Quote Originally Posted by MarinaTwelve200 View Post
Well, if there are conflicting meanings floating about, Take the "Scientific Paper" approach----Always DEFINE what YOU mean by "Transsexual" at the beginning of the conversation or posting.----
With respect, that is not "scientific". Scientific method holds that to be valid, results must be repeatable. Consensus, formed by independent validation of an hypothesis results in a unified lexicon for describing the results. Working the same hypothesis, using the same methodology, and assigning different terms to the findings would be nonsense. Once that consensus has taken shape, it is only changed through the same method that created it, but using a new approach; a more refined hypothesis, better instrumentation, larger sample, etc.

Lea, pulling together out-of-context quotes from one government's regulatory language hardly gets us any closer to consensus. As Amelie points out, the general public (lawmakers, in this case) has a poor grasp on things. On the other hand, citing the WPATH document is useful. In what might be argued as the most applicable chapter for our purposes (the one on epidemiological considerations), we see the term "transsexual" used for the first time without being lumped in with "...transgender and gender non-conforming individuals". To wit...
"For various reasons, researchers who have studied incidence and prevalence have tended to focus
on the most easily counted subgroup of gender-nonconforming individuals: transsexual individuals
who experience gender dysphoria and who present for gender-transition-related care at specialist
gender clinics (Zucker & Lawrence, 2009)"


Yet again, we see that those with recognized expertise in the areas of diagnosing and treating the condition agree on the term and it's definition. Any professional in the field could expect ridicule for insisting, with neither supporting rationale nor proof, that "transsexual" means something else should expect ridicule, at least.