'I wrote: "Those who ‘transition' seem to become stereotypical in their appearance — f**k-me shoes and birds' nest hair for the boys; beards, muscles and tattoos for the girls. Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease."' So, the fact that she is still quoting this phrase, and clearly still delighted by it, means, I assume, that even the tiny, grudging apology Julie Bindel managed in the face of the protests to the Guardian ("in hindsight, the sarcasm I used in my column was misplaced and insensitive") was totally insincere? Gosh, what a surprise.

Many have already critiqued this article. But just a thought on one assertion without evidence- the assertion in Ms Bindel's article that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will have a profoundly negative effect on the human rights of women and girls. Has anyone - least of all Ms Bindel- noticed the year 2004. That is close on 6 years . Where I am (in NSW Australia) the Births Deaths and Marriages Act was amended in 1996 to allow recognition of change of sex . In South Australia ( the first in Ausralia to do so) -the legislation dates from 1988. So the where is the evidence for the diminution of the rights of women from such legislation (let alone the "profound effect").....this stuff has been around since last century.....the challenge to those who would deny trans people the basic human rights of recognition to a particular gender is to provide some evidence of harm or deficit to the individual or the polity. Its not as though this is so novel as to not allow for any meaningful analysis. In my view it is just basic human rights principles ......a deeper philisophical discussion about gender may be had - but the issue remains - in a society which legally defines irself in gender polarities- are you to deny the gender diverse access to a gender to which such a person identifies? And if so to what benefit ?

I am tg and I happen to agree with the author, to a point. I find it unsettling when other tg's insist on creating a false past--a past where they NEVER were male. This delusion is furthered by society's acquiescence to their demands for legal and linguistic instruments to rewrite biological and biographical history. In essence, reality is bent to their delusions. But this is where my agreement with the author ends. I would suggest that, like some other societies, we should recognize the transgendered sex, the third sex. Perhaps if we were less insistent on impersonation and more on inclination, we would recognize "the feminine male" and "the masculine female", allowing a broader spectrum of dress and behavioral mores that could accomodate this considerable population. Eventually, the need for "transition" would disappear, as there would be no definable place to need to transition to.

Well, as one of the 780, all I can say is your understanding is woefully lacking. Come and walk a mile in my shoes. They are not f*** me boots by the way.

Ms Bindel why do you keep up this transphobic tyrade, its like a stuck old record and its time you gave up. You are simply isolating yourself from society bit by bit. A transsexual woman is a WOMAN legally and in every other sense, get it, deal with it, and stop this holier than thou attitude.

I saw a TV program on transgender children quite a while back and almost all of the parents openly admitted being disappointed in the gender of their child at birth. One, the mother of a boy who wanted to be a girl, even said something along the lines of 'now I can have the daughter I always wanted'. These transgender children and their parents need therapy. I have read several personal stories of adults who are contemplating or have had transgender surgery and in every case they knew from a young age that their parent or parents were disappointed in their gender at birth.

I'd love to do a proper criticism of this, but the writer has already set it up so that her critics are labelled as reactionaries. Let's just stop at one point... gender identity is a social construct (not a biological one, as she says), and transsexuals don't identify with the social role imposed on them by society's plans for them, plans which are based on their biology.

With respect to Ms. Bindel, because let's be fair, she really has been an important voice for change in fighting for the rights and equality of women, I find this article unbearably sad. I'm trans, and reading all the stereotypes, misunderstanding and, well, fear, that comes across in this article, I can only imagine that Ms. Bindel is writing from a very dark place. I'm transsexual, Male to Female, but I grew up playing with Lego, reading science and math books and generally geeking out. I don't wear make-up because the cosmetics industry poisons our planet and their customers, besides which make-up is a chore. I'd rather be reading. I don't have a clue what f*ck me shoes even are - I generally stick with my Chucks and tend to fall off of high heels. >_< Being trans is not about gender role, and the trans community is not homogeneous. You'll find as many butch transwomen as you'll find feminine ones, as many transguys who like fashion and make-up as there are the stereo-typical body-building, tattoo sporting types. And as with any large, diverse group of people, there are always going to be a bunch who are loud, obnoxious and in people's faces and get most of the press. As for definitions, no, a girl who plays football is most certainly NOT by definition transsexual. She is transsexual if she IDENTIFIES as male. Period. And that's what it boils down to: Identity. Not gender role, or how one chooses to present, or the activities you choose to fill your time with, or who you fall in love with. It's about what your brain tells you you are. Male or female. Or even something else. Yes, some transsexual people don't identify as either male OR female. Some have no sense of gender identity whatsoever, while others identify as an equal combination of both of the extremes. Some even identify as distinctly intersex, just as more than a few intersex people themselves do. And again, it has nothing to do with role or presentation or activity. Identity is about mental body image and brain chemistry, not about social stereotypes. And yes, there ARE biological foundations to this - studies are small, granted, but the weight of numbers of different studies is overwhelming, and overwhelmingly show clear differentiation between trans brains and non trans brains. If you're honestly interested, just google A.E.Brain - Ms. Brain collects trans-related studies at her blog. Being biological doesn't make it a disorder though. It's a developmental variation like any other, and in this Ms. Bindel IS correct - a large part of the distress and difficulty trans people experience is BECAUSE of rigidly enforced gender roles and expectations. But transsexuality most certainly would not disappear if those gender roles did, because gender identity is as intrinsic as being left or right handed is. And believe me - if your brain tells you that you are a different gender from what your body looks like, there is NO way to shut it up. Not drugs, not denial, not escapism, not therapy, not isolation. Nor does ignoring those gender roles. I know, because I've tried them all. I have a deep appreciation for Ms. Bindel's work in other areas, and I believe that alot of the vitriol and anger against her is wrong. I believe her to be mistaken in her views, and yes, that she does express transphobic views, but that doesn't detract from any of her other work, and her Stonewall award was most likely deserved. But the anger expressed by some sections of the trans community, and held by many more, is justified. We are a marginalised, hated group of people. More than half of us can't even find work because of transphobia, and we are many times as likely to be the victims of violent and brutal attack. We are routinely rejected by friends and family and ostracised by our communities. We endure pain and awkwardness and isolation and financial hardship just for existing, and for anybody to think that this is something one would choose to be, that it's somehow easier than being a "femmy gay boy" or a jock girl or something else is madness. So when people protest and shout, it's not because they are being "difficult" or seeking attention. They are hurt and alone and fearful and uncertain of their futures. They know that even the limited acceptance they have in some areas is tenuous at best, and that bigotry masked as science or philosophy can easily damn them. And when I say damn, I mean it in a very literal sense. Mina.

Ms. Bindel, I'm not familiar with your writings on sexuality and sexual identity, but I have read your writings on transsexualism. I ask only one thing: don't write about transsexualism from ignorance. That is what I see in here and in what you quote from your 2004 article. I am transsexual. No one told me I was. I knew I was, and over time, my therapist and my doctor accepted how I felt. I have the standard diagnosis, but that's more about insurance than my actual medical condition. The American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association now support the contention that gender dysphoria is the result of a medical and not psychological condition. The American Psychiatric Association has not yet come 'round to this point of view, which is based on an increasing number of studies -- none conclusive yet, but moving in that direction. You wrote in 2004 -- and presumably still think -- that male-to-female transsexuals gravitate toward a hyper-feminine appearance. Do you really know a representative sample of transsexuals? No transsexual I know presents the way you describe. I don't even know crossdressers who do. The only people I know who present that way are drag queens, and they do it for performance. I know some transsexuals who want to break expectations of gender, and some who have no choice, but most transsexuals I know blend pretty well with the general population and are happy doing so. Sex reassignment surgery is far from brutal when performed by the leading surgeons who specialize in the operation. It is no more brutal than other corrective surgery, such as the operation to fix cleft palate. In SRS, the penis is not removed. It is inverted into a cavity that already exists to create a vagina. The head of the penis is used to create a clitoris. The testicles and scrotum are removed. Labiaplasty finishes the job. I am very much looking forward to this operation on myself, and I expect to be happy with the results. All the post-ops I know are happy with their results. Breast implants are not part of SRS. Neither is a trachea shave, which I have no need for. I probably have no need for facial feminization surgery either, but it's an option. It's true that hair removal, via laser or electrolysis or both, is painful, but truly I would not go through such pain if I were not happy with the results. Like many, you fail to distinguish between gender identity and gender expression. Gender expression is a social construct. There are many forms of gender expression, and some people's gender expression violates the norms of their society. This does not make them trans-anything. Gender identity, however, is how one feels inside, and it almost certainly has a biological basis -- the undervirilization of the brain in an otherwise virilized body. Since the personality arises from the brain, it's the brain that gets the final say, regardless of the anatomy we were born with. If there were a way to make my brain "male," you would destroy my personality along with it. You say that a number of transsexuals say that SRS ruined their lives, but your only citation is from someone who transitioned 20 years ago. In my experience, transsexuals *are* offered an alternative to a sex change -- not having one. There are many who opt not to have surgery. When a baby is born, it is sexed by what the obstetrician or midwife sees between its legs. There is no karyotype test unless the genitalia are ambiguous. There exists no test, yet, for brain sex. So the genitalia are all they have to go on. Thus, if my genitalia are changed surgically, I become an anatomical female. It will not change my chromosomes, which no one sees anyway (if you're up on the latest in genetics, you know that some XX people are male and some XY are female, so chromosomes don't tell the whole story). And if I were not already socially, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and hormonally a woman, there is no way I would want to become one anatomically. It is quite true that SRS does not *make* anyone a woman. One has to be a woman first in order to want such a thing. And like girls, trans women must learn to be women. Some transsexuals learn better than others, just as some girls learn better than others. If anyone wants to challenge the diagnosis of transsexualism, let them do so scientifically, not politically. I am writing only my own point of view, but it doesn't come out of nowhere. I have done my research. I urge you do your own. What you write indicates that you have not done nearly enough yet.

Interesting remark "Why on earth is society wasting time and resources on this pack of weirdos? You are the sex you are born and that's all there is to it." Derek forgot to mention how society seems to thrive on making people know what "sex" they are born as, and then tormenting them over it, for pure fun. Isn't that what feminism was supposed to oppose. Let's face it half of you "Transphobes" (Or whatever you are called these days)are little more than sadistic wierdos who rack off on tormenting others.