Standard Terms and Definitions 2

[Mattie E]

Thank you for your reply Susan.

You are reading too much into them. That claim or implication is not in the terms and is not intended to be suggested by the terms.

I do understand that it is most definitely not intended to be suggested, I wanted to demonstrate how it could be read and your intention misinterpreted.

That is how the Standards of care defines the term. So we used that.  I did swap out one word, usually, for the much less emphatic word generally.

Fair point indeed and I have issues with the Standards of Care

If i carry your statement above to the level that you have with the definitions I wrote, you are basically saying that all transsexuals choose to seek surgery. I would disagree with that. My path was set on the course for eventual surgery from the time of my birth.

I am sure you didn't intend to say that we choose this ourselves any more than I the implications you yourself made about the definitions.

The statement was intended to show how the definitions can be deconstructed and can be used to deny non-op as an identity, not as a statement of personal beliefs or definitions. Nor am I suggesting that the idea that we in any way have made a choice to be transsexual!

People who do not need surgery do not need us to tell them they don't need it. Just as those who do need surgery do not need us to tell them that they do. The terms are not options, this is not a glossary.

Fair points. I felt the terms given to an extent exclude me and I felt it was valid for me to express my opinion on that.

Discussion is not closed just the drive for the inclusion of non-op as a term which needs defining for the purposes of the site. Not one single person here needs for us to tell them what the word non-op means.

I agree, no one here needs telling, however I suspect others read what is here who might need telling. Nor did I expect you to reopen the discussion on non-op as you had declared it closed. Thank you for still taking the time to reply to me in detail Susan

And the lack of a defintion here does not stop you from identifying as a transwoman. Just as the lack of non-op being defined here doesn't stop anyone else from identifying as such. Everyone who wishes to should free to add it to their personal title if they like.

Absolutely and nor would it stop me. I felt having subjected the definitions to some fairly harsh analysis in order to draw the point I wanted to make out it was only fair that I at least provide the identities I tend to use myself.

As for the control over the preconceptions of others. It's illusory. The best you can hope for is to get them to understand that sex is something you do, while gender is something you are. And this is about everything but sex.

Control was perhaps too optimistic a word, I should better have said "a tool to control preconceptions long enough to get a word in edgeways"

[Susan]

Thank you for your reply Susan.

You are welcome

I do understand that it is most definitely not intended to be suggested, I wanted to demonstrate how it could be read and your intention misinterpreted.

That's why we won't allow it to be misinterpeted. I establish the policy and the exceptional people on the forum staff will see that it's enacted. So anyone attempting to do so, will end up with an edited message and a pm.

The statement was intended to show how the definitions can be deconstructed and can be used to deny non-op as an identity, not as a statement of personal beliefs or definitions. Nor am I suggesting that the idea that we in any way have made a choice to be transsexual!

See above...

I agree, no one here needs telling, however I suspect others read what is here who might need telling. Nor did I expect you to reopen the discussion on non-op as you had declared it closed. Thank you for still taking the time to reply to me in detail Susan

Again that's why I posted them here for discussion instead of just laying down the "law"

Absolutely and nor would it stop me. I felt having subjected the definitions to some fairly harsh analysis in order to draw the point I wanted to make out it was only fair that I at least provide the identities I tend to use myself.

Not a problem. I hope that you can see my position on this issue and most importantly why.

[Mattie E]

That's why we won't allow it to be misinterpeted. I establish the policy and the exceptional people on the forum staff will see that it's enacted. So anyone attempting to do so, will end up with an edited message and a pm.

I was thinking of a wider audience as well, whereas you are, as site owner, absolutely correctly focusing on Moderating site users. Thank you for once more clearly stating the policy

Not a problem. I hope that you can see my position on this issue and most importantly why.

Yes I do understand both your position and your reasons. I do personally find I feel peer group pressure about the whole non-op choice and I may be somewhat sensitive to language use as a result. I am aware that my choices make my assertion of identity harder to realise generally and that may lead me to adopt a bit too much zeal in my "defence" or in seeing a need to be defensive. I apologise if you took any of my criticism as personal.

Thank you