I think I'm opening a can of worms here...

[Valerie]

I hope this hasn't been addressed in depth anywhere else on the site...but then, people have said topics get re-visited frequently around here! 

There is a TS woman I know of here in town.... and before I knew for a fact that she identifies as TS, I had noticed that her demeanor is very much like that of a stereotypical gay man.  More recently I saw an internet profile for her in which she states that she is a pre-op transexual woman.  She had also written, in parentheses, "there is an extra surprise under my vickis"....(whatever a vickis is, I still haven't figured it out)...(maybe an affectionate nickname for Victoria's Secrets??)

It got me wondering, how do you suppose someone such as she might want to be related to? Is there a difference in the way a fully transitioned TS woman is treated versus one who decides to retain male anatomy? I'm not talking about those who cannot have SRS for health or financial reasons, but those who choose to keep Junior for 'fun' or convenience.

I mean, I would imagine that the only circumstance in which anyone else would know about Junior would only come up prior to an intimate encounter (hopefully prior and not during!)...but who knows, I know nothing about this stuff...  But let's say you did know, just as an average person, not a romantic interest... and you're in a room full of women...would you feel any differently or feel uncomfortable if one of those women was known to have male anatomy? Or would it simply depend on how she conducted herself? I'm not talking about a cross-dressing man, but someone who is doing the actual transition...

She described herself as pre-op, but she seems so proud of her 'extra surprise' that it doesn't imply she'd appreciate surgery... I think I have read somewhere here, and that many of you might say, that if she plans on retaining the benefits of her male 'parts', that she's not 'really' a woman.  What about if, say, she's begun living FT as a woman and plans to eventually have the SRS, would you say there's anything wrong with such an individual taking advantage of Junior while he's still around? 

I have considered the notion that perhaps she made the 'extra surprise' comment for the benefit of those who might not know what 'transexual' means. But the questions arose in my mind and I don't mean that they ought to be answered in light of this particular individual, but as a hypothetical situation. 

Also, I imagine that there may be some people here who identify with what I've proposed, and I mean no disrespect at all by inquiring...just trying to wrap my brain around all this... Hope I haven't exasperated anyone---I'll shut my keyboard now 

Valerie

[Valerie]

Short, sweet, to the point, and seems to make sense...now why couldn't I have thought of that?

[stephanie_craxford]

Hello there Val,

It would seem that her/his internet profile is more of an advertisement than anything else for why would you want to mention it at all.  I won't get into a TS who is non-op or pre-op but  I believe it would be safe to say that most TS would not bother to mention what would be a an offending deformity rather than brag about it.  Still different people, different attitudes.  Who knows...

Steph

[Sarah Louise]

Not too many TS girls want to keep that part and they certainly aren't proud of it and wanting to show it off.  It sounds more like a transvestite to me.

Sarah L.

[Leigh]

 Maybe a gay man in denial?  Claiming being female keeps from admitting the truith to themselves?

Is there a difference in the way a fully transitioned TS woman is treated versus one who decides to retain male anatomy? I'm not talking about those who cannot have SRS for health or financial reasons, but those who choose to keep Junior for 'fun' or convenience.

The word tolerated comes to mind, and that is with their clothes on.  If that person was with another who wants one of those, a pan sexual group or a bi person I doubt they would care.  In a lesbian group where nudity is the norm, exposing one of those would lead to never needing surgery.

  But let's say you did know, just as an average person, not a romantic interest... and you're in a room full of women...would you feel any differently or feel uncomfortable if one of those women was known to have male anatomy?

If they were transitioning and I knew it, my reactions would be different than if what you described was the case.    Could I relate to them in the same way as a person in transition-no.  Do we have anything in common-no.

She described herself as pre-op, but she seems so proud of her 'extra surprise' that it doesn't imply she'd appreciate surgery... I think I have read somewhere here, and that many of you might say, that if she plans on retaining the benefits of her male 'parts', that she's not 'really' a woman.  What about if, say, she's begun living FT as a woman and plans to eventually have the SRS, would you say there's anything wrong with such an individual taking advantage of Junior while he's still around? 

If they want to use it thats fine--its their life.  I can say for me that until my surgery it had been years since anyone has seen me naked from the waist down.  Even at the parties I attended prior to surgery or the women I dated, no one!

[ginaroxx79]

As someone who is DEFINATELY pre-op and does plan to go all the way yet still uses "Junior"
I feel that I should interject here. I DO consider myself female even though I am still fully sexual. If my nose were deformed, I would still breathe through it.

I have always been drawn to bi-sexual men because they seem (at least in my experience)less hyper-femme and more like the typical man which is what i want. This has actually served me well as they have been accepting of my temporary "in-between" state.

My opinion could be skewed by my age. I began presenting as female-ish at 16 and living as a woman at 22 but didnt take any hormones until 24. So whether or not I liked it there was still a hormonal urge for release.

[ginaroxx79]

WOW! I GUESS I KILLED THIS THREAD!

[Valerie]

Goodness, no, G-Roxx, you sure didn't....   I was simply waiting until an accumulation of ideas were posted before I replied to any of it... quite honestly, I am very appreciative of your candor and sticking your neck out for the benefit of myself and others gaining understanding.  I'm too tired/brain-dead at present to write anything intelligent, so leave it at this for now, and I will be back to write more in depth.  I just couldn't continue on with you under the impression that your thoughts weren't appreciated...   

XOXO,
Valerie

[Kendall]

This sort of is my dilema of the whole labels and such. On one hand I hear some say they dont like labels. Then I hear like this post where you wonder if this person should fit in this pre-op transsexual category, or ->-bleeped-<-, or gay man and sort of confusion. I guess thats why there are so many sites that try to define the different "transgender" categories with definitions, though there are no real universals besides the main extremes.

I myself would like to take hormones, develope some, then stop, or just get implants. I dont ever see myself having srs. To many out their this is called whatever.

In the 80s a "Transgenderist" was used to describe the people that that dwelled as full time women (from just dressed, to hormone/implants", yet still had their parts and were not "->-bleeped-<-s"(sex workers).

In the 90s with the dawn of the internet this word was taken to mean the entire community and spectrum, so the word for this middle spectrum of none sex workers was sort of lost. There are variations on what it should be now, but the most easily understood by none cross gender knowledge people is Pre or Non op TS. I think this isnt as harsh or negative as ->-bleeped-<-, but not as vague or crazy sounding and isnt as confusing as using transgenderist (which now sounds vague and indecisive).

Does it matter? Maybe.

There was that post last week about the word Transsexual for post ops. Many responded that post ops are actually just women. And that the word transsexual can actually be dropped sort of. This is pretty clear for those that srs. For me is putting Pre op TS in my description wrong. Maybe , since I dont plan on going all the way. I dont like it how non op sounds. "Non" is sort of negative. I would maybe try ->-bleeped-<-, but that is the wrong impression. I dont plan on having sex or making nude  videos or pics. I guess I am headed to being a transgenderist (wanting to live full time as a women, without srs, 80s definition) but that word has lost meaning.

This person sounds like a ->-bleeped-<- , but I understand how you dont want her label to sort of taint the TS label.

I think that the media and ->-bleeped-<-s (talk shows ex Jerry Springer and Geraldo) had turned TSes into sort of meaning ->-bleeped-<-s, when they brought on these wild ones that went crazy, that had partners that didnt know they were a ts or ->-bleeped-<-. Sure there were a few honestly real TSes on these shows, but those are less memorable then the wild ->-bleeped-<-s called TSes.

Will my response help any or mean anything?  Probably not. Its just my take on what I perceive or guess. I dont think I am really trying to help or solve anything.

Certainly anyone that takes hormones or gets implants, dressing, living full time, and developing a female voice,  leans a bit further away from the CD spectrum, more along the lines of what a pre-op goes through.