The title above is not really egotistical. As Lynn Conway now has a page on her web site titled “Who is Arune??” I thought to answer her in this essay.

There really is no need to discuss the basic question at any length. I am Willow Arune, a transsexual woman, retired lawyer and post-op, 57, happy as a clam and content with my life which I share with Sonia, our six cats and two dogs. Last November, we relocated to the wilderness of Prince George, in northern British Columbia, from Vancouver. How far north? Well, last night we watched the northern lights instead of television…

But that is not the story, really. The story is about Blanchard, Bailey, and the concerted efforts by some transsexual women to attack them and anyone who dares support them in any manner, fair or foul (and mostly foul). The real war started with the publication of a small book - “The Man Who Would Be Queen”, written by Michael Bailey. It contains three parts, the last of which deals in a popular science manner with the concepts of Ray Blanchard, of the Clarke Institute in Toronto, regarding transsexuality. Those leading the battle against the book, Blanchard, and anyone who crosses their sights, are Lynn Conway and Andrea James, both of whom have large web sites setting out their position and “investigations”.

Firstly, from the start of this mess, I have asked for calm - without much success. That first request can be found on the Web. As I found myself changing my initial opinion and seeking further clarification at certain points, I contacted Bailey, then Blanchard, Lawrence and Petersen, the major proponents of the autogynephilic concept. They have been most kind at sharing views and comments, including their participation in an AG support list of over 150 members.

In so doing, I became a target for James and Conway. Not that I wished to get fully engaged, but it seems that any supporter of Blanchard must perforce endure attacks by the two of them and their vehement allies. That has proven to be very nasty and at times, I must confess, I tend to lose my cool. At other times, I assume that the world must know of this situation and write accordingly, leaving some confused and lost.

Firstly, Bailey did very little "research" for the book, in the classical sense. It is an anecdotal explanation of Blanchard's concept applied to real situations of six women, and that only in Part 3. Bailey's own work is more truly reflected in Parts 1 and 2 - and Part 1 is what gives the book its title and cover. That was the publisher's decision, not Bailey's. I dislike both, but in the context of Part 1, it makes sense.

Blanchard did the research which Bailey reports on in his book, admittedly in a popular science manner. Blanchard started off in 1985, with 21 papers following, up to the mid 90s. His research is hard to find - and that is due in the main to the copyright rules of scientific publishers. At the time these papers were done, Blanchard was a psychologist at the Gender Identity Clinic of the Clarke (he joined in 1980); he is now the Head of Clinical Sexology Services at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, commonly referred to by transsexual women in Canada still as “the Clarke’. The availability of his research might soon change for the better. So my first comment is that most are dealing (sorry, Mike) with the monkey instead of the organ grinder. To understand Bailey in full, one must read the original material. Blanchard had a large number of subjects to participate in all of his studies. Other TS studies have had small numbers - the oft-cited Dutch brain study had but seven brains; Bolin had a sampling of 16 core transsexuals for “In Search of Eve”.

Secondly, Blanchard, Bailey and Petersen have been restricted in replying to their critics. They are bound by confidentiality - especially in respect of those that have been patients and who are now loudly critics. The temptation to reply in kind and with the true story must be overpowering - but they have not done so as they are professionals. Mike is facing one remaining (the others having been dropped) accusation at his university, where he is the head of his department. The merits of those accusations, or the remaining one, are suspect (reading about “Cher” - the major complainant - and "Robot Man" tends to dispel any aura of credibility that she may have, in my opinion). Any lawyer for the university would jump down hard if Mike were to respond to the vocal critics in any meaningful way. One recent article has dealt with the concerns, and the issues in a real sense, without the emotional rants. It is not a simple issue and as one sided as the critics seem to often suggest. I stress that such is an accusation, not proven, not yet determined.

That leaves Anne Lawrence, for long an icon in the TS groups. That she has done much to help is obvious; that she has been vilified - and no doubt deeply hurt - from attacks from the very ones she has helped must be mortifying. Most, I find, have rushed to judgement.

Between them, Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world. That contrasts with Conway's 18 years of total stealth, when she took no role in "mentoring" (now used for her current "title", self-constructed) or assisting anyone in the community. Conway's expertise is in computer science and Star Wars technology, not gender or psychology; James is a pro in public relations. Does that have anything to do with this? I suggest it does. If my car is not working, I do not go to a hair dresser. I seek out a mechanic. Empathy you get from peers; treatment you get from professionals.

When Blanchard started his research, many clinicians still recognized only one basic transsexual pattern. It is true that by 1980, the DSM-III noted three subtypes of transsexualism: “Asexual”, “homosexual (same anatomic sex)” and heterosexual (different anatomic sex)”. In practise, nevertheless, numerous workers still held on to the notion of “primary” or “true” transsexual, even if they disagreed on the characteristics of the this ideal type. Blanchard thought that the notion of a single “true” transsexual pattern was still too restrictive. Especially as the rules limited who could apply for SRS. He writes later that:

“Despite the persistence of the “primary transsexual” ideal, many workers recognised that some “secondary” transsexuals could be intensely gender dysphoric. Some clinicians were willing to recommend these patients for sex reassignment, and some were not. That is why I was careful to write…that “Many clinicians dismissed all transsexuals with a history of sexual arousal as “mere transvestites” and summarily excluded them from consideration for sex reassignment surgery”. I purposefully wrote “many clinicians” and not “all clinicians”. Betty W. Steiner, the founding Psychiatrist-in-charge of the Clarke Gender Clinic, had, from almost the very beginning, approved for surgery biologically male patients with a history of marriage and fatherhood and a frankly acknowledged history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing or cross gender fantasy. Other clinicians followed Stoller’s dictum that one episode of cross-dressing with erotic arousal was sufficient to exclude a diagnosis of transsexualism”.

The primaries represented no issue - save one big one. As many then worked "in the trade", they could not satisfy the need for employee, volunteer or student status required by the Clarke (anyone who doubts that these represent a majority of the homosexual transsexuals would do well to search TS sites on the web or a street in any large city, or talk with any police department vice squad. It may not be nice, but the reality is there and several well-known TS bios clearly set that out in detail).

The secondaries were restricted even more. To show they were candidates for surgery, they generally had to show they were like the "primaries" for that is where the DSM took root.

In many cases, marriage at any time was a total bar. So was any orientation other than "heterosexual as a woman" (As noted in one major transsexual bio - "Mirrors"). Ignoring the realities, surgery approval depended on the secondaries parroting the answers of the primaries regarding childhood behaviour and other such matters. Myths became common. "I did not like sex" when there were four or more children. "I always played with girl toys" when in reality, it was tin soldiers. A male type job was defined as denial and given special mythology (to explain why a person who had been successful as a male, as many were, and had now decided he was not a success personally as a man). Blanchard, in common with other researchers, understood that the gatekeeper function and the limited definition of GID was causing patients to modify their stories to "fit". For example, McCloskey, in "Crossings" sets out a typical AG path. She would not have been approved for surgery under the "old rules".

Blanchard also considered the typing of transsexuals by sexual orientation, as had been done much earlier in our history. He found similarities existed between those who were male orientated on one hand, and those who were not on the other - those who were attracted to females, bi, or asexual. Most importantly, he was able to show that both of his types clearly demonstrated a need for, and profited from, gender reorientation. The net effect, intended or not, widened the net for those seeking SRS. Blanchard was more, not less, inclusive in practise.

All went forward with papers presented to various bodies, all gaining limited attention and further approval. It was not a major issue in the trans groups until Anne Lawrence stepped forward to agree with Blanchard around 1997. Her high profile in the transsexual community suddenly thrust the issue to centre stage. (Both Petersen and Lawrence are not only transsexual women, but also are professionals who study and treat TS issues. They, along with many peers, agreed with Blanchard (autogynephilia is indeed a diagnostic guide in DSM currently).

Admittedly, the Clarke was not popular amongst many TS people. Gatekeepers rarely are. But there were some issues that really pushed the hot buttons of some transsexual women. More simply read the nasty material written on the Internet and made assumptions based on nothing more than that.

One major issue is in the area of semantics. A person is born male or female (save intersexed, of course, or other abnormalities). There is no scientific proof for or against - in any definitive way - any person being born "with a female brain". Still, those TS who want to believe stress a small number of tests with a small number of subjects. Blanchard, to identify his types and to be consistent, used normal biological terms for male and female, just as many of our doctors do today. Post-modernist theory may be well and good, but there is a need for reality too - and the reality was that males wanting to be women started out as males physically. Their “birth” sex remained male and Blanchard took his terminology from there. We have enough difficulty with this daily. Our way out is to use our “legal” sex - after our birth certificate is changed. That is not sufficient for scientific purposes.

So, a male born attracted to a male is a homosexual. A male attracted to males who is transsexual is a transsexual homosexual. Do I wish he - and most other medical professionals - had used other terminology? Yes, I do. Type A, Type B suits me better. But he needed to be more scientific than my emotions allow me to be. (Anyone doubting their physical birth sex might do well to consider their prostate and other such distinctly non-female and not surgically removed or altered parts). Simply, the definition goes not by what you feel, but what you physically are. This upset even more for transsexual women do not like to think of themselves as male or gay but rather as “heterosexual women”.

People were upset when he referred to them as men - for the same reason that our small world thinks calling another TS woman a man is an insult. A hot button was pushed.

He also linked drag queens and homosexual transsexuals in a continuum, which more did not like. The continuum went : “masculine homosexualsà effeminate homo-sexualsà drag queensà homosexual transsexuals”, all of whom share one distinct commonality, an interest in having male sex partners, based on the findings of both Blanchard and Richard Green that homosexual male-to-female transsexuals share characteristics in common with ordinary gay men. I have to add that within this grouping, there is considerable social interaction and mutual acceptance. That contrasts strongly with the social world of the other type of transsexual.

In his studies he found more in common than different - and determined that was a question of degree. All were sexually attracted to men. Studies showed other traits, not uniform but certainly sufficient to see similarities. That did and does include, for social and other reasons, living on the edge in society for the homosexual transsexuals . Not always, but often.

The second group also had certain "identifiers". They presented on average seven years later. Overlap, to be sure, but statistically. They were more likely to be interested in women, or bi-, or asexual. And, to fit the classifications available, they had to modify their life stories to fit the template of DSM. While so similar in many ways as to be indistinguishable, transsexual women of the second type like to think of themselves as intrinsically different and, it must be stated, superior to mere transvestites and cross-dressers. The other riffraff is interested in sex; transsexuals have a loftier purpose in life - gender identity.

The lying issue. Not a general comment but only regarding sex history, and that for the purpose of qualifying for surgery. A transsexual woman is no more or less likely to lie under most circumstances than anyone else. They are more likely to lie, or distort, or shade or blend, when talking of their gender "trajectory". Most therapists understand this and the reasons for it. Bolin, Stoller, many others have commented on this in the past. To me, that is a non-issue. I blended my story and know many others that did. I resented that at the time. It was a way to obtain what I needed - SRS - under the gatekeeper rules. In doing so, I fooled no one. I fit a pattern that therapists were very familiar with. We were all doing a merry minuet forced upon us by the strict rules of DSM and the clinic structure - and we all knew it.

Blanchard also noted the different life histories, when he could obtain them honestly. The CD who becomes TS, for example. Do we know of such people? Yes, we do, and it is the fear of many CD wives. To ignore that continuum was not scientific - for it ignored reality. So Blanchard linked the CDs with the later developing TS (partial autogynephiles and autogynephilic transsexuals). It is a matter of degree, not difference. And that , obviously, upsets even more groups - especially the CDs trying to deal with their wives. "My Husband Betty", a new book for cross dressers and their spouses, for that and other reasons, attacks Blanchard's continuum. A CD does not want a wife to think he may become a TS, nor does the wife wish to entertain that notion. It is in their mutual interests to keep the lines rigid and impermeable. But it is true and does happen. Do we ignore that reality or report it and deal with it in a real manner?? (I have just reviewed, very favourably, "My Husband Betty" for Little Sisters Books. One difficulty is that the book may be too honest for many CDs to give to their wives for the issue of transsexuality - and sex - is front and centre). The second continuum went “transvestitesà partial autogynephilesà autogynephilic transexuals” - degree, not difference.

Medical studies of TSity have mentioned lying repeatedly, and in much more negative a manner than Blanchard, who at least recognised, with Bolin, the role that gatekeeping had in contributing to the problem. Stoller stated that the only way to be sure of the diagnosis, due to the constant lying, was an expression of "no regrets" following SRS. It may be said that a transsexual is one who demands SRS and later, who is happy after SRS for in truth no other definitive diagnosis exists. For this reason, much more research is needed.

From inside the second transsexual group, it is easy to pinpoint other reasons for the growing animosity. Transsexual women in many ways feel “superior” and “different” from mere cross-dressers. As to the cross-dressers, well for years most CD groups did not allow transsexuals to join, or remain. Tri-Ess and others were for partnered heterosexual males and their spouses. One really could not have a transsexual woman there, offering a constant role model or perhaps even a sexual temptation. In a similar manner, transsexual women sought to distance themselves from the less worthy CDs. Both bitterly resented the forced union that Blanchard proposed. Transsexual women - many of them at any rate - even disliked any linkage to the Rainbow communities, following their concept that they are merely heterosexual women, not (dare we say it) *gay*. As for sex! Heavens’ no! It was not sex at all, but gender identity. Dare to suggest, even hint, that a transsexual woman had *any* sexual motive for transition and she would leave in a huff, referring to you ever after as a bigot, a cruel and inhumane brute who simply did not understand. You were ignorant and unfeeling, just as you might be if you made a slight - and innocent - mistake with pronouns. The image cultivated is one of an innocent flower, albeit late to blossom.

Blanchard allowed us to be honest in our presentation for treatment. His concept made an empirical finding that patients would benefit from sex reassignment surgery the primary determining factor, not the theoretical framework for understanding the desire for surgery.

Much is also made of therapy as a cure, the old demand of psychiatrists. Many TS people are offended that therapy might be considered or even recommended, suggesting the “stigma” should be removed, much as it was for gays. Of course, gays do *not* need hormonal and surgical intervention. Without a diagnosis that permits such treatment and surgery, it falls against medical ethics of “do no harm”. I think we would agree that this is a difficult road, one that few should take. Blanchard noted a high drop out rate amongst the autogynephilic transsexuals, substantially higher than for those of the homosexual transsexuals. The numbers are staggering. This is easily understood if only by the age - and hence life experiences and connections - of the second group. Only a distinct minority of those who apply for SRS make it through to the end. That mirrors other clinic studies, such as one done in Sweden, the most liberal of countries with TS. So there had to be ways to sort all those people out. RLT (Real Life Test) and HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) remained as standards but talk therapy also sifted out some. Even the religious based therapy worked with some - a few, but some. SRS was the last resort, not the first, inverting the desire of many patients. As with the DSM, SRS is reserved for those who truly "need" it, not those who can be side-tracked successfully. The determination that the patient will benefit is critical but difficult to make, especially when the gatekeeper function limits full disclosure. Many find prior obligations have to be considered and take priority. Wife, children, career. Many reasons, but the attrition rate is high - and not because "the rules" make it so. A minority make it through all the way. Those remaining also need treatment relative to gender matters, something the critics tend to totally ignore.

I do not think that is wrong at all. SRS should indeed be a last resort.

Now, bearing in mind that Blanchard found two distinct types, he wanted to avoid the primary-secondary terminology. It had been abused in the system, with status and bias (such as Margaret Deirdre O’Hartigan in Minnesota and then Oregon). He also felt that it was necessary to use a term that maintained the linkage he saw as a pattern. So he decided to keep the old term, "homosexual transsexuals" as it described what he thought they were, medically speaking, and reflected their interest in males sexually.

For the second grouping, he used a different term. "Autogynephilia" means "love of oneself as a woman". More specifically, it refers to a male who loves himself as a woman. Obviously, most women also love themselves as women, but most males born love themselves as men. The term does not relate to female born, but only male born. What is natural in one is unnatural in the other. (Blanchard has admittedly not studied transmen and makes no claim concerning their reasons for transition; nor does Bailey).

Please note that both are transsexuals. That is an umbrella term to be used for both the transsexual homosexual and the autogynephilic transsexual. Neither is the only true transsexual, as many critics have stated. Both are transsexual, but differ from each other in many major ways. Due to the progressive nature of some cases, Lynn Conway gets to her description of "ageing CDs", meant and applied in a demeaning manner (typical of the superiority complex mentioned above). To avoid the old primary/secondary nonsense, neither is "superior" to the other, in whatever twisted way that comes forward from time to time. Nor, to address another oft-raised matter, is any one type of transsexual more or less a "woman" than the other. There is no better transsexual, nor is there a "true transsexual", and a post-op transsexual woman is *not* a man in any social context. Still, Conway’s allies love to denigrate any transsexual woman who agrees with Blanchard as a "male" or "man" using that as a derogatory term. Silly, really, but there you are. Pots calling kettles black. That such should become common in transsexual circles is disgusting and repugnant.

One almost common element is that autogynephilic TS have been married and fathered children. Conway was married as a man and fathered two children. McCloskey and many others, including myself, have been fathers. McCloskey has a CD background; I do not. But enough factors do link these as a potential progression, not a division. All might well have been denied treatment prior to liberalisation late in the 20th Century.

(McCloskey has, with great fanfare, threatened to sue Bailey if he refers to her as an autogynephilic knowing he cannot reply. Unhappily for her, she wrote her book "Crossings" before Mike released his book and so her life is there for all to see. So embarrassing! I have asked her to sue me - I have even written her lawyer - but she seems to lack follow through. Read her book and draw your own conclusion).

The emotional issues overwhelm the reality here. "I was always a woman", says a post- or pre- op TS. Well, one might ask, if that be so why is SRS even considered? I have the temerity to suggest that women born do not as a rule require genital surgery to remove a penis and testicles. The only way to justify the "always" statement in any rational manner is to use post-modernist thought. PoMo permits mythology and other such matters to rule over the observable scientific. As transsexuality led to a new definition of gender, back in the 50s and 60s, there was no thought that TS were indeed "true" women. They were males who wanted to be women. Benjamin knew that, and so too did others. The “woman always” is a convenient myth, a nice shorthand to use in conversation, but not based on much more than PoMo thinking and the chance - the bare chance - that further research will find differences in the brain (something opposed by most feminists). It was also instrumental in "selling" TSity to the American public and medical fraternities.

In truth, any transsexual woman is a man - or was prior to SRS and remains one after to most medical professionals. Our own TS culture deems the "male" comment to be an insult; few others would regard it as such. But for us it remains a very hurtful and damaging insult, one that prior to Conway would *never* be used in transsexual circles unless you wanted a fight. Used by an outsider, it was a sign of discrimination and ignorance. Now, it is all too common - *from within the circle*.

I suggest that we have been conditioned to ignore reality and replace it with transsexual mythology. This becomes like a religious mantra, and that yields belief, followed by faith. Certainly it helps us with our daily lives. It gets us by in social circumstances. But scientific? Not really. Having said that, I use the myth when expedient just as you do - it helps giving others a "sense" of what we are. But is that reality - scientific reality. I think not.

Admittedly, I am subject to the same concerns and thoughts that many of you have had. I want to be a woman, fully and unconditionally. That is not presently possible, so I take what I can get, becoming happier by far in the process. It is just as hard for me to accept reality as it may be for any of you. I am comfortable with myself just as I am, shed of any ritual cant.

If I could , I would ask that every transsexual, as part of transition, read two books. One is "How Sex Changed: the History of Transsexuality in the United States" by Joanne Meyerowitz. The second, from an admitted opponent of TSity (or at the least, SRS), Bernice Hausman, is "Changing Sex". Those two books might clear up a lot of misunderstanding, along with Anne Bolin's now somewhat dated but still excellent "In Search of Eve". (Those with a less emotional view and an ability to deal with reality might shorten the reading with "The Socio-Medical Construction of Transsexualism" by Billings and Urban, 1982 reprinted in Ekins "Blending Genders").

Oh yes. "I don't feel that way" and "I don't think there are only two forms of transsexuals". As to the first comment, I don't either, not emotionally. I do not feel driven sexually, nor in my mind does that appear to be a primary factor. But I am a patient, not a doctor. That I felt drawn to SRS is enough to show that there is something amiss. Can I judge myself? A lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client; a doctor who treats himself is similar. I defer to professionals, even when my "feelings" don't like it. As to two paths, that is more than DSM has (one only) without Blanchard. Are there more? Perhaps, but not identified as such now. Blanchard did many studies. But from my observations, his two classes cover all those that I know, including myself. "What about gender??". The present use of "gender" different from sex, grew out of Jorgensen's return and the marketing of SRS and TSity by the Ericksen Foundation. Most doctors use the two words as meaning the same thing. Only in our narrow part of the world do we - of practical necessity - separate the meanings. I suggest that the vast majority of doctors and the public see no difference. Our little world is not theirs, and rightly so.

We forget, too often in our small world, that most of the medical fraternity does not approve of the treatment and operations we obtain. Those in favour of our treatment and operation are in a distinct minority, yet we attack those that do assist us in gaining what we want against great odds. One of the 1970 surveys found only 3% of doctors approved of SRS as a procedure. Few even know of the Ericksen Foundation, let alone the major role it played in the "selling" of transsexuality, and later Gender Identity Disorder to the professionals. The availability of SRS stems solely from the classification (which many dispute) in DSM, which gave us legitimacy. That is why those who deal with us are often "put down" by their peers, for their peers do not believe that transsexuality exists in the form we understand it to be. Don't think that happens? Well it does. So here you have people who have helped, have been attacked for helping by their fellow professionals, and who are now attacked by the patients. Isn't that nice?

A community? Not really. Hausman suggests SRS is not necessary and is damned. MacKenzie in "Transgender Nation" speaks out against SRS, as do other transsexuals; normally post-op. Is some idea right or wrong merely because of the identity of the writer??? (I must attach a modification. According to Nancy Nangeroni, a close associate of MacKenzie, she "… speaks not against SRS so much as the myopic focus by some on SRS as the solution to a society-wide problem of constricting gender binarism that manifests as individual discomfort with a presumptively assigned gender role"). My interpretation is anti-SRS, but I accept that I may not interpret her correctly. Transsexuals often find they have nothing in common, no “sisterhood” with a common experience or desire for bearing and rearing a child, for example. Far from begin at one with women born, we remain separated by our distinctive - and different - life experiences; we find ourselves separated by other transsexuals for the same reason. Many retain a decidedly male method of making their point or dominating a conversation. To this is added a certain “cattiness” and, in many cases, a pseudo-typical female refinement, prefacing any insult with “Honey” or “Dear”. At times this can be rather funny to an observer of meetings. Status is gained by “passing”, or imitating a woman so well that nobody can tell visually (often the voice is not changed, resulting in a voice totally at odds with the appearance), often bragging of one’s ability to do just that. There are Internet groups, for example, that only allow members who “pass”, relegating the many others to second class status. A transsexual who considers herself fully passable will refuse to meet with one she considers does not do as well in public - so much for “sisterhood”. I have never had a woman born refuse to meet me for coffee due to my appearance. Conversely, one TS group cautioned its members not to meet me in public as I was a “known transsexual” due to my high profile. It seems the transsexual women feel that they have something to lose; the women born have no such fears. As with the medical definition, the only thing that joins transsexuals is the desire for an operation to "change sex". Admittedly negative, the following is typical of medical journals:

"in a thousand ways, the reassignee has the bitter experience that he is not - and never will be - a real girl but is, at best, a convincing simulated female. Such an adjustment cannot compensate for the tragedy of having lost all chance to be male and of having, in the final analysis, no way to be really female" (Meyer & Hooper, 1974)

I was lucky. Many are not, and ruined lives follow that determination.

No mistake. I am happy with the results of my surgery - but I deal in reality and need no fairytales. I am what I am, and what I needed to be - as close to being a woman as this lifetime would permit. My legitimacy as a woman comes from the law, which owes its existence to the Clarke and Vancouver Clinics in Canada (the United States has not fully progressed as far). My emotions say that I am a woman, but I do see reality in my skies. I am one of those happy souls who as Stoller suggested so long ago, have no regrets. I identify as a transsexual woman, and woman by default if there is no third box to tick. Legally, I am correct.

""It’s a 'philia'"!!!!!!” Well, yes, it is. Now emotionally I would like to see that as GID, Type A and Type B - but that is an emotional response and not a scientific one. I don't like being called an "alien" by the U.S. Government either - it conjures up visions of Sigourney Weaver, but that does not stop it. Bailey and Blanchard assure me that such is proper usage. So, what is one to do? Ignore a truth, or even a theory, merely to be politically correct?? “Oh well, as the theory hurts me emotionally, it has to be both wrong and damned”. Some opponents then go on (a la the Southern Poverty Law Centre) to link this to old racial theories and worse, to Hitler and other nasties, to eugenicists and more with scant evidence and problematic “investigative journalism”. Methinks they protest too much.

Those who should and do know say that is where it properly belongs. I trust them in that regard, for they have shown that they are not out to harm by years of their lives dedicated to helping transsexuals, against the protesters who normally have not done anything until very recently. Given the choice of who to trust, I would rather go with those who have shown by their deeds their care and concern - and professionalism, not their ability to argue or insult. Nor does that in any way threaten me or my existence. Those who hate me for what I am, will still hate me after they learn of the classification, if they ever do (which I doubt). Those who like me will not suddenly hate me, nor class me as one with a pedophile or other such type. I have not met anyone *in the field of study* who differs with this designation; I have not met any transsexual woman who agrees with it. So I ask, which should win - the scientific or the emotional. Sorry, ladies, I side with the scientific.

Emotionally, I am a woman and it does bother me emotionally to be still, after all that, a male in any respect. That is, I suggest, exactly why I am in DSM, for such is not "natural" for a male. Of course, that is only me. Other transsexual women may well be different. Yes. Of course they are.

Now, the big issue. SEX. Detractors of Bailey and Blanchard scream that "I was not motivated by sex!!!!". Bailey, in several responses, has suggested that a doctor, more so than a patient, is in a better position to appraise, and I believe that is true. I suggested to Maxine some time ago that the catchphrase might be "The spark that is lost in the fire". While sex starts the process off, it is quickly overtaken by matters of social and other considerations - the gender identity matters, if you will. With the long gestation period for autogynephilia, this becomes what we know, what we feel, what we understand ourselves to be. There is no suggestion that those so affected remain in a high sexual state. No, that is the spark. After that, with years and years, comes the development of a gender identity, or "male/femaling" as Ekins would put it (another must read - "Male Femaling"). We start to develop, then to maintain and "constitute" our female persona. By the time we step forward to transition, that persona is almost fully formed and functional. The sexual start is lost in our minds, crowded out by our assisted mythology of ourselves as women, truly and totally.

“Well. That may describe some, perhaps you and others like you, but it most certainly does not describe ME!!!”. This is the middle-of-the-road waffle. It is generally linked to a total denial of any sexual feelings, certainly as a reason for transition. Me. Me, ME!!!! Transsexual women tend to forget that they must fit into the world, the world does not have to adjust to suit them. There are many variations on a theme, but what science does is link some rather diverse people into groups. Yes, indeed, every person is unique. But patterns, personalities, similarities, basic traits and characteristics - these and more are used to group types of people every day. We group by religion, by culture, race, ethnic background, occupation, personality type, place of birth - all sorts of groups. This is merely another one of those groups, not saying all are the same, but similar in regard to the title given to the group. What I find strange here is the total denial of any sexual motive in most cases. As humans, that has to be a falsehood.

Now, many matters not normally thought of as sexual in nature, are in fact motivated, we think, by sex. Going back to the fifties, Vance Packard suggested that how we buy cars was sexually motivated with the red convertible as the mistress, the blue sedan as marriage. We know that sex sells - and millions are spent annually to make sure that truism is maintained. Do you really need a pretty girl to sell auto parts or office supplies??? No - but it works. Any glimpse at media, print or broadcast, clearly shows this. And each of us deny that we are motivated to buy anything by ads or sex. Is all that money wasted??? Look at entertainment. Does the last movie you saw really need the nude scene? No, but it sells tickets, doesn't it? And porn is over 50% of the Web usage, I am told.

But no - "No sex please, we're transsexual". We will rarely even talk of it, so scared are we to discuss the basic issue in any life. I suggest that this is part and parcel of our issue with Bailey, and Blanchard. We so want others not to think we are sexually motivated - as any human is in reality - that we hide the sex from them and even from ourselves. In doing so, we are engaging in cover-ups. We feel we would lose out if others assumed (which most do already, in fact) that we are sexually motivated. Along comes a breath of reality and we shun it, for it destroys the mythology that we, and in many cases, our caregivers, have worked so hard to build, a wall of protection around the issue of sex. We have invested in a PR campaign that suits us, gives us more "respectability" than otherwise afforded us. So we want that sex part to be stuffed under the carpet and never to see the light of day. “Gender Identity for me! No sex - that’s nasty stuff”. At least, that seems the North American view. There is hope that the rest of the world is not as blinded.

Scientific?? Hardly.

Bailey and Blanchard do not call post-op transsexuals "males". The allies of Conway and James do. And often. Just by observation, one sees the emotional rants of those who demean their opposition with accusations. We have the tactics of the religious right - the false claiming of victim status. Couple that with rank McCarthyism at its worst. Add a goodly dash of yellow journalism, heavy tint. Some stew. I speak from experience there, having been threatened with "exposure" by Andrea James. She wrote to advise that she wanted to publish the accusation that I was a registered sex offender and other nonsense. I beat her to the punch, responding in public to the nonsense. Had I not done so, she would have published the lies as she has done with Bailey, Blanchard and especially Lawrence. Hmmmm.

Especially Lawrence. Well, now that Andrea is in the TS business - selling all manner of things on her web site and soliciting donations (a reason there, but I shall not get personal) - perhaps she wants to beat down any competition, especially as Anne does not sell products. A “professional transsexual”, it appears, a term used in several books dealing with us as a group and identifying one subgroup. I see more than a bit of pure jealousy and more in Andrea's writing concerning Lawrence - mean and nasty, knowing that Anne would not dignify any of the accusations with a reply. In fact, if you read James you come quickly to a conclusion that she is a very disturbed person, believing fully that her end justifies any means.

In closing, Andrea, Lynn, and Deirdre do indeed have an agenda. They want GID to be removed from DSM. That will leave those of us in more advanced countries without the presently covered SRS and treatment, for such treatment depends upon listing in DSM as a reason. Never mind - we can be like the Americans. That leaves only Lynn's "cohorts" (her word that) who can pay for SRS and full facial surgery as "pure transsexuals". (Lynn had her SRS under Benjamin, as she has reminded me in print. Her FFS did not come until 1999, following her active participation in Star Wars technology, and presumably its financial rewards. She, by the way, "outed" herself after the FFS; she was not outed by the reporter. It was her choice, but only after she had FFS with Dr. O. I am tempted to add a "before" picture, but shall not do so)(In that regard, one of Lynn's cohorts was kind enough to take one picture of me from the Web and analyse, a la Ousterheit, what was wrong with my face and bone structure. So kind...).

Conway and her allies have done more to destroy further research into TSity than anyone now realises. We have shown ourselves to be a nasty and ungrateful group of malcontents, just - if not more - nutty than most already assumed us to be. The attacks on the views and personal lives of anyone who favours the Blanchard concept have shown potential researchers what to expect if they publish "unpopular" material. To his credit, Ekins is doing more. Insofar as the rest are concerned, the lights are going out. That can be added to the costs of the ridiculous emotional rants coming from the TS groups. Conway, by the way, has spoken out against further research in the Washington "Times", the "Moonie" paper in Washington D.C. - the only one that seems to use her as a source.

Ah yes, I know. We are all women always and forever, and we never ever think of sex. We write about who a nurse asks us about our last period as if we had passed a test; we rave when a driver's license arrives in the mail. And we attack those who have done more to assist us in gaining the few rights we enjoy, calling them Nazis and worse, in league with the Pope.

I am ashamed of this so-called community. We have not merely insulted those who have done more than any others to assist us, we have attacked them in every foul, contemptible manner possible. We have attacked their personal lives, their children and their associates - not just disagreed with a concept. Accusations become reality; assumptions are made fact. The actions of the past year and now the attacks on Lambda (Bailey’s book has been nominated for a Lambda award) have indeed made us look like emotional basketcases to the rest of the world. What end justifies these means?

Who but a sycophant would now come to our aid? Only those who, to pacify us, will parrot back what we wish to hear. We do not learn about ourselves in that manner; we merely confirm our desired beliefs. That is not knowledge; it is a black age.

And perhaps, that is another reality...

ÓWillow C. Arune, 2004

6/6/04