Musings about J. Michael Bailey and Edmund Smith.

J.Michael Bailey is the king of transgender junk science and misinformation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1187704803-yNtpC5cmocRSUtVlEhe7qw&oref=slogin

This is what happens when a person has limited or no knowledge about transgenders / transsexuals, but went on to create their own science.

Michael Bailey calls me a person who is:
1) a homosexual who is uncomfortable being with a man as a man.
(Relations to me? Even if I am not with a man, I am still a girl, but unfornately a transsexual)
2) a man who has erotic fascinations of being a woman.
(Relations to me? Well, I am sure I do not feel erotic. I know I am still a girl now, even though while writing his I am wearing jeans and a short sleeve shirt.)

This is another man, who seems to think his science is inclusive for all. There is no doubt that autogynephilia is one of the reasons a small portion might partake on transcending genders, another being some homosexuals uncomfortable with themselves. But he has mistook the smallest minority, for the majority. It seems his research only concentrates on crossdressers, not transsexuals.

I do not know this man to comment further. But my point is, this type of misinformation is often used by a greater bad. It paints some of the LGTs with stigma and dogma, and once it sticks, the opinion seldom changes.

Reminds me the prince:

Edmund Smith calls me a person who has
1) 'Self Issue towards ones gender'.
(Relations to me? I do not have any issues, I am darn sure I am a girl but with a birth defect)

Edmund's homosexuality is already questionable, described by his own testimony of his broken relationship with his father and then looking for love in the wrong places, everything that surrounds his homosexuality is environmentally constructed.

Which is why you would notice, ALL of the ex-gay stories presented by him has the same lines, broken family relationships, problems, issues growing up. It is the reason why I still stress that his experience in social constructed homosexuality would be of benefit to those like him.

The problem lies with his beliefs, that his ministry is definitely applicable to all homosexuals. He would be a destructive influence for homosexuals whose circumstances are the total opposite (great relationship with parents, normal puberty). Those with trained minds would reject him totally. But there are others, those desperate to change for an easier social life, they will land themselves in trouble.

Because Edmund's beliefs that the change he is promising is inclusive of all, some will end up an emotional and psychological mess. Especially when his 'gender confused' theory is confusing by itself; Edmund was dressed by his mother as a girl when he was young, which is probably the reason why Edmund is so convinced this is one of the 'causes' to his homosexuality.

It would also appear to be the reason why Edmund always mixes the two separate entities of homosexuality AND transgenders together. How RLM handle those who are biologically born homosexuals should be heavily scrutinized. And anymore mad sciences presented by him about transgenders should be rejected.

(Just to share, see, I am not dressed by my mom when I was young. I am not even bothered what to dress as. I just wonder what that thing sticking out of my groin is doing there, and dislike the effects it has on me.)

Real Love Ministry's education for the general public, that gays live a hurful and painful life, and the picture they paint that all gays care about is sex and fulfilling 'urges'; is way far off from the reality of homosexuals living today. RLM seems to be oblivious to the hard truth that homosexuality is just another orientation. Edmund Smith totally overlooked the fact that even heterosexuals, have sexual urges. A new ministry for heterosexuals, anyone?