WPATH - a professional society that needs a Censor?

Message from Jen W, LCSW, to WPATH members about TRANSSEXUALITY inside WPATH

My (Wal Torres - Gendercare) answer and comments to her text

Dear Jen

I understand you.
I undesrtand when you say oppression is oppression and a censor is a censor.
Yes, I like very much the free Yahoo groups, they are wonderful.

Yes, I may not understand how a society that is PROFESSIONAL, and that has
as its members, most PhD's, MScs, MD's and so on,  need to have a censor on
a discussion group.

Mainly if it is INTERNATIONAL, I would like to have a Chinese censor
perhaps, perhaps a Brazilian, or someone from India. Why an American and always Universoty of Minnesota?

We saw WHAT HAPPENED AT COPENHAGEN some days ago, when a group  intended to
artificially manage an INTERNATIONAL FORUM (COP15).

These manipulations and censorships end with the failure of the proposal of
the meetings, the societies.

HBIGDA was for a lot of time manipulated by some. Nowadays we see the same or
other manipulations continue existing by some - not necessarily the same - with oppression as you say
Jen, and censorship.

Will WPATH one day be a real professional and or scientific serious society?

I do not know.

But as there exists a spectrum of gender diversities, and inside it usual
polar conditions as Male - M and female-F, and there are in between
conditions that are typical and important, THERE ARE ALSO EXTREME CONDITIONS, as TRANSSEXUALS, MtF and FtM.

And in science nowadays (the beginning of the XXIst century) when we study A COMPLEX SYSTEM WITH MAJOR VARIATIONS, A SYSTEM LIKE THAT, gender system we name it a
scale-independent or alfa-stable system through - and we study it mainly through its EXTREMES.

So if the spectrum is important - AND IT IS, to study this spectrum we need
to study it through its EXTREMES, and the extreme condition of gender is

So I agree Jen, as a Transsexual MtF myself - nowadays a woman among women -
and as a therapist that study all the spectrum of gender diversities - to help people, we
need always to be centered on TRANSSEXUALITY, as the main condition, because this is
the extreme condition of that system.

When someone study CLIMATE CHANGE, or HURRICANES, or EARTHQUAKES, studies
mainly the EXTREMES. The same is the situation here.

Thank you Jen.

I hope one day we will grow as human beings, and be free to talk and free to
have opinions, with no censorship or oppression dear.

Wal Torres,MSc,PhD
Board member of OII - Organization Intersex International

Her original message

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jen" <>
To: <<
wpath@wpath.org>; >
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:07 PM
Subject: WPATH MEMBERS: Discussion of Bylaws Violation and Oppression

> TO:  WPATH Email List -- and with special outreach to our
> international members, where "transsexualism" is not generally handled
> the same as it is in the U.S.A., and where the transgender paradigm is
> not as often preferred.
> RE:  as I am seeing it,
> --Probable ByLaws Violation at WPATH, seeming to disenfranchise TSs
> --WPATH Censoring efforts to bring this issue to the membership
> --Part of Oppression of Transsexuals
> WPATH Members,
> I need to speak to you about something that hurts me greatly.
> On 14 December, 2009, WPATH disseminated to members an announcement
> about the 2011 Symposium in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., that is to
> overlap with a major gender conference there at that time, and the
> announcement stated that WPATH intends to outreach to the transgender
> population.
> Since that time, I've been talking with several leaders of WPATH
> trying to get them to also, specifically, mention transsexuals in
> their outreach plan, as mentioned in Article II of the bylaws.
> I've been told by some they think that transsexuals should feel
> included under the term "transgender" (a la Virginia Prince), and that
> they would not include the term "transsexual" in the announcement.
> I've been told by some that they disagree with this...  But still,
> referring directly to "transsexuals" is not allowed, even though it is
> in the bylaws, Article II, and posts about it are censored.
> Regardless of what terms you prefer, it is clear there are major
> differences between groups.
> On the one hand, most people who are trans-anything find they are most
> comfortable, being themselves, with a combination of traits from both
> major sexes, seeing themselves as lying somewhere on a continuum, or
> as with elements of both, or neither, depending on perspective.   This
> group often genuinely feels that all humans are just exactly that --
> more or less one major sex or the other -- and their transiting from
> one place on a continuum to another shouldn't make them significantly
> different from those majorities...vying socially for inclusion as
> similar persons, or to work against institutional oppression where it
> exists.  Sometimes this group will also refer to themselves as male,
> female, man or woman, often combine terms such as sex and gender into
> one....but still also feeling the most comfortable at some place on a
> continuum with characteristics of both major sexes/genders.
> And on the other hand there is another group who just want to be, in
> total, that other major sex.   Obtaining GRS is not the definer, here,
> but the person's total effort.  This group also generally does NOT
> lobby for anything, not against anything either, in general........but
> just preferring to make as much of a change as medical science will
> allow and then go live life, blend as much as able and -- while always
> falling short of internal need, of desired goal -- just BE as much the
> acquired sex as able.  So you don't hear much from this group, and it
> makes it easy to over-shadow them.  And while this group prefers not
> to label itself, when pressed will identify as "transsexual" as
> distinct and separate from "transgender."  This group is often
> mis-thought as people who tend to live "stealth."
> This, as always, is NOT to say that anyone is bettor or worse, but it
> Just as I am not putting down gays if I say that I am not gay....
> It's just a different thing.  Differences perhaps not seen by many who
> favor the transgender paradigm, but differeneces that are glaringly
> and loudly obvious to us.
> This problem, these last two weeks, to bring to the memership of WPATH
> this discussion of bylaws, in an effort to even just be MENTIONED
> directly as "transsexuals," has become an example of what seems to me
> to be an oppression of the transsexual identity.  Diminishing it.
> Omitting it.  Making it seem less present on this earth.
> Saying to others outside these communities that the smaller group is
> assumed to be part of the larger -- and then by disallowing dissent to
> the membership, making it assume that the transgender paradigm
> presented is accepted and worked with, hiding our weak voice as we try
> to speak out.
> For those who have shared that they don't hear very much about
> transseuxals (people who just try to actually be that other natal
> sex), then I'd guess one reason is because of groups that censor their
> efforts.
> And on the issue of censorship, some of us, including me, have learned
> that there has been an ongoing problem with it:   posting emails to
> the membership from some who specifically name us in criticism, but
> then failing to post our replies.  Sometimes not posting whole issues
> (as this one about bylaws) or trains of thought, threads, squelching
> the whole matter by not allowing discussion among ourselves....  And
> then hiding matters from people who have posted on some topic, because
> posters are not allowed to have a copy of their posts, i.e., that if
> someone sends in an email to the membership, they get a receipt that
> the WPATH censor got it but aren't copied in the general membership
> list when or if the email is disseminated.  (And I'm told WPATH is
> paying the university in Minnesota a lot of money for this, even
> though a Yahoo e-group would work better and is free.)
> All this causes misunderstandings, dissention and conflict, because a
> sender does not know what the other members are actually receiving,
> assumes they're getting some info they're not, or in what form, or
> when in a thread.
> All this combined, as I see it -- bending or breaking bylaws,
> disallowing membership awareness of the problem, censoring topics
> around it -- is an oppression of transsexualism, to limit our meager
> voice, to make it less clear that it exists, to make it seem that we
> are instead part of the larger group "transgender."
> I truly hate to think this, because I feel very disenfranchised, as if
> the group that is supposedly the premier group for such as me is lost
> to me, is attempting to make me less, to support it's own social
> agenda, and to, frankly, hurt mine.
> I do the dishes, drive down the road, go to the market.......and find
> myself shaking my head:  What have we all learned from being
> different?
> Don't we feel it's wrong when a larger, more powerful group limits us?
> Disallows us?  Says we shouldn't have the same rights to recognition
> they do?
> These are all various forms of oppression.
> Oppression is not just Rosa Parks on the bus.  It's not just
> Apartheid.  It's not just how many people treat immigrants or gays...
> It's not just some of
> the other horrid things that sometimes happen to us, violent things,
> uglier things...  It's not just the acts of putting us down or overtly
> hurting us --------------- it's ALSO acts that inhibit us, attempt to
> silence us, to
> make us NOT BE who we are as much, to try to force us to be something
> else, to make us less of who we are.
> And it's not just things societies do to us; it's also things we do to
> ourselves, that many of us who are variant in one way -- a small
> minority in itself (TG) -- do to an even Smaller minority (TS).
> It makes me shake my head and wonder, what have we learned?  What are
> we thinking?
> It is idealistic of me to mention the below, but so very true, and if
> reading this you dismiss it BECAUSE of its idealism, then the
> importance of it should be doubly clear:
> Even though we are an international body, I would love to share a
> quote from Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States in
> his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801:
> "...All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the
> will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
> rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal
> rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be
> oppression."
> The U.S., though I do love the country, has no clean slate when it
> comes to civil rights.  When this country was born, we were still
> dealing with issues of racism (as we still are), of whether or not
> some people were actually people or not, whether they had a soul or
> not, of whether or not slavery was okay...  We've been working to
> address all this, with still a long way to go, much too slowly for 233
> years, and various forms of oppression are still with us in this
> country.
> I can see why members of larger majorities may have trouble learning
> this lesson; they've never seen life from the perspective of the
> oppressed minority.
> But trans-related individuals should know better, almost all having
> experienced some form of oppression from others, themselves, at some
> point.
> How could this happen?  That that the transgender paradigm feels it
> needs to overshadow transsexuals and incorporate the very valid but
> much smaller and separate phenomenon only indirectly or by inference,
> or outright say to others and me
> that the latter does not actually exist but is only a variation of the
> former?
> Transsexuals have So Very Little to Live with, so very little to
> reasonably struggle with, that WPATH would seek outright to limit or
> diminish
> our identity also?  To twist our identity to the public and attempt to
> force us into joining ranks with a larger
> though very different group into a social movement that many of us
> vehemently disagree with and even think is counter productive?
> You take away our label -- transsexual -- you minimize our own
> identity?  That is oppression.
> To say that in your outreach programs you ARE incorporating, while
> refusing to include that TS word, is rationalization.
> Don't we remember?
> Oppressors often think they are right in what they're doing, a
> perspective their own and not that of the oppressed.
> Sometimes oppressors don't even think they're necessarily right, but know
> they can do the thing because of some form of strength or power.  They
> try to bend the minority to suit the majority, or force them to be
> quiet, or maybe extinguish them. They always have a reason -- pick
> which million you'd draw from.  There's always a reason....   Remember
> hearing soooo often that black people or Jews were causing trouble and
> unrest by seeking recognition and inclusion?  Remember arguments about
> how allowing gays into the military would be disruptive in the ranks?
> Yet WPATH asserts its reasons (usually stated to me in the end as,
> "...but we're stronger if we stand together...") and their outreach
> (per the symposium
> mentioned) does not mention transsexuals....and my attempts to discuss
> this with the membership have been refused by the board because they
> don't see why members should discuss bylaws violations on this
> subject.
> I am just shocked and dismayed.    Though I am not speechless.   Isn't
> this a form of rationalization not unlike rationalizations made by
> other majorities against minorities they want to use or manipulate?
> This has been a real wake-up call for me, and I'm surprised at how low
> I now feel this body is.
> If you've received this, it, I'm sure, wasn't from WPATH.  You can
> check your address line to see.   I'll submit
> it, now, but I feel it won't be posted by them.  IF it is, then
> great.
  I'll gladly respond with a thank you.  It doesn't mean the TS
> difficulties with the WPATH transgender paradigm is won, but at least
> it's one post regarding summarization that has been allowed.  Other
> posts from me have been refused for posting, so my belief is based in
> experience.
> Whether or not you agree with my views on the distinctness of
> transsexualism, of how our issues and life path are different from
> transgenderism.......if you disdain the concept of oppression, if
> you've learned the lesson of being different, if you feel it's a
> quality that shouldn't be a part of a body that's supposed to be here
> to support minorities, then please consider making your ideas known to
> the membership and leadership.
> Jen W, LCSW