Translation from the French original by Suzan of Woman Born Transsexual :
Transsexuality will no longer be classified as a mental disorder in France
05/16/2009 — Suzan
France announced that transsexuality will no longer be classified as a mental disease.
Concerned associations announced the historic government decision regarding the declassification of transsexuality as a mental disease on Saturday, the day before the World Day to fight Homophobia and transphobia.
The Minister for Health, Roselyne Bachelot, chose yesterday to issue the decree removing transsexualism from the category of psychiatric afflictions, said a spokesman for the ministry.
The Ministry of Health’s action sent a powerful signal to the transsexual community that it recognised inclusion in ALD23 (their DSM) was stigmatizing.
This classification, rising from that of the World Health Organization (WHO), was also related to the fact that transsexuality was included in the pathologies listed in the medical handbook DSM (Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) which the medical community uses as a reference, just like homosexuality used to be until a few years ago.
In a political statement published in Le Monde last Sunday-Monday, many noted individuals including first secretary of the PS Martine Aubry, Marie-George Buffet of the Communist Party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the Greens, the Nobel Prize winners Francois Barred-Sinoussi (medicine) and Elfriede Jelinek (literature), all asked WHO to no longer regard transsexuals as having a mental disorder.
So I'm not bonkers in France, though I am elsewhere. Yet it seems crazy to me that this was a political decision, rather than one arrived at by medical authorities.
Never mind. Remember I'm legally female in Australia, and legally male in the UK. Except when it comes to my UK passport. This seems equally Pythonesque in its absurdity.
We - and the psychiatric establishment - have been treading on thin ice for decades now. The patient has to be diagnosed with the "mental illness" GID (Gender Identity Disorder) in order to qualify for surgery, but anyone with a severe "mental illness" cannot possibly give informed consent. There is a basic contradiction here, one that everyone has ignored because "the system works". Well, it's only a matter of time before someone notices, and legislation is passed to prevent surgery.
Hopefully the French move is not just a cost-cutting exercise to stop the French health system from having to pay for treatment. Hopefully this spurious "mental disorder" that isn't actually mental will be replaced by the congenital (we think) physiological neurological cross-gendering condition that masses of evidence suggest it is.
We need *a* diagnosis - just not a fictitious one. Just the way people born with cleft palates need one too. They're not considered "mentally ill" because of the distress their somatic condition causes.
I'll quote from the situation here in Australia, and the Re Kevin case.
At paragraph [270]: 'But I am satisfied that the evidence now is inconsistent with the distinction formerly drawn between biological factors, meaning genitals, chromosomes and gonads, and merely "psychological factors", and on this basis distinguishing between cases of inter-sex (incongruities among biological factors) and transsexualism (incongruities between biology and psychology)'.In short, unshackle the science from the politics. Let those who are transgendered (rather than transsexual) not be pathologised for "mental health thought crime", for the heinous sin of being diverse. Much as being gay was de-pathologised, because there's no sign of them being "mentally ill".
At paragraph [272]: 'In my view the evidence demonstrates (at least on the balance of probabilities) that the characteristics of transsexuals are as much "biological" as those of people thought of as inter-sex'.
At paragraph [136]: 'I agree with Ms Wallbank that in the present context the word "man" should be given its ordinary contemporary meaning. In determining that meaning, it is relevant to have regard to many things that were the subject of evidence and submissions. They include the context of the legislation, the body of case law on the meaning of "man" and similar words, the purpose of the legislation, and the current legal, social and medical environment. These matters are considered in the course of the judgment. I believe that this approach is in accordance with common sense, principles of statutory interpretation, and with all or virtually all of the authorities in which the issue of sexual identity has arisen. As Professor Gooren and a colleague put it:-
"There should be no escape for medical and legal authorities that these definitions ought to be corrected and updated when new information becomes available, particularly when our outdated definitions bring suffering to some of our fellow human beings".'
And let those whose congenitally cross-gendered neurology is such that they need a body to match be able to obtain that treatment on the basis of a physiological, rather than a psychological, condition, the same way other cases of congenital physiological anomalies can.
And most of all - let those people who were surgically mutilated as infants to conform to societal expectations not be considered "mentally ill" if they object as adults to their past (mis)treatment.
In summary - to act on the basis of our current best guess as to the facts. This also happens to be in accordance with basic humanity, but I confess that that to me is a secondary consideration. I prefer unpleasant truths to pleasant lies. Right now, we have unpleasant lies.
There is a significant danger: that "transgender" will be seen as a "normal human variation" requiring no treatment, and that transsexuality will be "morally mandated out of existence", with surgery and hormonal treatment being seen as purely voluntary cosmesis, or worse, denied altogether.
Transsexuality as we know it should be pathologised - at least until it's treated - as not having the right shaped body - even if social role is corrected - causes significant distress. Much as having a hare lip - even in a society where such things are not mocked - should be pathologised. One causes difficulty with eating, the other with being eaten, so to speak.
Once that's sorted, we can deal with the other legal problems. Such as the one faced by Professor Jennifer Finney Boylan in the New York Times (and incidentally, myself too).
Gender involves a lot of gray area. And efforts to legislate a binary truth upon the wide spectrum of gender have proven only how elusive sexual identity can be. The case of J’noel Gardiner, in Kansas, provides a telling example. Ms. Gardiner, a postoperative transsexual woman, married her husband, Marshall Gardiner, in 1998. When he died in 1999, she was denied her half of his $2.5 million estate by the Kansas Supreme Court on the ground that her marriage was invalid. Thus in Kansas, any transgendered person who is anatomically female is now allowed to marry only another woman.Does anyone else think that the way people like myself are treated is best described as Stark Staring Bonkers? Because my sex, my gender, my marriage, and my sanity all depend on where I happen to be at the time.
Similar rulings have left couples in similar situations in Florida, Ohio and Texas. A 1999 ruling in San Antonio, in Littleton v. Prange, determined that marriage could be only between people with different chromosomes. The result, of course, was that lesbian couples in that jurisdiction were then allowed to wed as long as one member of the couple had a Y chromosome, which is the case with both transgendered male-to-females and people born with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. This ruling made Texas, paradoxically, one of the first states in which gay marriage was legal.
A lawyer for the transgendered plaintiff in the Littleton case noted the absurdity of the country’s gender laws as they pertain to marriage: “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”
Legal scholars can (and have) devoted themselves to the ultimately frustrating task of defining “male” and “female” as entities fixed and unmoving. A better use of their time, however, might be to focus on accepting the elusiveness of gender — and to celebrate it. Whether a marriage like mine is a same-sex marriage or some other kind is hardly the point. What matters is that my spouse and I love each other, and that our legal union has been a good thing — for us, for our children and for our community.
18 comments:
For so many people, including medical professionals who have treated me, it is an issue of choice motivated by nothing other than a fetish. Doctors and nurses who have treated me seem to start from this point--until they begin asking questions--and then slowly, ever so slowly, they start to get the feeling that there something else going on here. They try to formulate into words what is dawning on them, but they lack the vocabulary and the concepts. My existence challenges some of their most basic assumptions about life. And they usually don't know what to make of it.
“Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”
i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Seriously. i could literally do either right now.
Zoe, having dealt with your sense of humor, I'd have to say that some therapy is required, at least for the people around you.
Not that I'm one to talk--there's a reason Jon booked the infamous Sheep Game next door to the Lancaster Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic. Or see yesterday's post.
Psychological diagnosis has always had political aspects to it. It's not actual science as witness that the "professionals" who deal with GID and classic transsexuality remain, willfully or otherwise. ignorant of all the battery of studies confirming that classic transsexuality is a neurological intersexed condition with a working treatment modality and that any psychological aspects are mainly due to the limbo the whole process is left in and the way society as a whole treats it's victims.
And the fetishistic based TGs don't help matters much by also denying over and over that there is a fundamental difference.
Zoe said: "There is a significant danger: that "transgender" will be seen as a "normal human variation" requiring no treatment"
But it is a normal human variation. And should be accepted as such. As for treatment.. well that varies. Because full genital SRS is not for every Transsexual. Mant FtM's I've spoken to don't get 'bottom surgery'. And some crossdressers and others have issues with hairloss and hair removal amongst other things.
So we should have state/federal/insurance health services support a variety of treatment options appropriate to the needs of each individual rather than a one-size-fits-all.
radicalbitch said: "And the fetishistic based TGs don't help matters much by also denying over and over that there is a fundamental difference."
You no what. Ya caught me on the wrong day. So I'm calling you on this comment.
Please prove this 'fundamental difference' by showing me the comprehensive comparative study that RULES OUT a related or similar or lesser-form-of biological causation for those you label fetishistic. Because Absence of Evidence (if the study aint been done yet) IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.
Science works by ruling things out. By disproving things or by trying to and failing to disprove things.
If you cannot cite a study that RULES OUT a biological causation then your statement is unscientific. Contrary to scientific method and reason. No amount of self-fulfilling studies filled with circular reasoning from the psychological fields without valid control groups and comparative figures where results fit their predictions precisely because the study sets out not to disprove an hypothesis but merely confirm one count for squat. Especially when you yourself condemn that field as not-science.
Show me where the same methods used to find biological evidence for a biological causation of TS has been done on a statistically relevant population of the TGs you count as 'fetishistic' in a methodologically sound manner and yet failed to find any evidence of any degree of biological causation.
If you have such CONCLUSIVE evidence put it on the table. And if you do not then your statement is one of faith not reason. Mere conjecture at best.
Plenty of neurological variations have degrees of severity as well as further variations (Autism and Aspergers leap imediately to mind) so logic dictates that such may be possible and maybe even should be expected with TS and the way to test if that is so or not so is to do the same tests on all other remotely similar groups to look for degress of and variations of the same or similar causation.
And no amount of psychology will do that. Only biology studies using the same methodology can provide that data. Studies that to my knowledge have not yet been done.
And without those studies the only 'fandamental' difference you can point to is one group has been studied for biological causation and the other has not.
And i personally find an entire group of people I would be classed by ost as belonging to being labeled 'fetishistic' without valid comparative studies quite offensive. I have no problem with the term fetish in general usage as it merely refers to a style of clothing popular in my goth subculture especially amongst CIS women friends of mine. But my TG experiences are unrelated to sexual fetish.
When you decry the abuses of not-science psychology in falsely being applied to some I suggest you not echo that same abuse by applying that not-science to me and others until you have your hands on that comprehensive comparative neurobiology study.
As you say "Psychological diagnosis has always had political aspects to it." So please. Show me the biology study or curb the hypocracy inherant and unavoidable and indefensible in any claim in it's absence.
I know we all can be hypocritical and unconsciously biased sometimes till we become aware of it (and it can be a bad habit sometimes). So I do hope you will quickly abandon this one if you haven't the scientificly valid evidence of disproof to support your comment.
"You can not overcome elective deafness with reasonable speech, or elective blindness with graphic evidence."--author unkown
Bats...for the upteenth time,
Transsexuality is DEFINED by the eventual absolute need to put the body in congruence with the mind therefore there is no "no-op by choice" transsexuals...only by circumstances.
Evidence separating the fetishists from the classic trnssexuals already exists and has been tested for years.
No evidence anywhere by anyone has indicated physical causality for fetishistic transgenders. No one will study it because it's already understood and evidenced.
By your logic, any, I mean any, lunatic idea is "fact" until it's proven otherwise. That's not science, it's called magical thinking and is a disorder in the DSM already. IE: If I were to claim that all dark matter in the universe is goat snot, by your logic that would have to be accepted by everyone until someone bothered to demonstrate it's not true. 90% of the time I ignore you because of this type of ....... logic. I shall return to ignoring whatever you say now once again.
Evidence separating the fetishists from the classic trnssexuals already exists and has been tested for years.Then you should have no problem providing some per her request.
BBB - the danger is that transsexuality won't exist as such, but be conflated with non-TS transgender. That because some people neither need nor want body modification, that it will be forbidden to all. Because you know, it's a lifestyle choice, or a natural variation not requiring medical intervention.
I happen to believe that TG and TS are different degrees of the same kind of thing, but there's no hard evidence of this, just indications. It would make sense. Until someone does some experiments though, it remains a conjecture. There's nowhere near enough evidence for, but zero against.
Note that Ebola and the common cold are just "different degrees of the same kind of thing" too, both viruses. That doesn't mean that the differences should be ignored, and although they are "the same", it makes sense in practice to treat them as being totally different.
Then again it could be a mental disorder to spend more money on getting elected than you get paid.
radicalbitch said: "Bats...for the upteenth time,"
Actually it's the Nth time. Where N is the number of times you previously made these statements unscientifically and hypocritically in my vicinity and thus received an appropriate response from me.
"Transsexuality is DEFINED by the eventual absolute need to put the body in congruence with the mind therefore there is no "no-op by choice" transsexuals...only by circumstances."
That is not a universal definition. It precludes a huge proportion of FtMs. When a theory fails to account for a large incidence of a phenomenon it's usually time to adjust the theory, not ignore 'damned data' so as to maintain the theory.
"Evidence separating the fetishists from the classic trnssexuals already exists and has been tested for years."
By your own admission psychological evidence related to TS was NOT-SCIENCE and therfore worthless. Only because biological studies were done have you an alternate theory with better methodology and therfore more demonstrably true. So right now cite the BIOLOGY studies that constitute this evidence. Aint got it? Well if the not-science of the psychs can't be applied to TS because it is NOT-SCIENCE then you can use none of it on me and others suddenly pretending it is now science without being a hypocrit with an invalid argument.
"No evidence anywhere by anyone has indicated physical causality for fetishistic transgenders."
Which would be unsurprising when its not been looked for. There have been plenty of anecdotal reports of closetted crossdressers for example discovering that parents or siblings or close cousins were also closetted crossdressers.. that same observation in homosexuals lead to studies into an hereditary factor in homosexuality. That it and other experiences have not been looked into in CDing is simply an example of greater current prejudice.
"No one will study it because it's already understood and evidenced."
Utter unmitigated nonsense. Science doesn't work like that. Did you not see Zoe's post on Schizophrenia and it's neurology and particularly it's cross-sexed neurology? Lots of phenomena get reexamined and even things thought to be understood turn out to have totally different and shocking explanations! look at stomach ulcers for goodness sake!
It's not studied because 1. theres a lot of prejudice against it. 2. the majority of the community is closetted making them hard to study and 3. most of that community is paralysed with fear and internalised issues caused by that prejudice and so their self-reporting is even skewed.
Your comments are unscientific. Your comments are hypocritical.
Your comments are invalidated by that hypocracy till you have a real scientifically valid biology study that disproves any possible biological causation. And even that could change via subsequent studies.
If your going to use real science in your arguments I suggest you learn how it works. And if your going to criticise things as NOT-SCIENCE I suggest you not use NOT-SCIENCE yourself.
Zoe said: "BBB - the danger is that transsexuality won't exist as such, but be conflated with non-TS transgender. That because some people neither need nor want body modification, that it will be forbidden to all. Because you know, it's a lifestyle choice, or a natural variation not requiring medical intervention"
All the more reason not to allow internecine horzontal-hostlity schisms from forcing apart the activists in each camp so that each group supports the human rights, needs and issues of the other instead of fighting solely for their own. Especially as the non-TS (especially when a lot of the FtMs and a fair few MtFs who dont get all surgeries get counted in that) are more numerous.
Emphasis on the diversity of the phenomena is essential to one group not trampling on the other as they get their needs met. I have a TS friend in my town who needs surgery but isn't getting it. Such friendships and cooperation and understanding are essential to solving the problem.
And the folk who want to retain their reproductive rights, the FtMs that don't want genital surgery till it's improved.. all these require that their needs for both some body-modification and their needs for fertility (including but not exclusive to cell storage) and not to be forced through all available surgical options means a strict all-surgery/no-surgery line will harm many.
So the only valid argument that tramples no-ones needs is that degrees of surgery suit different peoples needs. Using only the poles of the spectrum to measure by harms the majority in between who either suffer longer living an excrutiating lie or state-forced sterilisation (and with genes at least in the picture thats eugenics). When a person chooses or personally needs the surgery more than reproduction they are using their rights, when it is mandated they are losing them.
"I happen to believe that TG and TS are different degrees of the same kind of thing, but there's no hard evidence of this, just indications. It would make sense. Until someone does some experiments though, it remains a conjecture. There's nowhere near enough evidence for, but zero against."
Exactly!
"Note that Ebola and the common cold are just "different degrees of the same kind of thing" too, both viruses. That doesn't mean that the differences should be ignored, and although they are "the same", it makes sense in practice to treat them as being totally different."
And there are millions of viruses. There may not be millions of forms of TG but there are enough that, especially with the FtMs as a big example, not all surgeries suits all forms but there is also more than just all-surgery and no-surgery. Same with IS which you know far better than I is very diverse. So we need a simple system that supports all needs, one that recognises the diversity. A one-group-recognised system will be a travesty of injustice EITHER way. So will a two-group system.
Instead we need one that recognises the facts at hand. That there is diversity. That some people want to retain their right to reproduce and make choices in order to excercise that right. There needs to be a range of surgical options available and the right options found for each individual on a case-by-case basis.
No other option can be ethical or logical.
Anonymous T wrote: > i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Seriously. i could literally do either right now.
But actually, it is more bizarre than that. For not only could Anonymous T do either (marry a man in one state or marry a woman in another state), but Anonymous T could do BOTH since neither state would recognize the putative same-sex wedding of the other.
But to top even that lunacy, under the precedent of Lovo-Lara, the Feds would have to recognize BOTH marriages.
Are you confused yet? You should be.
Oh I suppose I should also respond to this nonsense too
"By your logic, any, I mean any, lunatic idea is "fact" until it's proven otherwise."
No. Any plausible testable hypothesis (ie falsifiable) cannot be dissmissed as posible until it is disproven, or asserted as so until it is tested and cannot be disproven.
"That's not science,"
Your straw-man isn't but what I said is. Science works in the possibly true and probably true. I realise you may have trouble with the metaphysics of it but you neednt read much to grok it. A little lay-person explanation of Schrodinger's Cat may help perhaps but its rather simple. There are no absolute facts. Merely the current state of the evidence and a variety of likelihoods of truth. But their are proven un-trues. The only proofs that exist.
"it's called magical thinking"
I'm well aware of magical thinking. From my study of comparative theology and mythology as well as philosophy and fine arts. Not to mention growing up with anthropologists and an archaeologist in the family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
Look at the definition and you will see I wasn't using Magical Thinking at all.
"and is a disorder in the DSM already."
Like the DSM counts for anything in these circles lol.
Is it really in the DSM? Can you quote that? As all religious faith is Magical Thinking (based on assertion of faith/revealed truth independant of evidence or testable hypothesis) the worlds religious communities may be alarmed that they are all mentally ill according to the DSM, like so many other normal but not always rational people.
But I wasn't usimg magical thinking but making statements of the possible and probable which is consistent with scientific philosophy and which are testable under rigorous Naturalistic Methodology. While you were using hypocracy, a clear double-standard. Magical Thinking requires not just an absence of evidence (untested hypothesis) but holding to be true one that evidence cannot be found to disprove or in disregard to testing(not-falsifiable or already falsified and disproven).
Intelligent design for example is Magical Thinking. Proposing that infection may be the cause of stomach ulcers contrary to all current theory however was merely science as it was testable, was tested and was so!
"IE: If I were to claim that all dark matter in the universe is goat snot, by your logic that would have to be accepted by everyone until someone bothered to demonstrate it's not true."
No. Though you'd be surprised at the combinations of chemistry that have been found in cosmology and astronomy.. there was a nebula with a high quantity of alcohol in it discovered iirc.
But your straw-man argument is nonsense. You already dismiss psychology as an innapropriate measure of the causation of TS. I propose that the POSSIBILITY that the same may likely be true of other things soley studied and 'explained' by psychology may also be so and you say that is NOT the case despite it being testable and yet not tested. Your the one making NOT-SCIENCE claims.
"90% of the time I ignore you because of this type of ... logic."
Not only are my claims logical but they are scientific unlike yours on both counts. Your metaphysics is a mess, especially regarding science. Go read up.
"I shall return to ignoring whatever you say now once again."
Lol. Sure. But then my refutation will be witnessed by everyone else and your opinion will remain in tatters before them, as it has been refutted. As anyone who understands science or cares to look it up will clearly see.
Let me put this succinctly
Your hypothesis is that, unlike TS, TG cannot be biological. It is falsifiable by testing it for biological causation to disprove it. So you can only prove your hypothesis by testing it. Something not yet done so your theory is UNTESTED.
Instead you claim that not-testing your hypothesis proves it. The most anti-science un-scientific and MAGICAL THINKING claim possible! Q.E.D.
Yes radicalbitch, Q.E.D.
I am doing a PhD on the political and social implications of the brain sex theory of trans. My assessment is that there is certainly more evidence for that theory than for any other, but that it is far from "proven", and that many biological hypotheses have been falsified on the past (EG the HY antigen in the 70s and 80s). The psychological theories have very little evidence to support them.
I interviewed Dick Swaab, whose lab produced the BSTc research that is the strongest evidence for a neurological correlate for trans. It should be noted that one of the six MTF transsexual people in the original 1995 Zhou study had never transitioned, but insisted that they had a female gender identity. It sould also be noted that the 2002 Chung study found that the difference between males and females in the BSTc does not occur until after puberty, which poses some problems for a pre or early post natal hormonal causation theory.
Swaab thinks the BSTc is probably a part of a network in the brain involving the hypothalaumus and cortical areas.
"We only, by accident, hit on a little bit of it"
He also explicitly supported the idea that there is a biological causation for the whole range of gender identity variations:
"I think we talked about a scale like the Kinsey scale for sexual orientation – we should also have a gender identity scale. It is not either this or that; there is also something in between. The distribution will not be simple, but here will be people somewhere in the middle."
"So it is not the entire brain that is switching, it is some systems, and that may also be the explanation for the [gender identity] scale. Some systems do switch and others don’t and it depends on which systems have switched where you enter on the scale."
Other recent research (as reviewed by Zoe in earlier blogs) also supports the idea of certain sex differentiated brain areas being switched in ts or tg people while others are not.
So if that is the opinion of Swaab, perhaps the best qualified scientific researcher in the field, perhaps we can accept that tg is as likely to be biological as ts?
I agree with BBB and Zoë.
However, I'd like to add that nothing is gained from infighting. We should all focus on educating the masses, not on proving who is more authentic etc.
We are ALL authentic.
So can we please stop the pissing contests?
Yay, Ms. Batty! But no dis to Ms. Radical, either. She is writing what she truly believes. This is my sense of it.
However, the 'classical' view can and does stigmatize, and in my opinion this is a big no-no. But I like Ms. Radical. Her writing illuminates.
I luv ya, leah, but don't like the pissing-by-not-pissing thing. Leave it to Zoe to moderate. After all, it's her blog, isn't it?
OMG I just realized! Zoe has read and quoted in her blog a prominent article from the NYT! My hometown newspaper!
I've been trying to get her to do this for quite some time now, but in the end it took a Jenny Boylan to get Zoe to convert.
Careful, Zoe. Before you know it, you'll be quoting the newspaper of record more and more frequently.
lol
:)
"Transsexuality is DEFINED by the eventual absolute need to put the body in congruence with the mind therefore there is no "no-op by choice" transsexuals...only by circumstances."
That is not a universal definition. It precludes a huge proportion of FtMs.Actually not so much. The surgical situation for FtMs is as yet, dire. This is very well known. FtMs can base their entire thinking about transition on the fact that no good lower surgery is available. That does not mean they don't want it badly. It means that no matter how badly they want it, it isn't there to get. Therefore most FtMs are forced into being non-op by circumstances.
Hi Zoe
they are Not Bonkers they are Bigots.
and a few in the belfreys here it seems .
Your expreiance should shoosh all the bellicose babble into respectful silence.
warm regards
Gina
Post a Comment