Transgender – A Matter of Diversity?

Those who consider themselves "Transgender" (the "T" in GLT BDSM) claim that they are a perfectly normal expression of naturally-occurring Human sexual diversity.

They would have us celebrate this diversity, not merely accept its existence matter-of-factly.

The following definitions of Transgender and Transgenderist will suffice for the purpose of this discussion:
Transgender: 1) Transgender (sometimes shortened to trans or TG) people are those whose psychological self ("gender identity") differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with. To understand this, one must understand the difference between biological sex, which is one’s body (genitals, chromosomes, etc.), and social gender, which refers to levels of masculinity and femininity. Often, society conflates sex and gender, viewing them as the same thing. But, gender and sex are not the same thing. Transgender people are those whose psychological self ("gender identity") differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with. For example, a female with a masculine gender identity or who identifies as a man. 2) An umbrella term for transsexuals, cross-dressers (transvestites), transgenderists, gender queers, and people who identify as neither female nor male and/or as neither a man or as a woman. Transgender is not a sexual orientation; transgender people may have any sexual orientation. It is important to acknowledge that while some people may fit under this definition of transgender, they may not identify as such.
Transgenderist: A person who lives either full time, or most of the time, in a gender role different than the role associated with their biological or chromosomal sex (a gender non-conformist).
The above definitions are to be found on the following URL: http://tinyurl.com/89sxu

We see from the definition above that the understanding of Transgender is based upon the assumption that there is a difference between one's sex and one's gender. People who define themselves as Transgender not only assume that there is a difference between one's sex and one's gender, they assume that this is the natural, normal state of being for Humans and would have those who are not Transgender accept this as a natural, normal state as well. If we accept this assumption then Transgenderism, a state in which a person does not experience himself or herself as being of one and the same sex inside and out, must be accepted as a perfectly normal and natural part of the diversity of Human sexuality.

It is being demanded of us that we accept that it is normal and natural that one's perception of oneself is vastly at variance with others' perception of him or her. Demanded of us it is. It has become politically incorrect to question the normalcy of transgenderism and those who voice a doubt that it is normal are met with every bit of the verbal violence that homosexuals and transgendered people are met with by their ultra-conservative counterparts. There is no reason not to believe, given the level of verbal violence that many people who identify as transgendered allow themselves to engage in when their claims are questioned, that would they could, they might allow themselves the physical violence that the homophobic engage in as well.

Diversity amongst individuals can be advantageous to a species and/or the ecosystem in which the species exists, disadvantageous to the species and/or the ecosystem in which the species exists or neither particularly advantageous nor catastrophically disadvantageous, so long as the diversity remains within a given percentage of the population.

As a species, Humans are marked by differing Races. We are diverse in some of our physical characteristics. That diversity has aided our adaptation to our environments and is certainly advantageous within the given environment that the adaptation occurred in. Take a light-skinned Celt out of the British Isles and place him or her in a hot and sunny environment and the same physical adaptation that was advantageous in the British Isles, becomes disadvantageous. Take a Black person who carries the gene for Sickle Cell Anemia out of the malaria-ridden area in which the adaptation occurred in order to protect the species and that person's adaptation that was so necessary for his or her survival and that of the species becomes disadvantageous.

There are types of defects that are so catastrophic to the bearer that there can be no advantage to the individual or the species whatsoever. They are wholly destructive to the individual, do not perpetuate or serve the species and are often destructive to the individual's surroundings as well. Psychoses and major personality disorder fall under this category, as do the devastating physical disorders.

There are some types of differences among individuals in a species that are always disadvantageous to the individual to some extent and will become catastrophically disadvantageous to the species if those who bear them exceed a given percentage of the general population. Albinos, epileptics and dwarves are three examples of individuals who bear a disorder, defect or syndrome that affects their functioning to some extent and which, if they were to multiply in numbers unchecked in the species, would impact negatively upon the entire species. It is clearly a disadvantage to the individual to be born an albino, an epileptic or a dwarf. The individual will, no doubt, be unable to partake in many, but not in all, of the activities that further the welfare of the species, but so long as they remain within a given percentage the species can tolerate, even accept their existence with equanimity.

Neuroses and other psychological disturbances are among the disorders that impinge upon one's individual functioning to some extent, and affect society negatively to some extent, but which are not catastrophic to the individual so long as he or she can function for the most part, or to the species so long as the majority of individuals in the species are not disturbed.

As in the case of illness that are always and in all ways detrimental, the defects that fall into the category of those that make existence and survival more difficult, but not untenable, can be congenital, acquired and some can be both.

It should be needless to say that any acts of cruelty toward those who possess a defect, whether congenital or acquired or both should be punished to the full extent of the law. Certainly those who have chosen to modify their appearance because they experience themselves as a sex and gender other than they appear without modification must not be objects of ridicule for so doing and any violence perpetrated upon their persons should be punished vigorously.

While individuals born with defects are entitled to every respect, dignity, opportunity, advantage, etc. in every sphere of life that their condition allows, and it must be illegal to limit an individual who possesses a debility more than the debility itself necessitates limitation, we cannot deny the fact that those who possess a deformity, disability or illness of some kind are, in fact, afflicted to whatever the extent may be.

There is absolutely no benefit to the species in being Transgender. It is not an expression of Human diversity that serves the individual, the species and the environment, as would being unusually fertile, of above-average intelligence or strength or possessing greater empathy than do most people. Thinking of oneself as one gender, when objective reality says something else or thinking of oneself as having no gender at all, when one bears the primary and secondary characteristics of a given sex that are observed clearly by objective observers cannot be considered an expression of Human diversity that we should foster, encourage and "celebrate".

Wanting to have one's genitals changed surgically in order to be on the outside what "one is on the inside" cannot be considered a mental/emotional state that serves the furtherance of our species as a whole.

However, neither is Transgenderism a wholly catastrophic illness, deformity or defect that impacts wholly negatively on the individual, the species and his or her environment as are, for instance, Muscular Dystrophy, Spina Bifida, extreme intractable psychosis or Tay Sachs.

Neither is the state of having a perfectly healthy male or female body, while experiencing oneself as the opposite sex within to be considered a psychosis, although normally when one perceives one's own body or self in a way that does not accord with objective reality we are dealing with one who is hallucinating. This is not the case with Transgenderism. Transgenderism is a species of neurosis or personality maladjustment. As long as the person focuses the perceptual distortion on one aspect of his or her being (the person's gender) and can function otherwise normally in society, there is no reason to label Transgenderism as a psychosis.

Each case in which an individual wishes to undergo irreversible surgery that involves amputation or modification of the genitals and hormone therapy must be very carefully scrutinized by a panel of psychiatrists and other health care professionals.

Transgenderism is a catch-all term for a rather large number of disorders that are characterized by various psychological and/or physiological abnormalities. However, Transgender individuals can function as normal Human beings in most spheres of Human existence and society. The disorders, then, are of a similar order as epilepsy, albinism, dwarfism and various neuroses. We see that people who define themselves as Transgender are among those who possess illnesses, deformities and genetic abnormalities that allow them to function fairly well and not impact catastrophically on the species and the environment – so long as the number of individuals possessing them do not exceed a given percentage per capita.

While Transgenderism must be accepted in civil society, it should be seen for what it is: A disorder that causes us no harm as long as the percentage of people who define themselves as Transgender remains stable, but potentially harmful if the percentage grows.

Since it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the types of Transgendered individuals who are in possession of a normal body but perceive themselves as being other than the sex that is observed objectively are suffering from acquired neuroses, it behooves us to determine what the causes of such errant self-identification are and prevent the disorders from occurring. For all of their bravado and claims of "transgender pride" they suffer miserably for the most part.

On the physiological level, it is important that science develop ways to insure that fewer babies are hermaphrodites or pseudo-hermaphrodites. Their sexual ambiguity is very real and will, no doubt, lead to psychological and social problems in addition to the congenital defects.
The fact that some cultures, particularly some Native American tribes have been found that seem to have accepted transgenderism and incorporated them into the general culture, is not proof of their normalcy. Neither is the oft-heard claim that transgenderism is the physical expression of lofty "spirituality" that cannot be attained but by being transgendered to be taken seriously. The following is said about the "berdache":
"Since the berdache could mix characteristics of both genders, they were viewed as having a special status as if "blessed" by the gods. They were thought to be the "middle gender," and seen as prophets and visionaries having an almost mystic and psychic vision into the future. They were often consulted by tribal elders and chieftains because they were thought to have a kind of "universal knowledge" and special connection to the "great spirit." (See: http://tinyurl.com/bwuzg)
Let's compare what has been said about the "berdache" above with what has been said about epileptics, not only historically, that is that they are possessed (positively and negatively) of unusual spirituality, but which modern research bears out:
"Spirituality, but not participation in organized religion, called higher in people with epilepsy
Although most people with epilepsy do not consider themselves more religious or spiritual than other people, a recent study suggests otherwise.
The study, reported at the American Neurological Association meeting in October, was conducted by Dr. Thomas Hayton and associates, of the New York University Hospital in New York. An abstract of the study appeared in the September 1, 2002 supplement to the Annals of Neurology.
Dr. Hayton and his research team gave a standard questionnaire on religious belief and spirituality to 91 people with epilepsy. They then compared the results to standard norms for the rest of the population.
The team reports that this group of people with epilepsy were more religious and spiritual than the general population.
They scored higher than others in terms of daily, personal spiritual experiences (feeling the presence of God, love, deep inner peace, and the beauty of creation). They also scored higher in measures of the strength of their spiritual beliefs and values.
On the other hand, they were less likely than the general population to attend religious services or to participate in activities of congregations or in private prayer." (See http://tinyurl.com/aw67k)
As an epileptic, I can bear out the fact that these clinical observations are true. I am possessed of hyper-religiosity and have experienced direct contact with God during absence seizures when my consciousness was not otherwise entertained, but rather suspended. Many years of my life were spent being totally engrossed in Jewish mysticism. With all that, I am fully aware of the fact that I am also possessed of a disorder that it characterized by a rather unpleasant syndrome of symptoms that impinges on my functioning and would not wish for society to accept me as Exhibit A of perfectly normal or that which it is desirable to be. There are healthy ways of achieving God-consciousness. One need not be epileptic to experience what I have experienced during absence seizures. I am likewise aware that if people with my affliction were to proliferate, the species, as a whole, would be adversely affected. I therefore do not accept the claim of transgendered people that they are possessed of a unique "spirituality" that cannot be attained in a salubrious manner that serves the individual, the species and the environment.
The Egyptians respected dwarves and even represented some of their deities as dwarves, yet this in no wise should be interpreted that dwarfism is either normal nor desirable.
A number of cultures made eunuchs of young boys for a number of reasons, as is generally known. Some of those eunuchs held very respectable, and even important, positions in their societies, but that does not change the fact that they were mutilated.
The proof of whether a given condition is normal, healthy and a boon to the species is in the sexual pudding. In contradistinction to Bisexual females who, according to a recent British study, constitute at least 50% of the general population of females, this given the fact that they still feel inhibited by heterosexual societal norms (See: http://tinyurl.com/c83h6).

Transgendered people, like others who possess a physical defect, whether congenital or acquired that impinges upon their functioning to some extent and which can be tolerated by the species so long as they remain within a given percentage of the general population, like dwarves, the obese, albinos, etc. are not generally physically attractive to the general population. The vast majority of healthy individuals are not sexually attracted to people bearing physical or mental abnormalities. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, the French Post-Impressionist painter suffered two broken legs as a child, which inhibited the growth of his legs. As a result, his stature was dwarf-like. While we cannot deny his genius and contribution to culture, neither can we deny that his physical deformity impacted only negatively on his place in society and personal love life. He was not seen as a desirable lover or mate, despite the fact that he hailed from a noble family.

It is entirely possible that individuals may fall in love with individuals who possess an abnormality of some kind despite the abnormality. However, rarely does someone find himself or herself attracted to the person because of an abnormality. In the cases where one is attracted to the abnormality, per se, we say it is a fetish or a "kink".

Humans tend, for the most part, to be attracted to those who are fit to perpetuate the species.

Bisexual women are physically and behaviorally indistinguishable from heterosexual women in the presence of men. They do not bear physical characteristics specific or peculiar to them as do transgendered women and many lesbians. Bisexual women are not only sexually attractive to heterosexual men; their Bisexuality often stirs the men to greater attraction to them. Many, men, find Bisexual women more exciting than heterosexual women. The thought of a woman making love to a woman is a very arousing and common fantasy that many men would live out if presented with the possibility to make love to more than one women, particularly if the women exhibit erotic behavior one toward the other. But a Bisexual woman need not be actively bisexual in the presence of man to excite him. The very thought that she is bisexual aroused him to exciting fantasies. Bisexuality in women, then, is a boon to the propagation of the species because Bisexual women are no less attractive to men than are heterosexual women, and often more so.

None of the sexualities under the GLT BDSM rubric, that Bisexuality has been subsumed, wholly incorrectly, under can make the claim that they serve the perpetuation of the species. They are, in fact, disadvantageous.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com