That may not be a good way to describe it but... I have a C64 I never use and I think I shall desolder its SID before consigning it to recycling since they are now officially hard to come by. What can I put it on that will let me use it efficiently?
That may not be a good way to describe it but... I have a C64 I never use and I think I shall desolder its SID before consigning it to recycling since they are now officially hard to come by. What can I put it on that will let me use it efficiently?
What is portrayed on that show is not how it is for many of us in real life. Putting a man in a dress and having him portray a transsexual is not really going to capture it, except for the unpassable. But of course, that's what makes good TV. The truth is boring.
Of course, it IS more accurate in portraying the intersection between transsexuals and the LGB community - but only for those who believe that the LGBT community is also their community. If you're not a gay/lesbian/bi transsexual, it's an alien portrayal except for a few freaks.
But don't you dare say so - it goes against the "agenda."
One of my neighbors called me over to watch it, and she knew I was trans. At one point, "Maura" is walking into a restaurant for a date. I couldn't help but say "What the heck? The walk, the posture, that just screams man in a dress." She said that she was thinking the same thing. Come on, put at least a minimal effort into it. What I see there is parody. The hollywood/gay community's view of transsexuals is so full of shit compared to most straight transsexual's lives outside the "community." Assholes.
Your comments "spectacularly brain-damaged suggestion" and "drug-fueled" are why I consider your post troll like.
The above quote rendered one of my comments unpostable...
The last month I've felt better than at any time since this last bout of depression started in the fall of 2014. And now it's creeping back. A month of feeling half-way decent in 2 years does not cut it. The ability to concentrate is gone again, sleep is crap, and I can't help but keep thinking that I made the wrong decision to fight it.
Oh well, I was warned that it would come back. So much for my latest plans to do something constructive or useful. The last few days, looking at my old code has seemed like such an impossible burden. I can't even work up real anger over it at this point. After all, what's the point?
Time to see what other miracle drugs and treatments my psychiatrist has to offer
(Note - also submitted as a story since this probably affects more than a few people)
Recently I tried once again to use my bank's mobile app. I had deleted it a couple of times in the past because I could never get it to work. The bank had all sorts of excuses - "Maybe your card hasn't been activated for online banking", "You need to download the latest version", "We'll need to reset your password", "We'll issue you a new card", etc. New card, password reset both did nothing.
Turns out that entering the card number as shown on the card will never work. The card format is 9999 9999 9999 9999 (spaces between each group of 4 digits). They failed Rule 00; sanitize input.
Entering the number in that format will always fail. In this case they failed to remove spaces before testing whether the card number was valid. The android code to remove the embedded spaces is pretty generic one-liner:
String cardNo = edittext.getText().toString().replace(" ", "");
Looking at the online forums, others have had the same problem for the app's entire existence.
Having figured that out, I was immediately locked out for "too many failures to answer the security question". Of course, it never presented a security question, because the bozo who wrote the program incremented some "bad answer" counter on every login attempt, even if they never got to the point of seeing a security question. It also locks you out of using web banking on the same account..
Locking someone out of their account is now easy as pie, because it also works if the user enters their name instead of their card number. (If you have 5 John Smiths, you'll lock them all out, since access is granted based on both the user name and password matching if the account number isn't entered). Just load up an android app for the bank (I won't disclose which bank until 45 days have passed since notifying them today), enter their name and a bogus password a few times, and every John Smith is locked out. And of course, if the so-called developers are failing to do such basic input sanitation, it makes me pretty sure there are other intern-level programmer bugs are awaiting exploitation elsewhere.
Adding frustration is that they cannot do a password reset over the phone unless you have already signed up for telephone banking. Now why would anyone sign up for telephone banking when an app or the web is supposed to be more convenient? The excuse I was given is that they need it to establish my identity. So why not just text me an sms or email code that I can enter when requesting a password reset?
Lets hope other banks didn't use the same app geniuses.
Just recovered my original gmail account, dating back to the early invite days. FirstName.Lastname is good to have back, even if it had 3+ years of spam in it
I was wondering if accounts would be expired after a certain time - now we know that they're good for at least 3 years after the last login. Makes sense, because you don't want anyone grabbing an old email address and getting someone else's email.
Eventually they'll have to expire the old ones, because it's going to be harder and harder to pick good ones - maybe a decade would be a long enough period?
After a few days of thinking, and a few more days of testing, I've found something interesting that might be useful for others, even if you don't have a visual impairment.
Mixed-case fonts are harder to read. Plus, how do you tell the difference between a lower-case "ELL" and the number 1, upper-case "OH" and the number 0, lowercase "b" and the number 6, uppercase "ESS" and the number 5, lowercase letter pair "r n" and lowercase "m" (as in "bank of America" vs "Bank of Arnerica"? Lowercase letters are hard on the eyes. They also weren't around in the days of the ancient greeks; it took 1,500 years for that to happen.
This whole debate wasn't much of a big deal back in the days when we'd spend hours and hours typing code in marathon sessions of easy-on-the-eyes monospaced all-caps, but those days are gone. We're no longer using much assembler (and if we do, it's lowercase), BASIC, or DBASE, or Clipper (and they don't care about case either).
The programming languages we use today are case sensitive, particularly the two biggies - c/c++ and java.
Part of the solution is to switch to a small-caps font. Lowercase glyphs are just smaller versions of their uppercase glyphs. Using a mono-spaced small-caps font adds a bit more readability as well (though you might not think so at first - it takes your brain a while to get used to it).
No more worrying about mixing up lowercase "l" and the number 1, etc.
So then the question becomes - what about coding compatibility between those who don't use a screen reader and those who do (either on occasion or regularly)?
If you want to cursor through each letter, the screen reader will beep as it says each capital, but really, who wants to go letter by letter to differentiate between lowercase, uppercase, titlecase, and camelcase? What's needed is to use only one case, so that variables, methods, functions and classes are all written using the same set of lowercase letters. (Can't use all uppercase because preprocessor directives (#include, etc) in c and various declarations (packages, etc) in java need to be lowercase).
Obviously, anything that is not all-lowercase is going to need some shim code. It's a problem, especially in c, where convention is that macro definitions are in all-caps. But that's just a convention, and there's no reason not to be able to include shim code that redefines those macro definitions using lowercase and a few extra letters (sorry, leading and trailing underscores are reserved for the implementation, though this may only be the case for double underscores - check your header files).
Classes don't HAVE to have propercase names, and functions and methods don't HAVE to have camelcase names. These are just conventions.
Using existing code will still require shims to call it, but all-lowercase code does have a few advantages that outweigh the hassle. For one, fewer typos. For another, the shim code doesn't have to be a direct representation of the other code in terms of functionality - there's no reason, for example, not to create a java button class that works better than the Button class, with less verbosity and more built-in functionality (and eliminating the stupid get and set syntax). Why have button.getxy() and button.setxy(newxy) when button.xy() and button.xy(newxy) work just fine thanks to overloading, and can be chained just fine?
And lest you not take all this seriously, wait until there's a library of all-lowercase code available and someone files a complaint under the ADA because they're not being allowed to use it, if fewer typos and less eye strain isn't enough to motivate you.
NOTE: Chrome no longer lets you override font settings despite looking like it, but Firefox still does. Carrois Gothic SC (small caps) is a good font for browsing, and Latin Modern Mono Caps 10 works in code editors. Both are fully scale-able in size.
(The proof is in the pudding - this is the first time I've been able to use a computer for 4 hours straight in I don't know how long, despite having a cataract in one eye and blood clots floating around in the other. Not even any headache or nausea. Usually it's under an hour, than forget it for several hours or often the rest of the day, pop some tylenol, etc. I wish I had thought of this before.)
And unlike in "All You Zombies", I didn't need a U.S.F.F. Coordinates Transformer Field Kit, series 1992, Mod II to do it.
As you can see from this excerpt from Wikipedia, the first country to pass a same sex marriage law was the Netherlands, in December of 2000.
21 December: Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands signs into law the first same-sex marriage bill in the world. It had previously cleared the country's Senate on 19 December in a 49â"26 vote and the House of Representatives on 12 September in a 109â"33 vote. The law came into effect on 1 April 2001.
Of course, Canada screwed that up just fine:
14 January: Two same-sex marriages are performed at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto in Ontario, Canada (2-1/2 months before the Netherlands law came into force). Although registration of the marriages was initially denied, a successful court challenge upheld their legality on 10 June 2003, thus retroactively making them the first legal same-sex marriages in modern times.
Not so fast there
Now if that sounds totally f'ed up, then you know it has to involve me, and my 35 years of work trying to modify the name and sex on my birth certificate, running into one delay after another, and a very recent law change with totally unexpected consequences that has my kids and me laughing
My application was pre-approved years ago, but I ran into lots of problems, and until just before Christmas last year, it was expensive - something I just couldn't afford because of all my health problems, and before that having to quit my job because my boss bounced a month's worth of pay cheques and then tried to make it look like I had agreed to work as an independent contractor, and too many other problems many of you are familiar with, so finalizing it kept getting put off.
Then a few years ago, they said the procedure was being changed, and it would be both quicker and cheaper - just wait a year to pass the new law.
Of course, the new law took a lot more than a year to pass, and then everything was ready to go ---- and if you believe that bullshit, you'll believe anything the government tells you.
Add a couple more years leaving people in limbo because now they had to come up with the legal and other procedures for actually applying the law. A lot of people probably said to hell with the wait and went with the old procedure.
Finally, I saw that they were now able to take new applications, got the forms, gathered up all the stuff needed, and was just waiting on one of my sisters to sign an affidavit saying she knew me and I understood the seriousness of all this.
After weeks of "not today, maybe next week", she said to email the docs to her and she'd look at them. And after more weeks of "not this week, I'm busy", a second request to email them to her so she could look at them. Like I told my endocrinologist, it was pretty obvious she was avoiding it. Afterwards, one of my neighbors said she would have done it immediately, but I didn't want to impose on her. Oh well.
Finally she did, and I took the paperwork downtown, and was told it would take 4 months. Turns out that because it had been pre-approved all those years ago, they could skip part of the evaluation, so it took less than three.
Now if it had happened a year ago, 5 years ago, a decade ago, all that would have been changed was my name and sex on my birth certificate. The cover letter they sent said this:
Please not that the required changes were made to your act of birth and your act of marriage registered to the registrar of civil status. The change to your given names was also entered on the act of birth of your children.
So my marriage from 1976 - by the Catholic church of all places (no, I was an atheist even back then) is now legally recognized as being between two women, and my kids have two women as their parents - and all the documentation available shows this.
I cannot even ask for a copy without the changes. Neither can anyone else. My kids are like me - they find it hilarious.
BTW - here no church or municipality is in charge of, nor may they keep or issue, records of birth or marriage. So even the Pope can't claim that the Catholic church doesn't do same sex marriages.
And everyone who didn't run into these delays got screwed out of "first same sex marriage post."
It doesn't make up for the decades of problems, but it's something to laugh about, and we all need a good laugh once in a while.
Anyone care to share their perspective?
I'm not giving it more than 50 years. Doesn't matter who is elected, once disparity between the top and bottom becomes to wide, once those in the middle see that no matter what they do, they're going to continue to risk being part of the bottom, and those on the bottom rungs realize that this is their lot in life, "citizen" is no longer a source of pride.
Add to that endless undeclared wars with no clear goals (the last time congress declared war was in 1942) and the racism that was a characteristic of the country even before it was founded, even after fighting a civil war over it, still being in the headlines daily, and the insistence on clinging to a 2nd Amendment that threatens the basic security and freedom from fear of citizens, and the US no longer being a world superpower that can dictate policy with impunity, challenged now by both Russia (who annexed the Crimea with no problems) and China (South China Sea, and about to replace the US as the world's largest economy), and something has to give. Ultimately, the USA is no more capable of stopping a bloc of states from seceding than it was in stopping Russia. 50 years maximum.
worked at an all open source shop (religiously so even), yet their blind (completely blind) accessibility engineer was one of two people in the 200 person company running Windows. The other was a graphics designer that needed Photoshop and Illustrator.
If a graphics designer can figure it out, maybe I just needed to not get frustrated as quickly
Aside from the faulty "logic", there's also the problem that even if we were to convert every atom of many parallel universes into computronium, it just wouldn't work.
Unlike a rock that just sits there and a rain drop splashes on it, you would need to be continuously modeling the various particles that make up the rock, the rain drop, the environment, and the rest of the universe, AND their interactions. That's way more complex than a 3-body problem. The heat generated to do these computations would make the big bang look like cheap effects.
"Oh, so just slow it down!" Slowing it down enough means that the universes that you're using to do these computations, and the further universes that you are using to power them, would have already decayed to randomness thanks to entropy long before we get to now. And let's not forget that they would be so massive that they would have crunched into black holes long before that point, so forget about a stable computing environment that can be controlled from the outside, or even observed to fix anything.
Entropy - it happens at all scales.
So now I'm a transphobic misogynist with internalized trandsphobia. Why? Because a few days ago I dared use the words "normal people" in a discussion, and "some people" - the majority in the lgbt-whatever alphabet cloud take that as a slur against trans-whatevers.
I was arguing that we should speak plainly if we want people to understand what we're saying and where we're coming from. Apparently, using "normal" instead of "cisgender" is a YUGE slur. Even though everyone understands "normal people", and cisgender only entered the vernacular recently, and the general population has an easier time grokking "normal."
Sure, defensive people who are quick to be offended for no reason whatsoever will be offended. They are the typical SJWs - using their perch of perceived holy political correctness to beat up on someone for whatever. Of course, I don't let crap like that stand, so I made a *lot* of enemies that day.
"Gender-speak" is continually modified to get further and further away from both reality and comprehension. Case in point:
And they wonder why I use the term "normal people" when describing the rest of the population. Sheesh!.
So after a lot of exchanged words that remind me of so many trolls, I put aside all political correctness.
You're free to use whatever terms you want. So am I. If you have a problem with that, that's entirely your problem, so stop the insults and name-calling.
Cisgender woman is a made-up term of very recent origin that isn't understood by "normal people" all that much The terms biological woman, xx-woman, born woman, etc. are accurate in conveying meaning to the listener. When political correctness interferes with communication, screw political correctness.
Being hypersensitive to the truth makes us look stupid to normal people. I will not ever bow to political correctness at the expense of speaking plainly and making it clear what I am trying to get across - I'll leave that for the politicians and those who are ashamed of what they are.
We are not normal women. Normal women have a uterus. We do not. Normal women don't have to take estrogen because they have ovaries. We do not. Normal women don't have to undergo regular prostate checks, but they have to have pap smears. Normal women also have periods until they hit menopause; then they get hot flashes. We do not. We can't get pregnant - ever, so no birth control needed. No testes either.
By refusing to highlight the differences, you let people draw their own conclusions or fall prey to rumors. And thanks to the LGBT continually trying to blur the distinction between us and agender, bi-gender, cross-dresser, drag queen, gender-queer, gender-fucked, etc., many think of us in terms of cross-dressers, gays, and lesbians. Bathroom bills are just the blowback from all this refusal to talk straight. We didn't have these problems 30 years ago. It wasn't on anyone's radar.
But keep refusing to be honest and open, and instead use wording that obscures what and why we are. Sounds to me like you're the ones with the internalized transphobia - you desperately want to keep your status secret, even though you say passing isn't important.
Nice quick way to get permanently blocked
And of course the ass-hole throwing around many of the accusations was a gay ammo-sexual transman. Same as the last time. Before that, it was a couple of gay cross-dressers. It's always the self-anointed SJWs and the gays who want to tell us what we can and cannot say. It's the 2016 version of 1984's newspeak.
The proof is in the pudding
I'm for openness. I practice it in my personal life, and I see the consequences of doing otherwise. If someone was to slip on a lab coat and pretend they were a doctor, and give you a physical (it's happened) they would be charged with sexual assault. And yet cross-dressers don't get that when they grind up against and swap spit with some guy who doesn't know and isn't an informed participant (and as such cannot give informed consent), they're the ones screaming "hate crime." If all you got was a punch in the face, you got off easy. Better than a criminal record and an entry on the sex offenders list.
Instead of addressing the problem, every year there's a "trans day of remembrance." It's bullshit through and through. Transsexuals have a lower murder rate than the rest of the wold - even when you add in all the cross-dressers and other people who foolishly think they're immune to crossing boundaries and using others to get their link on. It's not a hate problem. It's a race problem. Non-whites are disproportionately over-represented. The average white transsexual is safer than a member of the general population - possibly for having the good sense of not doing stupid things.
Some will label this as victim-blaming. As George Carlin said, "you're full of shit." When a cross-dresser commits the felony of sexual assault, they've got to take the blame, same as anyone who commits a crime has to answer for all the fall-out, same as if you kill someone while driving drunk, even if you didn't expect or mean to kill someone, just have some fun. But it's not politically correct to say any of this, just like it's not politically correct to say that cross-dressers are not the same as transsexuals nowadays. No wonder people are confused and pushing bathroom laws.
A few days ago new neighbors moved in. I talked with them for about an hour. The next day I dropped in on them to see how they were doing and one of the women (her mom was the other woman) said that she needed a hammer to remove a shelf or the fridge wouldn't fit - too tall.
Me: So I said "Okay, I'll get you a hammer. You'll also need a screwdriver."
"You have a hammer?"
"Sure. That's one of the advantages of a sex change - all that experience from my previous life. Hope you don't mind?"
"Oh, no, not a problem at all" etc etc.
I guess women aren't supposed to have a full toolbox
Today they came up to ask me if I had a key to the locker room for the cable guy. If they had any problems with me, they would have asked another neighbor.
By being open, I eliminated rumors and misinformation from others, as well as communicating that I'm not ashamed of who and what I am. Not like all those who want to hide reality because they, deep down, are ashamed no matter what they say on the net. Actions speak much louder than words.
I was breaking away some calcite when an unusual glimmer caught my attention.
I've run a few tests. It tarnishes black under oxidizing flame and does not emit a color. I cannot hold a sample well enough with any of my tools to get a scratch or streak test done.
http://imgur.com/a/PAHgz - a couple of pictures of the material, freed from the calcite matrix in which it was found.
It's dense. Water puffing easily moved dense garnet sand away from it while it remained relatively still.
The measurements taken on one sample grain were as follows: ~0.7mm length, ~0.7mm width, ~0.5mm thickness. Multimeter resistance measured at 35 Ohms. This gives me an electrical resistivity of 0.025 ohm meter, or 2.5 x 10^-2. I cannot find any metal with such listed electrical resistivity. My best bet would be that this is a semiconductor, given the relatively high resistivity, as pretty much every metal starts at 10^-6 to 10^-8.
I just found out that one of the transvestites who has spend most of the last 2 decades harassing transsexual women is dead. This is the same one who was fired after I complained to their employer about cyber-stalking and they called the police in to investigate.
In following up, I came across something his daughter wrote about the family's time together before her parents divorced, and how he never worked and spent her mom's paycheck even before she came home with it.
This is how the person who should be the closest to him will remember him. Spending the last decade on-line in a one-room bedsit for the homeless attacking transsexuals, with probably over 100,000 hate-filled posts (the count was 68,000 almost 10 years ago). What a sad waste of a life.
Almost can't believe that I feel sorry for him, but many of us will breathe a sigh of relief knowing it's finally over.
Political correctness has gotten to the point where anyone is transgender, even if it's only a guy saying "I prefer cats - that's my feminine side" or a gal saying "I love my shotgun - that's my masculine side," they too can claim the label. Meanings have become so blurred that it's considered bad manners to call bullshit because you might offend that one poster who claimed his girlfriend has a penis and she enjoys it. That's not a transsexual - that's a gay transvestite transgenderist and you're also gay - just admit it already.
The stupidity from the entire LGBT community, as expressed on Facebook over the last year, made me re-examine previous assumptions. Some examples:
What was wrong with civil unions?
I was in favor of same-sex marriage long before it became popular. I was saying "Why deprive gays of the joys of divorce?"
But upon re-examination, marriage is a civil union. Nothing more, nothing less. The state regulates it under state laws, not any other organization. The state licenses it, and the state approves individual licenses and regulates the dissolution of marriages. Not a church or other group.
So what is the difference between marriage and any other civil union? Just like civil unions, marriages preserve many individual rights while granting others and imposing some obligations and restrictions. Marriage and civil unions allow the other partner to make decisions in medical care, jointly adopt, and pool assets. The only difference is that civil unions can set additional conditions that marriage cannot, and civil unions also envisage relationships that have nothing to do with marriage.
I think it would have been better to just pass a declaration that recognizes that all marriages are civil unions, and to be known henceforth as such. End all the mysticism surrounding the term marriage by deprecating it.
Would I undo same-sex marriage laws? Of course not - but in retrospect, the whole mess could have been handled much better by sticking to the facts - that marriage is a civil union.
The meaninglessness of the word "transgender"
Historically, this whole mess can be laid at the foot of the cross-dressing community, starting with Virginia Prince (Arnold Lowman). Prince mis-appropriated the term transgender thus:
In other works, Prince also helped popularize the term 'transgender', and erroneously asserted that she coined transgenderist and transgenderism, words which she meant to be understood as describing people who live as full-time women, but have no intention of having genital surgery. Prince also consistently argued that transvestism is very firmly related to gender, as opposed to sex or sexuality. Her use of the term "femmiphile" related to the belief that the term "transvestite" had been corrupted, intending to underline the distinction between heterosexual crossdressers, who act because of their love of the feminine, and the homosexuals or transsexuals who may cross-dress. Princeâ(TM)s idea of a "true transvestite" was clearly distinguished from both the homosexual and the transsexual, claiming that true transvestites are "exclusively heterosexual... The transvestite values his male organs, enjoys using them and does not desire them removed."
That is a far cry from transsexuals, and the continued attempts by the LGBT community to blur the distinction so as to legitimize cross-dressing and other behaviours is both dishonest and seriously misguided, because now in the public mind transgender can mean anything, including transsexual.
It's gotten to the point that transgenderists insist that making the distinction between full-time cross-dressers and transsexuals is both wrong and "harmful to the community." Oddly enough, it's gay men, some of whom are cross-dressers, that are the most vocal in their attacks, which are only directed at male-to-female transsexuals. An example was a recent attack by a gay female-to-male transsexual saying that male-to-female transsexuals are cross-dressers, mimicking perfectly the accusations of transvestites. WTF? Another was by a gay cross-dresser who, after being invited to a discussion after misrepresenting himself as a male-to-female transsexual, started the whole "you're really just men in dresses" thing.
In the end, transgender means everything and nothing - it's a label that's as solid as Jello, and like Jello, impossible to nail down.
Organized LGBT discrimination against transsexuals
Why would LGBT groups and individuals want to beat up on transsexuals? One thing that becomes obvious over time is that they resent the fact that transsexualism by it's very nature tends to confirm the traditional heteronormative gender binary - especially male-to-female transsexuals. Female-to-male transsexuals get a pass on this accusation, same as they aren't accused of being cross-dressers by many in the LGBT community, not even by cross-dressers.
The Human Rights Coalition is a good example of the systemic nature of their toxic view of male-to-female transsexuals among their own workers.
"Leadership culture is experienced as homogenous â" gay, white, male"
One of the most frequent concerns that rose was the sense of an organizational culture rooted in a white, masculine orientation which is judgemental of all those who donâ(TM)t fit that mold,â the report states in summarizing its survey findings. âoeDisparate treatment toward women and those with 'soft skills' was frequently cited by staff â" both men and women â" and there is a sense that if you operate outside of that orientation, you will not be successful at HRC."
"Younger staff in particular are exploited and not rewarded financially." Another said, "Straight women and lesbians get sexist treatment from gay men at HRC."
No wonder people there wait years to transition publicly. With friends like these, I'd rather be dealing with fundamentalist Christians. Many of them change their attitudes once they get to know us personally.
People in "the community" say I should stop criticizing because it will hurt the community. My response nowadays is "Big f*cking deal. My community is family, friends, and neighbours. I am not part of your community, never have been, and never will be. There were no 'bathroom bills' until you guys got involved. People didn't make a habit of mis-identifying us as 'perverted cross-dressers'."
The "LGBT Community"
As I pointed out above, I don't buy into the whole concept, and from the responses I've seen I'm not the only one. People get beaten up in the local gay ghetto, but are afraid to leave it because they've bought into the lie that the rest of the world is even more hostile. This is not a supportive community - it's toxic as all hell. I don't know where the gay village is, but I do know I don't want to go there.
Transsexuals already had the backing of the medical community before the modern gay rights movement. Unlike the LGBTs, we didn't resort to violent public protests - we didn't need to. Nevertheless, the community continues to spread disinformation linking us to them, saying such things as "it was a transsexual who threw the first rock at Stonewall," when it was actually a transvestite.
It's so bad that if you're a transsexual, people automatically assume you're gay. While numbers vary depending on who you believe, about 30%-50% of heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals change their sexual orientation post-transition. Another large chunk are bi; only a minority are lesbians. Whodathunkit? And those who do switch are the gay community's worst fear - demonstrating that many transsexuals affirn the conventional heteronormative gender binary that they see as the oppressor.
The whole mental illness thing
This is a complicated question, and one that, on closer examination, I have to give a qualified "yes" to the mental illness argument. I know, what a shocker! The current argument, which I agree with, is that transsexuality itself is a physical condition, not a mental disorder, and that it's the mind (assuming male-to-female transsexuals) that is not completely masculinized before birth, giving rise to the condition.
So far, so good. The problem is, we have no studies of how many people who also had brains that did not completely masculinize do not suffer from gender dysphoria (the resultant distress of the brain saying "these are the wrong parts").
We know that schizophrenia is a mental illness with its' roots in the physical brain, but we don't hesitate to call the disease itself a mental disease. We don't hesitate to call PTSD a mental disorder, even though its' cause is experiencing an external physical event that is so horrific that it has a severe impact on the person. Ditto for major depressive disorder.
So why the change from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria? In practical terms of treating it, there is no difference for transsexuals. However, the looser criteria have allowed non-transsexual transgenders to claim that they too fall under the same global umbrella. The same change that allowed transsexuals to escape the label of mental illness is very appealing to transgenderists searching for legitimacy.
If we use the original definition of a mental disorder as a mental condition that interferes with the patients' ability to cope with the world around them (such as negatively affecting their mood, thinking, and behavior), we are left with the fact that both Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Dysphoria certainly seem to describe the impact on mental functioning to a physical problem - in other words, a mental disorder.
Given the huge comorbidity with other mental disorders such as suicidal ideation, it may be time to re-examine some assumptions, and by this, I don't just mean disorders.
Is there really a difference between sex and gender? Even in transsexuals, the two are extremely tightly bound - treatment to reduce the difference between physical sex and perceived gender works with a 95-98% rate. It would be just as valid to state that treatment to reduce the difference between physical sex and perceived sex works. In chasing the idea that sex and gender are two different things in an attempt to explain transsexuality, we may have missed the obvious - it's only because of the "gender identity" concept that we miss the obvious - that it's all about sex. It's also why a perceived difference between perceived and physical sex causes distress in the first place. If they were completely separate, one would not impinge on the other, the same way that eye colour doesn't affect height.
Calling it gender identity instead of perceived sex led to the disassociation of the two. The concept of "gender identity" being separate from physical sex is hard for people to wrap their minds around; a lot harder than the correlation between physical sex and perceived sex, and the obvious problems that can be expected to arise when the two don't match. It also leads directly to the current alphabet soup of "genders" that is the transgendered community, and the confusion with transsexuals.
Screw that, and screw the LGBT "community", that loves using us to raise their profile for fund raising purposes and then continues to throw us under the bus. And those bathroom bills the LGBT community is "helping us fight?" Don't need your help. Permanent change will come via the courts if anyone is foolish enough to press charges. And considering they've already mistakenly arrested at least on xx woman, I'm not worried.