As for the fetish question, I like the way she frames the question, with the assumption that a fetish is a bad thing, or perhaps a trivial thing. Or even a bad trivial thing - that having a fetish negates making the issue a serious thing. But the idea that transsexualism is a fetish is bad science brought to us by such luminaries as Ray Blanchard and Michael Bailey. Their work isn’t really all that scientific, and is based on bias and assumption.

* Ray Blanchard has some rather medieval methods of measuring sexual arousal and attraction. He also has some strict guidelines for assisting trans women in transition - there’s a reason that his workplace is referred to as Jurassic Clarke. His view of what trans women are like is hardly the dominant one among those who actually work with trans people, and choosing his view as the true one betrays a bias on the part of the one doing the choosing.

* Michael Bailey’s book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, is based not only on Blanchard’s problematic science, but also on interviews he conducted under false pretenses and misrepresented in his book. His “science” betrays sexism, racism, and homophobia. His logic is based on assumption and prejudice. There’s a reason he was in trouble, and it’s not because trans women got him in trouble out of spite.

But the whole fetish question is an attempt to shift the ground upon which any discussion occurs. It drags it back to “justify yourself.” I don’t have any need to justify myself. I’m already here, I already exist. I’m a woman. That is non-negotiable.

“If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.”

What arguments have you examined, and what fallacies have you found in them? If you made a carefully reasoned argument the conclusion of which was “Therefore, transgendered people are disordered or confused” and I said “m Andrea argues that transgenderism doesn’t exist, but doesn’t use logic” without explaining why either

1) the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

or

2) the conclusion follows, but the premises are false

I haven’t actually proven you wrong. I’ve simply asserted that you don’t use logical reasoning correctly without backing up my claim.

So let’s see you back yours up, eh?

“If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish.”

Really? Why? You’re not saying anything sensible here, as you haven’t yet explained why something cannot both be a fetish AND a valid medical condition.

Not that I believe transgenderism is a fetish (see Drakyn’s comment about how he imagines himself as male in any situation, not just a sexual one.) I don’t think it is (though I do think people can ALSO have fetishes that relate to gender roles/expression), and I think people who assume the two are the same thing are, well, wildly missing the point.

But for one who’s particularly fond of logic, you haven’t shown any logical connection between “medical condition” and “non-fetish.”

You seem to be appealing to something like public opinion: “Most people find fetishes distasteful (or maybe it’s “find them frivolous”), therefore something’s being a fetish means people cannot have legitimate psychological needs that stem from it.”

Which, well… prove it.

Yes, THIS.

It’s LOGIC, baby.

(where by LOGIC is meant “getting burden of proof exactly backwards.”)

Well actually no, since we’re really talking about a helluva lot more than -theory- -here-, aren’t we; it’s really more like the equivalent of, MRA goes to a feminist’s blog, or for that matter any woman who’s been talking in a way that gets up MRA’s ass, any post will do, and goes,

“well! Prove to me that women weren’t evolved/designed by God especially to do my laundry! Prove that consciousness doesn’t start at conception! Prove that the painful experience you’re talking about is REAL rape, REALLY! (*koffDrCrippenkoff*) Prove that feminism isn’t a sinister plot concocted by evil bunnies to turn me into a castrated newt! Can’t do it, can you? Oo look at that, she’s getting all MAD now. Yer so ILLOGICAL. *urp* Oooo, I bet you want to talk about FEELINGS now. -nods- knowingly- That’s cause you’re all, like, hysterical and stuff…”

That this is roughly equivalent to me going to a rad-fem’s blog and saying “prove to me why your theories aren’t a crock of shit. PS you’re rubbish” is neither here nor there.