[Adrian]

Jan,
You emailed me only the other day and I told you what the status is at the moment. So this post is confusing.

Given the stuff that was posted about me in these forums when I elected to allow a documentary to be made you can be sure that last place I will post any update about the results will be here.

The movie, like Transformal itself, has nothing directly to do with TgR.

I will let those who feature in the movie view it when it surfaces in due course.

[Adrian]

Glebe Cafe Night June 2012

Unfortunately Vanessa was not feeling well and had to leave before we took the photo.

[Adrian]

Well nearly 50 people have voted so far in the poll (at the top of this posting).

I have to say I am very surprised that about a third of those who took the mini-survey have a name from their parents that is included in the list of “intersex names” I chose.

This is a much higher percentage that i would have expected as the intersex names are mostly fairly “unusual”.

Is it that those on the list have rushed to confirm this – but others have been reluctant to vote?
So does this statistic reflect reality….I wonder!

[Adrian]

Quote:

Are you bragging, Amanda?

No – nor am I being deliberately offensive to others.

I am genuinely surprised how many people wrote to me when I changed my forum name telling me similar stories. So I thought it would be good to explore if this was a widely occurring situation

Quote:

Then turning around and preventing actual genuine discussion by stopping people from commenting about their or other peoples names not being on the list?

No – for the question results to have any validity there has to be a fixed list of names it refers to. Otherwise it would be a waste of time running the poll.
Usual forum rules – I started the thread so I get to call what the thread is about. If someone wants to start a thread discussing which names are and are not unisex then the forums are there.

Quote:

Oh – and your email address looks like it is bouncing again

A long suffering admin

[Adrian]

For all those posting here… don’t forget that this was a poll!
Do press one of the buttons in the poll if you are going to post!
At the moment the number of votes recorded is remaining constant whilst more posts appear

[Adrian]

Quote:

It seems that list omitted some of the names that are used by men and women:
Sam, Carol, Mel

As I said, there is no definitive list of Unisex names – The list I chose is somewhat American in its preferences I think. The arguments that rage over this are not something I want to clutter the forum with. Just type “Is adrian a boy or girl name” into Google and you will see what I mean. So as the topic starter…let’s stick with the one list please.

I also came across an article that pointed out that shortened names are frequently more unisex that the originals. This sort of applies to Samuel or Samantha, Caroline or Carl, Melvin, Melanie, Melinda or Melissa!!!

Quote:

The Psych I attended mentioned to me when we were discussing names that a name that could not be misinterpreted would be the wiser choice, i.e. not unisex names. I agreed.

Heading a bit off topic – perhaps a new thread could be started on “how should I choose a new name?”.

But suffice it to say that whilst Googleing for the occurrence of transgender unisex names I came across some well reasoned advice presenting a very different view from your Psych. Maybe it comes down to what image you want to present and what image you actually are presenting. But as i said… another thread perhaps?

[Adrian]

Quote:

Finally my only other disagreement is related to the comment regarding telling partners. The comment suggests that partners who are not supportive may be “weeded out” so to speak by them terminating the relationship. Thus mostly supportive partners remain within the population.

There is strong anecdotal evidence to support the assertion in the survey – those who have been about in the wider gender diverse community for a time keep encountering breaking or broken relationships, and those of us who have stable, supportive, relationships are very aware we are a lucky minority. So the statistics don’t seem unduly surprising to me.

And there are hard facts – 1/4 of those surveyed had previously told a partner, and now reported they have not got a partner. I think the interpretation in the survey is pretty compelling!! But what do you expect from the author!

Quote:

If the true level of acceptance by partners in the actual population I.e. Females in society, was lower than that reflected in the survey then surely all other things being equal one would expect that the survey population should have a lower incidence of stable long term relationships than the general population, and the reverse is true based on the survey results.

I’m not sure I understand that argument. There are many factors here
– the incidence of stable relationships amongst those who don’t know…may be different from the general population because of the “type of person” who is gender diverse. Not sure why we would expect it to be lower particularly. If you don’t know someone is gender diverse why would it affect your relationship particularly?
– the incidence of stable relationships amongst those who do know (which I think is lower from the survey)
– the lack of data about teh number of relationships and which are “long term”
– the age demographic of the surveyed population.

Trying to match that to any general population statistics is I think in the “too hard” basket!

[Adrian]

After many months of editing and review, the 2001 Survey report is now released on our web site.

It can be downloaded from
http://www.tgr.net.au/survey

Once again can I thank all those who contributed to the survey, in the design, in responding, or in the analysis.

I feel the resulting report is an achievement we can all be truly proud of.

[Adrian]

A lovely picture from Kristen’s new camera.
A fun evening – thank you everyone!

[Adrian]

I agree totally, that anything that is a self-assessment is never going to stand up to scrutiny as a scientific fact. I also think that I’m going to get physically hurt if, each time someone says to me

“I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body”

I reply

“Tell me – what exactly do you mean when you say a woman?”

Now, in defense of my 5-box gender spectrum I can dodge round this argument about endpoints perhaps.

Because my “scale” doesn’t have an end point – it has a range of end-points labelled “essentially female” and “essentially male”.

This deliberate vagueness accommodates to some degree the ambiguity as to what me mean by “female”. In the worst case there is going to be some fluidity between people assessing themselves as FFFF and FFFM.

When we look at the survey there is nothing really that manifests itself just in one box…and so at the end of the day it is the view it gives across the spectrum that is valuable I think… which doesn’t require the sort of scientific accuracy that others might be looking for.

[Adrian]

I’ve replied to Virginia cancelling her request for 2 places tonight.

It will be clear to everyone that Virginia is no longer in any way supportive of me, yet masquerades as being a friend.

This is obviously not the case.

It is clearly time for her to consider seriously about leaving TgR if she finds herself incapable of respecting the wishes of others.

[Adrian]

In another thread, http://forum.tgr.net.au/cms/forum/F176/4574-574
I highlighted the proven high incidence of people self-administering prescription hormones.
This triggered an observation that is probably best discussed here to avoid hi-jacking the original thread.

Quote:

the “rules” need adjusting to be more reflective of the needs of those who need to take hormones. Adjustments have been made and guidelines from WPATH and DSM are far less restrictive than they used to be regarding this. That is not to say further refinement is not required.

This comment sent me back looking at the Standards of Care again.
I will be the first to admit that I haven’t read all of the 120 pages in the the document. Largely because I have found that its focus on the standards of a care for a small minority of gender diverse people (those who wish to change their born sex) just leaves me asking “so – what about me?”.

So let’s look to see if the SOC offers any route to normalising hormone use widely across our community.

Well, section 8 which covers hormone therapy starts in an encouraging way. After telling us that hormones are there to treat “gender dysphoria” (something discussed earlier in this thread) the DOC continues:

Quote:

Some people seek maximum feminization/
masculinization, while others experience relief with an androgynous presentation resulting from
hormonal minimization of existing secondary sex characteristics

Then the SOC moves onto its criteria for Hormone Therapy.

Quote:

1. Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria;
2. Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment;
3. Age of majority in a given country (if younger, follow the Standards of Care outlined in section
VI);
4. If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably wellcontrolled.

That brings you crashing down to earth – because, no surprise, their criteria for hormone use is a psychological evaluation that you are “sick”. This isn’t progressive at all..it is the status quo of restricting access to hormones to those who present as being “sick” with major issues about being born male.

The TgR survey demonstrates this is denying a large number of people in our community appropriate medical care.

Then there is hope…a paragraph starts….

Quote:

In selected circumstances, it can be acceptable practice to provide hormones to patients who have
not fulfilled these criteria.

And it tells us that one way is to engage in “ilicit or unsupervised” hormone use to establish yourself in your affirmed gender.

Guess what! WPATH says that if you are inter-gender/gender queer/inter-sex/choose your own label and you can’t jump through the hoops of their guidelines then….

Resort to “ilicit or unsupervised” hormone use… And the TgR survey seems to indicate that is happening!

Of course if somewhere else in the 120 pages there is something I have missed skimming through – then please let me know.

[Adrian]

Reading through this thread, I realised that I had written something earlier that was potentially misleading. I wrote:

Quote:

Secondly, generic medicine is available for common drugs. Generics are sold under the name of the chemical name. Once again you can buy generics through pharmacies in Australia – they are not fundamentally “unsafe”. Having bought Generics in India – all I can say is that the price mark up between there and your local pharmacy here is nothing short of criminal. But they are cheaper than brand drugs (both here in Australia and on-line) because the companies who make them (for instance in India) do not actually bear the cost of drug research. However the authorities even in “third world” countries like India insist on the generic product having chemical equivalence.

I wrote this from the viewpoint of going to India, walking into a smart pharmacy in Bangalore, and buying Indian generic drugs that way. I do this as regularly as I visit anywhere in SE Asia. Before the moral police attack me – I do it with the full knowledge and support of my GP.

Since my posting I have become aware, by reading articles in the press, that the same story may not be true of generic drugs sold over the internet in on-line pharmacies. I stress I am talking here predominately about drugs made in India, and I am NOT referring to the purchase on-line of drugs made in Europe. It would appear that some generic drugs, that look as if they have been manufactured in India as generics, are in fact contaminated and do not have the required ingredients. They are deliberately manufactured as “fakes”.

I’m sorry if my original post didn’t make this clear at the time.

[Adrian]

I’m sure this debate will be reignited soon when doctors and other medical professionals see the findings of the TgR survey.
I know I should be working on publishing it fully, not talking about it, but… the figures are very significant.

If you take the more feminine gender types in the survey (approx 200 responses) – 20% have at some time self administered prescription hormones.

That statistic is a big challenge to be addressed by those establishing medical frameworks and standards of care.
It isn’t something to be just stamped out by legislation as it reflects a real need in the community that is currently being denied through official channels.

It also implies there is a substantial body of knowledge here within TgR about the practicality, desirability, and problems associated with self administering hormones.
And of course the merits of various overseas sources of supply.

As a community, we have to move beyond feeling shame that we have had to take these risks in secret, and instead push for changes to the “rules” so that they embrace our needs.

[Adrian]

Despite claims to the contrary in the above posting, Christina did have an email from me explaining why I was not prepared to let her join in the overreaction against filming at TransFormal. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the web site (Clause 3) it is not “censorship” for posts to be removed in this way.

When she realised this, she sent me the following email today:

Quote:

Dear Amanda,

Your email was directed to spam & I’ve not noticed it until this morning. …personal family details deleted for privacy….

I don’t accept your dismissal of my comment because “you are not going”. As a member of TgR I believe I have a legitimate voice.
By your logic it could be drawn that any person who has not undertaken ‘transition’ with a view to full-time living, does not have a legitimate voice on this subject. You in particular have some very strong views about continuums & bi-gendered living. That’s your right & I do not criticise that. However, you have no insight into ‘living as a woman’. At the end of the day, your life remains male. None. Your experience is that of a cross-dresser only, a part-time woman not willing, or able to let go of the benefits of ‘male privilege’.

You may be comfortable with people knowing you identify as ‘a transgender’. That’s good. (I refuse to be an adjective). There remain many people who are very shy & uncomfortable with the idea that family or business associates would know. A function like TransFormal is an opportunity for them to go out & relax amongst friends. They go believing their privacy will be protected. This is a reasonable presumption. You have placed protections on the photographs taken. Fine. No criticism from me.

On another level, you invited people to participate in a survey, & then, also after the fact, declared the results would only be released at TransFormal, & kept hidden from anyone not willing to attend your commercial venture for another 2 months. My belief is that you see TransFormal as a business venture first & foremost, & any ‘community benefit’ of a secondary consideration.

You are intolerant of anybody with an opinion other than your own. TgR is “mine”, & “I’ll run it how I see fit”. My understanding is people are now returning to Seahorse – an organisation I do not wish to be associated with. I do not attend TransFormal because I can go to any social function, like Five Dock RSL. It is not something “special”. Why should I take a place that another girl could fill. Also, even though you may not wish to acknowledge it, TransFormal has strong sexual undertones. So does Seahorse Ball. I don’t listen to the chatter of one person. I hear many conversations. I don’t seek social interaction looking for casual intimate liasons. Again, their right to live how they choose.

I’ve found some lovely acquaintances attending the Glebe cafe nights, when I’m able.

Always Respectfully
Christina

I considered that this communication was totally unjustified and, as it was an attack on the administrator, I referred it to other moderators in accordance with the Acceptable Conduct Policy. Before I could get confirmation back I received this email.

Quote:

Dear Amanda,

I notified you last Thursday I wish to no longer be a member of TgR

This morning I replied to your obtuse self justifying email. Amazing what a concussion can do to open up one’s mouth.
I find your offense disingenuous

If my opinion was offensive that is unfortunate. I have simply expressed a personal opinion. This is something I have observed you are well practiced at, with apparent disregard for who it may offend. Like you, I’m entitled to hold whatever opinion I choose. Unlike you, I’m usually sensitive to other people’s feelings & of the habit of keeping my own counsel. I’ve observed you to be well practiced at offending. It’s who you are. What I find difficult is the unabashed indifference you appear to hold for those you offend.

Yes, I was confident the opinions I expressed would cause offense to you, but that is not why I expressed them. I have a right to say what I think, & on this occasion I exercised that option.

You asked me to assist with the development of a survey, & then after it was all over, advised that unless I attended your commercial enterprise I would not be allowed to have access to the report for another 2 months after its release.

I’ve listened to your trite self-justifications on every occasion I’ve met you. Again, fine. But I believe it’s time you resolved your underlying gender conflict & moved on with your life, rather that push the justification for your inertia down everyone’s throat.
Through TrannyRadio I have made some wonderful friends.
I listen to girls sitting at various points along your ‘continuum’, & have always respected where they are at.
I do not need to push ‘full transition’ as the only legitimate option. Nor do I accept sitting at the opposite end of that continuum is the only valid place to be. As an examply, I take excepton to ‘autogynaephilia’ being applied (by messers Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker et al) as a blanket to all & every person who expresses a gender dysphoria. Equally, I see there is a place, with less than 5% of people, for consideration of this stigmatising diagnositc tool. But no, even though Blanchard dismissed 98% of his clients as unsuitable for his research, & then found 60% of 2% fitted his theory, it is now being applied to all, & being included as a legitimate diagnostic tool in the yet to be published DSM-V

I do not know Jenni, have never engaged in communication with her. So, why is her behaviour my fault? I believe it was I who responded to her post. You deleted my online post & failed to make any online notation that you had removed it. That is censorship. There was nothing in my post remotely offensive. My post was succinct in expressing my belief you should have advised those attending TransFormal first, before accepting an opportunity to (what I believe) promote your commercial enterprise – for subsequent years.

Please, I do not wish to engage in any further correspondence on this matter. Any findings from your committee should be passed on verbally, by a committee member, when the opportunity arises

Respectfully Yours
Christina

I’ve been able to secure 4th row seats to see Kenny Rogers. Choice eh! Getting on with living

I have therefore removed Christina fro TgR as requested, and published these emails to provide transparency to the moderation process as required by the Acceptable Conduct Policy.