Wealthy non-ops

[pheonix]

And I would agree  - in a perfect world, butcha know, it's not a perfect world and some day down the line the thing between your gf's legs will most definitely become an issue for someone.

-={LR}=-

See - and here's where I'll question your credentials to comment on this issue because a common thread in your posts/ rants have been "that's the way the world is" 'what's between your legs will become an issue for someone"...

All the phrases you keep repeating are of what OTHERS think.  Transition HAS to be about the person going through the process, not everyone else.  A decision made to please someone else will always lead to regret.  Fear seems to drip through these phrases.

Funny how fear is always visible in the posts of those attacking those of us living non-op.

[Nicky]

I think you are at the heart of it pheonix.

I think this fear just reflects what a lot of non-trans people feel. "Oh my god a penis in the ladies room, think of the chilldren, families will be destroyed" kind of thing. It is understandable that these same fears bleed into the trans community. It is very difficult not to internalise these messages.

[pheonix]

I think you are at the heart of it pheonix.

I think this fear just reflects what a lot of non-trans people feel. "Oh my god a penis in the ladies room, think of the chilldren, families will be destroyed" kind of thing. It is understandable that these same fears bleed into the trans community. It is very difficult not to internalise these messages.

And see it's part of why I try to post counter points in these threads.... it's an irrational fear.  I've been living full-time non-op for some time, and what's in my pants really has proven to be irrelevant to me and to those around me. 

[Steph]

See - and here's where I'll question your credentials to comment on this issue because a common thread in your posts/ rants have been "that's the way the world is" 'what's between your legs will become an issue for someone"...

All the phrases you keep repeating are of what OTHERS think.  Transition HAS to be about the person going through the process, not everyone else.  A decision made to please someone else will always lead to regret.  Fear seems to drip through these phrases.

Funny how fear is always visible in the posts of those attacking those of us living non-op.

I have not attacked anyone no matter where I have posted.  I simply state the obvious, well things that are obvious to me.  And as far as credentials are concerned, I have none, well I don't have any letters after my name.  The only experience I have is the experience of life in general.  I don't dwell in fantasy land, I'm not a goddess, a witch, a fairy princess, I'm simply a woman, and a very successful one at that.

You say that I fear monger, well all you need to do is to read the incessant topics asking "Do I pass", "Should I get FFS", "What cloths should I wear", etc, etc.  Judging by what you say why should they care if they pass, or what are the right cloths and so on, geeze we even have androgynes asking if they look androgynous enough. 

Most if not everyone is concerned to some degree about appearance so don't tell me I'm fear mongering when I tell a someone straight out what I think.

Respectfully.

-={LR}=-

[ArleneTgirl]

This is a forum to exchange idea's, and whether we agree or disagree with observations, we can certainly learn.  Debate can be a wonderful learning experience, and we need to keep that forefront in our thinking. (Forefront in our thinking??  Is that a correct statement??)  At any rate, this topic gets debated every month or so in our support group, and the results are usually the same.  Lori will do what she must, and I'm sure we all hope it works out well for her, just as we hope our lives do for us.

[Nicky]

That is a good point Ladyrider,

I wonder though, "Do I pass", "Should I get FFS", "What cloths should I wear", is this the same thing as asking "does she pass, do you think they should get FFS, what clothes do you think they should wear"?

In some ways I think you make a good case. If transexual was a term that absolutely only applied to those that desired SRS to the point where they would do anything to get it in a kind of life/death strugle, then yeah, a lot of people that call themselves transexuals would not be. But I think there are a heap of people that don't stick with that definition, instead taking it to mean a less defined "I am a person with a binary gender identity that does not match my birth sex" kind of deal. Who has it right, and who has the right to decide on the 'true' meaning and does it really matter?

I guess the ultimate implication of your arguments, Ladyrider, is that if you are a natal male and don't feel you need to do everything in your power to get a vagina you can't possibly be a woman. Is that what you believe? I suspect this is the real sore point for most people. Might as well get that out in the open.

[Lori]

I know when the time comes who I am asking if I pass or not via a pic. I don't want a sugar coated  BS nice answer. I want the truth.

[Steph]

That is a g...,

...
What someone else does with what is between their legs should not be our concern. It is none of our business. What you do with your own is yours don't you think?

You're quite right but when someone asks or states something then I'll reply.

-={LR}=-

[burgandy]

And for those who think that genitals don't not make you an man or a woman, I would challenge you to stand naked in a changing room of those who you identify with and ask them what they think.  Oh yes I forgot "It's not what others think, it's what I think", ya right.  Stop kidding yourselves, if you want to keep your male organs then you are obviously not TS, you are something else.

Not to get involved in a mud-slinging contest here, but I think it's interesting that you choose to draw the line at a point most convenient to yourself.  There's any number of points that you could have chosen.  You could have drawn the line at gender identity, at passability, at naked form, or at genetic/natal sex.

The majority of people in our culture define "womanness" by the latter, but have to content themselves with assumptions made by the former.  When someone appears to be a naked female, it's assumed that she was born that way, i.e., she's a "real woman".  (That's you.)  When someone appears to be a fully-clothed female, it's assumed that she looks female when naked, and that she was born that way.  (That's the people you're criticising.)

While most people will treat you like a woman, you're dreaming if you think that they'd consider you to be on the same level as a cis-woman, after knowing your history.  Perhaps you've let yourself forget, because there's nothing more you can do:  Were you born female?  Nope!  Are you genetically female?  Certainly not!  Can you produce your own sex hormones?  Yeah, right!  Do you have a uterus?  Have you menstruated?

Perhaps those who choose not to have SRS when it is available to them simply have different priorities.  After all, there is more to life than the approval of others.

Keep it real,

   ~ Burgundy ~

[Nicky]

Fair enough,
I added this bit to my above post, so you might have missed it:

"I guess the ultimate implication of your arguments, Ladyrider, is that if you are a natal male and don't feel you need to do everything in your power to get a vagina you can't possibly be a woman. Is that what you believe? I suspect this is the real sore point for most people."

I get the feeling this implication is what people are reacting too. Pretty much along the same lines as what Burgundy said.

[Steph]

Not to get involved in a mud-slinging contest here, but I think it's interesting that you choose to draw the line at a point most convenient to yourself.  There's any number of points that you could have chosen.  You could have drawn the line at gender identity, at passability, at naked form, or at genetic/natal sex.

The majority of people in our culture define "womanness" by the latter, but have to content themselves with assumptions made by the former.  When someone appears to be a naked female, it's assumed that she was born that way, i.e., she's a "real woman".  (That's you.)  When someone appears to be a fully-clothed female, it's assumed that she looks female when naked, and that she was born that way.  (That's the people you're criticising.)

While most people will treat you like a woman, you're dreaming if you think that they'd consider you to be on the same level as a cis-woman, after knowing your history.  Perhaps you've let yourself forget, because there's nothing more you can do:  Were you born female?  Nope!  Are you genetically female?  Certainly not!  Can you produce your own sex hormones?  Yeah, right!  Do you have a uterus?  Have you menstruated?

Perhaps those who choose not to have SRS when it is available to them simply have different priorities.  After all, there is more to life than the approval of others.

Keep it real,

   ~ Burgundy ~

Good points Burgundy.  Yes generally speaking there is a good chance that should our pasts be revealed we would not be accepted as cis.

The crux of the matter is that I don't believe that anyone who who claims to be TS and not want SRS is in fact not TS but a Dual Role TV as outlined in ICD-10 F64.1.

Hey it's what I believe.

-={LR}=-

[Jeannette]

Good points Burgundy.  Yes generally speaking there is a good chance that should our pasts be revealed we would not be accepted as cis.

The crux of the matter is that I don't believe that anyone who who claims to be TS and not want SRS is in fact not TS but a Dual Role TV as outlined in ICD-10 F64.1.

Hey it's what I believe.

-={LR}=-

Agreed.

F64.0   Transsexualism 
  A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex. 

F64.1   Dual-role transvestism 
  The wearing of clothes of the opposite sex for part of the individual's existence in order to enjoy the temporary experience of membership of the opposite sex, but without any desire for a more permanent sex change or associated surgical reassignment, and without sexual excitement accompanying the cross-dressing. 
  Gender identity disorder of adolescence or adulthood, nontranssexual type

  Excludes:  fetishistic transvestism ( F65.1 )

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/

[Nicky]

Although F64.0 does say "usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with.... ones anatomical sex, and a wish to have surgery..."

Not exactly clear cut is it? It does not sound like there is a requirement for you to want to have grs to be 'diagnosed' as transexual.

The important bit seems to be the desire to live and be accepted as a member of the oppostite sex in F64.0. Perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on the last part?

If you still hold to your argument, then there is a hole, maybe call it F64.05 - "The desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex but withou the desire for a more permanent sex change or associated surgical requirement."

[Jeannette]

Although F64.0 does say "usually accompanierd by a sense of discomfort with.... ones anatomical sex, and a wish to have surgery..."

Not exactly clear cut is it? It does not sound like there is a requirement for you to want to have grs to be 'diagnosed' as transexual.

The important bit seems to be the desire to live and be accepted as a member of the oppostite sex in F64.0. Perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on the last part?

That isn't what I'm reading.  But maybe it's a matter of interpretation.

F64.0   Transsexualism
  A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/

[Nicky]

Your interpretation is possible too. But if someone does not have the sense of discomfort or inappropriateness of one's anatomical sex as allowed for in this description (it does say usually), it would be stupid for them to have GRS woudn't it? - unless they are trying to meet the criteria for transexual, which seems like a silly reason for doing it. 

Also, if your interpretation is correct, there is a big hole between .0 and .1. Why would someone that "desires to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex" instantly be considered someone that "the wearing of clothes of the opposite sex for part of the individual's existence in order to enjoy the temporary experience of membership of the opposite sex" just cause they don't want grs. That does not equate. Either you are right and there is a big hole, or I am right and the desire to have grs is not a requirement to be classified as a transexual. Either way, there is no way we could say that someone that desires to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex but does not want grs could be diagnosed as being duel-role transvestism. (but maybe they fit with F64.8 or 9?)

It is not like a opt out of one default to another system. Not meeting the criteria for one does not instantly put you into another.

This is not even considering that most of us are not qualified to use these to self diagnose or diagnose other people. (even if you believe the people that wrote them knew what they were talking about).

[Just Kate]

That isn't what I'm reading.  But maybe it's a matter of interpretation.

F64.0   Transsexualism
  A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/

Yes, the wording could be ambiguous, but considering the order of the phrasing, I do not think it is.
p =  A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex
q = usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex
r = a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex

I think if (p ^ r) was the given it would have been worded:
A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex

As it stands, I believe the wording is p is a given with (q ^ r) as a maybe.

[tekla]

Doesn't that stuff come from a book that gets more revisions than the bible did?  Are they not working to revise it even as we write?  Has it not been proven that just about everything in it has both a political as well as an economic aspect to it?

Thought so.

[finewine]

That isn't what I'm reading.  But maybe it's a matter of interpretation.

F64.0   Transsexualism
  A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/

Just because something is written down doesn't make it correct (otherwise we'd never be amending things and we'd still be stoning people for adultery etc.).

My gf takes hormones and will be having breast augmentation surgery, just not SRS.  There are aspects of hormone treatment alone that are permanent, so to argue that this is dual-role transvestitism seems very disingenuous to me - not least of all because the "vestitism" is derived from the French word "vestement" meaning clothing.

I'm relatively new here so I don't understand some of the apparent friction behind the scenes between some personalities - I don't prejudge and have no problem with anyone.

Hugs,
J.

[cindybc]

In my personal opinion I was transsexual and was preop with all intentions of having the surgery to make me as congruent to the preferred *sex and gender.* as I could be.

To me, being transsexual means it is a condition I was in until I had the surgery, I was*preop until the surgery.* I believe that you are preop for as long as you have the desire to have the surgery, even if for some reason you can not have the surgery, whether it be because of money, medical, poor physical and psychological, health but you would still have the surgery if it were in any way possible to do so in the future.

After surgery you are as female/male as medical science can make you, you begin your new life as your true self. May God bless your hide if you are not ready to accept that roll. Better go back to transsexual school or be prepared to skulk around street corners, dark alleys after dark and hide in your little hole during the day lest someone sees you. If you are TG, my best advice is, please seriously think about it before you play the game. A dead serious game.

Cindy

[Shana A]

It really would be nice if the non-op section could be a place where those who have made this choice could be supported by others instead of being told that their identities don't exist, or being redefined as dual transvestic whatevers... I don't see non-ops barging into conversations in the post op forum telling peeps that they don't exist.

Z