I believe in substantive evidence and forensics. Thats why I believe this:
Now, instead of using a classical transsexed / intersexed yardstick to understand your own issues, why don’t you give some consideration to the way science and biology works?
At least we have a common base of empirical evidence to cite. I recommend Diamond’s 2009 survey for an overview of the state of the research.
in her blog post Joanne writes:
Gender identity – does everybody really have one? Organization-activation theory actually allows for the possibility of some individuals, namely those whose organization and activation is very weak, to acquire a miss-targeted gender role and expression – or even to experience ambivalence in their sense of feeling male or female.
Joanne seems to be hypothesizing that Gender identity is a result of Organization-activation in the womb, and that Transgender people would have an intermediate imprinting. It is clear from Diamond’s survey though that evidence does not currently support this conclusion. The current evidence states that Sexed Behavior is imprinted in the womb, but that gender identity is co-mediated by biology, society, culture and psychology.
If we read Joanne’s hypothesis as relating to Sexed Behavior rather than gender identity, some transsexuals may have more strongly imprinted sexed behavior than transgender people. There is an alternative reading that transgendered and transsexed people share the same biological cross-sexed behavior, but differ in in socially mediated gender formation.
The point is, we do not know yet. No research has ever been done on the difference between No-ho trans, no-op trans, crossdresser and transsexual brains. There is no biological evidence to support a genetic basis for a transsexual, transgender, cross-dresser split. Until then, if transsexuality is seen as an intersex condition than so is gender-variance. Although from an organization-activation perspective cross-sexed is a better term than intersexed.