As of this moment, I have to say that I will NOT present this to any forum, because I feel it would irreparably damage my reputation as a speaker, and the best grade I could give this would be a "D".

While the writing style and technical aspects are basically satisfactory, the content fails in part because:

• There are no cited (or discovered) authoritative sources supporting the assertions of the author(s) (who does (do) not identify any credentials of his (their) own).
• There is little logical argumentation (accepted premise + accepted premise = logical conclusion) in support of the assertions made -- everything is stated as fact without substantiation
• Based on the way the material is presented, the author is making the statement "4". In order to see if the conclusion is valid, we need to see if the equation is "2 + 2", or "3 + 6".
• None of the assertions are footnoted for further study -- in fact I have not been able to find anything for further study that does not link back to this ONE source site... In science, history and law (all endeavors that rely heavily on evidentiary processes), circular logic is grounds for dismissing a theory.
• One of its few cited quotations has been edited from the original without comments to explain the change or even to alert the reader that the author made a change.
• Finally, a stated, as well as strongly felt, undercurrent to the argument is an elitist approach to gender differentiation: I have HBS so I am okay; you do not so you must endure psychological therapy to overcome your mental deficiencies and you should not be allowed to undertake medical interventions.

As most of us are aware there are some people who are not good candidates for medical intervention. The WPATH SOC are designed to help identify these people, but this is already happening. Changing the terminology will not improve anything in that respect.

What I read sounds really great at first blush, but has no sound foundation (a mile wide and an inch deep, as a friend is fond of saying). I went 6 pages into Google, and all the listings with references came back to the above mentioned website as the source document. This site reads like professional page, but is little more than a glorified blog in that it does not cite any professional group for its assertions and seems to be simply a repository for favorite existing theories, some of which appear to contradict the site authors primary thesis.

Reading the primary source website I get the distinct impression that there is as much exclusionism (I'm okay but you are not) as there is positive assertion.

I fear that this website, and by extension (as it is the only foundation I have found for the whole HBS thing) the idea of a Harry Benjamin's Syndrome designation is not only muddying the waters but actually creating disharmony among the ranks.

Interestingly enough, by the way, a couple of the genetic and medical studies cited attribute the same causes to BOTH gender differentiation and homosexuality. HMMMMM.

Although I have often mused at how funny this would be if a common psychological link were found for both trans and gay, this is NOT exactly what the purists in our little corner of the world would like to hear, is it?

I also found a commentary by Gwen Smith discussing the issue that I think makes great sense. --- http://www.baltimoregaylife.com/Opinion/042007_3. htm

As a side note, there IS a Harry Benjamin's Syndrome Society in Australia. But it is little more than a blog, it even admits as such in its menu line, and it was established about 6 months ago. There were a couple foreign language sites that I came across, but those that translated to English referred back to the site listed above, and again, there were no professional groups underwrting HBS.

I will probably hear a lot from people who think I have sold out the movement, but I do not think factionalism is the way to go.

Erin