Call me old-fashioned, but I can't understand why anyone would engage in the practices outlined in this article. They all in some way reflect a failure of self-acceptance, and none of them will in any substantial way address that lack of self-acceptance. I have for almost all of my life had problems with self-acceptance and at times near-suicidal levels of self-esteem; but I know that the answer lies within, in changing my mental conditioning. Any so-called medical practitioner who engages in futile attempts to address self-esteem issues by surgery rather than seeking to address the mental issues involved is failing their patient, exacerbating their lack of understanding rather than helping them resolve the underlying problem.

This is ridiculous. Hasn't body modification has been a standard human practise since, oh, the beginning of humanity? Are the egyptians wearing earrings in ancient hieroglyphs the product of a body-hating consumer culture? Are PNG highland tribesman putting bones through their noses to overcome abusive childhoods? There are deep cultural factors at work here that the author completely ignores.

Me too, yet another flaw in my social conditioning! (Sigh.)

Perhaps this is the last great fight against homogenisation - differentiation by mutilation of an otherwise increasingly homogenous society?

A struggle for identify where otherwise we meld into the crowd and differentiated only by a number. Perhaps we have to learn that we are in the end the same - that's it's OK to be so, and to celebrate our beauty and our well being.

I wanted to point out that no one should think that Professor Jeffreys speaks for all feminists.

I strongly disagree with her view, as I've argued at Larvatus Prodeo:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/04/10/feminists-disagree/

I think Prof Jefferey's has an image problem and is faced with the reality of her own stupidity. Just typical of the brain dead, trying to justify their inability to force their bizarre concepts on others.

It appears that she hasn't worked out yet that the human race are just a bunch of enslaved clones, running round trying to make out they are individuals by emulating what others do. Being an individual is within us, its just pure ignorant stupidity to believe that changing how your body looks, will satisfy your inner being. I believe it has the opposite effect.

The men bashers like this professor of political science, (speaks for its self) certainly have nothing to add to society other than confusion and dismemberment. Women dress to please other women and their ego's, men who spend lots of time trying to change their bodies are just the same, gutless and deserving no sympathy for the situation they have created for themselves.

Just seems the prof, is extremely bitter at not being able to have a relevant life and regrets the fact that she lacks understanding and the ability to engage rationally with the community. Anyone that has a degree in politics, actually has a degree in irrational stupidity. As can be seen by her article and the political situation. I don't think Jeffery's a true lesbian, just an inadequate human, not a nice Sheila at all.

Every Person has a right to do whatever with their own bodies.

It is not up to you or me to analyse.

Find something better to do, like shave your legs.

Interesting point of view. I have always been uncomfortable with body surgery and this article puts the arguments against it succinctly. However, freedom means risk. It means taking responsibility for our bodies and watching out for those who would use us. We are misled by all manner of nutters from politicians down. Being sent off as cannon fodder is pretty sadistic. Medicine is full of charlatans and quacks. Some of the most horrible things happen from the side effects of drugs doctors prescibe us. The pharamaceutical industry is out of control causing untold misery to make a fortune from their substances. Alcohol, tobacco and prescribed mood changers cause massive harm.
The people who yearn for happiness through body modification are on a spiritual journey, its just that they have been misled my media money makers. Lets face it, all around is mayhem and lies. We are tube fed crud daily. Even the brightest of us succumb to the confusion of misinformation and consumer advertising lies. No one out there we can trust is showing us how to live healthy lives. All the sadists say trust us we know what we are doing. In the meantime the suckers and the sick will part with their money to find reief and happiness...not. Let's face it, we live in a sick society built on trickery, lies and money.

Excerpt: "I call the practices in which women, and some men, request others to cut up their bodies - as in cosmetic surgery, transsexual surgery...and other forms of sadomasochism - self-mutilation by proxy."

I note that Sheila Jeffreys is an associate professor of political science. She's not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject of transsexualism, neither being transsexual nor a qualified medical authority -- such as a member of The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, Inc

Per the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care:

-- Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID. --

Opinion is one thing, expert opinion another. Sheila Jeffreys isn't a qualified expert on transsexuality, and lumping transsexual surgeries with other activities she considers self-mutilation brings into question her basic arguments. In fact, the mainstream medical community disagrees with her at least on the point of transsexual surgeries. Her article therefore reads to me as a biased, preconceived conclusion, formed without required, significant fact-checking outside of her field of expertise that cancels whatever truth there is to her biased conclusion. Removing the transsexual surgery card from her house of cards seems to me to collapse the whole house.

Still wheeling out the same tired old mantra, Sheila, strong on rhetoric and weak on fact.

Arm-slashing as a reaction to lost self-esteem and depressive illness is a sad phenomenon often associated with rejection. I’ve been there!

It’s doubly sad if done in response to abuse. But abuse isn't gender specific and, as Ann Mitchell’s recent report on GL health shows, violence against domestic partners isn't confined to heterosexual couples.

Apart from pierced ears, I have no personal interest in other forms of body modification.

I agree that practices involving true mutilation through sadomasochistic practices are abhorrent. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of those laws that already exist to vitiate a purported personal consent to be assaulted in such circumstances.

I am disturbed, as you are, by the rise of the BIID diagnosis and the willingness of even a very few doctors to treat an extreme psychiatric disorder with irreversible and physically debilitating amputations.

But it’s a quantum leap backwards from there to your allegations that transsexualism shares common ground with either sadomasochistic ritual or apotemnophilia. Medical experts have now concluded what we who experience transsexualism have always known; that the sex of our brain is opposite that predicted by our phenotype. Transsexualism is a biological condition – a disorder of human sexual formation. Australian law has accepted this concept of brain sex, and its role in forming every individual’s sexual identity, as a fact proven to the civil standard.

A variation of the narrow and prejudiced view you have of transsexualism, vis à vis BIID, is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder where apotemnophiles describe their disorder to be ‘an unconscious genetic decision, much like sexual orientation’ and likewise argue that ‘no one would choose to have something this difficult.’ Their advocates also point out that ‘as little as 30 years ago, being…gay or bisexual or anything relating to that was considered just as wrong as BIID is today, and this should change in the future.’

Perhaps they are right, Sheila? Perhaps you and they are really just the same?

Kaz

I am a 15 year old girl, I have several peircings (lip madonna and rook), I find this article to be unfair, I didn't get peirced to show that I hate myself, or rather that I was abused as a child, I liked it and thought it would look "nice" on me. I recently took one out, does this now mean I hate myself anyless, no, because I never hated myself, I have a great life, a great family, and the best relationship with my family and friends a girl could ever have, and this article infuriates me. I'm sure many of your have your ears peirced. There is no really difference, other then location. Am I to believe that everyone with their ears peirced have some emotional disorder that have made then want to go out and get their ears peirced? No. I didn't think so.

Brilliant Sheila Jeffreys. Now just give the rest of us 10 -20 years to catch up with what you say, which is bloody obvious. Thank you for your courage in speaking out.

[quote]
Brilliant Sheila Jeffreys. Now just give the rest of us 10 -20 years to catch up with what you say, which is bloody obvious. Thank you for your courage in speaking out.

Posted by Edithpr, Tuesday, 18 April 2006
[unquote]

What do they teach in school these days? Something is true if it sounds good to the ears on one agrees with an opinion -- even if the arguments for the idea aren't well reasoned and have logical falacies imbedded within the arguments?

Hail to opinion! Truthiness is much more better that silly old truth!

Right?

Noooooooooooo, that's Wrong. For an argument to be logical, it has to be fact-based, and/or it must be able to be argued without depending on logical falacies. Jefferey's viewpoint may have some merit, but we can't tell if it actually does due to the poorly reasoned arguments of her article. Jefferey's article is just the "truthiness" of personal opinion -- a shabaroon in a three-piece suit.

When is the pro-trans lobby and its parasites going to finally decide what transsexualism is? Even on this forum they can't decide whether it's a 'disorder' or a 'biological condition'. Thank goodness a political scientist is objectively speaking on this issue. Doctors invented the profitable idea in the first place, so they've definitely got a biased opinion, and the pro-trans lobby has vested interests in promoting transsexualism--after all, they'd look pretty silly if it was finally seen to be just a ploy for doctors and others to make lots of money! Mutilation is mutilation, even if it's fashionable. Don't believe the rich sadists who promote it.

If anyone thinks that everyone is either totally male or totally female, then this site could provide some education:

http://www.isna.org/node/670

I have no personal axe to grind. My own sexuality is clear and so is that of my close friends and family [as far as I am aware]. But I don't doubt that some people are mixed or indecisive in this respect and I don't begrudge anyone the right to make their own decisions on this.

When I refer to logical fallacies, I refer to an actual set of propaganda tools that obfuscate critical thinking.

Here are some logic problems with the argument from warexx above:

- "When is the pro-trans lobby and its parasites going to finally decide what transsexualism is? Even on this forum they can't decide whether it's a 'disorder' or a 'biological condition'." Whatever transgender people think transsexualism is perhaps is irrelevant; it's been defined in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care and DSM-IV.

- "Thank goodness a political scientist is objectively speaking on this issue." An "absolute opinion' statement worded as an 'absolute fact.' We have a 'weasel word'-ed opinion that Jefferies is speaking objectively without any showing that Jefferies is speaking objectivity when evidence has been presented in this forum to the contrary.

- "Doctors invented the profitable idea in the first place, so they've definitely got a biased opinion, and the pro-trans lobby has vested interests in promoting transsexualism-- " From a historical perspective, this should be a factually verifiable statement. Again, no supporting references. Again, 'absolute opinion' has been presented as 'absolute fact' ('is' derivative 'have' in 'they've').

- "--after all, they'd look pretty silly if it was finally seen to be just a ploy for doctors and others to make lots of money!" Inversed 'Appeals to Motive' fallacy. Warexx is using sneer words to impinge the motivations of all doctors who disagree with him/her -- doctors and others are greedy. Again, no offer of proof.

- "Mutilation is mutilation, even if it's fashionable. Don't believe the rich sadists who promote it." The logical fallacy of "repetition' is the technique of bombarding a target audience over and over with a simple message until resistance to the message fades away. But, just because we say something over and over again doesn't make it true.

Warexx's comment above reads -- in an overall sense --as an ad hominem attack. It would be better if he or she put a reasoned argument out for discussion instead of the arguments of directly attacking the people who disagree with him/her.

From the first few paragraphs the reader gets the impression that the only girls who self-mutilate are ones who have been sexually abused. There is only one line alluding to the fact that it could also be to do with stress and mental health issues.

The only reason, however, given for self-mutilation is girls' response to sexual abuse by men. Let me say that self-mutilation happens on an individual basis and there is no one reason why girls self-mutilate. Indeed it may have nothing to do with men at all - seeing the issue from this point of view simply puts men in a more powerful and influential light, as if girls cannot have problems that were not caused by men.

I have read articles and seen documentaries on this matter and self-mutilation can also attributed to stress and distress caused by family matters (e.g. divorce, death), pressure at school, and problems with friends and classmates. In this way, cutting becomes a form of release, creating physical pain to mask the inner emotional pain because the physical pain is momentarily stronger, yet easier to overcome. Nowhere is this mentioned in the article.

I notice from the picture that the author engages in her own form of body mutilation: she has her hair cut; and very fashionably too, I might ad.

I think the boxing up of the multitude of practices into one pile, and then labelling it as wrong, is narrowminded and foolish. Piercing and cutting and transexual gender surgery are not the same thing, do not have the same motivations. If the world was that simple it would be a much easier, but much less intersting place to live.

I agree with the second last comment that the article suggests all self-harming is by young girls who were sexual abused. I recognise this may not have been the intention of the paragraph, but it isn't a good start to an article that just gets more and more narrowminded.

Also. What about young boys who self harm? Do they do it to fit in with the 'tribe' as well?

I find it disgusting that Sheila feels the need to lump transgender females in with homosexual men. We are not the same thing!

There are transgender women who transition to become a lesbian. If they had some innate fear of being seen as homosexual, I don't see why they would transition and then remain attracted to females, being exactly the thing that Sheila is purporting them to be running from!

And disregarding all of that, even if our society were entirely accepting of homosexual males, that would still not solve *my* problem with a large unwanted growth that frustrates me every day of my life.

My mother had one of her pinky toes amputated, because it was eternally getting broken, and was only causing greater medical issues. Now, let me ask, how much different is that from my desire for an amputation of my genitalia in order to relieve not just psychological distress, but also medical distress? How healthy do you think it is for someone to hold their genitalia so close to their body that it remains at body temperature? I'm sure as hell not going to have a good chance at having kids, even if I remain as a male for the rest of my life.

God, and people have blamed *me* for being mysandronic! Yes, I'm upset at the way males treat women, and I'd like to see more feminism in the world, and a more equal place for women in society, and despise men who prey on other women, but I still recognize that men are not responsible for every social ill that one perceives.

Sheila just shows me an incredibly naivity in this entire article, absolutely misrepresenting everything contrary to true evidence, but rather appealing to the near Victorian ideals of sex, and gender.

As an open-minded individual I was shocked and saddened by Professor Jeffrey’s' comments. Her article is dangerously misinformed and shows a clear lack of reasoned argument.

Jeffrey's claims that body modification equates to self-harm; an example of the psychological damage inflicted by modern society. Yet body modification has been intrinsically linked to spiritual and cultural expression within hunter-gatherer communities for thousands of years. An example is the Islamic use of henna to celebrate religious festivals. In trivialising an individual's motives to undergo modification procedures, Jeffrey's succeeds only in alienating this section of society.

True self-harm is a serious psychiatric condition requiring careful treatment and counsel. It is dangerous and wrong to suggest that individuals who practice body modification are in some way psychologically disturbed, and indeed demonstrates the same lack of tolerance Jeffrey's associates with modern societal attitudes.

Even on the basis of these few misconceptions it is clear that the article is flawed and inconsistent. It is a tragedy that the author is in a position to educate and influence others and I hope that in time she will recognise the foolishness of her assertions.

As a transgendered individual of 47 years and thirty years of reading voluminiously on the subject, I can truthfully say this article is nothing more than rehashing the old, outdated arguments by second wave feminist/transphobe Janice Raymond in her rant-filled diatribe "The Transsexual Empire".

Ms. Jefferies, I've hated my male body ever since I was aware of my female self back when I was nine years old! It was a good thing I read up on transsexualism, because I would've amputated my male bits (as the British and you Australians say) a loooong time ago!

The only "mutilation" that goes on is that of the transsexual person when they are forced to endure the pain and misery of their gender dysphoria by a society which fails to fathom gender diversity.

It's terribly hypocritical when second wave feminists claim they shouldn't be restricted by their gender, yet advocates restricting gender when they deny the fact that males are born to female bodies and vice versa, not to mention intersexed people.

HI, I am a 34 year old Male. I have been a cutter for most of my life. I do agree that it is not a good outlet for my problems, however it is the only way I can feel that I am really here and not in my own world of hate and pain. Yes Pain... Of course It hurts to cut ones own self... but its a lot better then the pain I feel every day 24/7 in my own head.
Sometimes (at lease for me) If I am in that bad place in my head... cutting gives me control over my past and in turns helps heal my past.
As far as Removal of a part of the body go's .... Honestly, I too have a desire to cut off a leg... though in thought... My head would be better... as it is the problem!.
I am only writing today cause I have been comtenplating the leg removal for some time and I now have the power of the internet to see if I am alone in my thinking.
so I did a google search and this is the first thing I've seen .

Has anyone ever felt like me?
Am I alone in my thinking?
Is there a way to change my thinking and not feel my past,as if it is the future?
please reply, Sincerly
John Doe