It does not. Far from clearing the air Dr. Winters book is a prosaic primal scream of narcissistic rage embedded in a brilliant exposition of the barbarities inflicted on transgender folk by the psychological profession. The book is based heavily on blog's written by the author witch are freely available, and adds little value for the money it cost. That said I whole heartedly agree with her about and have experienced some of the ignorance of psychologist who don't work with trans folk on a regular basis. Her writings on Blanchard's theory reveal in her a narcissistic rage, a jealous sounding,... angst towards those labeled "homosexual" in that nomenclature. That said the book makes important points about how the diagnosis of GID is used, and misused to oppress. However the way those points are made would only impress those who already agree. I can give this book no more than 2.5/5 stars. ★★ ½
There is much I can and do agree with in this book. Her major focus in this book is on the reformation of the way transsexual and transgender folks are treated by the medical, and psychological profession. Her main point being that the term “gender identity disorder” is maligning and misleading. That the presence of the word “disorder” leads people to think of this as something that needs to be cured. Which as she mentions cuts both ways. Open minded people and institutions recognize that the cure for gender dysphoria is transition to a new gender role. I agree that the use of the word fetishist to describe cross dressers, and that calling autogynephilia a paraphilia in line with bestiality, is a poor poor choice.
I was pleased to find that throughout her book and in the glossary she defined a persons gender in the social domain, without going into ruminations about etiology and brain sex. According to her, and I agree, a person who is living in their affirmed gender role full time regardless of op status is a transsexual. No second guessing. There were many other things I could agree with but will not enumerate. I also applaud her for exposing some of the more barbarous “treatments” that were used in the past by reparitve therapist. Shock treatments are just the tip of the iceberg, try conditioning crossdressers to become nauseated upon seeing womens clothes (I wonder if that ever worked what happened to those CD'ers when they saw women in public?) If a country did things like that to a segment of it's population...it's leaders would be put on trial at the Hague.
There are of course many things I disagree with in this book as well. For example at one point she writes about GID being cited by Paul McHugh as justification for not helping people to transition. This is at least intellectually dishonest. It requires that the reader not consider the glasses through wich Mchugh viewed the world. He had become a transphobic man. Many of the cases where Winters says the GID diagnosis caused this discrimination, this injustice, or that illl treatment.... can be more easily explained by pure simple transphobia. Regardless of what it is called in the DSM transreparatist (some of whom are gay , I have had gay transphobic psychologist) will still exist. Just as those who would “repair” homosexuals exist. She writes much about Occam razor and such but did not see that razor could cut her hypothesis, that language causes discrimination just as well. The correlation of GID being called “disorder” and ill treatment by some psychologist does not imply causality either. Right?
This takes me to the way she misrepresents Blanchard's theory in her book in particular with respect to homosexual transsexual/transgender folks. In “Deconstructing the Feminine essence Narrative” Blanchard writes
that all anatomical males who are attracted to the same sex, have brains that are structurally and functionally similar to those of straight females. (various studies on homosexual males, that Blanchard had nothing to do with, have found just that.) “Homosexual transsexuals” are simply more neurologically feminized than homosexual non-transsexual males. This is a far off cry from the impression of that branch of Blanchard's theory from reading this book. According to this book homosexual transsexuals are merely homophobic homosexual males who do not accept themselves. I would argue to the contrary for a male in this society to come out as a transsexual, while at the same time be self accepting enough to embrace that small part of her psyche that is still a boy takes great
self acceptance. To have SRS then pretend that you grew up 100% natal female, that is what is bread of homo and transphobia. This does not surprise me, since like so many other commentators on this topic she writes of it with a bit of rage, and angst about what the theory implies about her if it is accepted as even partially true. This blinds her to the real problems that one could have with the homosexual transsexual postulates of Blanchard's theory. For example she provides a list of problems with Blanchard's theory. 6/8 of them are about autogynephilia. Then there is the little detail that self identified autogynephiles definitely exist, as do people who have self identified as “homosexual transsexuals”. Yet after so passionately and poignantly making the case against maligning language...she maligns those people who use that language for themselves in some way or the other.
The engineer then makes an excursion into criticizing scientific theory. For example the concept of equfinality. That being that two different complex systems, can given time and similar conditions, evolve to be almost if not totally identical. She derides this as unscientific. I would direct the engineer to the existence of the Ichthyosaur, and the Dolphin. Two very different creatures, who after millions of years in the same biological niche evolved strikingly similar body plans. This in spite of being biologically very very different indeed.
In conclusion this book does little to clear the air and only throws up more dust. This book preaches to a choir of the converted and I can't see how it would do anything to convince the powers that be to do anything to remove GID from the DSM. (Aside from replacing it with even more Blanchardian language than what's there now.) The claim is made in a review published with the book. That Blanchard's ideas are crackpot and discredited.... but then the book notes in an appendix that Blanchard and a number of researchers who have collaborated with him are writing the newest edition of the DSM. Discredited crackpots don't get put in powerful positions by their peers. The book does an admirable job of unmasking some of the horrible things that have been done to “repair” transgender folk. However I wish that it had focused more on those type of barbarities. The fact that this book is available in the form of Kelley Winters Blogs, is enough for me to say wait for this one at your local library. Save your money... libraries buying this book ought to more than cover the publication cost, worry not. Dr. Winters will not be starved.)
wellwritten critique, interesting insight into the topic.
Some few comments from my side.
Hontas Farmer:
"Her main point being that the term “gender identity disorder” is maligning and misleading. That the presence of the word “disorder” leads people to think of this as something that needs to be cured. Which as she mentions cuts both ways. Open minded people and institutions recognize that the cure for gender dysphoria is transition to a new gender role. I agree that the use of the word fetishist to describe cross dressers, and that calling autogynephilia a paraphilia in line with bestiality, is a poor poor choice."
Leyla Jagiella:
I also do, to a certain extent, take offence by the word "gender identity disorder" and I do understand why autogynephilic transsexuals would feel offended by being classified as having a paraphilia (and also, due to this classification, often deny the existence of the autogynephilic/homosexual divide in the transcommunity).
However, one needs to understand that for many professionals these words are simply operational terms without any moral or ethical implications.
These professionals are simply trying to understand the genesis of both consistencies and variances within human populations and many of them don´t have any further agenda tied to that.
Some Christian fundamentalist rightwing activist might misuse the word "gender identity disorder" to lead a campaign against transsexuals.
On the other hand transactivists dislike the term because it does not fit their own campaign.
But the professional, ideally, should not be concerned with either campaign but only with understanding a psychological etiology.
(Yes, that the professional can also be a Christian fundamentallist rightwing activist or a transactivist can cause problems here.)
What strikes me is that to most transactivists the word "disorder" is the only disturbing part of the whole term. But personally I feel offended by all of the three words.
No matter if we use the word "disorder" or not, the whole idea of gender identity is a spurious one and it is the really dangerous issue at hand.
Given the fact that almost all outward and socially recognizable signs of "doing gender" are culture and not nature (ways of dressing, hairstyle, make up, names, pronouns, speech patterns etc., including even to a certain extent "mating patterns"), regardless of ones biological or genetical situation, I do wonder where the supposed "gender identity" (whether in order or disorder) is supposed to have its seat.
This applies equally to people who are heteronormative heterosexuals and to those who are not.
There is no real question of order and disorder because, quite simply, there is no innate gender identity .
There is only gender, which is something done and recognized (not always intentionally and conciously), and an identity that might arise from this recognition.
And again: This applies equally to people who are heteronormative heterosexuals and to those who are not.
And what I am concerned about is not what the Christian rightwing fundamentalist may think when reading the word "disorder" assigned to a transsexual but rather what she can and will do with the whole concept of a supposedly innate and natural gender identity, not only to transsexuals and homosexuals but also to herself, her own family and the general population.
The concept itself is rather dangerous and it creates repression and oppression.
Imho, we should stop talking too much about what the people could think about so called identities and possible "orders" and "disorders".
The more vital question that we should people make think about is:
Why should an individual not have the right to practice the appearance, behaviour, "mating patterns", names and pronouns that she is most comfortable with?
This question, again, applies to all segments of society, whether heteronormative heterosexual or not.
It´s as simple as that.
People should just be able to adopt those culturally relative traits that they can feel comfortable with.
And in the end it doesn´t matter that much if these traits imply a transition or not, have a relationship to genetics and chromosomes, genitals (surgically constructed or not), supposed innate ordererd or disordered identities, brain structures or whatever.
Hontas Farmer:
"In “Deconstructing the Feminine essence Narrative” Blanchard writes
that all anatomical males who are attracted to the same sex, have brains that are structurally and functionally similar to those of straight females. (various studies on homosexual males, that Blanchard had nothing to do with, have found just that.) “Homosexual transsexuals” are simply more neurologically feminized than homosexual non-transsexual males. This is a far off cry from the impression of that branch of Blanchard's theory from reading this book."
Leyla Jagiella:
Let´s also not forget that all talk about the differences between "male wired" and "female wired" brains, including the brains of male and female homosexuals, transsexuals etc., is merely talk about a statistical relation.
All in all there are no hard differences between so called male and female brains.
In the end males and females are more similar than different when it comes to what nature has given to them. They were "created from one single soul", as one wonderful book poetically puts it.
It´s not that all heterosexual men are by their brainstructure eternally destined to like football while all heterosexual women are by their brainstructure eternally condemned to prefer housework.
There are statistical differences, meaning that female brains and the brains of homosexual males only TEND to have certain features that the brains of average heterosexual males TEND not to have and vice versa.
That´s all.
This tendency probably has an effect on sexual, social and cultural choices but that is not enough to call it the seat of some supposed innate "gender identity".
Identity merely gets constructed as an outcome of these sexual, social and cultural choices.
And, I repeat:
No matter if you are a "normal" heteronormative heterosexual individual or show variance in your sexuality and/or gendered presentation.
There is, however, indeed some good use for the scientific material on male and female brainstructures and their relationship to homosexuality and transsexuality.
Studies connected to this topic thrill me a lot.
I have myself in the past used this material quite often to make transphobes and homophobes aware of the inconsistencies in their own thinking.
However, this can only be done when at the same time aknowledging that the material only talks about tendencies in male and female brains and not about hard differences.
Only when we aknowledge this fact can we start to seriously question the gender norms of transphobes.
Hontas Farmer:
"According to this book homosexual transsexuals are merely homophobic homosexual males who do not accept themselves. I would argue to the contrary for a male in this society to come out as a transsexual, while at the same time be self accepting enough to embrace that small part of her psyche that is still a boy takes great
self acceptance. To have SRS then pretend that you grew up 100% natal female, that is what is bread of homo and transphobia. [...]
Then there is the little detail that self identified autogynephiles definitely exist, as do people who have self identified as “homosexual transsexuals”. Yet after so passionately and poignantly making the case against maligning language...she maligns those people who use that language for themselves in some way or the other."
Leyla Jagiella:
I perfectly agree. I have to second that.
And this is a good example for how the whole concept of an innate gender identity does produce repression and opression since it inevitably leads to people "not fitting in".
It is also a good example for the arrogance and neocolonialist attitude that some parts of the current modern western transcommunity (and the current modern western gay community as well) sadly has adopted.
Identities that connect an awareness of ones own sexual orientation with ones gendered presentation are both much more ancient and frequent in this world than those that assume an innate gender identity that is independent from sexuality.
I guess that even today there are far more selfdescribed homosexual travestis in Brazil living fulltime as women and expressing at the same time "feeling like women" and "not being men" and seeing themselves as "the true homosexual males" than there will ever be WASP MiddleClass transwomen claiming an innate female gender identity.
The usual reply to this is that the Brazilian travesti, Arab khanith, Thai kathoey, Pakistani and Indian hijra, Filipino bakla, Westafrican woubi, Swahili hanisi etc. simply is not educated and liberated enough to fully understand her own situation.
Yes, sure, the coloured personl always needs the civilized one to fully understand herself .... gosh.