Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I just found out today that in Australia in order for you to have your marker changed on your birth certificate to female you must be affirmated as having the surgery by two specialists (not an issue) and you must be single. (WHAT?)

I am married and so does that mean that if I have srs/grs I would not be a woman because I have a ring on my finger( actually I have rings on my fingers but they are not wedding bands).

This really sucks, who gives them the right to say who can and cannot be a woman anyhow?

Sara.

So are they saying that if a married preson were to have SRS/GRS they would have to get divorced before the gender maker is changed.  Don't they have same sex protections of any kind in Australia?  Very strange and really sucks if true.

Steph

Hi Stephanie, here is their quote "Who can apply
To be eligible to apply, you must be unmarried,18 years
of age or over (an adult) and have undergone sex
affirmation surgery".

So I guess they are saying you need to get divorced before you can claim you are a female.

You can change your name though!

Sara.

Britain has the same requirement. I think it's currently being challenged. But it always takes the EU to tell Britain they're wrong, so it'll be a long time before it's change.

Thank god for Canada's stance on same sex marriages. Avoids absurdities like this.

Dennis

If you think about it further Sara there is a reason, not a good one, but one nonetheless. It is against the law here for same sex marriage so unless that law changes the law on xhanging your monica must stay also.

As much as i hope it happens I don't think ousting Howard will change this either as the otherside won't change it either.

Shelley

Shelley, This is really wrong.

So you are supposed to say goodbye to your partner because you want to have a stupid bit of paper changed... well I have kinda thought about it but then I get so mad that the government can have rules like this. Its all about John Howard, what about his religious outlook (families first my arse).

What it does do is force people to lie and cheat the system by getting a divorce which is also another bit of crappy paper just to change your marker. Lies Lies and more Lies!!!!

Sara.

I agree it is totally wrong and I don't see where these polititians get off making these decisions that seem so cruel to so many.

I have friends who are gay both male and female who can't marry and this is sad but even worse they can't leave their worldly goods to each other and family members can come in and take it.

Marriage provides more than an opportunity to share love. it provides protection for the remaining partner in the event of an untimely death. This safety is withheld from gay and TG couples.

Shelley

Quote from: Sara on January 19, 2006, 02:21:20 AM
Shelley, This is really wrong.

So you are supposed to say goodbye to your partner because you want to have a stupid bit of paper changed... well I have kinda thought about it but then I get so mad that the government can have rules like this. Its all about John Howard, what about his religious outlook (families first my arse).

What it does do is force people to lie and cheat the system by getting a divorce which is also another bit of crappy paper just to change your marker. Lies Lies and more Lies!!!!

Sara.

I you want the benefits of being female then you accept the consequences.  If two natal women who are lesbians cannot legally be married why should you have different rights?   

Leigh

I think everyone here is saying the better option is to get over it and allow same sex marriages, Leigh. I don't think anyone's claiming different status because of being trans.

The other side of it though is do they allow you to marry a man once you've changed your gender marker? If not then they're treating trans people entirely differently from the rest of the population.

Dennis

I agree, you can change your gender to female from a male then marry someone but you cannot be married to a woman if you are a transgendered person who has had the chop or even if you are another female. The point is the Law SUCKS in Countries where they have these rules no matter what the gender. Accept it hell no, have to follow the law yes, unfortunately.

Sara.

Yes, it seems no matter where you live there is always someone trying to tell someone else how they should live, by what standards they should live, and where and when they should do things. The individuality and uniquenes of people is no longer when the law makers have there way. Freedoms are not really free no matter where you live. There is always a price to pay for what you want. Not fare and not always right.

This always changes my smiles to :-[,
Peggiann

Well said Peggiann.

Sara

Quote from: Sara on January 19, 2006, 04:48:41 PM
 you cannot be married to a woman if you are a transgendered person who has had the chop or even if you are another female.  

This is not true.

There are many cases where after surgery a couple has remained together legally married.  The are even instances where a post op has used their natal birth to demand and have a legal marriage.

My belief is that if a person transitons and wants to be recognised as female or male, they should have to live with all the restrictions and benefits that go with the appropiate gender.  No claiming genetic birth to marry.  If your place of residence does not recognise same sex marriages-oh well.  You wanted to be female/male, live with the consequesnces of transition.

Maybe this is a radical thought but if you claim it, live it!  Ya just cant pick and choose which part applies.

"I'm a woman, hear me roar" should be "hear me whine"

Leigh

Leigh, we girls do not whine, we go shopping.

Sara.

I dunno, Leigh. I think it's bull>-bleeped-< that any government should think they can say who marries whom (other than obvious genetic relations stuff). I also think asking someone to give up a marriage just because it turns out to be a same sex marriage and others aren't allowed to is the wrong route to take for glbt folks. I think the more same sex and trans-cis opposite sex and just mixed up gender marriages there are, the more we can point out the absurdity of restricted marriage.

Dennis

There is no political advantage to Government (I am talking Australian, but you can substitute US, UK French etc) in leglislating for same sex marriages - lobby for it is not powerful, and face it - unpopular, too many people don't want same sex marriages & are affronted by them.  There is no money to be made or political advantage, so its not worth a Government risking being voted out of office by leglislating for the principle.
It is a result of living in a democracy I guess.  But - attitudes are changing, people are becoming more considerate & aware (I hope)

Hey Dennis

A woman may marry a man but not another woman which is the identical treatment that natal women get, the opposite is also true for men.  My point is that if someone is a woman or man then euqal treatment should not be complained about.  To fully transition and then complain that you do not have the perogatives of the left behind gender is hypocrisy.

I also agree that love has nothing to do with government or religion.  Neither have any business telling me that I cannot marry another woman and receive the same bennies as a dysfunctional str8 couple.

If someone is not willing to take a public stand and fight for what is right then they get exactly what they deserve.

Leigh

QuoteTo fully transition and then complain that you do not have the perogatives of the left behind gender is hypocrisy.

Have to disagree here. The argument is not about what is in the domain of a paticular gender but the right of a person to partner with a person of their choice regardless of gender and with the same rights. For those transitioning and who were currently married the hypocracy of the situation is coming home to roost. This is something gay couples have had to live with.

To Rana, we are very closely aligned to the English legal system and while I accept what you say in terms of political advantage I don't see why we can't have it here(same sex marriage) as they do in England. I also think that although I do not personally feel the need to engage in marriage with someone of my gender I do have friends who are in that boat. The pain I see them experience makes me realise there are more affected then just the couples and that the lobby may be more than we realsie.

Shelley

I don't need to stand up for Leigh Shelley but re-read her reply

QuoteTo fully transition and then complain that you do not have the perogatives of the left behind gender is hypocrisy..

makes perfect sense.

Steph

It does I agree the point I was making is that just because you transition this shouldn't be an issue. Making same sex marriage illegal is applying ones morals on others for no valid reason.

(Also I don't want to get the lash thing happening again.)

Shelley

I'm a person who is female and I'm married to a female. I'm still married and think that I will be married when I die. I know that same sex marriage is something new for society and that the more it comes up the more people will accept it. It is being challenged all over the world and being accepted in place you would not think they would accept. I just read in the paper today that Maryland has taken the ban out of the law, so there is a startl It is happening little by little. We must not give up. It is our childrens rights.
Sheila

So well put Sheila, It is a childs right to be who they want to be and demand what they want from the system but I do feel that religion and politics play too much of a role in our society and like if that's going to change.


Sara.

Not trying to put Religion down or anything like that, but Religion is fickle. They change with the times a little slower than society but it changes with the times. When I was in my 20's you couldn't live with the opposite gender or even stay the night, but now it is accepted by all religions and society in it self. There has been a lot of changes in the last 100 years and the changes will keep coming. Religion does not follow the Bible, by no means. Religion makes the Bible say what it wants to say. What did Gay mean 50 years ago?
Sheila

Sheila, you are so right those gay men years ago were considered the safest of all mankind and even the romans used them to watch over their women. Castrated men who were shamed as men before they had their thingys out were suddenly put in a role of authority.
Religion never even entered into it, infact many religious people are gay and les and even TG, they just never had a label for them back then.
It is the bible of man that has changed not the original scriptures. Man has added his version of events as the years have past.
All I know for sure is that there is a god but he has never helped me when I have needed him, there was this guy called Jesus who could heal and say a bunch of stuff about god and as a group these men of god wrote a bunch of rules. Sound familiar?

Sara.

Sara, you are so right. I do rely on God, but I don't think that he is going to help me out of my problems, but is  a good source to talk to when I'm down. I don't believe in the Bible and I believe Jesus was a man who walked on this earth, like some of the other folk heroes. This is the way I believe and others believe differently than me and I accept that. I don't try and shove my beliefs down anyones throat.
Sheila

Sheila, off the subject, the picture of you with the lay, was that taken in Thailand and let me say that it looks like you were in the holiday mood?

Sara.

No, that was me in Hawaii this last summer. Yes, I was in a holiday mood with about three Mai Tais in me at the time. I don't have very many pictures of me, so that was one of the better ones.
Sheila

You look fab.

Sara.

Sara, you have stated as a fact that many religious people are gay or les or TG.  Would you quote the source (or maybe sources)  of that statement and could you give a percentage (rough will do) of the numbers of religious people who you have stated fall into those categories.
I am not attacking your beliefs, and as a matter of fact I agree with you that parts of the bible were written about events that took place hundreds of years earlier - and were reinterpreted in the light of those later times.
However you have made a statement of fact which I believe is wrong, and I would like you to justify it
regards
rana

Quote from: rana on January 21, 2006, 11:20:10 PM
Sara, you have stated as a fact that many religious people are gay or les or TG.  Would you quote the source (or maybe sources)  of that statement and could you give a percentage (rough will do) of the numbers of religious people who you have stated fall into those categories....
However you have made a statement of fact which I believe is wrong, and I would like you to justify it
regards
rana

I dunno, I think it would be safe to say it would have to true just based on similar percentages from this day and age alone.  After all being Gay Lesbian or TG is not a modern phenomena.  For example it is thought that 1 in 10 men are TG and I'm sure those percentages were applicable back then.

Steph

If by TG you mean men that have tried on one article of womens clothing then it might be 10%.  I really doubt that its over 2% including all the various initials that are defined as tg.

Leigh, I never really got into the whole label thing. Is there any specific proceedure you need to follow to be a TG?

Sara.

Woefully uninformed.

Simply put tg encompasses anyone who is or could be considered gender varient.  DQ 's to post ops, cd's to someone who wears clothes or the opposite gender as a fetish.

Consult the WIKI section here if you need more information.

Quote from: rana on January 21, 2006, 11:20:10 PM
Sara, you have stated as a fact that many religious people are gay or les or TG.  Would you quote the source (or maybe sources)  of that statement and could you give a percentage (rough will do) of the numbers of religious people who you have stated fall into those categories.

Quote from: Stephanie Craxford on January 21, 2006, 11:36:57 PM
For example it is thought that 1 in 10 men are TG and I'm sure those percentages were applicable back then.

Rana, I found this article pretty informative:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html

According to this article a conservative estimate of "those with strong TG feelings" is 1 in 200, with the "likely lower bound" being 1 in 50.  CD'ers are even more prevelant, with the "likely lower bound" being 1 in 20.

As for the prevalence of homosexuality, from previewing a few different sites the estimate seems to be between 1 in 100 and 1 in 20:
http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html

It depends on how you define "religious" but the vast majority of people are thought to at least believe in a God or "higher power" of some type.  Here are some sites that do some estimates - they say over 80% of people are religious and/or believe in a God.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/mystat.html

You can do the math from there.  :)

Joseph

Thanks Joseph, web pages & statistics are interesting - I will/may take the time to study them fully some other time as I don't wish to spend my online time wading through reams of stuff.
First reference is interesting it suggests 1 to 2% of men have some cross dressing tendencies. Second source was from Kinsley, but has'ent his findings been discredited?
last reference 86% of people are religious. I could not be bothered doing the math - all it tells me is there is a low percentage overall of people who are gay les or tg.  Which is comforting in some ways as I don't want to be part of the general herd.

But, it comes right back to my earlier post. By all means state opinions, they can be interesting and will be respected, but don't masquerade opinions as fact.

When you start talking about crossdressers, does anyone include the F to M people. I believe that there are a lot more FtoM's out there than anyone realizes.
Sheila

Quote from: rana on January 22, 2006, 06:14:00 AM
Second source was from Kinsley, but has'ent his findings been discredited?

The source I provided did talk about how the Kinsey 10% statistic is probably wrong.  This site and others I saw said somewhere between 1-5% is more accurate.

Quote from: rana on January 22, 2006, 06:14:00 AM
last reference 86% of people are religious. I could not be bothered doing the math - all it tells me is there is a low percentage overall of people who are gay les or tg.  Which is comforting in some ways as I don't want to be part of the general herd.

But, it comes right back to my earlier post. By all means state opinions, they can be interesting and will be respected, but don't masquerade opinions as fact.

You were asking Sara about stating "that many religious people are gay or les or TG."  Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "many people".  If 86% of people are religious, and there are 6.5 billion people on earth, then between 55 and 280 million religious people on earth are gay and approximately 112 million religious people have strong transgender feelings.  Also keep in mind Sara's definition of "many people" could be different from yours.

Quote from: Sheila on January 22, 2006, 12:39:12 PM
When you start talking about crossdressers, does anyone include the F to M people. I believe that there are a lot more FtoM's out there than anyone realizes.

Yeah, I think the source I provided above references male crossdressing statistics.  You're probably right since women can get away with wearing men's clothing without being considered "crossdressers".

Joseph

I'm really confused, so here is the real dfference as I see it cause I have liked wearing girls cloths from the age of 3, my mum said I always played with the girls and never liked football, from there I wore makeup but as it turns out in many cases I was told to stop doing that by my dad and he forced me to do boy things, be macho (hehe) and drink alot. Over the years I supressed alot of guilt and became angry from having way too much T and all along I kept saying to doctor no this is not right but they in their wisdom of malehood said yes it is. I never for one minute have been comfortable being male. I wont go on cause it really upsets me. CD's on the other hand I suppose dont want to be a girl but like dressing in girls cloths behind closed doors wheras being TG isnt a choice, although you do eventually have to make a choice to accept or reject that side of you (reject it and you are all messed up) I dont know about other fetish cause I am not into that kinda thing but each to their own but from where I sit being on the road to having my surgery as long as that may take due to health and money, I am a pre op. So is it all in the mind or not?

Sara.

QuoteI am a pre op. So is it all in the mind or not?

If you are what your body is not Sara, the mind is all there is you can look forward to and be greatful for.\

You are what you are, your body, clothing and makeup has about nothing to do with that beyond the shame or himuliation it causes you.

If you can relate to people as a man, work as a man and be a man when it gains you anything, you are a man in a lot of our views, if however you relate, work and accomplish as a woman then guess what?  and that is besides a body born with or free testosterone roaming about unhindered.


Terri

Terri Gene, I think I know what you are saying and I agree. I simply cannot relate to men full stop although that does happen with some girls too (not many but a few) In my mind I am female and that was before I was on hormones, like way before (Age 5). Acceptance comes in many forms and I know hair and make up are not even a part of the bigger picture but I still like to look nice.

Sara.

Good evening Sara.  Sorry to be almost half a year late.  I just ran across your reply to me after almost half a year,  I'm way behind in catching up with the progress of the board for this year, I've been somewhat distracted and not highly communicable with people I haven't had any relationship with.

Yes, you are what you believe you are, regardless of what anyone else has to say about it.  Nothing wrong with wanting to look nice to others.  I'm that way myself in a rough sort of way.  I'm heading toward 60 and not much of a >-bleeped-< or any of that, but I do like to look as nice as possible in my own rough sort of way, I believe most people are like that.

I do believe though that one must follow what they believe and be true to it, for better or worse.  It is one thing to like or not like men for companionship, they can be excellent friends, but on a close personal type of relationship, I have no desire for them and do not want them being any closer then arms length from me. 


Acceptance is something I want and must have, but only if I am accepted as a female with a females wants and needs.  This will sound strange, but while recovering from the stroke I had a couple of days after you posted your reply I find a lot of acceptance from people I never would have expected it from.  It seems there is so much in the world that we never truely learn to see in it's full form.

Always keep the bigger picture in mind, but look as nice as you can whenever you can.

Terri

Leigh,

Simply put tg encompasses anyone who is or could be considered gender varient.  DQ 's to post ops, cd's to someone who wears clothes or the opposite gender as a fetish.   

I absolutely disagree with this claim.  And just because it is beginning to be accepted in some circles does not make it accurate at all. 

Gender is NOT Sex.. My sex status may have been questioned but at NO time was my gender anything other than masculine. I do not, as many others that I know personally, fit into the transgender category we oppose it with passion!  So while the term may be used this way in here and some other places it is not a firm definition that is used everywhere... so before you state that someone else is "wholefully uninformed" you may want to check a bit further with such an assumption! Take a look at resources below.


Back when I first transitioned, this term was NEVER used in such a matter and it really bothers many of us that it has began to be used in such a poor and conflicting manner! And to say for those of us that are well past a Transitional phase of any sort in our lives are still under the Transgender term is even more insulting. Nope, sorry it does not work that way, your assuming me to be something that I am not!Sources:

Transgenderism
Nancy R. Nangeroni,
Transgenderism is the practice of transgressing gender norms. A Transgender person is someone whose gender display at least sometimes runs contrary to what other people in the same culture would normally expect.

Transgender
The word "transgender" is a broad term that describes all people who feel that their anatomical sex does not match their gender identity, and/or whose appearance and behaviors do not conform to the societal roles expected of their sex.
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=activity&refid=035

Next Source
A change of gender would essentially mean the death, or annihilation, of one identity, one personality, and the replacement of that personality with a new one.  Since the new personality would be a new individual, it can be argued that no transition has occured...just a replacement, following the destruction of a previous state.

Since the term "trans" defines a "transition" (this word itself derived from the root), and such transition is contradictory to the term "transgender" itself, the term 'transgender' is essentially meaningless...a paradoxical word devoid of definition.
Unlike 'transsexual' which clearly defines a condition, 'transgender' is a null term.

Attempts have been made to play with the word and force meaning upon it. An example would be to suggest that it somehow represents 'the whole spectrum of gender expression', as in 'across gender', but this is not a valid interpretation of the latin roots. A proper term for this concept would be "pangender" or "pangenderism", which would in fact mean "all gender".

It is essentially inescapable that 'transgender' is a poorly crafted attempt at terminology.

It has been suggested that the value of the word "transgender" may lie in the fact that it is meaningless, so that it forms a comfortably vague label to unite various kinds of people who exist outside cultural gender definitions but who have little in common otherwise. To this end it is commonly used, and this unification may have benefit in terms of seeking political power to liberalize society, or to redress social injustice.

However, in confusing sex with gender, and in helping to make the terms interchangeable with each other in the vocabulary of many, the word undermines the ability to speak meaningfully about the very issues that are being defended. This is an unfortunate flaw with the use of the word.

There is little doubt, however, that the term is gaining increasing and widespread acceptance. It should be noted that many nonsense words regularly enter service in the English language, and become defined by the society that uses them, for language is constantly changing over time. It is indicative to some degree, of the degree of illiteracy in our culture.
www.transsexual.org


All bold lettering is mine, not in the quote itself.

Peace,

Taylor

Taylor, I can't for the life of me see where there is any difference in meaning between Leighs comment and the one you cited in your post!

Quote from: LeighSimply put tg encompasses anyone who is or could be considered gender varient.  DQ 's to post ops, cd's to someone who wears clothes or the opposite gender as a fetish.   

QuoteNancy R. Nangeroni,
Transgenderism is the practice of transgressing gender norms. A Transgender person is someone whose gender display at least sometimes runs contrary to what other people in the same culture would normally expect.

And I believe it is common knowledge, on this site anyway that "Gender' has nothing to do with "Sex" (the act).  We stand by the information that we publish in the Wiki and you of course are quite free to dissagree with it and it's contents.  However after reviewing the references you've quoted I personally find the Wiki articles to be the better reference.

Steph

Hi Stephanie,

That is just it Stephanie, the whole thing with using the words Gender and Sex interchangible is what causes so much confusion.   Nancy Nangeroni is not talking about sex, she is referring only to gender role expression. She lets you know this when she uses the word ( Culture).  Each culture defines masculine and feminine differently to various degrees.  Sex identity is not varied ( some few exceptions) from culture to culture.

I have never had to transtion my masculine Gender, it is just how I have always been. As a Post Op trans male of sorts, this would not apply to me and a lot of others I know. Regardless of intersex status, or Ambiguos Biological Identities, or the absense of any physically observible conflicting sex traits, if the gender is firm, there is no transition taking place in regard to ones Gender Identity. Therefore this term cannot and does not apply to all people with variant identities as claimed.


The other point that I am trying to make is that not ALL people agree with this label and to imply that it is the "standard" and only definition is just not true.  For many the old definition is the most accurate one, and I along with many others stand by it firmly.

The ramifications of accepting this as a umbrella term really are far reaching, and I wish i could get into all of that, but I honestly can't.

My point with Leigh is to not assume that this term has but one accepted definition! I have read enough of what she writes to know that she cares about accuracy and did not feel I would be insulting her in anyway, sharing with her other resources, that would broaden her scope of knowledge on this subject.

Thanks for asking for more clarity,  I sincerely appreciate it!!

Peace,

Taylor

Quote from: taylor on May 03, 2006, 01:09:07 PM


My point with Leigh is to not assume that this term has but one accepted definition! I have read enough of what she writes to know that she cares about accuracy and did not feel I would be insulting her in anyway, sharing with her other resources, that would broaden her scope of knowledge on this subject.

Transgendered was coined as a form of verbal shorthand rather than having to enumerate all the variious initials-tv-cd-is-dg-dk-non op-pre op-post op-yes I am-no I'm not-yada yada yada.
 
  http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/2000/king20.htm    << read the article--transphobic?


Prince (1976: 3) claims to have been the first person to abbreviate the term transvestite to 'TV' in about 1955. She also claims to have 'coined the words "transgenderism" and "transgenderist" as nouns describing people like myself who have breasts and live full time as a woman, but who have no intention of having genital surgery' (Prince, 1997a: 469).

Quotesharing with her other resources, that would broaden her scope of knowledge on this subject. 

;D I really doubt that you could supply me any information relating to this forum that I don't already have, seen or done.

If one chooses to identify as transgendered then more power to them.  I prefer a much shorter word-woman!

Leigh

LeighAnn,

Transphobic?  Yeah, I'd have to agree with that.  you'd ruin some TG's whole life with a knife, but according to them, thier in the same rowboat as SRS involved TS's.  Oh well, don't argue with her Taylor, Leigh has a resourse or two if in any doubt, and she don't get it all from books, trust in that.

And a word of phrase for Virginia Prince, She didn't like being around gays or Transsexuals.... they were crazy people from another planet.

Terri - woman -

Quote from: Leigh on January 22, 2006, 01:12:30 AM
Woefully uninformed.
...
Consult the WIKI section here if you need more information.

I think what Taylor was saying about this kind of thing, is that it is tantamount to a Fundamentalist view of the situation.

Consult our Wiki. Consult our Bible.

(BTW the Wiki is a project, a fluid project, composed by its contributors. Considering it in any aspect as a be-all or Alpha to Omega tends to contradict its spirit and intent.)

Leigh,

You used the definition of a label as if it were firmly in place and accepted by all. All I did was add that there is more than "one" accepted definition. And I supported my claim, your certianly free to disagree, but it makes it no less true. No where in here did I question if you are a woman, or the fact that I am a man. We may have variables that do not sit right on the norm range, but who cares? I was not the one tossing around a label, I was just correcting how it was being defined as an absolute. 



Jan, exactly!


Peace,

Taylor

Dearest Taylor,

In your May 3rd posting, you said:

"I have never had to transtion my masculine Gender, it is just how I have always been. As a Post Op trans male of sorts, this would not apply to me and a lot of others I know. Regardless of intersex status, or Ambiguos Biological Identities, or the absense of any physically observible conflicting sex traits, if the gender is firm, there is no transition taking place in regard to ones Gender Identity. Therefore this term cannot and does not apply to all people with variant identities as claimed."

I must say, I do differ somewhat with this assertion in a few regards. I will give several examples.

If one should have to, has to, and in any way, in any given moment of one's life, does make any specific choice, or "change", in any way, no matter how insignificant, such as having any sort of surgery as an essential, elective, or at very least, highly desired course of action, the physical presence of radical physiological change has been undeniably accomplished.

These moments, in themselves, and during the time(s) that this/these procedure(s) are actually taking place, is in fact, what some could at very least, loosely consider to be a "transitional process".

Not only this, speaking for myself, the entire process, or any part thereof, of in any way, radically changing my relationship(s) to the world around myself any way, in regards to "gender" "self-expression", in almost every way, has required some sort of  "label". The word, "transition", can refer to every single aspect of our lives in every single moment. Time is running, cells are changing, we are physically aging, even if not spiritually, mentally, or emotionally.

We can and do and feel sometimes that we must, against all odds and to the back against the wall of all risks, including our very lives, make specific and conscious choices to express ourselves in any number of ways, that may even require us to change any number of ways in which we would have most "naturally" expressed ourselves, unless repressed due to say, fear of being both physically beaten and emotionally and mentally beaten down by any other person for doing no more than simply attempting to naturally express onself, for example.

In what I personally relate to as a more "unconditionally" UNEDITED form(s), (and for whatever individual reason or circumstance, which no one else should reserve the right to judge, - yeah - if only...) and may have not done so in the past, at any given moment, due to just such judgement and persecution of simple freedom of individual free will of self-expression. This change in and of itself would or could be considered "transitional".  Any specific CHOICE to "correct" or "restore" "self-congruency", in any manner, especially in any noticeable physical or phsyiological manner - would be considered, by most, a transitional process. 

If you were blessed to the extent that none of these daily living "transitional" issues that arise for many people, myself included, some very deeply painful, difficult, challenging, life-threatening, overwhelming - in many ways...
then this, for you, was and still is, obviously truly good for you, and obviously less full of strife and loss and conflicts which many of us will unavoidably have to, or had to, already face in one way or another.

For me, it's not a question of whether or not the "identity is firm" as you put it, it's just a matter of me finally and fearlessly personally going about whatever process(es) and challenges and learning experiences that i will encounter as a direct result of no longer being anything but myself as I would most like to be and express myself more than anything else in my life - finally being more/most comfortable in my own skin, than ever before, and so palpably so,
that most people that have known me are shocked at the difference - still the same person in many ways, but now - more CLEAR and more PRESENT in many ways, than ever before - for example, and it shows, as it were...

For me, i dont consider this the correction of a horrible biological mistake, as i know that some do. For me, I now feel more than ever, as if this was just the next "step" in my own personal evolvement as a person and a human being. If I had been "ready " to take this course of action in my life, at an earlier time, I would have done so, but events and experiences and an overwhelming flood of repressed memories, feelings, and "most natural self-expressions" in every form, simply flooded the circuits, and at a particular moment in my life that i had never arrived at exactly before and in exactly that manner -

Therefore - I was literally overcome, with what in many ways, at the very least, I would have to consider a hugely, beautifully, painfully beautiful, beautifully painful, and amazing and challenging transformational process, and therefore, "transitional" in that it does, over a period of time, at least for me, change all recognizable forms of the past "me", as others percieved it, from one specific recognizable form to another one altogether.   

All of life is a gigantic transitional process, from one moment to the next, and our perception of time is meaningless if we accept that everything in the known universe exists only as it is at that particular moment, and therefore happens only once ever, in every single time and only in every single moment. In other words, every single moment is it's own universal singularity, and the entire equation changes in every single milli-milli-milli-milli second, down to the very last atomic particle, and so on... is in a constant state of "transition", if you will...

On the human scale, we perceive time by recording it's passage, and in days, events, experiences, and moments we call "memories", and what we consider as "passed", "past", or "recorded history". This is the "transitional" makeup of part of the very nature of the process(es) that we all use (differently per individual of course, even if only in minute and almost indectectable ways) of storing them in a specific sequential order, and "labeled" so that they can be referred to in context of other events and experiences that were also subjectively occurring to us/in our lives. Measure of "intensity" and "depth" of affect on the individual person varies greatly of course, and even then, this is only as good as individual and therefore entirely subjective perception, as it's almost.... (exceptions include being what some may refer to as "psychic" phenomena, but even then, it is still not that individuals' direct personal experience) ....impossible to literally stand in someone else's shoes, as it were.

In any case, just thought i'd throw my 2 cents into the fray - Could all be useless mutterings and ramblings.....

Hope you are doing as well as you can, always.
Most sincerely and respectfully yours,


ChefAnnagirl

Hi AnnaGirl,

Let me break down what I said:  "I have never had to transtion my masculine Gender, it is just how I have always been. This is specifically my experience, not asserting that others do not have to alter their gender expression/role/etc. sure they do! As a Post Op trans male of sorts, this would not apply to me and a lot of others I know. Regardless of intersex status, or Ambiguos Biological Identities, or the absense of any physically observible conflicting sex traits, if the gender is firm, there is no transition taking place in regard to ones Gender Identity. Therefore this term cannot and does not apply to all people with variant identities as claimed." 

Now in no way am I asserting that it does not apply to others, there are those that it does and those that it does not. That is why it is not a good umbrella term, it is exclusive, not all inclusive.  Now I do not use the term Gender as the same as ones Sex Identity, these are two very separate words with two very separate meanings.

Do we all go through a transition? Of Course!!  Absolutely we go through a transition.  I transitioned my physical body, I did not transition my gender, and neither have others I have met. I did not "change" my sex, I re established it, I did not transition my gender, it was already there.

As well somewhere I do state, ( I thought it was in this thread) that some transition their gender on a hourly, daily, weekly...etc. basis. This was not the issue, the issue is using a term like "Transgender" as an umbrella term. It is not in my opinion ( shared by many others) a good term at all.

I hope this helps you understand better what I was saying. I enjoyed reading what you shared! It is good to hear from peoples depths!

Peace,

Taylor


Posted at: May 20, 2006, 03:15:38 AM

---

I recieved this email from a friend that is very active in many political arena's. This was sent to him from a corespondent in Canada, and I have emailed him for the name for this source...when I get it I wil post it.  This again affirms that the term Transgender is NOT agreed with by others, as a good term for an umbrella word.  Please note, I did NOT write this, I am only pasting it here to share with others. For informational purposes only.


The word "transgender" IS meaningless. It is meant by many of its 
>> contemporary users to mean all things to all people, when in fact 
>> it was specifically created to exclude people born with 
>> transsexualism altogether, and was intended to be a "nice" 
>> alternative to crossdresser or tranvestite. The fact that some 
>> people mistake its intention and meaning makes no difference to 
>> its real intention and real meaning. It is a word of exclusion.
>
> This resulted in a big controversy in Canada with much hostitily 
> expressed by the transgender activists on the board of EGALE, the 
> large LGBT organisation in Canada.  Intersex was only included as 
> transgender.  All the Canadian members of OII and one other 
> intersex org in Canada were disturbed by this because it really 
> made intersex invisible both on their site and the issues.  ...

I was asked to attend local meetings of PFLAG a while back, and I did 
do that after I was sent a PFLAG US document purporting that 
"transgender" somehow, magically and mysteriously, includes intersex 
and transsexualism. Well, THAT was a red rag to a bull, as it were! I 
had to go and offer to help after that, but I do know that some 
members of PFLAG here are still being bombarded with transgenderist 
propaganda and continue to waver in their understanding.

> It was sad that we had to make such a press release to be heard.

Source currently unknown ( will post when I recieve it...hopefully soon)

Quote from: taylor on May 20, 2006, 03:30:06 AMThis again affirms that the term Transgender is NOT agreed with by others, as a good term for an umbrella word.  Please note, I did NOT write this, I am only pasting it here to share with others. For informational purposes only.

The word "transgender" IS meaningless. It is meant by many of its 
>> contemporary users to mean all things to all people, when in fact 
>> it was specifically created to exclude people born with 
>> transsexualism altogether, and was intended to be a "nice" 
>> alternative to crossdresser or tranvestite.

Transgender for the context of this site is defined as Leigh defined it. This is an inclusive site and does not deny anyone who transcends gender boundaries in the slightest.

While your friend might be of the opinion that transgender was not intended to be inclusive, the term can be or become what the community wishes it defined as. I posted a blog piece about The howl of the wolves (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,317.0.html), in it I cover the fact that if we divide ourselves, then it becomes that much easier for society to pull us down one group at a time, you should read it.

The gay community took a word "Queer" which was intended as a slur and embraced it making it their own. This totally removed the stigma and power that the word had when used against them. Even if the term transgender was originally meant in the manner you stated then we should embrace it and make it our own.

Quote from: Stephanie Craxford on May 03, 2006, 05:44:25 AM
Taylor, I can't for the life of me see where there is any difference in meaning between Leighs comment and the one you cited in your post!

Quote from: LeighSimply put tg encompasses anyone who is or could be considered gender varient.  DQ 's to post ops, cd's to someone who wears clothes or the opposite gender as a fetish.

Quote from: Nancy R. Nangeroni
Transgenderism is the practice of transgressing gender norms. A Transgender person is someone whose gender display at least sometimes runs contrary to what other people in the same culture would normally expect.

And I believe it is common knowledge, on this site anyway that "Gender' has nothing to do with "Sex" (the act).  We stand by the information that we publish in the Wiki and you of course are quite free to dissagree with it and it's contents.  However after reviewing the references you've quoted I personally find the Wiki articles to be the better reference.

Just so you know I agree fully with both of their definitions.

Hi Susan,

Yep there is more than one way for this word to be used/viewed/etc. That was my main point originally! lol  ;D

I absolutely agree that there should be less division ( there is power in numbers!)  I believe how this union developes will change with time, as will the terminology we all use. Language is a very interesting thing, and powerful too!

Peace,

Taylor

I feel that each religious organization has the right to set its rules for marriage but the secular state has to look after the rights of all of its citizens to unite as couples in some form of legal marriage,  so laws should not support anyone religions point of view. 

Quote from: michelle on May 28, 2006, 03:18:38 PM
I feel that each religious organization has the right to set its rules for marriage but the secular state has to look after the rights of all of its citizens to unite as couples in some form of legal marriage,  so laws should not support anyone religions point of view. 

I could not agree more.

Chaunte

In Florida for purposes of marriage you are the sex that you were on your original (first) birth certificate,  no matter what changes you have made to your body or even if you have had your sex and name legally changed on your drivers licence, passport or gotten a new birth certificate with the opposite sex on it.   


It is not always possible to get society or the to recognize us for who we are.  We just have to be who we are and if our legal papers or physical bodies don't show proof of it we have to be who we are any way and find a way to live with it.   I am female.   At home I can be female.  When I go out of my home I am still female but others see me as male.  So what.   I can't change the world.  I couldn't stop my mother from being an alcoholic and letting her breast cancer kill her,   I couldn't stop my father when he left that night to get beer and had the accident, his cancer spread and he died,   I couldn't make my step dad and mom move back to the Black Hills so I could get my life back,   I couldn't stop my ex from dumping me like I was trash.    How can I make the world see me as female if it doesn't want to.

Hey Michelle,

That is interesting to know about Florida, so I guess I could go to florida, get a guy to marry me for a political point to be made....and have the media, SHOW me and him get married ..., and there would be no out cry? Yea right!  The thing I see is that the world believes what they see...not what is on a piece of paper...sad in a lot of cases, but in this case I personally would find it funny as hell....oh and I would then be married to two people legally...hmmm. 

Would love to hear what others think about this legal maze that has been webbed by all the genius's out there lol

Peace,

Taylor

Quote from: taylor on June 03, 2006, 11:53:51 AM
That is interesting to know about Florida, so I guess I could go to florida, get a guy to marry me for a political point to be made....and have the media, SHOW me and him get married ..., and there would be no out cry? Yea right! 
Taylor

Yeah, I just moved back to Alabama (where I grew up), and the conservative attitude has been making me angry.  In fact, Alabama has a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages on the primary ballot for Tuesday.  Being here (instead of NYC) has made me want to protest in the streets for the first time in my life.

Alabama won't change the gender marker until after surgery, so my grandmother and I just came up with the idea that I could go to the courthouse with another girl and ask to be married.  After they got done laughing at us I could slide my driver's license across the counter and say, "See the gender marker.  According to the State of Alabama I'm male until you 'tell me otherwise'.  Either you change the gender marker to female, or marry us.  You can't have it both ways."  A conservative friend of mine (who DOES NOT believe in same sex marriages) who worked in the courthouse for 30 years said he didn't think there was any chance they'd marry us under any circumstances, and they really wouldn't want to change the marker either.  But he agreed, they can't have it both ways.

Amy

Amy,

I think it would be interesting if there were enough of us that were willing to go public ( not likely lol) to demonstrate this whole issue of double laws and standards, one way or the other they would have to make a ruling...because exactly, they cannot have it both ways.  But in the eyes of the people, I can feel quite sure that the laws would be changed based on whatever was closer to "what they see as the truth rule" than whatever else they could come up with!

Peace,

Taylor

You could always marry an FtM.  That would be a legal way to marry a man if you wanted.

Melissa

Melissa,

HUH? I don't get it.... hmmm, pondering this lol.

Peace,

Taylor

MTF marrying an FTM.  If they don't want to recognize gender changes, it's still a male-female relationship.

Melissa

Oh Melissa that just cracks me up SOO TRUE LMAO!!

The problem with the Florida laws is that they cannot even legally enforce it.
Many states do not show if a alteration has been done to a birth certificate, so they would not know.
Many countries change birth certificates and do not show that they altered them either

And how can a state decide if I am a female or a male sense I am IS?  And using a science that I personally "Detest" as a way of measuring sex, which would they like to measure on me???  My ovary that is gone or my ascended testicle that is still here? Hmm.  I could really get a long list going here but I am sure the point is clear you know? The laws of this country would be humerous if they were not so damaging to so many lives.

Peace,

Taylor