These sort of views are not only bigoted, but they usurp the name of the feminist movement to defend their bigotry. I'm reminded of the words of Janice Raymond who attempted to espouse a view that posited the mere existence of male-to-female transsexuals to be equivalent to rape. That by merely being inflicted with emotions we cannot control nor desire to have, we are somehow raping women. Time and time again therapy techniques attempting to rid people of Gender Dysphoria (the primary negative symptom of GID/HBD) through therapy alone, and all have failed. Transition technology was invented because the efforts of the psychology community to do something about the horrible experience of transsexualism otherwise were a complete and total failure. As they failed to turn homosexuals straight, so did they fail to turn transsexuals into cissexuals. I have sufferred from Gender Dysphoria for my whole life, the first clear memories I have of the feeling are from when I was 5 years old, prior to ever having any notion of sexuality. My gender identity has nothing to do with my sexuality, despite the fact that the ignorant, like Ms. Bindel, attempt to conflate the two. My first suicide attempt was when I was 11 years old, and it was directly related to my gender dysphoria. What people like Ms. Bindel would prefer is that the only viable treatment for Gender Identity Disorder be eradicated - why? I cannot say, but it seems to me to be a desire for genocide, considering the non-op and pre-op suicide rates of transsexuals are estimated to be 50%-75%. As I am simply now babbling on and losing the cohesion of my train of though, I will end in pointing out the fact if transsexuality were simply a means to bypass the horrors of gender inequality, as Bindel suggests, then male-to-female transsexuals, like myself, would not exist. There is absolutely nothing I enjoy about being treated as if my opinion is not worth anything simply because I am a woman, as well, there is absolutely nothing I enjoy about being judged as a person based on my sexual appeal to men. If I did not have gender dysphoria, I most certainly would have absolutely no interest in losing male privilege, and would most certainly not transition.

Whose feminism is this? In this article, Bindel fails entirely to move beyond the anti-trans-hyperbole-masquerading-as-radical-liberationary-feminist-politics espoused by Janice Raymond, Mary Daly et al. (the "handful of radicals" who "dared to challenge GD") in the 70s. She has also failed entirely to engage, in any meaningful way, with the telling critiques from trans writers of the ideas of these "radicals" - such as those of Jay Prosser, Sandy Stone, Kate Bornstein and Julia Serano. As a trans-person, I'm very wary of slipping into any stereotypes either side of the divide. I want to avoid stereotypical notions of femininity because I recognise they can be just as disaffirming and damaging as the notions of masculinity into which I was shoehorned whilst growing up. Yet Bindel insists that "Transsexualism, by its nature, promotes the idea that it is "natural" for boys to play with guns and girls to play with Barbie dolls." What about those of us who play with neither guns nor Barbie dolls? Where to trans people like me (remember, trans- is a prefix that implies in-betweenness, journey, not a leap between extremes) fit into Bindel's epistemology? Moreover, she calls the trans rights movement a "powerful lobby", but that only demonstrates the witch-hunt mentality many so-called "radical feminists" engage in when it comes to trans people. Powerful lobbies are those that have millions of pounds worth of backing and powerful political influence. This can hardly be said of trans rights groups... yet. Why waste time attacking an already marginalised group when you could use your efforts - as, to Bindel's credit, she has done in the past - to fight against the genuinely damaging lobbying power of multinationals, anti-immigrant and anti-gay rights media, the religious right etc? Anyhow, onwards: "Gender dysphoria (GD) was invented in the 1950s by reactionary male psychiatrists in an era when men were men and women were doormats." Care to mention the history of cross-gendered identifications in pre-patriarchal soccieties, such as the Berdaches in Native American communities? No? Thought not - it doesn't fit with the stereotype about trans people this article is projecting. Indeed, the fact that such people existed more or less freely (and, to be fair, without the medicalised aspect) before the onset of patriarchal capitalism suggests that trans can be a powerful ally in the fight against patriarchal forms of domination. But hey, demonise away. Divide yourself from potential allies. Say controversial stuff for the sake of being controversial. That's a far more positive and powerful message. Final critical point. Bindel says this: "A definition of transsexualism used by a number of transsexual rights organisations reads: Students who are gender non-conforming are those whose gender expression (or outward appearance) does not follow traditional gender roles: "feminine boys," "masculine girls" and students who are androgynous, for example. It can also include students who look the way boys and girls are expected to look but participate in activities that are gender nonconforming, like a boy who does ballet. The term "transgender youth" can be used as an umbrella term for all students whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth and/or whose gender expression is non-stereotypical. According to this definition, a girl who plays football is trans-sexual." ...Only this just isn't true. It's talking about "students who are non gender-conforming" or "transgendered", nowhere in the definition does it mention "trans-sexual". Or does Bindel genuinely think trans-advocacy groups are so stupid that the moment a girl/woman kicks a ball, she becomes trans? Get a bleeding grip! "Biology is not destiny" - that's a key feminist insight, as Bindel herself says. But to validate this article, she needs to add the qualifier: "unless, of course, you're trans". Very disappointing indeed.

On one level, this article is extremely funny. So Julie failed to win an award - hardly the best place to start if you want to come across as unbiased. It reads like a Hollywood startlet throwing the blame around for not getting an Oscar, while demonstrating the behaviour that made her lose it in the first place. On another level, it's deeply sad. I was particularly moved by the comment from a parent of a transsexual child who said simply 'Shame on you'. I imagine what what personal experiences they have, what soul-searching and research they have done, all to be dismissed by a supposed expert on human rights. Bindel would deny the rights of others simply because she thinks they conflict with her vision of a feminist paradise. It's logically ridiculous to suggest that a few militant activists are proof that transsexuals are deluded. Every movement for equality, unfortunately, tends to attract militants at first. Bindel should know this. While respecting the work that Bindel and others do, they have to be treated with caution because in the end those who subscibe to an 'ism' (feminism, Marxism et al) are primed to show loyalty to the theory rather than adapt their worldview to accept those inconvenient people who don't fit into it. The assertion that "in a world where equality between men and women was reality, transsexualism would not exist" is interesting. She seems to think that transsexuals reinforce the division of people into male or female roles, because some behave in a stereotypical way. The comments thread here alone disproves this, because you have male to female transsexuals who are mechanics, female to male effeminate geeks, etc. And if you have some butch men and feminine women among them, so what? Everyone is different. If some replies to her essay seem rambling, that's because people feel impelled to write their own essay in response, because their entire existence - and years of their own quest for knowledge on the subject - has been called into question. There is growing acceptance that some people have either a male or female consciousness (or mind, or brain, whatever you want to call it) with a body that does not correspond to that identity. The scientific understanding of brain development/consciousness is incomplete, but developing - there are, as I understand it, studies being carried out in this area. So for now, it is, in effect, a largely self-diagnosed condition. Really, we're in a position where the studies are in their infancy and the condition is more self diagnosed than would be desireable - depressed people might read too much about the condition and think they have it, someone might be more satisfied being androgynous and regret full transition, or they might live in a country that oppresses homosexuals but not transsexuals. Of course there are going to be mistakes, and surgery is risky. But Bindel's article misses the point. Surely the fact that so many 'cures' are successful even in these conditions is a positive indicator that transsexuals exist. I admit my bias: I have a female body but have always identified as male, and knew this a long time before I read anything about it. And I grew up in a tolerant, relaxed household where no one was forcing me to play with barbies instead of model aeroplanes. I am primarily attracted to males, but I should think the concept of a gay male transsexual is a little too advanced for Bindel. One step at a time. I'm mostly a happy soul, but it's frustrating to be told that you don't exist - imagine having chronic backache and being told that you're lying, that there's no evidence, that it's your imagination. Fate has played a joke on me because I'm sure if I was looking at my condition from the outside, I would probably be confused or closed-minded about it, at least at first. One has to be positive about these things, and being this way has made me more tolerant, more open-minded - to listen to people and understand THEM, the individual, not as some unit that should fit into society in a certain way. Bindel says people should accept difference. If people could accept that I AM male (the part of me that thinks, feels, falls in love, reasons - in other words, my consciousness), that would be a relief in itself. Now there's a potential cure (or a move towards it) that doesn't involve surgery. It would mean that any medical treatment then becomes purely personal, rather than being dangerously loaded with the 'proof' society needs to say that I am male. And Julie, I will happily fight for women's rights alongside you. I'm just not a woman. Perhaps widespread acceptance is not too far away, and I'll feel the same mix of relief and sadness, I suppose, that a closeted homosexual would have felt after the laws changed to classify homosexuality as no longer being a mental disorder or a crime, and they realise that much of their life has been wasted deferring to those who thought they knew best.

What an ignorant and ill researched article.Have you never heard of brain difference?The structures of the brain responsible for gender identity are the same shape and size and undergo the same amount of activity as those of chromosomal females-and totally different to those of chromosomal males. This happens at about 6 weeks of gestation,when the male brain does not recieve a vital and normal testosterone release.It is this testosterone release that is responsible for the shaping of this structure,without it this section of the brain develops as female. It does not take much imagination to realise that this would sit very badly with religous types,as it clearly indicates that the female brain is an older structure than that of the male. Interestingly,homosexual men have normal male brain structures. In ancient times many societies recognised and were accepting of people who today would be called transsexual. Some Native American tribes had a special saddle designed to destroy the function of the testes. Another example of acceptance amongst Native Americans can be seen in the film Little Big Man. This is typical of the hostility from homosexuals and feminists.Believe me I do not want to be assosciated with homosexuals,it is the fate of many transsexuals to be called queer or faggot-clearly showing that it is this that the bigots find disgusting,not transsexualism per-se(Although this doesn't apply to bigotted homosexuals and feminists,who are just plain bigotted).It is regretable that we are labelled with a title that includes the word sex. I agree that there is a disturbing increase in the number of unhappy post-operative people.I say "people" rather than "transsexual", because the unhappy ones are clearly not transsexual. Any REPUTABLE study would show that the vast majority of people who go through NHS clinics are happy.(Notwithstanding the convenient loss of data,by those who were commisioned to write a report showing the opposite of this!!!). I wonder how many of these unhappy people went through the "life test" demanded by the NHS?My guess is that most will be the impatient ones who rush off to Thailand (for example).The life test is there for a very good reason. Every transsexual i have spoken to knew from a very early age (5 being about average) what they were(ie a girl),which is why more enlightened countries have adopted the "Dutch Model" of hormone prescription.(This involves a puberty blocking hormone treatment that is fully reversible should the person change their mind when a teenager.) Finally,it is my personal opinion that no pre operative transsexual or transvestite should be issued with a gender recognition certificate.These are given too freely and to too diverse a grouping of people.I am a happily transitioned post operative transsexual woman.(Transitioned since 1985)

I don't understand, why are feminists so angry at us MTF transsexuals. I'm a MTF, post-op, and I fully support women and their rights. I do not dress like this woman listed, I wear t-shirts, jeans, and a beautiful leather jacket my mother purchased for me for christmas. I'm an automotive mechanic, and my fellow workers love and accept me as a woman and respect me. I believe that woman deserve massive respect and equal oppurtunities. No need to hate all of us Julie, because I don't hate you.

It's amazing that you ignore data and history predating the 1950's. There are a multitude of examples predating modern culture, in which biological men lived in female gender roles and were accepted by society. Back then, there were no options for medical interventions, so there was no allignment of the body with the mind. I would encourage your to educate yourself more about the issues. You, unfortunatley, have chosen only to acknowledge the research that supports your conclusion. That is not research. Transsexual women do not present overtly steretypical over the top presentations of the gender role with which they identify. Yes, many early transitioners may present overly "feminine" but they are going through the same process that many teenage girls do, of experimenting with makeup, hair, and fashion, until eventually settling into a more middle of the road presentation. I, myslef, have never run around in a over the top presentation. I wear pants almost exclusively, my hair and makeup are relatively simple, I am a woman I do not need to prove it with over the top presentation. You complain about this being a reinforcement of gender stereotypes and say that in a world where men and women were equal there would be no transsexuals. I would argue that we would still exist. My gender dysphoria is something that goes to a core of who I am. Even in an equal society there would still be a difference between men and women. You wish this were not the case, but there is a biological basis to the difference between boys and girls. IN your perfect world, biology would be ignored. A truely equal society would allow boy and girls to be boys and girls, and still be equal. You prefer to masculinize women and feminize men to the point where they act and present the same way, ignoring the biological drive that is built into each of us. Unfortunately, readical feminisim is more about putting down those who are overtly feminine or masculine rather than celebrating each individual, it seeks conformity to an specific ideal. We have to stop forcing conformity, we will never experience true equality until we do. I know that I cannot change your mind about your views of transsexuals, but I do hope that you will one day open your mind enough to change your own mind and except differences rather than seeking conformity to how you see the world.

What is your point? Male to female transsexuals have a right to be treated no different than any biological woman. Your theory is that gender reassignment surgery is something that gay people do so that they can satisfy their urges for the same sex while they themselves pose as the opposite sex. I'm sure it's true for some, but how can you explain a woman who transitions into a male yet still has an attraction for males, or males who transition to female and continue to have sex with other females? Part of me always wanted to be Barbie ever since I was a lil boy, I was fascinated by femininity and wanted to experience being female as well as experience having a girlfriend. I think I would've been better off as a bi-sexual female.

Julies article is all well and good as far as it goes... but for someone of such undoubted intelligence and insight she makes far too many assumptions and generalisations. For exmaple she seems to assume that society has a right to tell me what I may do to my own body. She also seems to assume that this is all about gender roles and how I am seen by others, that it will matter to me whether or not I am widely accepted and can "pass". In point of fact I do "pass", but at the same time I fully accept that GRS is no more than cosmetic surgery. I also acccept that she may choose not to accept me as a woman. That is her right. I make no claim as to what I am, beyond the fact that i am a human being. It it for others to decide whether I am male or female. As for gender role I don't believe that I have ever changed that. So this isn't about in some allowing me to live in some different fantasy feminine way. What I do contend is that since my GRS, which was done nearly 30 years ago, I have lived a reasonably happy and contented life. I am comfortable in my own skin, in a way that I never was previously. So I think that people should not try to live other peoples lives for them. While my self mutilation harms no one but me, and was aid for by me (I made no claim on the NHS) I can not see why Julie should feel the need to try to proscribe it. I honestly can not see how this differs, other than in scale, from any other form of cosmetic surgery or indeed ear piercing! Are we going to try to ban that too? I think better to live and let live.

Cissexual Privilege... H.G; Bindel; Annonymous and others like them are examples of gender supremacists (i.e. cis-sexists) who want the absolute cis-sexual (people who are not transsexual) privilege without responsibility for gender identity minorities. For H.G the problem is fear of a minority deepened by her religious devotion to a jingoist's fear and ignorance around gender identity. Julie Bindel isn't an authority. If journalists were authorities then all hope for progress would be lost. Transsexuals do not reinforce gender binaries cissexuals do. Perhaps this would explain why transsexuals are conveniently hidden in the umbrella term "transgender". We transsexuals do exist, people! Operations do not ruin lives fear of difference does!!

While I don't agree with most of Bindel's core beliefs that post op transpeople have less validity in others perceptions of their identities and that it validates selective discrimination, and I feel much of her language is violent and insulting, I do find the aggression against her from the trans community extremely disturbing. It reminds me far too much of male pattern aggression and personally I find that challenges my perception of transwomen as essentially female on the grounds of their brains. As somebody with many M2F friends I find this challenging and difficult to understand and accept and sadly it only validates Bindel's incorrect belief that GID is the output of social prejudice against sexual and gender atypical behaviour.