What do you think about these posts?

I was doing some reading of other blogs, and found these posts interesting.  Disclaimer – I don’t subscribe to everything that is written on these blogs.  I’m interested in the arguments they present, not their whole agenda.  In the past people have judged me based on what sites I link to.  So again, I don’t know much about the authors, but I find their arguments worth pondering.


Here is the first – The ‘treatment’ for non-gender conforming girls/boys is child abuse.  I think this person is arguing similar to how I have argued in the past.  That much of what we view as masculinity and femininity in our culture are actually social constructs.  (Though I think I believe in more natural behavioral differences between the sexes than this author probably does).  Those who are confused about their sex are usually getting caught up in the stereotypes and social constructs.  The solution is not to change the biological sex.  This cannot truly be done anyway.  Only illusion is possible.  The solution is to be yourself and not try so hard to conform to the social constructs.  Although I am strongly against crossdressing, I think we can even draw this argument out to being yourself in regards to clothing.  But I would add caveats to that:   a.  being yourself in clothing as a man would not mean you could wear clothing especially designed for the shape of a woman’s body.  That makes no sense.     b.  you would need to make sure your reasons for dressing against the stereotypes did not have to do with wanting to dress “like a woman” for whatever psychological feelings of comfort or sexual pleasure that might give you.  I don’t know of many men (besides a few random websites of men out of billions in the world) who want to go against the cultural stereotypes of clothing for reasons other than the psychological or sexual reasons I mentioned.  The few that have other reasons probably just do it to be unique and get attention and shock people, and that bothers me for other good reasons.

I agree with the author that this is a form of child abuse when we allow children to make these changes to their bodies (and confuse their identity).  It may be well-intentioned child abuse, and very different from the violent perverse child abuse.  But it could still be termed a form of child abuse.

Thoughts about the article?  Comment below.


Here is the second – M2T transgenders fetishize and crave man-made simulacra of “female” biology.   I’d have to read more of what the author says elsewhere because it’s not clear whether he thinks all m-t-f transsexuals have/had these feelings, or if its only a certain type of m-t-f transgender or transsexual person who has these feelings.   I think for some people the desires might be highly sexual as described, and for some people not nearly as much.  As written elsewhere, I believe there are generally two types of transsexuals.  I would probably say though that sexual feelings are involved at least a tiny bit for any male who is wanting to become a female.  But I say that without evidence, just is a hunch.

I know that much of what is written seems to fit my own experience.  It fits in well with what I have written elsewhere about crossdressing easily becoming idolatry.  It is certainly thought provoking to think of crossdressing as a fetish, something that we worship.  And worshiping meaning not only that we have reverence for its power and beauty, but also want to possess and control it.  And that would also fit in with my post about crossdressing as envy.

Thoughts on the post?  Comment below.


6 comments on “What do you think about these posts?

  1. EricP says:

    I tried to put in a longer comment but it was rejected. Short version. 2nd article is 30 years old. 1st article — blockers allow children to become adults before making permanent decisions.


  2. EricP says:

    Autogynphelia in DSM5 is classified as a subset of CD, not TS.


  3. thorin25 says:

    Eric, sorry to hear that you had problems commenting. I honestly have no idea how to help you there. I only see these two above comments, and approved them both. It didn’t show me a longer one to approve.

    Why does it matter how old an article is?

    DSM5 is the newest manual?


  4. EricP says:

    What rating is your forum set at? Maybe I used some words that wordpress automatically rejected.
    If I know the rating, I can figure out what euphemisms to use. I never intend to be gratuitously graphic but this isn’t a G rated topic.

    Anyway, to your questions. The age of the article matters very much, especially in proportion to the age of the field. I wouldn’t use a 1950’s textbook to talk about space flight. A medical journal from the 1900’s before the advent of antibiotics would be similarly useless. The scientific study of transsexuals only started in the 1960’s. A lot of new science has happened in the last 20 years.

    DSM5 is the newest manual. It’s available in print, but I’ve only read parts of someone else’s because of expense.


  5. thorin25 says:

    Thanks for the insight. That is something I had not really looked at before (lots of nasty comments have gotten through though), but it is on G. I’ll change it to PG.


  6. Ralph says:

    I’ve been out of the blogosphere for a while so I’m just now getting caught up on the past month worth of posts.The second article is a bit technical for me, or more accurately so academically dry my eyes glazed over trying to wade through it. Individually, words like “simulacrum” and “fetishize” and “objectify” make perfect sense to me, but put ’em all together in one sentence and it’s an instant sleeping pill. Math is hard! Tee-hee, let’s go shopping! (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

    Anyhow, the first article gave me a reaction much like you describe of your own, Thorin. As bad as you may consider arguably fetishistic behavior like crossdressing, it’s leagues less permanently harmful than physical surgery or being branded with epithets like “gender dysphoria”.

    And as much as I like to go around places like this wailing “But it’s DIFFERENT for me, because I just like the clothes without wanting to be a woman!” I know perfectly well there’s more to it than that. Certain fabrics and certain styles may not give me a sexual response, but they sure push buttons deep inside my psyche. If all I wanted was the comfort of a skirt, I’d get a stupid kilt and shut up. But no, I’m not really in my happy place unless it’s a full, billowy skirt, extra points for being of one piece with the bodice (hence I only own a couple of separate skirts and blouses, but upwards of 15 dresses). Better still if it’s got a snug smocked top (for a summer sundress) or a victorian high collar with a zipper right up my neck to the base of my skull. Forget cotton; make it velvet or satin or taffeta or at least nylon tricot. If it’s not brushing my ankles as I walk, I’m less interested.

    So what’s up with that? Maybe it IS a sexual fetish that I’ve managed to bury under four decades of denial. Maybe I’m one of those guys who, if I had my brain scanned by that neurologist lady, would show stronger female traits than a normal male brain. Or maybe I’m just weird 😛

    Anyhow, where I was going with that detour was that I would very much like to support this guy’s assertion that we should be able to dress how we like without the baggage of sexual or psychological issues… but I can’t really say with a clear conscience that I’m just expressing myself as a man with different taste. Something’s out of whack up there, I just am not bothered by it enough to even find out what it is, much less do anything to stop it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s