Sunday, February 28, 2010

Non Binary Gender, Absences and Appropriations

Two discussions well worth having.

This one on the erasure or allowed absence of non-binary non-transsexual parts of Transgender in the media is very important as the largest part of the Transgender Umbrella is the least seen.

While this one brings up claims of many people appropriating a Genderqueer identity and the effects of that on the community, a tricky problem indeed to take any side on with self-identification in the mix. And one in which i appear to have raised some controvertial ideas that some consider off topic, though i feel are getting to the actual heart of the matter.

Of note with my comments in the latter is the connected issue of how much the experiences of one group may be applicable to others in similar circumstances. While some imposing their experiences on everyone elses has been a problem in the past has the reaction to that gone so great as to cause massive loss of opportunities to learn from one another? Like has been raised in Science of recent times where Inter-disciplinary science has become invaluable in solving problems that sat building for ages through exclusivity and non-comunication between different fields?

Definatly some interesting conversations well worth having.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Quick response to new APA draft on Transvestic Fetish

It's late and I've been busy and with bad symnptoms so this is brief though i've added comments on it at bilerico and Zoe's and at some crossdressing forums.

Here it is:

That its there at all is problem number 1.

There's lots wrong with it.

It still only lists Males. I know female-bodied crossdressers exist cause I'm dating one!

The rationale section makes clear that even a well adjusted happy crossdresser is still labelled as having not-normative sexual behaviour even if not having the disorder so long as they ever have sex when dressed.

And then there's the bit where they explain no longer having heterosexuality a criteria for diagnosis (emphasis added by me): "[11] The word “heterosexual” was removed because some transvestites interact sexually with other males, especially when cross-dressed, and may subjectively perceive themselves as bisexual."

Not may be bisexual, not may be homosexual. But may subjectively perceive themselves as bisexual.
Are they wrong about being bisexual? Seems to me something they'd know. Are they suggesting Bisexuality doesn't exist?

I'll discuss this at more length later as there's plenty more but I'll mention this as it will also annoy the HBS crew who always demand that CDs have no conection to TSs and don't suffer gender dysporia: "Other transvestites, whom Blanchard (1989) has called autogynephiles, are most aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women. As a practical matter, the autogynephilic type seems to have a higher risk of developing gender dysphoria. This was confirmed in a secondary data analysis reported by Blanchard (2009c). The results of that analysis clearly suggested that the addition of the proposed specifiers to the diagnosis of Transvestic Disorder could provide clinically meaningful information as well as data useful for research."