periods of time, it may be important to look into this issue.

From the abstract,

Objective: Menopause may be a risk factor for hearing loss, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) has been proposed to slow hearing decline; however, there are no large prospective studies. We prospectively examined the independent relations between menopause and postmenopausal HT and risk of self-reported hearing loss.  …  Conclusions: Older age at menopause and longer duration of postmenopausal HT are associated with higher risk of hearing loss.

Reference:

Curhan, et al., “Menopause and Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy and Hearing Loss” Menopause  (May 2017)  http://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/Abstract/publishahead/Menopause_and_postmenopausal_hormone_therapy_and.97786.aspx

Comments Off on Say That Again Please?

When in the Course of Human Events…

Posted in Editorial, Transgender Youth by Kay Brown on January 1, 2017

Kay BrownOr, Why The Two Types of MTF Transsexuals Should Be Recognized and Treated Separately.

These past few years has been an interesting one from the standpoint that we are seeing more papers supporting the Fruend / Blanchard Two Type Taxonomy in that Blanchard’s prediction that the two types would have differential neural corralates (brain differences).  But this past year, we saw two very important papers from Hsu et al. {See previous essay} when combined with previous papers by Blanchard and Veale, lend powerful support to what a number of ‘early onset’ MTF transwomen have been saying more sotto voiced, as Velasques did,

“Teen hsts should not be required to attend support groups for older transsexuals. The two groups have nothing in common and many of us have had upsetting experiences being forced to attend meetings with people who have had a transvestic etiology as opposed to a homosexual one.”

Quite simply, autogynephilic transwomen are sexually attracted to, sexually objectify, and inappropriately romantize ‘early onset’ transwomen and our lives.  Further, they are given licence to make pruriently inappropriate comments and questions regarding such youngsters appearance, attractiveness, genital surgical status, and sexual experiences under the guise that “we are all just girls here”, comments and questions that would not occur in groups of only transkids, and certainly not from women.  As I put it in my 2009 essay on the Transkids website,

“In transsexual support groups, homosexual transsexuals are in a minority position from the beginning. It is human nature to seek out those like themselves, so occasionally an HSTS finds a support group, but soon feels out-of-place and uncomfortable, unable to relate to AGPs and the issues that AGPs most want to discuss. Unless the support group is moderated by an experienced therapist, the naturally more masculine and dominant AGPs, accustomed to male privilege, will tend to monopolize the conversations. Further, since a portion of the AGP population is strongly attracted to other transsexuals, especially to those who are physically and behaviorally more feminine, the HSTS minority may be subject to unwanted sexual advances from the AGP majority. Naturally, finding no real support for, or mirroring of, her own concerns, and made uncomfortable by sexual objectification, the lone HSTS will quickly drift away, leaving the support group to the AGPs.”

Both of these quotes actually understate the problems when ‘early onset’ transwomen are required to attend therapy with autogynphilic transwomen.  We now have laboratory and survey evidence that all autogynephiles, not just a “portion”, are strongly, in fact preferentially, attracted to gynandromorphs, that is, pre-operative, young, physically and behaviorially feminine ‘early onset’ transkids.

I can just hear my reader’s thoughts, “So what?  Lots of people find themselves the subject of attraction.  They deal with it just fine.”  Yes, but consider for a moment that we are talking about young, naive, teenagers and young adults who first attend such therapy sessions with the nearly explicit assumption that they will be in a group of transwomen “that are just like them”.  If your only model of who and what ‘transsexuals’ are is yourself, and perhaps the popular culture’s ever present mantra of “a woman trapped in a man’s body”… then one will enter that room with no adequate defences to both the sexual objectification and to the mind fuck of trying to square the rather odd differences between one’s self and one’s experiences as an obviously gender atypical and androphilic person and the presentation and experiences (not to mention implausable histories) of the autogynephilic majority in the group.  In effect, that youngster begins to ask, “If these are transwomen… then WTF am I?”  I know I certainly had this rather dizzying experience the first time I met “transsexuals”,

“During my second semester in college, I met other transsexuals for the first time, at the [Stanford] clinic. What I found surprised and confused me. They did not seem to be unaffectedly feminine, without effort, but more like men who desired to be feminine and were working desperately to appear so. I was acutely embarrassed for them. Most were much older than me. Many of them had been, or still were, happily and sexually satisfactorily married to women for years. I couldn’t understand why they wanted to live as women.  If I was surprised and confused by them, they were just as surprised and confused by me. I was asked how it was possible that I had been dating, and sexually active with, men, especially as I was pre-op. I had dated four straight boys who had been high school classmates, besides the young men that I met when I left home for college. None of the others at the Clinic had ever dated a man.”

Even this quote from my 2009 essay understates the negative consequences that occured within weeks of that first introduction to autogynephilic transsexuals in that because of it, and the fact that I was experiencing severe housing and food insecurity due to having been effectively disowned by my family, one of these autogynephilic transwomen ‘kindly’ offered to take me in… only to later demand sexual favors in return when the alternative was homelessness.  Had I known the nature of autogynephilic sexuality and mendacity… or had I not been thus improperly included in this session in which Stanford had tacitly vetted the others, this “upsetting experience” would not have occured.

Just as it is inappropriate for ‘early onset’ transwomen to be required or encouraged to attend such mixed group therapy, it is even more inappropriate to place MTF transkids in the same hospital room with an autogynephilic transsexual, as I wrote in my parental advice essay,

“Insist that your child have either a room to themselves, or with another transkid of the same social gender and sexual orientation.  Under no circumstance allow your MTF child to share a room with an adult MTF transitioner.  The hospital administration usually has no real clue about the realities of transsexuality and transsexuals, and think that we are all the same.  No one would think of asking a young lady to share a hospital room with an older straight man… but that is in effect what is happening in hospitals on a regular basis.  Autogynephilic MTF transsexuals are sexually attracted to women, and often, even especially, to young MTF transkids.  Further, a fair number of autogynephilic individuals sexualize the very act, the process of changing sex, both in themselves and in others.  Due to a lifetime of socialization as men, and only limited experience in their new gender role, these individuals often do not recognize appropriate boundaries.  Do not allow your child to be so exposed when they are at their most physically and emotionally vulnerable point in their young lives!  (I myself had a very upsetting incident when I had SRS.  A few years ago, I accompanied a transkid to that very same hospital, who had a similar experience, 28 years after my own. )”

While I do not wish to share the nature of my “upsetting incident” in the hospital, I don’t believe that these experiences are unique to me.  In point of fact, it is not hard, by scanning the web, to find accounts of others describing “upsetting” experiences either in group therapy or while at a hospital for SRS.  In one case I recall, a youngster described the older transistioning members of her group, “pervy”, while another used “skeevy”, when addressing the unwanted and inappropriate sexual attention they received.

I feel strongly, especially now that we have such strong evidence to support both the Two Type Taxonomy AND the now well documented sexual preference for ‘early onset’ MTF transkids, that including them in the same support groups, group therapy sessions, and hospital settings, borders, if not crosses into, malpractice.  MTF transkids should not have to put up with unwanted and very inappropriate sexual attention / harrassment just to get past the “gate-keepers”.

It is past time that WPATH recognize the two type taxonomy and that differential diagnostic criteria be included in the APA Diagnostic and Stastical Manual.

Further Reading:

Information for Health Care Providers

S. Alejandra Velasquez, “Treatment Recommendations for HSTS Transkids”
http://www.transkids.us/recommend.html

Kay Brown, “The Invisble Transsexual”
http://www.transkids.us/invisible.html

Essay on Autogynephiles and Gynandromorphophilia

Essay on “upsetting” experiences with an AGP transwoman

Advice to Parents of Transkids

References:

K. J. Hsu, A. M. Rosenthal, D. I. Miller and J. M. Bailey, “Sexual Arousal Patterns of Autogynephilic Cross-dressing Men”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308036975_Sexual_Arousal_Patterns_of_Autogynephilic_Male_Cross-Dressers

K. J. Hsu, A. M. Rosenthal, D. I. Miller and J. M. Bailey, “Who are gynandromorphophilic men? Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women”
http://d-miller.github.io/assets/HsuEtAl2015.pdf

Jaimie F. Veale, Dave E. Clarke and Terri C. Lomax, “Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/bp2235t8261q23u3/

Anne A. Lawrence and J. Michael Bailey
Transsexual Groups in Veale et al. (2008) are “Autogynephilic” and “Even More Autogynephilic”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u473w370g11vx758/

Jaimie F. Veale, David E. Clarke and Terri C. Lomax
Reply to Lawrence and Bailey (2008)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/cm2531l3m3148377/

Blanchard R, Collins PI., “Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8245926

Blanchard R., “The she-male phenomenon and the concept of partial autogynephilia”
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a789560133

Comments Off on When in the Course of Human Events…

Silly Stereotypes

Posted in Editorial, Science Criticism by Kay Brown on November 6, 2016

phrenologyWhen I was being evaluated by the Stanford Gender Dysphoria Clinic, they had me answer a number of questionaires.  Of course, as a naive teenager, not yet having the background in science, especially in psychology, I took them thinking that they might help me get past these evaluations such that I would be OK’ed for SRS.  Only later did I learn that these were not diagnostic but research tools.  Later, I came to recognize them and studied them.  One of them was the Bem Sex Role Inventory.  Interestingly enough, I learned the most damning things about this instrument, not in my psych studies, which I did, but from my U.S. History, Women’s Emphasis Class in 1977.  In that class, I learned about gender stereotypes, their power to shape politics… and as any feminist knows, the personal is political.  Suddenly, for me, my personal experience taking the inventory become political.

Why am I writing about this now?  Because I still see this inventory being touted as though it had any kind of scientific validity as a window into intrisic gender meaning… that it shows any sort of truly sexually dimorphic differences in personality.  It does not.

Then what does it show?  Stereotypes.

The Bem Inventory was developed in 1974 by Sandra Bem, a feminist psychologist.  Bem did not intend it to be, and in fact later bemoaned that it had misused as, a gender identity tool.  It was a tool to explore how individuals hewed, or not, to societal gender stereotypes, period.

I recall, that as I learned about the inventory, how dismayed I was about its use… and how many of the stereotypes made no real sense.  Consider a couple of the terms that were supposed to be “feminine” and “masculine” qualities like “gullible” and “loyal”.  WTF!?!?

In 1974, these were qualities that were considered “feminine” and “masculine”… but not today.  This inventory only helps us understood sexist stereotypes of the mid’70s not who we are today… and certainly does NOT tell us if we are men, women, or transgendered.  It’s far past time to leave the Bem Inventory in the footnotes section of history books.

Further Reading:

“I Took the Bem Sex Role Inventory From 1974 and This Is What Happened”, by Lara Rutherford-Morrison

Comments Off on Silly Stereotypes

Denial Is Not A River

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on April 16, 2016

Science vs nonsense

On Science Denialism in the Transgender Communities

In the sense that I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, it really gets my goat that so many intelligent transfolk can be so deep into science denial, specifically denying the overwhelming evidence for the two type taxonomy and especially for the role that autogynephilia plays in the developent of one of the types.  But hey, who am I trying to kid (yes, pun intended)?  Science denial is everywhere these days.  Even in the transgender communities…  So, for the record:

No, vaccines do not cause autism!  Give it up.  The scientific evidence is overwhelming… and Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license because of his outright fraud, both legal and scientific.  VAX !!!

Yes, the HIV virus does cause AIDS.  Hard to believe, but there are still those who deny this well established fact.  Practice safer sex!

No, “Morgellons” don’t exist.  See a pshrink about your delusional parasitosis.

Yes, anthropogenic climate change is happening.  Your favorite climate science denialist arguements are truly no match for data.  The data clearly says its happening.

No, homeopathy, chiropracty, accupunture, reiki, colonics, “detox”, etc. are not real… in fact all the so called “alternative”, “complementary”, or “integrative medicine” are bogus.  They are all placebos with no real effect other than to drain your bank account.

Yes, GMOs are safe to eat.  Calling them “frankenfood” is just a cheap rhetorical trick.

No, cellphones do not cause cancer, nor do microwave ovens, over head power lines, or other sources of “radiation”.  Get a grip, sunlight is “radiation” and while needed for good health (Vitamin D), actually CAN cause cancer, unlike your smartphone. Oh… and they aren’t the cause of bee colony collapse either.

Yes, humans (and every other life form on the planet) evolved from previous species.  Evolution is a fact.  How it happens is explained by the theory of evolution.  “Creation Science” isn’t.  No, the Earth is not 6,000 years old.  It is a shade older than 4.5B years… but then, asking a lady her age is considered rude?

No, Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence, Dreger, Cantor, nor I are ‘big fat meanies’ for writing about the science.    We just trust evidence, not vehemence.

Yes, there are two types of transwomen… and yes, one of them is autogynephilic.

 

Further Reading:

Silly Objections

Tagged with:

Comments Off on Denial Is Not A River

Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire…

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on April 12, 2016

Kay BrownIn a recent article, Casey Plett, told a big fat lie about me… defaming me, by saying that “Then there’s Kay Brown, who runs a blog where she has praised Zucker’s work.

The problem?  Nowhere in this blog, do I “praise Zucker’s work”…

What I do do is cite Zucker’s papers, where appropriate.  That is NOT the same thing as “praise”.  What’s more, Plett falsely implies that I support the therapies that tried to “cure” transkids of being… well… transkids.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  First, take a moment to read my “about” page.  There you will note that I was in fact sent to therapists, who attempted just that.  I know, as many of Plett’s other listed transfolk who spoke out about Zucker’s work do not, what such therapy feels like first hand… Many of these individuals include very dishonorable transfolk who have participated in vilifying, falsely, various researchers and transwomen who explore the nature of transsexual and transgender sexuality, most especially those who explore the two type taxonomy and the nature and role of autogynephilia in transgender men and transwomen.

I suspect it is not my comments regarding “reparative” therapy or of citing Zucker that has excited Plett to defame me thus… but of my assiduous search for the truth… a truth that many do not want to hear.  I also suspect that Pleth had been told, rather than researched what my blog says, taking the word of the someone among that cast of dishonorable transfolk.  Had she actually read my blog (now over a hundred essays) she would have found this snippet on my Advice to Parents of Transkids,

“Similarly, there have been  historically accepted, but totally erroneous beliefs, among a minority of child development “experts” and psychotherapists, that an overly strong emotional bond between the child and their opposite sex parent, or allowing gender atypical children participation in, expressing interest in, or even just being exposed to, gender atypical activities or hobbies leads to gender dysphoria and/or homosexuality.  This has led to an emotionally abusive therapy by some child therapists, encouraging opposite sex parents to reduce their involvement in the child, while encouraging the same sex parent to become more involved, especially in stereotypical gender typical activities, to punish gender atypical behavior and reward gender typical behavior, as a means of precluding a young child from becoming a transsexual or gay adult.   Following or allowing such a course will more likely lead to resentful withdrawal and long term damage to the parent/child relationships.  Both parents should endeavor to love, bond with, and accept their children as they are.

(I can attest from personal experience, that nothing could be further from the truth.  I was and remain very close to my father, while my mother was and remains cold and distant; and both consistently disapproved of my gender atypicality, encouraging my gender neutral hobbies and regularly attempting to encourage, one may say requiring, stereotypically gender typical ones, which were universally rebuffed by me, from an early age.)”

Casey Plett owes me an apology, a big one.

Addendum 4/14/2016:  If Plett had read my FAQ, she would have found this snippet,

Can therapy “cure” my transgendered child?

Short answer:  No.

Full Answer: There has never been ANY properly controlled study that shows that it is possible to make someone be non-transgendered, or to keep someone from becoming transgendered.  There have been some therapists who have made claims regarding their successes of “curing” transgender children, but given that most gender atypical young children naturally “grow out of it” by the time they are ten, these therapists are wrongly claiming credit for what is a naturally occurring process.  In a few cases, these therapists claimed “cures” which were later shown to have been merely the children telling the therapist what they wanted to hear.

Because attempts to “cure” transkids only causes distress, low self-esteem, and even leads to suicidal ideation, a few states have or are considering outlawing such “conversion” or “reparative” therapies.”

Addendum 8/7/2016:  I don’t know if this is the same or a different author once again misrespresenting my positions, but the same tone is involved:  http://freethoughtblogs.com/atg/2016/08/07/academic-transphobia-the-persistence-of-the-activists-vs-science-false-dichotomy/

Further Reading:

Review of documentary about affirming transkids gender aspirations which interviewed Kenneth Zucker.

Comments Off on Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire…