Okay, no, I'm not asking the question. Didn't mean to use a flaming headline to attract your attention, either. Sorry. I just wanted to repost something I wrote in response to Dorothy Colleen's now-deleted blog posting.

Sex, Gender, Sexuality, etc., is something we all know something about, but we tend to look at it with a very subjective vision. Everybody (in the world, not just here) is affected by the subject, one way or another, or many ways. As such, it's a bit silly just to look at crossdressers in isolation, or transsexuals in isolation, or even all TG people (using TG as an umbrella term to cover all of this particular community's errr... distinguishing characteristics) in isolation.

Like many other crossdressers, when I started thinking analytically about it I realized I only knew two things. One, I didn't feel any desire to change genders. And two, presenting as the opposite gender fulfills some need I have. Beyond that, nothing. Not a clue. So, I read, and I chatted, and I spent some of my therapy time bouncing questions and ideas off my therapist. First new thing I learned: your average therapist doesn't know that much about this, either!

Dr. Lori Kohler, MD is involved heavily with treating transgendered and sexual-fringe individuals in San Francisco and lectures to health care professionals on the troubles and risks they face, especially with regards to HIV. Her main goal in these lectures seems to be to educate the professionals on the scope and variability of the non-vanilla community.

But, I digress.

Here's what I wrote in response to Dorothy Colleen's effort to lend some perspective to the varying scope of crossdressers:

==============================

Your Perception is yours, and you're certainly entitled to it, but [and here I rambled a bit, but have decided to redact that part] it seems to me you're making certain assumptions, and a lot of extrapolations. It also seems to me that you're making use of a common fallacy, that gender presentation (or "aesthetic") is related to gender identity. In fact, some eminent therapists who counsel patients and lecture on the subject to other therapists see them as two separate axes in a multi-axis model of human sexuality and gender.

A small group of us (four, to be exact) held a discussion in a chatroom on one such presentation, and digested our understanding into this:

Seven Scales of Sex and Sexuality
=================================

The following chart was found in a powerpoint presentation for clinicians on the
subject of treating transgendered individuals. The discussion excluded intersexed
conditions, so these scales may not be inclusive enough to cover all individuals.

The full presentation is at http://www.ucsf.edu/paetc/resources/lori.ppt

I am posting this here in response to some recent discussions on crossdressing and
transgenderism, which attempted to draw conclusions with much less information, and
perhaps without enough consideration of the complicated nature of sex and sexuality.

Using seven scales for categorization will obviously provide much more flexibility
than merely one or two, as is often done in these circles, but it is likely not
absolutely perfect as a system, either, nor is it presented as such.

The Scales and Their Ranges:
----------------------------
Gender(1): female<-->male
Sexual Orientation(2): "gay/lesbian<-->straight"
or, perhaps preferably, attraction to: female partners<-->male partners
Gender Identity: male<-->female
Sexual Identity: dominant<-->submissive
Aesthetic: feminine<-->masculine
Social Conduct: butch<-->femme
Sexual Activity: monogamous<-->unbridled

Presumed definitions:

Gender -- Physical birth gender. Male or Female as usually determined. Intersexed
individuals excluded. (1)

Sexual Orientation -- see note (2).

Gender Identity -- Internal gender identity, which in transgendered individuals can
be opposite their birth gender, or anywhere in the range.

Sexual Identity -- Initially confusing, this is quite distinct from gender identity.
It concerns roles taken in sexual activity, "Top" or "Bottom."
This might be most relevant to same-sex couples and those who
prefer activities sometimes called s&m, leather, or kink. Others
will likely find themselves somewhere in the middle.

Aesthetic -- This is physical appearance and presentation. It includes grooming,
styling, choice of clothing, cosmetics and, in some cases, cosmetic surgery.
In the case of Crossdressers/Transvestites, this may have various part-
time manifestations, it being necessary to match their physical gender
most of the time for employment or social reasons.

Social Conduct -- Public role and behavior. While often in sync with Aesthetic, it
doesn't have to be. Witness some gay males who look masculine but
act feminine, and some women who look feminine but act masculine
("tomboys").

Sexual Activity -- Describes the individual's need for one or more partners. To be
more complete, it should perhaps extend the range to those who
eschew partners entirely.

Chart Notes:
(1) Following a discussion on #tg_fiction_general_chat, some of us decided that Gender
is intended to be physical birth gender and is not a sliding scale, especially when
the intersexed are excluded. If the Gender scale could be further expanded to cover the
intersexed, it would likely have to be split to show additional scales with results
of genetic sex testing and degree of mutation of hormone receptors, in addition to
primary sexual characteristics.

(2) Sexual Orientation was also deemed to be problematic, especially in cases where Gender
and Gender Identity were opposite. As such, we'd like to change the scale from
gay(lesbian)/straight to that of attraction to male/female, which is a bit clearer,
although not perfectly descriptive (especially if attracted to intersexed or other
transgendered individuals.)

Conclusion
----------
In conclusion, while not perfect, the idea of expanding sexual descriptions of individuals
to seven scales, six of which can be any point on a continuum, would seem to offer a better
basis for future discussions than simply trying to put people on a single male-female
scale of gender.

As for how to use these scales, or even if to use them, is a matter best left to clinicians.
For the purpose of chatroom discussions, though, it might give us more to talk about,
which is my only hope in posted them here.

2 July 2005
Notes and posting by Pippa. Discussion participants: Jenny, Itinerant, and H.E.R.

In order to broaden the discussion, I'd like you to consider the implications of this. It provides a system that can be used to classify all* persons in terms of gender and sexuality, not just the TG. This includes trans and cis, sissies and tomboys, twinks and bears, femmes and butches, monogamists and sluts, slaves and masters, gay and straight. Every single individual you know* can be described using these seven scales.

Drag Queens, female impersonators and Drag Kings engaged in public performance, whether professionally or just for entertainment, also get excluded from these models, on the grounds that it's theater/acting/professional, not personal. Outside of their public performances, however, the same system applies.

Another point I'd like to make is that people go through various changes of intensity over time. This especially applies to Aesthetic, which is perhaps the most fluid of the characteristics. In the world of women's fashion (read a few magazines and you'll see what I mean), much emphasis is put on mood, feelings, and expression. One's presentation is a conscious effort based on that, and as one's mood changes, so can how you present yourself, not only over longer periods like seasons, but within hours.

_______
* except, as noted, intersex, who by nature of their ambiguous physical attributes, break the model's axis of birth gender, and also get excluded from diagnoses of transgender.