Talk:Transsexual/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gender assigned at birth?

Added text which notes that "gender" is assigned at birth. I hope it fixes some edit issues. Ronabop 10:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is of course the problem that some intersexed people get assigned their gender later, or that it is changed several times; therefore I usually write "usually at birth". One might leave it out, though, since that would complicate the matter too much for the casual reader. -- AlexR 02:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edited to match your comments. Your point is valid and sensible. Ronabop 08:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

noun vs. adjective

I just reverted a recent change that swept through changing the usage of 'transsexual' from noun to and adjective. I put it back to a noun. We don't say "male person", or "female individual", although they are correct, it is stuffy language. Common usage is "male", "female", man", "woman". Going further, common usage is "white male" or "Caucasian male", not "white male individual" or "Caucasian male person". A parallel is "MtF transsexual", not "MtF transsexual person". Similarly, "Caucasian" can stand alone and act as a noun, as can "MtF". - UtherSRG 18:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Addition: The change was made by me, and I resent the reversion to the previous page. I shall now go through and change it back. The term "transsexual" has been reclaimed by the trans community in an effort to de-objectify ourselves from the stereotyped "thing" that the public has in their minds.

It is one thing to be called transsexual, it is quite another to be called "a transsexual". The majority of the trans coommunity have welcomed these efforts. Stuffy language or not, it is the right of the "object" themselves to decide how they should be addressed, and in this case the usage of a noun is inappropriate and shall remain so.

I refer you to Christine Burns' article on this subject HERE which I hope will give solid reasons as to why I changed the definition and will continue to do so.

...annie...

The author has made an incorrect analogy. Transsexual describes a class of people. Working, divorced, caring, and happy do not. For the first one must instead speak of workers. A person can be a worker. It would be very strange to say a worker person or worker people, though both are valid English. --Eequor 04:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's good style use somthing like "transsexuals feel..." when talking about both transsexual men and women, and to use "transsexual" as an adjective when describing a person in the singular, eg as above, "transsexual man" or "transsexual woman". I think it can go either way and still sound correct...though I agree with Annie in her saying that the use of "a transsexual" is not appropriate. Note that the "FTM" and "MTF" terms should be used sparingly - they may be helpful for a layperson understanding these sorts of issues but are a little inaccurate. Dysprosia 02:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just adding in my support for what Annie and Dysprosia have said. Ambivalenthysteria 02:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on a transsexual, though it isn't much in error. It distances the speaker from the idea somewhat, which may be disrespectful sometimes. Perhaps the disrespect is more often a misperception by the party who takes offense? It's quite acceptable to use articles when referring to many kinds of people. --Eequor 04:25, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A number of transsexual people have told me in no uncertain terms that transsexual is an adjective, not a noun. A person is a transsexual man or a transsexual woman, not "a transsexual." - Montrealais

It's just a semantic difference. Are you defined by what you are, or by how you are? Are they transsexuals, or are they each transsexual? --Eequor 04:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A transsexual person would not preferrably identify as being "transsexual", but as being a "woman" for a transsexual woman or a "man" for a transsexual man, and secondarily would say "transsexual woman" or "transsexual man" if they wished to reveal the fact that they are transsexual. So, primarily, the word "transsexual" is seldom used as a noun but more as a supplementary adjective. Dysprosia 04:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't imagine they'd use man or woman much when talking about themselves in speech. It ought to be obvious which they identify as. Certainly they wouldn't discuss being transsexual with just anybody. --Eequor 07:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But I didn't mean speech, I meant identification (identity). Dysprosia 07:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

My point is, where would transsexual man or transsexual woman be used? They're artificial. It seems much more likely that these terms would be used mainly by non-transsexuals who need something to give them a handle on what they're talking about. How much sense does it make to talk about nouns and adjectives without talking about their actual usage? --Eequor 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit bemused as to why you have such a problem with this, Eequor. Ambivalenthysteria 07:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't really have a problem with it; it just bugs me to see language misused and phrasing changed in artificial ways to neutralize implications that weren't there to begin with. --Eequor 14:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the implications are there, as has been stated by myself, Dysprosia and Montrealais and also detailed in the article above. Ambivalenthysteria 15:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We all may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Identity:

• When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use, self identification.
• Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks, gay people, not gays, adults with disabilities etc.

Dysprosia 00:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But what if a group refers to its members differently based on whom they are talking to? Transsexuals refer to themselves as "transsexuals" among themselves, just like everybody else does. It's only when talking to someone who is not transsexual that phrases like "transsexual man/woman/person" are used. -- Kimiko 10:52, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true - some transsexual people (and transgender people) do very much object to being called "transsexuals" (or "transgenders") even among themselfes. Also, even if that were true within the group, we are not within it now; this is a very public forum, and therefore, the rules for public forums apply.
Also, regarding the question of "transsexual (wo)men", I am not certain about the use in the US, but at least in parts of Europe the words "transman" and "transwomen" are used very frequently; I know they are used in the US, but I don't know how frequently. It avoids half of the inaccuracies of "female-to-male" and "male-to-female" and it avoids the question of whether people are "transsexual enough" to be given that "honorary title". (For those that don't understand the last part of what I have said: Some transsexual people, usually women, just love to play the "I am more transsexual than thou" game. Everybody who is not "just as transsexual as I am" is a perverted and/or sick transvestite. And no, I don't understand that, either.) -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• nods* Sad but true.
  

"Transman" is used here in the Netherlands, but one also sees "trans" very often, used as an umbrella term to refer to any TG/TS man/woman/person (although not transvestites, curiously). -- Kimiko 10:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If there are no extreme objections, I'll reword the article back to its use as an adjective in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Identity guidelines, which encourages the use of adjective forms, in a day or two. Thanks Dysprosia 15:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tokipona

What does tokipona:meli insa mean? It doesn't show up in the "Other languages" list; it displays at the bottom of the page. --Eequor 00:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

From the extreme redundancy of the text I find there, it appears to be gibberish. --Eequor 00:03, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

For enlightenment, look at Toki Pona. Dysprosia 00:06, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It's rather bemusing to find myself on the other side of this issue. I'm reverting the edit by Timwi unless there's a valid reason for removing the language link. --Eequor 23:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Suicide rate

Seventy percent is a widely accepted figure. Estimates of the rate vary considerably, though; it has been reported as just about anything above thirty percent (which is the rate within the gay community). Obnoxiously, the source I've used previously seems to have disappeared from the internet. In any case, it's several times the rate within the rest of the population. --Eequor 01:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is not that I doubt this figure; I don't. Although to get a good, hard figure is actually technically impossible, because you will always have a very high rate of trans-suicides which cannot be labeled as being caused by trans*, because nobody knew about it.

The problem is that it is quite likely that many readers will doubt it. And statements which will leave a reader either doubting or with further questions should make sure that there is as little doubt left as reasonably possible, and/or answer any further questions. Therefore, citing a source, books are fine too, would be an excellent idea here. -- AlexR 02:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

We often quote the fifty percent rule. JulieADriver 15:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can quote it all you like, but in the Wikipedia you should cite a reference. Not to mention that this "rule" seems to be rather about the situation in the US, I would certainly doubt whether that is vialid today in Germany, for example. It seems to be one of those claims aiming at victimising transpeople. And while that semmes to be quite often correct in the US (although not always, either; there are after all a lot of transpeople who are not victims of whatever particularly often), it is certainly not everywhere the case, and certainly not to the same extend. So cite sources for such claims, and when in doubt, mention where and when such figures might apply. -- 16:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not valid in Germany? Maybe TS people aren't murdered there very often, but I bet at least one there ends their life each day. And stop thinking that we're out to get you; we're not. JulieADriver 00:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stop making up statistics -Lethe | Talk

So, first you quote statistics that suggest that there's only 400 transpeople in Germany, and then you quote statistics that suggest they'd all be dead in little over a year. And of course, there's no sources for any of this...Ambi 01:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal pages of influential transpeople

• Lynn Conway
• Andrea James
• Kathryn Alannah

I removed that bit once again. This time Ms. Alannah (or her fan) tried to sneak it in with a few other "personal pages". I am seriously considering requesting that this page gets locked for a few days, so that this constant spamming stops. What do others think? -- AlexR 10:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't quite meet the definition of spamming. I think the middle link should stay (though not under that name, and not under that heading). That said, however, the other two have no place here - Lynn Conway's site deserves a mention in Lynn Conway, and the other one not at all. I don't think it needs protection, but now that I'm aware of it, I'll start reverting on sight. Ambi 11:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed not quite spam (yet); however, I am not sure what else to call a persistent inserting of a weblink. Anyway, the WP is not a link repository, and should not be, either; most certainly not for personal pages. And maybe I just missed it, not being American, but what is so influential about Ms. Alannah?

Well, anyway, we already have a weblink section, with (I'd say) carefully selected links, and that one should be reverted on sight, unless it's relevance can be established. (Meaning, that webpage needs a bit of work.) Should that ever be the case, it should be listed unter "weblinks" and not under a seperate heading.

Regarding protection, I hope that reverting will stop this, otherwise, at least on de:, a temporary protection (a day or at most a few days) can do wonders with people who don't get the hint from revertes ;-) AlexR 12:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Top 4 reasons why there should be personal references and/or ext. resources list:

1) This is a very personal and intimate human subject that can be best understood by learning about real people and experiences.

2) As the blogging phenomenon gains momentum, my personal opinion is that links to related BLOGS is a must for every entry on any subject. Since the day of their inception blogs have being recognized as a singular resource for obtaining most up-to-date and last minute information. Lets face it: no encyclopedia can ever be as recent as a constellation of blogs and this quality will only get reinforced with the introduction of the semantic web.

3) The encyclopedia is meant to be a concise reference depicting only the essentials of the subject and as such it should provide links to thoroughness.

4) There are very fine lines, debate and disagreement over the very terms used in the subject. Readers should be given a way to alternative sources.

AlexR, after the first reversion you left the following note: "Reverted to remove personal pages - did not seem to serve any purpose, there is a list of t*-people already" without elaborating where is the list aforementioned. Since it was certainly NOT under Transgender, I decided to put the links in the Transsexual section because it was the only one containing "External Links" -- the closest resemblance of "list of t*-people".

Many related sections such as Drag queens, Gay, Transwoman, etc. contain either a list with internal personal references and/or ext. resources links and I personally don't see any rational reason why there shouldn’t be one under "Transsexual" (be it external on internal). Even if there is a good reason, you've missed to elaborate. Instead you opted to go on offence and attempted arrogant wit ("This time Ms. Alannah or her fan tried to sneak it in"). Although I don't feel that I owe explanation, please be assured that it wasn't Ms. Alannah, nor it was her idea to add those links. My opinion is that the entry does need external resources AND internal/external personal references in one form or another, and I’m confronting you to explain why it does not (by relating to the 4 arguments atop).

Ms. Alannah's credibility stems from having the most popular T*-diary, reflecting on her transition on the job, being probably the most linked in the T community (at least on this side of the ocean), and her recent participation at (V-Day). Not to mention the good style with which her diary is written. I maintain that Lynn Conway was a good pick and admit that Andrea James was more appropriate to appear in ext. resources.

Regarding your desire to lock the page for a day or two, I realize that a PERL one-liner using a list of stealth proxy servers and a cron job will induce long-term lock and will do no good to either side, so I will not even consider it. However, I do expect a little more reasoning verbosity and collaborative spirit from you (please suggest alternatives).

As for calling me spammer, I can only think of one word for someone who solely, proprietary, and despotically assumes reign over a section of the encyclopedia - obstructer. You have yet to prove that you are not one by thoroughly explaining your reasoning and suggesting alternative implementation. Blago (66.92.71.132) 01:05, 1 Sep 2004 (EST)

For starters, how about registering an account, as it would make you vastly easier to communicate with. However, I suggest reading through Wikipedia's policies, as you seem to be under some significant misconceptions as to what we're here for.

1) I don't disagree, but as an encyclopedia, that's not what we're here for. We're here to present the facts.

2) This encyclopedia is often more up-to-date than blogs - and that's one of our biggest advantages. Example: during the Olympics, our individual event details were often updated before the official site itself.

3) It is not meant to be a concise reference depicting only the essentials, and then linking for "further information". I suggest looking through Wikipedia:Featured articles - then you'll see how in-depth and detailed some of our articles really are.

4) This is meant to be a presentation of the facts. If there's dispute - though I'd like to see evidence of what exactly you mean by that - then that may well need to be reflected here - in the article itself, and certainly not in any linked opinion piece.

You said that Transwoman had linked personal pages. As far as I can see, it only includes standard external links - as with most articles on Wikipedia.

And finally, please don't make threats to harm the site. It's not very easy to get oneself banned around here - but that's a nice way of doing it. Ambi 06:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

relative MTF and FTM figures

I was hoping to find out the relative prevalance of MTF (male-to-female) versus FTM (female-to-male) transsexualism/transgenderism. are they equally common? do such figures even exist? -Lethe | Talk

MTF: 1:30,000; FTM: 1:100,000 ; Total average: 1:25,000 JulieADriver 03:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

/Cough/ You ought to cite your sources, really. There are so many figures around for the prevalence of GID, TS or TG that citing any of them without a carveat is quite careless.

Besides, that figure isn't correct. On http://www.symposion.com/ijt there is this neat table somewhere citing various assumptions on the relative prevalence of transmen and transwomen over time. It start out from (roughly) 1:100, goes over 1:70, 1:50, 1:20 and the latest figure has arrived at 1:2-3. You don't need a degree in mathematics to see where that leads. Many groups and also care providers, courts etc already report a rate of 1:1, some even an overhang of transmen. Given that in western societies the social roles for "women" are far more open to gender variance, and that many transmen make it through the system without ever turning up at "centers" and "specialists", and therefore don't appear in any statistics, it is quite save to say that the rate is most likely 1:1. (Uh, yes, and there is a "reporting bias", too. "Crazy men" are obviously a lot more interesting to write papers about than "crazy women".)

Generally, hard figures that hold up to scrutiny are extremely hard to come by when it comes to trans-issues. Most "care-givers" and "experts" prefer to assume figures that are as low as possible, as well as figures that confirm their own prejudices and theories. It is almost impossible to find any reflection on those facts in the scientific community, although there are a few sparks of light on the horizon. They are still very, very tiny, though. MAybe you should check Lynn Conway's page [1] to get an idea of the problem. From there a lot more interesting articles can be found, too, not just regarding the Bailey book. -- AlexR 08:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The numbers I gave are generally accepted by the TS community as a whole. As for the numbers you gave, if half the people on this planet were really TS, then would people still be totally clueless about it? JulieADriver 00:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the numbers that AlexR gave were ratios of FTMs to MTFs, where yours were MTF/FTM to total population. Anyway, just because you say your numbers are widely accepted, does not make it so. Can you provide a reference? where did you get those figures? -Lethe | Talk 00:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Agree, my numbers were about the ratios of transmen to transwomen, and obvously I was not speaking about absolute figures, as Julie strangely assumes.

Let me add a remark about absolute figures, though, one that does not take anything more into account that personal experience: If the 1:100.000 for transmen were correct, there would be about 400 transmen in Germany. That would mean that I personally know about each and every one of them, including those who don't know about it themseves yet, because I'd guess I know that many. Not very likely. Also, according to these figures, there would only be about 1300 transwomen in Germay, but plain counting of court cases for a 10-year-period (from 1980 to 1990, and cases have risen sharply since then!) counted a total of 3500, with a TM/TF-Ratio of about 1:4, if I remember correctly. Also, about 1730 transpeople in Germany would mean that at least half of them have a dgti identity paper, including those who have not yet come out, and those who are through with everything (and therefore have little need of it). Another thing that seems extremely unlikely. So forgive me if I do not consider these rates to be anything close to realistic.

BTW, I have found the article about absolute figures I had in mind yesterday, but could not find immediately: How Frequently Does Transsexualism Occur? by Lynn Conway. It also mentions the origin of Julie's figures. One way the statistics in this article were done seems one of the few that produces reasonably reliable figure, namely, counting surgeries; the only other way would be to count court cases. However, it only does transwomen figures; counting surgery of transmen would be much more difficult, because mastectomy can be and is done by many "local" surgenons; and the rate of those going for bottom surgery is quite low, even in countries where health insurance pays for it. But then, the figures I mentioned in my first comment come into play. -- AlexR 06:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1:2500 does make some sense. JulieADriver 15:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Notes added regarding the controversial nature of treatments aimed at curing TS

I added some notes regarding the controversial nature of treatements intended to "cure" TS individuals, and regarding the historical lack of success of those treatments. Also made reference to cases of accidental reassignment and their lack of success. Someone should probably check for neutral point of view, but there exists a growing body of scientific research backing up those statements. - Triona 10:25, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorting the links by TM and TF

A few days ago the links were sorted by MTF- and FTM-specific. I am not entirely happy with that. Appart from using FTM and MTF at all, which are not exactly everybodies favourite descriptions, does it really make sense to insert new categories for a whole of four links? Besides, all those pages, even those that are specifically aimed at one half, are quite usefull reading for the other half, too. (And for people wishing to learn more about trans*.) So in my opinion that does not make too much sense. Any other opinions? -- AlexR 00:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another cause of transexualism

I know of a 3rd cause of transexualism - hypnosis. There are a growning number of websites, which seem to get a kick out of transexualising people. Much of the hypnosis is actually done online via an irc channel. It got me wondering, might it not be more useful to use hypnosis to help people to become more confortable with the body they already have? --Rebroad 23:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had originally included a link to an example web site, but a sysop objected claiming my text was nothing but an advert, so I've removed the link now. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is this 3rd cause that I am aware of, and I think the document would be more complete if it were mentioned. --Rebroad 00:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there anyone - at all - who seriously advocates this? Any scientists? Any psychiatrists? It's awfully strange that neither I, nor any of the other many people who have worked in this article, have ever even heard of this bizarre theory. Ambi 00:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the source you had linked before, there were no claims as to the permanence of the "transexualising", nor does hypnosis ever been said or claimed to permanently modify one's thoughts and feelings about one's identity, nor has hypnosis ever been said or claimed to modify one's thoughts contrary to that person's will (ie., if they really do not want to accept a hypnotic suggestion, they will not accept the hypnotic suggestion). The suggestion in your source appeared to take some sort of fantasy element in feminization - that is entirely not transsexualism. To propose then that hypnosis is thus one cause of transsexualism is a rather weak argument - transsexualism is a much more permanent and less effaceable condition than one may think.

And even still, if the method had any real effect, do you think that its effects will be so little known? Dysprosia 01:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I completely understand what you're saying. These were also my first thoughts when I first encountered it. Hypnosis works by amplification. Some would argue that every man has in them the ability to be a woman. The hypnosis works bit by bit, amplifying those parts of a person's personality. (Ever seen the Richard E Grant film "How to get ahead in advertising"? - the new personality eventually takes over). In addition, relatively early on in the process, a desire to obtain real breasts is instilled, and the "subject" is provided with information of where the purchase hormones "over the counter" via the web. So even if the person mentally reverts later, they would by then have the physical changes to deal with. (There was a story on the news recently of a genetic male who recently had a sex change reversed - I can provided references to this if you wish). --Rebroad 13:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• If you want to see a scientific study that focuses on a related area, then do a Google search for "Induced Submissive behavior and gender dysphoria" to find a study and various discussions of this paper. --Rebroad 13:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Which then is not transsexualism - but rather, some other form of short-term dysphoria. If it deserves mention anywhere in Wikipedia (and you'll have to provide some decent evidence before I'll believe that), it's certainly not here. Ambi 13:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Who said anything about "short-term"? --Rebroad 13:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Pardon my ignorance. What is the difference between "transexuality/ism" and "gender dysphoria" please? According to most websites[2][3][4] they are the same thing. --Rebroad 13:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not even a theory. I have seen it proven time and time again. I know it sounds bizarre and very unbelieveable. But consider this, has hypnosis been proven - I think so. Has brainwashing been proven - the CIA certainly have put a lot of research into it. Are there some people around who like to feminise people - you just need to look at adverts in certain phoneboxes to answer that one. Given all of this, don't you think it's possible that some of the "fetishists" have also learned about the skills of hypnosis and NLP - not entirely impossible is it? Not only possible, it's happening, and it appears to be a movement gaining momentum. (Search for "lesbian inclusion conspiracy" with the quotes) --Rebroad 12:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this theory sounds like bullshit. Let me explain why I think so:

• If the "study" you are talking about is this one [5], then this is not a study at all. It has a lot of complicated words and sounds like one, but it also based on as many as two (alleged) cases, and of course has not control group or anything. Also, where was it published? Was it peer-reviewed? And how clueless can an author get who uses subtitles like "Induced inter-sexualism"? "Eonism" isn't exactly a much used term, either, especially not in scientific literature. [AR]
• Regarding: "It's happening": When I look for "lesbian inclusion conspiracy" all I find is a page that is quite obviously not meant to be taken serious, but even if one wishes to do so, where is the proof that anything is in fact happening? [AR]
• Also, don't confuse adverts about "feminization" (which exists from both sides, too) with evidence that feminization happening the way you describe it happens. [AR]

Also, there is another minor problem with this theory: Cause and effect. Probably everybody who has ever done support for transpeople will sooner or later get into contact with people who are "being feminized" and who are, usually, looking for hormones and/or breast implants. And everybody who has ever bothered communicating with those people will discover one thing: That the "victims" are not exactly forced to do this against their will. They are usually pushed to overcome inhinitions, but not a basicly "all-male" personality. That would, as every evidence we have, not work. And I might add that in the 50s and 60s, and in some areas also later, lesbian and gay people were pushed, not by obscure "hypnotists" but by medical professionals, to change gender so that they would at least appear to be straight. This has in every known case resulted in a catastrophy, and even if phisical changes were made at that time, those have not stopped people from going back, either. [AR]

Also, the fact that adverts exist both from people who are looking for people to "feminize" and people looking to be "feminized" that there is a need for that kind of "extended roleplay", and not that the former are somehow "creating" the latter. Those people who answer those search-adds already are willing to be "feminized", so the procedure following (if indeed anything follows, and it was not just curiosity) is not the cause of the wish to become female, but the effect. [AR]

So, in conclusion, there is nothing whatever to back up this theory, but a lot of evidence that speaks against it. (And I have not even bothered to mention all those studies that state in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to hypnotise people and have them doing anything against their will.) I therefore hope that this ends this - pretty absurd - debate. Because you are right - it is not even a theory. It is plain News-of-the-World-non-science. [AR]

And as far as the difference between "transsexualism" and "GID" is concerned, well, you found three pages that are not too clear on the matter, but what does that prove?

• [6] also uses "sex change" which indicates quite clearly that while the person may be friendly and supportive, they do certainly not know too much about the matter.
• [7] makes the mistake of confusing TS and GID only in the decription of two pages, but the page is little more than a link repository itself. So why should it be important?
• [8] offers, among other things, a brochoure titled "The Gender Trust Guide To Transexualism, Transgenderism and Gender Identity Disorder". Seems as if they did not consider TS to be the same thing as GID after all. That is on the same page you gave as "proof". Also, the same organisations home page states: "Welcome to the website of the Gender Trust, the only Registered Charity in the United Kingdom which specifically helps adults who are Transsexual, Gender Dysphoric or Trangender i.e. those who seek to adjust their lives to live as women or men, or to come to terms with their situation despite their genetic background." Your point was?

You might therefore research again. Transsexualism is one form of Gender identiy disorder, and nowadays "TS" is fading from medical diagnosis etc, because it is usually a very rigidly defined condition, and much rarer, compared to general GID than previously thought. The times when there was only (thought to be) TS and TV are over, and have been over for a long time. -- AlexR 23:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi AlexR. Thanks for your essay/thesis! Where do I start? Apologies in advance for lack of diplomacy in my reply - I should have gone to bed a couple of hours ago! It's possible you might have missed one of the points I said earlier. Every man has in them the ability to be a woman. So for you to suggest that I am talking only of people who want to be feminined, I'm not. I'm talking about every man. --Rebroad 00:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are many ways men who are not into feminization might get caught in the "Lesbian Inclusion Conspiracy" for want of a better name for it. But the fact is that once caught, they will eventually want to become a woman. You say that hypnosis can't be used to make someone do something they don't want. This is a common misconception with hypnosis. Hypnosis is not "safe" in this way. Hypnosis can be used to make someone want things they didn't previously want. It can also be used to confuse such that people can even be given false memories such that they believe they have always wanted something, etc. --Rebroad 00:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing really to gain by proving you wrong, but the fact is I have witnessed all of what I talk about, and the activities I mention are there for all to witness. So, rather than trying to pick holes in what I am saying, you could ask for proof. Let me know if you want to see this. If you don't, then what are you achieving by expressing your doubts? --Rebroad 00:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I somehow know that your reply will be very skeptical still, and I must say that this feels a bit like a pointless discussion if you want to continue considering this with a closed mind. I shall give you an example of how hypnosis can be used to confuse people towards gender dysphoria. One example I saw was that they told the hypnotised subject that the next time he needed the toilet, you would be convinced that he needed to "have a sh*t", but when he sat down, he would then just do whatever he went there to do. When I saw this, I had no idea why they were giving him this post-hypnotic suggestion. It was only later when they managed to convince him that because he sat down to urinate this was a further indication that he had a strong feminine side or subconsciously wanted to be a woman, or some such argument, that I could see the kind of methods they were using. Oh, and you probably also thought that people can't get hypnotised on an on-line chat, and you'd be wrong to think that also. The majority of hypnosis I have seen done has been done in an IRC chat room. --Rebroad 00:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now I'm sure you could still say that the people who went to the room already wanted to be women, or perhaps you'll suggest that they are all actors, or simply roleplaying. I'm sure you can come up with many arguments such as this. I myself already considered all of these. It's only due to the fact that I have spent several months researching this, and have even at one point become affected myself, and needed to take advice from a professional hypnotherapist, that I know without any doubt that they are able to achieve what they claim. Further reading would be things such as the chat logs from the IRC channel, the guestbook entries (going back several years) on the website I first mentioned, or indeed allowing yourself to be hypnotised on the channel - although I would obviously advise caution, and a number of levels of supervision before attempting this. --Rebroad 00:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, on the website they do claim some things which I believe to be untrue. They may claim that the feminization process is non-reversible. I suspect this is not true, as I was able to successfully hypnotise someone and remove the post-hypnotic suggestions they gave him. The person in question was having great difficultly keeping away from the chat room due to some rather addictive suggestions he had been given, and despite all my reasoning with him, the desires he had been given could not be removed through conscious reasoning. I mainly hypnotised him to see for myself if someone could be "rescued", and I'm glad to see that this was possible. Anyway, I'm probably rambling now. Goodnight. --Rebroad 00:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are aware, Wikipedia has a rather firm policy forbidding original research. We are also required to cite our sources and those sources must have some decent degree of credibility. Anybody can create a website and push any opinion they want about a topic but that does not make the source credible. If you can come up with a source that IS credible, I would encourage you to let us know. That is all I wanted to say. Reene (リニ) 00:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_research_and_what_is_not what I am talking about is not original research. --Rebroad 20:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rebroad, hypnotisim is dangerous, and the fact that you have seen a so called "professional hypnotherapist" indicates to me that you are a highly suggestable person who is prone to believe psuedo-scientific claims with little or no evidence. Please point me to where I can be turned into a transsexual. Quite frankly, your commentary here verges on trollism... or at the very least, origianl research, which Wikipedia doesn't do. func(talk) 01:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, you know, your last posting reads like pure silliness. So now you are a hypnotise... how fascinating. Please stop trolling. func(talk) 01:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, Rebroad, but are you expecting to be taken serious when you argue with the "Lesbian Inclusion Conspiracy"? Are you at all aware of the fact that until recently, transwomen were not exactly welcome in most lesbian circles, not to mention transmen? Just wondering ...

Besides, not only have I worked in transgender support for years, I know many who also did. Nobody ever heard of that theory. The "proof" you are offering so far is not any proof, as I have sufficiently shown above. So in the unlikely event that you have any further "proof", that is also a lot better than what you have brought up so far, I don't think your theory has even the remotest merrits. Not only that, there is also no history of publications which contain that theory (you did not answer my questions regarding that "study", so I guess they would not exactly have been beneficial to your arguments). Which is why it does not belong into the article. The only theories that belong into articles are either ones that have a history of publishing and/or are well known, or those that are so self-evident that they are not really theories in the first place. Your theory is neither well published nor self-evident. Case closed, until (rather unlikely) further notice. -- AlexR 01:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like Renne said above, I suspect this must be considered original research due to the lack of information currently available. All I can say is that when you hear about this in the news in years to come, you'll remember you heard it here first! All the best, --Rebroad 01:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop calling it a theory! I've seen the proof, and if you want more proof, check out the guestbook entries, or the irc chat room. Can I mention the irc server and channel on here? Or would this be branded as more advertising? email me if you want sources. --Rebroad 01:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of morbidly curious about this irc channel business, I don't know. Might have visited it at one point or another. Yelyos 01:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Func, thanks for your comments also. Yes I know it sounds incredible. Credibility is a funny thing, of which obviously I have none! --Rebroad 01:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm back. I was going to give up on this subject, but I just read What is research and what is not and realised that what I've been rambling on about is not original research because I'm not introducing "a theory or method of solution" because I've seen proof. They are not "original ideas" because this has been going on for some years now. I'm not defining terms or introducing neologisms. So... can I go ahead and add this to the article? --Rebroad 20:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is by no means accepted by the scientific community and there is still the matter of needing credible sources to add something of this sort to an article. I'm sorry, but IRC chatrooms and random websites are not credible sources. Reene (リニ) 21:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I was speaking to some other people who have witnessed transexualisation through hypnosis, and asked them if they know of any scientific studies or credible sources that document what I and they already know is possible. They said they didn't. When I asked them why they thought that was it was suggested that it would probably cost too much to do a study. So, I'm kind of at a loss here. I know not of any "credible sources". What would you suggest is the next step that I can take to help raise awareness of this? --Rebroad 21:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suspect I am probably being too specific in raising awareness of what is simply one possible avenue of hypnosis. I suppose that if I were to start a discussion on the Hypnosis article talk page, I would probably find more experts likely to be able to confirm or deny if what I have witnessed is believable or not. --Rebroad 21:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess that you need to take that to the scientists to give it some credibility. Since by that theory transsexualism would be curable, you would surely find somebody who would be willing to investigate. -- AlexR 22:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised no one has brought up autogynephilia. I am very interested in what people think about autogynephilia Dr. Anne Lawrence has a number of papers on the subject at annelawrence.comheathersocal

Please review Wikipedia's autogynephilia article for information on this sex-fueled mental illness and its purported connection to gender identity and expression. Jokestress 00:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autogynephilia - undoubtedly an issue for a relative few in some respects, but not really linked to this subject in my mind. It's a deeply flawed theory. If for no other reason then simply because it's sef-proving. It's one of those things you can be accused of having, but can't disprove, giving self-serving, bigotted, or otherwise awkward medics the oppertunity to stop you getting treatment while making your life a living hell. Crimsone 00:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)