how to tell transwomen from crossdressers

[Annah]

imagine a young girl in a stall in the bathroom doing #1 or #2 (lol).....the stall next to her is a TV pleasuring himself because he likes the way his pantyhose feel on his legs...

That's the same type of argument conservative lawmakers say about transsexuals. Using overextended stereotypical behavior to fuel fear in those who really do not understand a specific set of people.

[jamie nicole]

That's the same type of argument conservative lawmakers say about transsexuals. Using overextended stereotypical behavior to fuel fear in those who really do not understand a specific set of people.

which is exactly why those exclusions should be implemented and exactly why we need to educate the public.......so they know, that TG are NOT tv's, and that we identify as being the opposite sex and are not TG simply because dressing as the opposite sex sexually arouses us.  That argument will always be made because with TV, it is a very valid argument and there is always the possibility that it could happen.
That is why I am often hired thru honorariums, to speak on the subject........to help educate and clarify the issue.

[jamie nicole]

In all fairness, when I read your earlier statement, I thought the same thing. To say you would never let your daughter in the same restroom as a crossdresser because they dress for sexual excitement leaves little room to the imagination to what you meant by that statement.

Here is a very thought provoking question I have:  the comment I provided was, in all fairness, rather vague and open ended (and left to the imagination as I did not elaborate on my thought)..........but I'm wondering why you (and regan), the first thought that erupted, with all the possibilities, was the first thought of "pedophile?"
With that being the first thought that both of you had, would it be fair to say that deep in your subconscience, you (and regan) have some of these same sterotypical behaviors that you talk about so passionately?  With pedophile being the first thoughts, it certainly could be argued, yes?

[Annah]

Here is a very thought provoking question I have:  the comment I provided was, in all fairness, rather vague and open ended (and left to the imagination as I did not elaborate on my thought)..........but I'm wondering why you (and regan), the first thought that erupted, with all the possibilities, was the first thought of "pedophile?"
With that being the first thought that both of you had, would it be fair to say that deep in your subconscience, you (and regan) have some of these same sterotypical behaviors that you talk about so passionately?  With pedophile being the first thoughts, it certainly could be argued, yes?

Because you correlated a crossdresser as a sexual deviant in the women's bathroom for a purpose of sexual activity of some kind and then you mentioned your daughter which would surmise that the crossdresser is capable of committing a sexual deviant activity in the presence of a minor; i.e, pedophilia. Even if the person was in the next stall doing it, the state would charge that person with sexual activities in the presence of a minor.

And you backed this comment a few posts later when you commented that a crossdresser would go to a female bathroom to masturbate with their pantyhose; which is eerily similar to what right winged conservatives would declare a transsexual of doing.

Your message certainly did not convey the meaning that you would not have your daughter in the bathroom with a crossdresser because he does not have a "F" on his driver's license.

[jamie nicole]

Because you correlated a crossdresser as a sexual deviant in the women's bathroom for a purpose of sexual activity of some kind and then you mentioned your daughter which would surmise that the crossdresser is capable of committing a sexual deviant activity in the presence of a minor; i.e, pedophilia. Regardless of even the pedophilia you commented on that a crossdresser would go to a female bathroom to masturbate with their pantyhose; which is eerily similar to what right winged conservatives would declare a transsexual of doing.

Your message certainly did not convey the meaning that you would not have your daughter in the bathroom with a crossdresser because he does not have a "F" on his driver's license.

re read the comment.....not a crossdresser but a ->-bleeped-<-......re read the last sentence of my comment

[Annah]

A ->-bleeped-<- is an older medical term which is now coined as an offensive term for those who crossdress. It's the same thing.

It's similar to how the older medical term of mentally retarded is the offensive term for those who are mentally disabled.

A crossdresser is someone who wears opposite gender clothing for sexual gratification OR to express an occasional experience being dressed in the opposite gender to feel that way. When they do it for sexual gratification, chances are they do this in the privacy of their own home rather than the bathroom of Barnes and Noble.

but i wont get off topic on that as that is for another thread entirely.

[MarinaM]

That's the tax bracket I'm in! I'm not growing up, though.

High five! Love it.

[jamie nicole]

Because you correlated a crossdresser as a sexual deviant in the women's bathroom for a purpose of sexual activity of some kind and then you mentioned your daughter which would surmise that the crossdresser is capable of committing a sexual deviant activity in the presence of a minor; i.e, pedophilia. Even if the person was in the next stall doing it, the state would charge that person with sexual activities in the presence of a minor.

And you backed this comment a few posts later when you commented that a crossdresser would go to a female bathroom to masturbate with their pantyhose; which is eerily similar to what right winged conservatives would declare a transsexual of doing.

Your message certainly did not convey the meaning that you would not have your daughter in the bathroom with a crossdresser because he does not have a "F" on his driver's license.

nor did I make the correlation between sexual deviancy and crossdressers.  I simply stated what is in the psych books regarding ->-bleeped-<-s and why they are labled as such.... nor do crossdressers dress in opposite sex attire for sexual arousal.......but it is rather intriquing that "pedophile" was the first thought.

[jamie nicole]

A ->-bleeped-<- is an older medical term which is now coined as an offensive term for those who crossdress. It's the same thing.

It's similar to how the older medical term of mentally retarded is the offensive term for those who are mentally disabled.

A crossdresser is someone who wears opposite gender clothing for sexual gratification OR to express an occasional experience being dressed in the opposite gender to feel that way. When they do it for sexual gratification, chances are they do this in the privacy of their own home rather than the bathroom of Barnes and Noble.

but i wont get off topic on that as that is for another thread entirely.

but there is also the chance that a ->-bleeped-<- would do it in a stall next to a young girl and that is where the concern comes in and rightfully so.

[Annah]

but it is rather intriquing that "pedophile" was the first thought.

I already answered that:

Because you correlated a crossdresser ->-bleeped-<- as a sexual deviant in the women's bathroom for a purpose of sexual activity of some kind and then you mentioned your daughter which would surmise that the crossdresser ->-bleeped-<- is capable of committing a sexual deviant activity in the presence of a minor; i.e, pedophilia. Even if the person was in the next stall doing it (as you stated in the next post concerning the illegal sexual activity of them masturbating in their pantyhose and how you do not want your daughter in the same bathroom), the state would charge that person with sexual activities in the presence of a minor. Federal Statute 247 F .3d 1158 Floroda statutes 827.03, 827.071

Source regarding Sex Crime in the presence of a minor: Pasco County, FL Sheriff Deputy from 1993-1997.

[jamie nicole]

I already answered that:

Because you correlated a crossdresser ->-bleeped-<- as a sexual deviant in the women's bathroom for a purpose of sexual activity of some kind and then you mentioned your daughter which would surmise that the crossdresser ->-bleeped-<- is capable of committing a sexual deviant activity in the presence of a minor; i.e, pedophilia. Even if the person was in the next stall doing it (as you stated in the next post concerning the illegal sexual activity of them masturbating in their pantyhose and how you do not want your daughter in the same bathroom), the state would charge that person with sexual activities in the presence of a minor. Federal Statute 247 F .3d 1158

Source regarding Sex Crime in the presence of a minor: Pasco County, FL Sheriff Deputy from 1993-1997.

re read the original comment

[jamie nicole]

I already answered that:

Because you correlated a crossdresser ->-bleeped-<- as a sexual deviant in the women's bathroom for a purpose of sexual activity of some kind and then you mentioned your daughter which would surmise that the crossdresser ->-bleeped-<- is capable of committing a sexual deviant activity in the presence of a minor; i.e, pedophilia. Even if the person was in the next stall doing it (as you stated in the next post concerning the illegal sexual activity of them masturbating in their pantyhose and how you do not want your daughter in the same bathroom), the state would charge that person with sexual activities in the presence of a minor. Federal Statute 247 F .3d 1158

Source regarding Sex Crime in the presence of a minor: Pasco County, FL Sheriff Deputy from 1993-1997.

again, I never made the correlation, I simply stated what is in the psych books and a loose definition.  it's obvious to me, that you consider dressing in the opposite sex attire for sexual gratification to be sexually deviant?

[Annah]

I did read the original statement and that is how Regan and I came to that conclusion

Now remember, TV's are TV because of sexual gratification and excitement and most, if not all, parents would have major issues with them being in a restroom with a young daughter....I know I would.
imagine a young girl in a stall in the bathroom doing #1 or #2 (lol).....the stall next to her is a TV pleasuring himself because he likes the way his pantyhose feel on his legs

That is a criminal offense of committing a sexual crime in the presence of a minor. So it was entirely within the scope of reason that we had the understanding you were talking about TV committing pedophilia. If this wasn't your intentions then you need to rephrase your statements more clearly.

And no, I do not find people dressing for sexual gratification as deviant. We were making the point that you said it was by them conducting sexually inappropriate acts in a public restroom while a girl was in the next stall using the bathroom.

But this is way off topic and I answered your questions effectively and now we are going around in circles, besides this should be in an entirely different thread as it has no bearing to the thread subject.

[jamie nicole]

And you backed this comment a few posts later when you commented that a crossdresser would go to a female bathroom to masturbate with their pantyhose; which is eerily similar to what right winged conservatives would declare a transsexual of doing.

again, your coming to your own conclusion.......I provided that as an example and a what if scenerio

[jamie nicole]

I did read the original statement and that is how Regan and I came to that conclusion

That is a criminal offense of committing a sexual crime in the presence of a minor. So it was entirely within the scope of reason that we had the understanding you were talking about TV committing pedophilia. If this wasn't your intentions then you need to rephrase your statements more clearly.

And no, I do not find people dressing for sexual gratification as deviant. We were making the point that you said it was by them conducting sexually inappropriate acts in a public restroom while a girl was in the next stall using the bathroom.

I never even mentioned anything in any of my comments correlating TV and sexual deviancy, that's something you came up with.  show me anywhere in my comments where I made that corrleation and I'll applaud it.....same thing where you think I indicated that ->-bleeped-<-s were pedophiles.

the general conception is this:  most if not all parents would have (and do) have major issues with ->-bleeped-<-s using a female restroom for the following two reasons:
1. they are ->-bleeped-<- because dressing in opposite sex clothing provides sexual gratification, and may be done in a public restroom.  Likewise, they do not identify as the opposite sex
2. if it did occur in a public restroom, at the height of that sexual arousal, it could lead to a sexual crime being committed if the opportunity was present.

they are not viewed as female, nor do they identify as being female, and should not be using female restrooms period.  They are men and as with any other men (cis included) they should use the appropriate restroom.


[/quote]

[Arch]

Folks, I don't see any clear implication in Jamie Nicole's post that CDs/TVs are pedophiles. I'll admit that I found the comment a bit disturbing at first, but I reread it and her later comments without finding anything worthy of smites or attacks. So far, it looks like we just have a strong debate going on here, and I'd like to keep it that way.

JN has clarified that she wouldn't want a male-identified person in the women's restroom, even if that person is presenting as female, and this is a valid concern both in and out of trans circles. We debate it endlessly on Susan's, and even we disagree amongst ourselves. That's okay. It's a tough problem that deserves debate. But it seems to me that the thread is going off topic a bit. Let's see if we can get back on track.

[RyGuy]

guys i just wanted to know if it would generally be ok to refer to someone who is presenting as a female with female pronouns whether or not they identified as a female, or if i was making an enormous faux pas.

regarding bathroom issues, i don't give a flying fig who is in my bathroom. i just want to be able to pee and ->-bleeped-<- in peace. you're equally as likely to get a pedophile in the womens' restroom as the mens' really, because if someone is going to commit a sexual crime, the signs on the door aren't going to stop them. i don't need this debate, and i think it's sad that people who are already so marginalized and discriminated against by society ON THE VERY TOPIC YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT are trying to deny the rights we have only somewhat achieved- to others. that's all i have to say. if you have more, please create a new thread.

[MarinaM]

guys i just wanted to know if it would generally be ok to refer to someone who is presenting as a female with female pronouns whether or not they identified as a female, or if i was making an enormous faux pas.

No faux pas. You kind of have to expect to be addressed in the way you present.

Foe paws, however... 

[heatherrose]

guys i just wanted to know if it would generally be ok to refer to someone who is presenting as a female
with female pronouns whether or not they identified as a female, or if i was making an enormous faux pas.

I was mortified in my early transition, while dressed to the nines
(skirt, make-up, etc.) when some smirking bitch would ask, "May I help you, Sir?"
IMHO, if addressing someone presenting as female, you sould be expected
to refer to them using female pronouns, simply out of respect. If someone who is
presenting as female should be offended that you refer to them using female pronouns......
that is their problem and they need to rethink their presentation.

[Naturally Blonde]

I think it is very hard to tell transwomen from crossdressers.

I remember about 10 years ago when I first went to a gender clinic in London I saw several transwomen who I thought at first impression were crossdressers.  I was initially quite shocked to find out some were on HRT and awaiting surgery.

I have also seen many crossdressers over the years who I thought were actually natal females and they really had the physical shape and appearance for looking so convincing but they didn't want SRS and didn't want to be female.