Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Andrea updates her "Jamie is an ignorant slut" page 

Andrea James and I have an interesting history. She notices one of my writings and chooses to respond, either publically or privately. Often the interactions are very fruitful and are appreciated.

Still, we tend to see things in a different way, and I seem (to her) to be on opposite sides of issues important to both of us. As a consequence, she maintains a page about me and my opinions on the TSRoadMap web site. (In general, I highly recommend her site to transitioners for its enormous depth of information).

She recently updated the page to reflect recent developments in my life, particularly my departure from Transgender Forum.

Still, she presents what I consider to be a distorted view of my positions. In particular, she seems to be "sweating the small stuff" - quibling about terminology and making semantic moutains over molehills for transgressions like using the phrase "secondary transsexual".

I can't wait to see which buttons ring her bells when I come out with "Stigmata non grata".

Saturday, June 19, 2004

Evolution's Rainbow Review 

I spent a good deal of time recently reading through the book "Evolution's Rainbow" by Joan Roughgarden. I wrote a rather lengthy review of it which you can see by following the link above.

I know Joan Roughgarden and was fortunate to spend time talking with her about the biology of transgenderism. This was back when she was starting her research project. At the time of her transition, she went on sabbatical so we drifted apart.

Reading and writing about this book has brought me to the current research problem I am investigating. My humorous name for the problem is "Who are the Binary Police?" (a paraphrase from a Frank Zappa song).

Why is it that after the transition from tribal society to feudal society that transgender people go from being shamans to outcasts?

Joan has one conjecture about homophobia: Perhaps a political economy of pleasure which includes same-sex sexuality threatens the political economy of power necessary to maintain stable control in larger societies. Maybe transgenders got caught up in the sweep.

Joan also notes that eunuchs were an ancient transgender category in Western civilization, and that this role evolved into the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Perhaps transphobia, homophobia, and other forms of stigmatization are the manifestations of some basic process of evolutionary psychology. Whatever the underlying cause, this opposing force is both powerful and prevalent. Understanding it is key to overcoming it, or perhaps turning it upon itself.

Declaration of Values 

I wrote this up after reading through Evolution's Rainbow, which gave me a deeper understanding of where the autogynephilia and DSV-IV critics are coming from. I posted it on the autogynephilia support Yahoo group, and after a prod, recieved many varied comments. I am posting it here, unaltered, because it continues to represent my personal ethical view. -- Jamie Faye


Declaration of Values for the Study of the Role of Sexuality in Transgender Expression

The study of transgender people began in an era in which gender variance was stigmatized, and through both the process of science and the many deeds of individuals, we can now properly celebrate transgender individuals as uniquely valuable human beings.

Since the language of science and medicine reflects both the past and the present, and we as scientists wield great power, we wish to declare to all our commitment to the following principles:

The transgender condition is a natural variation of humanness that has existed throughout the time of man.

The transgender condition is not a disease, a disorder, or a defect.

Transgender sexual expression, including auto-erotic behavior, is also not a disease, a disorder, a perversion, or a defect of genes or character.

Medical and psychological treatment must be available for the purpose of remediating the damage caused by the cruelty of the transphobic. All stigma properly and entirely attaches to such prejudice and not to its victims.

Persecution of transgender people is a gross violation of human rights that can never be justified on religious, moral, or scientific grounds. We will not stand by in silence.

Great care must be taken in the use of scientific terminology to avoid misunderstandings based on antiquated meanings or stigmatizing connotations.

We will endeavor in all our scientific writing to use sex, gender, and sexual orientation designations and pronouns in such a manner as to accord respect to each individuals chosen mode of presentation.

Monday, March 29, 2004

Points of Agreement and Disagreement 

The following comes from a correspondence with Andrea James about our respective positions on the autogynephilia debate. It was generated in January. -- Jamie

Andrea,

I prefer "working forward" to "debating positions". I am also famous for tossing out wild ideas and having most of them be wrong. That is why I view my intellect as a movie and not a photograph.

It seems both sides are digging in their heels rather than exploring the possibilities of the problem space. Is there a way we can get people to open up?

The next thing I am writing about is "Why TSes have such a strong negative reaction to AGP".

It will not be a put-down of you or anyone. Rather it views AGP critics as "dreading the revocation of their liminal (rite of passage) into womanhood". In simpler terms, "If the rest of society returns to viewing TSes as perverted men, we lose our identity and our safety". That is worth being scared about.

I feel the only way to defuse the AGP bomb is to construct a TG theory (and liminality) that incorporates the sexual aspects but does not consider them primary. It needs a new name, more respectful terms, restructured claims, and a shift of focus. DMT is a partial attempt at this. It also needs a new liminal narrative that recognizes other possibilities than "hormones -> full-time -> GRS -> woman".

-- Jamie

I like the way you put it on your web page:

This controversy has two parts:

1. Discrediting Bailey and his book (the easy part)
2. Framing the theoretical issues involved (the profoundly difficult part)

Number 2 is where the treasure lies.

I decided to change the format a little and do what judges do when handling a case - that is to divide the issues that are agreed on from those that are in dispute. Feel free to move a claim from one concurrence status to another, or to add more of your own.

Here are some claims (or value statements) that I believe that we both accept:

Transsexuality is a natural variation of humanness and is not a disease or a disorder.
Misconceptions about transsexuality have been rife and have taken a terrible toll on the lives of TG people.
The scientific causes of transsexuality have not been fully explained.
Many transsexuals do not regard their transition experience as being motivated by sexual desire.
Many transsexuals do perceive the influence of sexuality in their transition experience.
Almost all transsexuals have experienced GID.
GID is different than frustrated paraphilic desire.
The AGP theories have not been proven true.
GID theories have not been proven to be false.
The label "paraphilia" is usually applied to a sexual variation deemed pathological by the denoter.
The major three major AGP advocates claim that AGP is a paraphilia.
Paraphilic labels are likely to be abused by opponents of the transgender community.
Lawrence and Bailey were asking for trouble when they promoted their theories by using provocative language.
There is a dearth of published papers on transgender phenomena.
TG people come from all walks of life.
Transition includes moments of magic and joy as well as those of sadness and pain.
Blanchard's results have not been replicated.
Bailey's book is not a definitive work of science.

Here are some claims that are up in the air:

GID theories have not been decisively proven to be true.
The AGP theories, while suspect, have not been decisively proven false.
No one has reported having failed to replicate Blanchard's results.
The Dutch BSTc study probably included TSes that had AGPA.
Blanchard (claims/does not claim) validity for the AGPMT theory. [Still digging on that one].

Here are some claims that I believe we disagree on:

While autogynephilia is mentioned in the DSM IV-TR as a characteristic in the description of "Gender Identity Disorder", the DSM IV does not formally define autogynephilia as being a paraphilia or a diagnosis. Any such interpretations come from the shared knowledge of readers but are not bare in the text.

Autogynephilia is relatively common among transsexuals, does not meet the criteria for being a paraphilia, and has no bearing on the suitability for HRT or GRS. [The middle clause is where we probably see things differently].

The autogynephilia phenomena needs to be explained as part of any comprehensive scientific theory of transsexualism.

Care givers have a responsibility "to do no harm", and thus have the right to refuse to provide HRT or GRS on demand. [They also have a responsibility to treat those in need, so there is a tension here].

Here are a few claims that are far out there, and thus where the fun really is:

CDs, TGs, and TSes are all manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.
There is no reliable way of telling which TGs will become TSes in the future.
Gender variation is a consequence of evolution - "male" and "female" are not stable categories but rather are the ongoing results of an eternal natural experiment.
There is not one "TG gene". Rather there is a mosaic of genetic factors involved and for certain combinations, you hit the jackpot.
GID is the consequence of the brain being structured to expect one memetic stream-shape while the body cues other agents to emit a different memetic stream-shape.

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Responding to Andrea 


I can't resist responding to Andrea's list.

1) I have a made-up "paraphilia" and so do my friends!

I specifically disclaim autogynephilia or "Self As Woman Schemas" are paraphilias. I also have an independent point of view and do not appreciate being lumped in with your opponents just because I don't see things exactly your way.

While some of its proponents have stated that autogynephilia is a paraphilia, I disagree with them and think that their beliefs should be revised.

2) I don't care that the M.D. who runs the world-famous Kinsey Institute said Bailey's book was not science! I say it is!

A claim that something is not science requires both context and substantiating detail. He could have meant it was not a book of formal science, or that it did not represent scientific consensus, or that there were some things in it he disagreed with. I doubt he meant "everything in the book is flat out wrong".

Quoting an authority without describing their objection in any detail is a logical fallacy called "argument from authority".

3) I mock published preliminary scientific findings that refute my argument! Bah!

This preliminary scientific finding is not incompatible with autogynephilia.

4) Lawrence and Bailey's sexualization of gender variance has nothing to do with their sexual interest in it or their unusually high levels of sexual behavior! They have complete objectivity, and so do I!

What's wrong with high levels of sexual behavior? Are you envious?

Ad homenium arguments are the anguished squeals of sacred cows in distress.

5) The Clarke Institute's program of long waits for medical treatment, 80-97.7% rejection rate and parole officer mentality is perfectly reasonable! Get over yourselves!

The Clarke Institute is a conservative institution. No doubt about that. It does not follow that a conservative institution is incapable of doing good science.

6) Both 'autogynephilia' and 'gender identity disorder' are both mental illnesses I have! [this is the best of the bunch]

I specifically disclaim autogynephilia or "Self As Woman Schemas" are paraphilias. I also claim that gender identity dysphora is not a mental disorder. That's dysphoria, not disorder. Even Lynn Conway uses GID to mean gender identity dysphora.


7) BBL's system of dividing everyone into gay and non-gay, and then saying anyone who is non-gay is a fetishist, is brilliant! Works for non-transsexuals, too!

Did I say that? Did he say that? I don't think so. The transformation chain of
not_gay->autogynephilic->paraphilic->transvestic fetishist->fetishist is in your head, not mine.

8) I make little smart-aleck lists instead of bothering to read the primary texts being discussed!

Actually, I make little smart-aleck lists in addition to bothering to read the primary texts of both the proponents and the critics.

I do regret letting my smart-aleck list circulate. I have redone it to be less annoying, and will make it the subject of a separate blog post.

9) I don't care that plethysmography is widely considered quackery!

Do you know where to get one cheap? I have a polygraph already and I think using a plethysmograph attachment would liven up my "lie detector" BDSM scenes!

10) I have my own idiosyncratic definitions for words and that's good enough for me!

I have had to revise things for clarity, so you got me there. It is hard to make subtle distinctions with some of the hot-heads out there.

11) Bailey says 'autogynephilia' is a paraphilia, but that's not how *I* define it!

I don't agree with many of Dr. Bailey claims.

Most of the AGP advocates are backing down from the claim the 'autogynephilia' is a paraphilia, because they don't see the behavior as problematic. Still, the word has become loaded so I came up with a different way to express the idea of TG autoerotic behavior.

12) I love myself as a woman! That's what 'autogynephilia' means! It's Greek! It's smart-sounding and scientific! Greek for feminist self-esteem!

I do, actually.

13) I don't think anyone outside sexology could possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute... Except me and my friends!

I think anyone who is civil and willing to learn can contribute to this.

14) 'Autogynephilia' is as legitimate a classification as nymphomania! Oh wait, they removed that from the DSM and now think it's a bunch of crap, but 'autogynephilia' isn't! It's real! Honest!

Autogynephilia is not in the DSM as a diagnosis or a disorder either. It is mentioned in passing.

15) 'Autogynephilia' is not the medicalization of socially unacceptable behavior! How dare you say that I am trying to legitimize my behavior with pseudo-scientific medical terms! It's enough to give me hysteria!

You think 'Autogynephilia' is the medicalization of socially unacceptable behavior. Its proponents do not, and neither do I.

16) I masturbate a lot, both genitally and intellectually!

That must be why I know my way around both Stanford University and Good Vibrations!

17) 'Autogynephilia' explanations link my behavior to attraction to animals, feces, and children, and I like it!

The transformation chain of
autogynephilic->paraphilic->{bestiality, coprophilia, pedophilia} is in your head, not mine.

18) I'm not a woman trapped in a man's body, I'm a MAN trapped in a man's body! A man who would be queen! Those are much more accurate cliches!

If someone had the good sense not to use the phrase "men trapped in men's bodies", this whole flap would have never happened.

19) I am completely unaware of the work Bailey has done on forced sterilization and legal policy surrounding "paraphilia"!

References please.

20) I'm a lesser light in the transactivist world clamoring for attention!

You should think more highly of yourself.

21) Experimenter effect' What's that?

A search engine is a great tool to find good definitions for these terms.

EXPERIMENTER EFFECT- The expectations, actions, or biases of the researchers produces the observed differences

22) Malingering? What's that?

Malingering is intentional production of false or exaggerated symptoms motivated by external incentives, such as obtaining compensation or drugs, avoiding work or military duty, or evading criminal prosecution

23) Factitious illness? What's that?

The term factitious disorder (FD) refers to any illness deliberately produced or falsified for the sole purpose of assuming the sick role.

24) Iatrogenic artifact? What's that?

Iatrogenic means induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of an infection or other complication of treatment.
Artifact: An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially one resulting from the technology used in scientific investigation or from experimental error:

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Jamie's Turn to Get Roasted! 


My writings on autogynephilia and transgender etiology theory have attracted attention from both sides of the debate.

A week or two ago I made up a list of all the common objections to autogynephilia theories. Exasperated by the implacably hostile tone of some of the critics, I let my smart aleck demon loose on a Yahoo group devoted to this subject.

Andrea and Deirdre have shot back. You can read the exchange at Andrea's web site by following the link to http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/jamie-faye-fenton.html.

The only point to emphasize is that criticizing the arguments used by the Democrats against the Republicans does not make me a Republican. Perhaps the only way to prove that is to criticize the arguments used by the Republicans against the Democrats too!

Wednesday, December 24, 2003

The Dual Motive Theory 



I have written another paper about the Dual Motive Theory of how transsexuality develops. While Lemonade Stand focused more on the flaws in the other two etiological theories, this one explains DMT in more detail. Here is the diagram that I drew to represent this:




From the Introduction:

There are two paradigms of transsexual etiology at war with each other. On one side is the view that the mind-body gender mismatch is biological and results in a deep emotional pain that can only be relieved by changing the body and social role to match the mind. The other side views gender transition as the culmination of a sexual desire to change one’s body and role to that of a woman. The biologists cite neuro-anatomical evidence. The psychologists cite sexual response measurements and the power of paraphilic desire. Each side cites the evidence from personal introspection and the reports of their supporters.

The passions of those who vehemently reject sexual explanations are white hot – they take such talk as demeaning, hateful, and likely to set back public acceptance by a generation. Still, from both the inside and the outside, the transgender community seems to have much to do about sex. The miniskirt to baby carriage ratio is high. This uncomfortable fact is usually dismissed by the “trapped in a man’s body” crowd as some form of transvestite contamination. However, even conservative transsexuals view the rite of passage to be acquiring a vagina rather than adopting a baby, and probably have miniskirts hanging in their closets.

A careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments for both theories leads me to the conclusion that, in many ways, both sides are right. A synthesis seems possible. This paper presents the argument for such a synthetic Dual Motive Theory (DMT).

Saturday, December 20, 2003

The Lemonade Stand of Desire 


NOTE: I have moved the body of this paper to a central location to make updating easier. The abstact is still valid, but to see the latest version of this, please refer to the official copy at: http://www.jamiefaye.com/lemonadestand.html

Abstract

Autogynephilia theories are both a matter of interest and intense controversy in the TG community. Autogynephilic arousal exists and it is more properly viewed as a coping mechanism rather than as a prime motivating force. This reconceptualization can explain primary/secondary TG clustering along the age and sexual orientation dimensions.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?