Susan's Place Transgender Resources

A recent topic found  here (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,9831.msg70457) clearly show the distaste that transsexuals have towards be called she-male or being associated with the word.  But that raises a question - Is there a place for she-males?  Not long ago there was a debate here at Susan's discussing whether andogynes should have their own forum, and what in fact was an andrognyne.

We all harbor thoughts as to what words/phrases that we dislike.  I imagine that a cross-dressers do not like being called ->-bleeped-<-s, just as ->-bleeped-<-s do not like to be called TS.  But there are folks who refer to themselves as she-males.

So, being the devils advocate that I am, I put it too you...  If a person joined Susan's who identified themselves as a she-male would they be welcome, would we give them support and advice, is there a place for them?

Steph

QuoteSo, being the devils advocate that I am, I put it too you...  If a person joined Susan's who identified themselves as a she-male would they be welcome, would we give them support and advice, is there a place for them?

Yes, I would offer her my full support, just as I would to any member of our community. My dislike of the word is because of the baggage and hate that goes along with it, not of any person who might identify as such. Although I do question how many people identified as she-males at porn sites actually self identify as same, or do they merely tolerate the term because of marketing, etc. If people were to use the word as many in the LGBTIQ community have reclaimed the word queer, that could be entirely different.

zythyra

Personally I hate that word, for it is a derogatory, insulting, offensive way to call transsexuals.  To me, it has the same meaning as calling an African-American person the "N" word, or a Hispanic person the "S" word.  Honestly, I don't think that anyone would like to identify themselves as a she-male.


tinkerbell :icon_chick:

Well,

By default I never use the term crossdresser or transgendered - these words bother me. But, my rule is that I will call people by whatever they ask to be called by - including the term ->-bleeped-<-.

So, in that vein, I ask all of you to call me "Party Princess" Brianna from now on. :)

Your illustrious party princess
Brilala

Quote from: Brianna on January 31, 2007, 06:28:10 PM
Well,

I ask all of you to call me "Party Princess" Brianna from now on. :)

Your illustrious party princess
Brilala

Party Princess?  that is cute!  what about la unica llamada Brilala as it appears somewhere else?  ;) >:D


tinkerbell :icon_chick:

Steph, with no question, a person who does identify as "she-male" is more than welcomed here, as far as I'm concerned. I really don't like the term, to me it is very derogatory. I have placed it in my own mind as with the porn industry, but this in my thinking and that is all. I wouldn't want to be called a ->-bleeped-<- either. Who knows, maybe in 15-20 years the name will be ok and transsexual will be the bad word. We change them so much here lately that who can keep track.
Tink, I know what the "N" word is, but I don't know what the "S" word is. Maybe, sometime you could fill me in. I don't like the N word so I probably won't like the S word either, whatever that might be. In Oregon, we are a little behind the times and pretty slow, at least slower than California.
Sheila

Quote from: Tinkerbell on January 31, 2007, 06:44:10 PM
Party Princess?  that is cute!  what about la unica llamada Brilala as it appears somewhere else?  ;) >:D

Lol

I like it, tink. You know what else? You can turn it into a limiting and also a descriptive adjective.
La unica Brianna (The only Brianna)
La Brianna unica (The unique Brianna)

Your party princess,
La Unica Brianna Unica

The term itself could be considered "slang", but I find it to be a wee bit insulting (and trashy!) as well.

Quote from: Brianna on January 31, 2007, 06:28:10 PM
So, in that vein, I ask all of you to call me "Party Princess" Brianna from now on. :)

Be careful what you wish for, Your Snarkiness. ;D

Hmmm Brianna gives another thought provoking statement>?
Party princess?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :o :icon_dance:
I do not know what i wanna be called

I feel like one of those muts sometimes?  you know the ones that seem to have 6 different breeds in them?
hmmm Muts are lovebale and loyal... hehe... :P
I would welcome anyone any degree of issue and not be the judge or jury not my job!
But i said in one post i do not find the term she-male offensive (i guess i just do not) but in a way its a blatent statement that conjures an image in ones head (a man with boobs or a woman with a penis right???) so in that respect i do not like it people are far, far more complicated than that especially the sub-culture here and that term does not do justice to us folks..
did i just contradict what i said in another post? ???
agggghhhhhhhhh
having a blonde moment..... :P :P :P
kisses
ricki

I guess this begs the question --

Are there people who self-identify as 'she-male'?  And are they really happy with that self-identification?

???

Karen

OK lets stay on topic folks, enough with the cutesy names.  The question is not if you like the term She-male, but would we support a person who joined Susan's who identified as a She-male.

Like it or not there are people out there who are she-males, who are not trying to save money for SRS by working the porn industry, and who are quite happy with what they are.  So if a person joined Susan's and identified as a She-male, would you provide them the same support as the other members, is there a place for them here?

Zythyra, Sheila, and Riki you make good points

Steph

Quote from: tinkerbellI don't think that anyone would like to identify themselves as a she-male.

But if there were someone who did and joined Susan's, my duty as a staff member would be to support that individual, so yes, there is a place for them here.


tinkerbell :icon_chick:

Quote from: Karen on January 31, 2007, 09:08:07 PM
I guess this begs the question --

Are there people who self-identify as 'she-male'?  And are they really happy with that self-identification?

???

Karen

I imagine there are Karen and there would those who would be happy with the label She-male and there would be those who are not.  I'm not happy being called TS, I am a woman, but it's a label that folks stick me with.

Steph

Quote from: Steph on January 31, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
I imagine there are Karen and there would those who would be happy with the label She-male and there would be those who are not.  I'm not happy being called TS, I am a woman, but it's a label that folks stick me with.
Steph

Yup yup. I mean, this exists more in the porn industry. But I am sure there are some that are comfortable with the term.

And yes, it's my job to support anyone within the TG community as a member of Susans. So sure. But they'd have to understand that sexual proclivity is not the primary modis oparandi here.

Bri, your Party Princess

  Here's the way I see it.  The term "->-bleeped-<-" is applied loosely and often wrongly.  Are "->-bleeped-<-s" simply gay males who enhance thier bodies to appear more feminine for entertainment/business purposes?  Or are "->-bleeped-<-s" transsexual women who choose to maintain thier male genitalia?   

  I personally hate the term when applied to pre-operative or post-operative transsexual women because it is inaccurate to the point of being offensive.  However, I do know a couple people who identify as "->-bleeped-<-".  One is the classically defined "->-bleeped-<-" being a gay male who has altered his body to appear more feminine for entertainment/business purposes and the other is virtually indistinguishable from a GG with the exception of genitalia.  "He" is a performer and does not live as a fulltime woman despite his "enhancements".  "She" was a former adult film actress and now works as an escort. 

  "He" does not claim to be female, transsexual or anything other than a gay male with some very feminine attributes.  "She" is extremely feminine with the exception of her genitalia and identifies as "->-bleeped-<-" and "non op transsexual".
 
  She and I had many conversations about this issue and I admit to being very uptight initially.  She grew up like most of us...hating the body she had and hating the social situations that came along with living in a gender role that felt wrong.  She loved Barbies and Easy Bake ovens and constantly dealt with all of the internal struggles that we as transsexual women deal with.  Here's the kicker though....and the thing that took me so long to  understand.  She didn't dislike her genitalia and was never consumed with a desire to change it.  If you were to see her you would be amazed....she's beautiful to the point of never believing she wasn't GG.  I suppose that made it even more difficult for me to understand.  I tended to project my own feelings onto her because that's what felt right to me and I was wrong.  Her personality is distinctly female and her life is distinctly female except for the obvious exception.  She's happy with her life....as a matter of fact she's extremely happy with her life.  That's more than I can say for many transsexual women so she must be doing something right.  Is she a "->-bleeped-<-"? Well...she identifies herself as such but she also identifies as a "non-op transsexual" woman and I suppose both are true. 

  I also have a friend...well she's more than a friend, she's my sister in every way except blood who has been a "non-op TS" since transitioning in the seventies.  She, by common definition, is a "->-bleeped-<-" because she chose to keep her male genitalia.  This woman is the epitome of feminity and truly a woman in every respect. 

  I'm focusing on the female aspect of "->-bleeped-<-s" because I think we all agree that it differs greatly from the gay male side of the controversy.  The term "->-bleeped-<-" is extensively used in the adult film business and media to describe any genetic male who alters thier body to appear more feminine but, by choice, retains male sex characteristics.  Is that to mean that "non-op" transsexual women aren't real women as those of us who are pre or post op claim to be?  I say absolutely not because sex organs don't identify our gender and the variations in gender are multifold.

  So often we say "having male genitalia doesn't necessarily make you a man" and "genitalia doesn't identify people accurately as male or female" or a dozen other variations.  I've noticed a lot of hostility on this subject when it comes those who identify as "->-bleeped-<-" and I don't think it's right.  We are the last people who should be hating on others......as I said, I despise the term "->-bleeped-<-" when applied to myself or women like me but that doesn't mean that the women who do identify as "->-bleeped-<-" are not true women.  While it's difficult for even me to "wrap my head around" we should remember that being a woman has nothing to do with your genitals....it has to do with who you are on the inside.  Sexual differences aside we all share the same basic internal struggle.

  I have to disagree Tink.  I don't think the female gender is based on whether that person feels they must change their genitalia.  I think gender is much more diverse than that.  Certainly the largest percentage of MtF transsexuals feel that they must have SRS to feel complete but there is also a small percentage who don't fall into that catagory. 

  When you look at the history you see that initially everyone was umbrella termed as gay or a crossdresser if they stepped outside the accepted gender stereotype.  As time went on different groups began to fight for the affimation that thier particular characteristics were indeed unique to them.  Skip forward to today when we now easily accept the fact that a crossdresser is rarely gay, ->-bleeped-<-s are different than crossdressers and transsexuals are also a seperate 'catagory' with thier own characteristics.

  It certainly wasn't so long ago that transsexualism was viewed by society and the medical community as a gross perversion and those genetic male or females were in no way the opposite genders they claimed to be.  While initially I shared your views on this subject, I've come to know these people very well over the years and I realized that projecting what felt right to me (SRS) onto them is just as wrong as the way society projected what felt right to them onto all of us throughout history. 

  Many genetic women will say that a transsexual woman is NOT a woman because she was not born a woman.  That the 'prerequisite' to be female is being born female.  No doubt every TS woman will debate this fact because we know how we feel inside.  We can't take our gender off and put it on a table to be seen and prove it exists so we must constantly fight against ignorance to give ourselves credence.  In my opinion claiming that a woman who keeps her male anatomy intact is not a real woman falls right into that same kind of thinking that has hurt us all for so long.  Is it unusual? Yes.  Is it difficult for us to understand? Most certainly but none of these things make them male.  I refuse to believe that genitals define gender.  Gender simply isn't related to sexual orientation or sexual preferences and practices. 

i'm confused about something. if [->-bleeped-<-s] are women, why doesn't anyone here identify as such?

why do we think the term [->-bleeped-<-] is offensive then?  why do we bother with transition if we could just have breasts and [be women]?  why do we bother with  sex reassignment surgery? why? are you saying that all it takes to be a woman is [to feel] like one? to just have breasts? if that's true, then [transition] is a gag..  sorry but i disagree brandiOK.

->-bleeped-<-s are neither male nor female and [like] it that way.  ->-bleeped-<-s like to be [the best] of both worlds; they [enjoy] [having breasts] and [penises]; they're [hybrids] who [choose] to go only halfway through the sex reassignment process; they may present as female but [don't] have a [female] gender identity; therefore, they can't be called [women].

Quotewhy? are you saying that all it takes to be a woman is [to feel] like one? to just have breasts?

I see your point.  I'd be pretty upset if anybody thought that there wasn't more to me being a woman than the fact that I've got tits.

But I don't think that's quite what Brandi was saying (and that as much as I'm going to speak for you, I don't want to step on your toes, Brandi)

It just seems that the qualifications for being female are different depending on who you're asking. Trying to define exactly what a woman is and is not is nearly an impossible task.  If somebody tells me that they are a woman, I'm apt to believe them, surgery or not because they know their own feelings better than I will ever know their feelings.

Quote->-bleeped-<-s are neither male nor female and [like] it that way.  ->-bleeped-<-s like to be [the best] of both worlds; they [enjoy] [having breasts] and [penises]; they're [hybrids] who [choose] to go only halfway through the sex reassignment process; they may present as female but [don't] have a [female] gender identity; therefore, they can't be called [women].

If that is the accurate definition of a ->-bleeped-<- (not that I doubt you, Katia, it just seems that everybody has their own idea of what exactly this is) than no, I don't think they can be called women, but that's also because someone in this mindset doesn't believe themselves to truly be women either.  If they say they are the best of both worlds, then they are neither male nor female...I'm curious what my androgyne friends here are thinking of this? 

The term is offensive when it is being used to describe transexual women...because it isn't an accurate description of transexual women and it's almost always used as an insult. If somebody identifies as a ->-bleeped-<- then no, I don't suppose it would be offensive to them.

That said, I will say that I wouldn't turn my back on someone that refers to themselves as a ->-bleeped-<-. If they are looking for support due to a gender issue (and I think that qualifies as a gender isssue) than there really is no better place than here.  We have transexuals, cross-dressers, intersexuals, androgynes, and the significan others of people that fit into these categories...why draw the line just because somebody calls themselves a ->-bleeped-<-? Don't they need as much support as anyone else here?  I think they do.

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 01, 2007, 02:13:05 PM
Don't they need as much support as anyone else here?  I think they do.

support? yes

to call them women?  no

Well, we do agree on it, then! Cool!

I call people whatever they wish to be called. Though I am called a crossdresser or ->-bleeped-<-, I consider myself the latter. I know it has negative connotations attached to it, but I'm strange like that. I guess it's the quirkiness that I possess in me.

Gennee    

:)

Personally I agree with Tink in that I don't support any notion that implies that a she-male is transsexual or a woman.  However the point of the post was to simply ask if there is a place for a she-male here at Susan's.  I can imagine that there would be hot debate as to the legitimacy of she-males and how they define themselves and who and what they are.

At the moment, to my knowledge, there are no she-male members of Susan's so this is speculation on my part.   

Now here is an interesting notion...  that bears some thought...  >:D  Suppose a new member joins Susan's who identifies as a she-male (whatever definition they use).  I wouldn't consider them to be TS, or a woman but what if they went into therapy etc. and through that they were diagnosed with GID, so despite what the member previously identified as, they would now be considered TS.  We often see the same with CD's who later realize through therapy that they are in fact TS not CD.

Which brings me to my point - the word "She-male when used by an outsider to describe TS I see as derogatory beyond belief.  However if a person wishes to identify themselves as a she-male I would see as being legitimate in every respect and deserving of our support.

An interesting commentary on the "T" community me thinks :)

Steph

Quote from: Steph on February 01, 2007, 04:30:09 PM
However if a person wishes to identify themselves as a she-male I would see as being legitimate in every respect and deserving of our support.

Exactly!

It's always been my impression that ->-bleeped-<-s refer to *themselves* as such specifically to advertise the fact that they DO have and enjoy their male sexuality and identity, yet have an otherwise feminine body. THEY don't find the term offensive, as far as I know. I could be wrong though, as I'll admit I'm not very familiar with porn culture ;)

But in that spirit, I believe we should support them - should the opportunity arise.

Kate

I guess just a personal opinion, but in returning to the original question, would a person identifying as She-male be welcome at Susan's?  If wanting and/or developing body parts and image reflecting parts of both genders-sexes-whatever, doesn't fit in some kind of definition of Gender Identity Disorder, regardless of the reasons, I don't know what does.  As such, of course they should be welcomed.  We of all people should be tolerant. 

Do I understand it?  No.  As a M2F, I really don't understand F2M either.  So what?  Since coming here, I have learned much about me as well as others.  One thing I do know, just don't try to get me in your movie!

Susan Kay

Personally, I believe that ->-bleeped-<-s should have a place but not be identified as transsexual or as women.

Tiff

Edit - Kate

The first place I ever saw the term was many years ago on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.  The ->-bleeped-<-s were in bars to gawk at.  They were these strangely fascinating freaks.  In a sense, they were sexual, but they were first freaks of nature, almost like an old fashioned circus side show.

Much time has passed since then and I suppose meanings can change.  And I know what the porn industry has done with the term.  But I have never once seen it used in a positive light.  I know there must be a few, else Steph would not have asked.  But if I call myself transgender or a cross-dresser, these are at least neutral terms.  "->-bleeped-<-", in my mind is only used as a degrading term.  Is there anyone on here who really wants to be called ->-bleeped-<-?

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Funny thing is, lots of genetic women express an interest in what it would be like to have male plumbing. So while I strongly relate to the desire to have surgical correction, logically it seems unexpected that *all* women would feel such a strong need to have the correct anatomy.

I do think it highly likely though the idea that someone who identifies with *the term* might really be TS but not knowing the proper terminology and the differences in what kinds of people the terms convey.

Regarding the "S" word (no I am NOT going to type it) - combined with "span" it makes part of a term for cleanliness. I only say anything because it is helpful to know what words not to use (one time I uttered it - twice - not knowing it meant anything!).

 

Quote from: Kristi on February 01, 2007, 10:24:28 PM
The first place I ever saw the term was many years ago on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.  The ->-bleeped-<-s were in bars to gawk at.  They were these strangely fascinating freaks.  In a sense, they were sexual, but they were first freaks of nature, almost like an old fashioned circus side show.

  I understand that there is a lot emotion involved in this topic but to refer to another group of people as "freaks" for expressing themselves? That seems a bit harsh to me considering we as ->-bleeped-<-s, androgens, crossdressers or transsexuals are often referred to as freaks by people who refuse to even try to understand us. 

  I think we've already confirmed that some people aren't bothered by the term "->-bleeped-<-" when identifying themselves.  I'm beginning to see that the majority of problems that transsexual women have with these people isn't because of the terminology but because the women who have chosen this path aren't the same as they are.  Wow...that's eerily reminiscent of discrimination on a very personal level.   I think it's sad that we as a community so used to being attacked and belittled would be so quick to do the same to another group of people who are simply being who they are. 

  My problem isn't with the gay males who alter thier bodies and take on the persona of classic "->-bleeped-<-s".  These guys don't claim to be transsexual or women. They are perfectly happy being men, unique men but men none the less so it's a moot point.  My problem is with the denial of legitimacy to those people who are not gay males and identify as the female gender, yet choose to maintain male genitalia.   I understand that as transsexual women we want to define barriers of what qualifies as what.  That's not a TG trait it's human nature...unfortunately that same human nature is what denied our legitimacy as transsexuals for so long. 

  If genitals define gender then simply changing genitals to another 'physical' sex would also automatically change that persons gender.  If you were to forcibly give a male, who identified as male gender, SRS then that would change his gender by what I have read here.  I think we can all agree that is absolutely ridiculous.  It's interesting to me that so often transsexual authors, advocates and supporters are quoted in the media as saying things like "Genitals don't define gender" and "Gender, sexual preference and physical sex are completely independant of each other and are in no way linked".  Why do we say things like this? Obviously it's because it works for us.  It helps us try to legitamize our claims of being a different gender than our physical sex at birth.  Now....when that same thought process is applied to a group that we don't want accept for whatever reason we change the rules?  Suddenly we want to claim that genitalia IS linked to gender.  Seems a bit hypocritical to me.  It was mentioned that any person who claims to be transsexual and is not driven to SRS couldn't possibly be transsexual.  That, in itself, says that genitals define gender and if genitals define gender what is to say that only birth genitals define gender? Theoretically that is the most logical choice.....and yet we know that not to be true.  So if that statement is untrue then it proves that genitals don't define gender and that......proves that 'individuals' who have male genitalia or female genetalia or no genitalia can be the gender they identify as.

 

 

I don't suppose there is a term for "she-males" that doesn't carry all of this baggage, is there?

Quote from: BrandiOK on February 02, 2007, 01:02:41 AM
 

Quote from: Kristi on February 01, 2007, 10:24:28 PM
The first place I ever saw the term was many years ago on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.  The ->-bleeped-<-s were in bars to gawk at.  They were these strangely fascinating freaks.  In a sense, they were sexual, but they were first freaks of nature, almost like an old fashioned circus side show.

  I understand that there is a lot emotion involved in this topic but to refer to another group of people as "freaks" for expressing themselves? That seems a bit harsh to me considering we as ->-bleeped-<-s, androgens, crossdressers or transsexuals are often referred to as freaks by people who refuse to even try to understand us. 

Brandi,
I understand what you are saying, and agree.  I'm not saying that I saw them as freaks.  I'm saying that is how they were marketed to draw in the almighty dollar.  I thought it was pathetic then and still do.  It had nothing to do with anyone trying to express thermselves.  It had everything to do with sick commercialism.

Peace,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

  I think I've finally exhausted my will to debate...obviously this is going to be a topic that is best chalked up to "agree to disagree" and abandoned for now while the mood is still amiable  :)

  This entire conversation is one of the reasons why Susan's site is a jewel.  We are able to debate topics almost to the point of becoming overly heated and still be as tight a group as we were to begin with.   :icon_hug:

Well,

I doagree that often things done for the "almighty dollar" are terrible. I mean, the oil industry rapes the earth for the almighty dollar, and we celebrate it with a closing bell. THAT is bad. So were the Doctor Doolitle movies - they were a total hate crime against my eyeballs.

She-male pornography is not inately bad though.

I am a proponent of disadvantaged groups being able to fight for economic parity. This is why I think sex workers (known to non-liberals as prostitutes) have a legitimate profession. I also think if she-males choose to get economic partity by participating in pornography, more power to them.

La unica se llama brianna

QuoteShe-male pornography is not inately bad though.

I am a proponent of disadvantaged groups being able to fight for economic parity. This is why I think sex workers (known to non-liberals as prostitutes) have a legitimate profession. I also think if she-males choose to get economic partity by participating in pornography, more power to them.

                If you believe that women and she-males are reaching economic parity through porn, you need to think again. They are exploited, receive little more than a working wage and they risk their lives with aids, drugs and violence. They support fat cats in mansions in Bel Air and Manhatten who use them like toilet paper. The romantic male fantasy of the hooker that is secure, happy and prosperous is blatently false, restricted to film and literature and does not exist in the real world.


beth

Quote from: beth on February 02, 2007, 06:26:10 PM
The romantic male fantasy of the hooker that is secure, happy and prosperous is blatently false, restricted to film and literature and does not exist in the real world.

That's a darn good point, though full of generalizations.

Bri

Ps- Maybe if our culture legalized sex workers this would not be the case?

QuotePs- Maybe if our culture legalized sex workers this would not be the case?

              You obviously speak from a position of never knowing or being closely related to a sex worker. Even those who are highly intelligent, immune from police actions and in control of their lives end up deeply wounded for life. This isn't something to be romanticised and trivialized by anyone, especially by those who have no clue.



beth

Geez, beth. Apparently, I don't from your description. :(

Katia said :-

Quotethey may present as female but [don't] have a [female] gender identity

how do you know that??

misty xxx

Quote from: Brianna on February 02, 2007, 06:36:04 PM
Ps- Maybe if our culture legalized sex workers this would not be the case?

I don't begrudge anyone a chance to make a good living.  But if you had ever visited with "working girls" from Nevada, with its legal brothels, which is the BEST case scenario, and heard the stories I have firsthand, you would likely not think that it is a good thing for society.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Although I don't personally like the term she-males, they are part of life and a similarly to lady-boys in Thailand, they have found a role in society.

As individuals, we know what it is like to at times, to be excluded from society for what we are (or what people perceive we are). As a community we should not judge others lifestyles or choices.

Many Transsexuals end up as prostitutes (or in porn movies) as they cannot find regular employment and It appears hypocritical to exclude one group at the expense of another. It is not our role to judge what is right or wrong, just provide a safe haven for people who have Gender issues.

I don't really have a problem with she-males.

Buffy

why stereo type gender?  What is gender identity?  Regardless of what people wish to be called, we still need to realize that they are still people, with real feelings.  We (society) need to accept people for who they are.  We need to support them and as long as this site is here we will.  I hope that we can learn that there is always a place for people.

Quote from: misty on February 02, 2007, 07:16:01 PM
Katia said :-

Quotethey may present as female but [don't] have a [female] gender identity

how do you know that??

misty xxx

i used to know several of them.  people who do all the nauseating things they do behind a camera can't be called [women].  sorry this is my final answer to this million dollar topic.

Quote from: Kira on February 02, 2007, 11:32:22 PM
We (society) need to accept people for who they are.  We need to support them and as long as this site is here we will.  I hope that we can learn that there is always a place for people.

i'm not sure if they'd care to join a [clean] site like susan's. they're used to joining more adult-oriented environments. ;) 

QuoteKatia said:-

i used to know several of them

what about the ones you dont know.......

misty xxx

i see some opposition to my views toward [->-bleeped-<-s]; it'd seem that we're playing the cat and mouse game or some wicked version of [who doesn't want to be a ->-bleeped-<-] game.  my question is; is there anyone here who identifies as a [->-bleeped-<-]? if so, we'd love to have them come forward! ...  i'd [we'd] like to hear their version of what's being discussed here.

Quote from: Katia on February 05, 2007, 12:11:52 AM
i see some opposition to my views toward [->-bleeped-<-s]; it'd seem that we're playing the cat and mouse game or some wicked version of [who doesn't want to be a ->-bleeped-<-] game.  my question is; is there anyone here who identifies as a [->-bleeped-<-]? if so, we'd love to have them come forward! ...  i'd [we'd] like to hear their version of what's being discussed here.

First off who is the "we", please do not include me in this game.  I started this post not as a game but as a serious thread for serious discussion, not rhetoric, finger pointing and whatever else.  Each member in good standing is entitled to be here with out fear of recrimination or being attacked and is entitled to be treated with respect.  They are not required to identify themselves or defend themselves unless they choose to.  And whatever a person identifies as is entirely up to them and as long as they abide by the rules they are quite welcome here.

Steph

AMEN, SISTER!  ;)

Quote from: Katia on February 05, 2007, 12:11:52 AM
i see some opposition to my views toward [->-bleeped-<-s]; it'd seem that we're playing the cat and mouse game or some wicked version of [who doesn't want to be a ->-bleeped-<-] game.  my question is; is there anyone here who identifies as a [->-bleeped-<-]? if so, we'd love to have them come forward! ...  i'd [we'd] like to hear their version of what's being discussed here.

                       I seriously doubt many define themselves as ->-bleeped-<-.  This is a word describing a porn catagory. There aren't many women identifying as MILFs, Hairy or Big breasted either.



beth

QuoteThere aren't many women identifying as MILFs, Hairy or Big breasted either.

You make an excellent point. I believe the euphemisms for those are mature, euporean, or full-figured, respectively.  ;D 

QuoteThere aren't many women identifying as MILFs, Hairy or Big breasted either

Okay kitties, I honestly did not know what MILFs meant, so I had to look it up..Wow!  :o  LOL :D

tinkerbell :icon_chick:

Crap!  This post was great and i fear i missed the boat on most of it!
Darn............. >:(
Stupid work gettin in the way..
Ricki

Quote from: Ricki on February 05, 2007, 07:20:18 PM
Crap!  This post was great and i fear i missed the boat on most of it!

it'd have been great if [we] had kept our cool, . the story about sunday school repeats itself....  ::)
i sincerely apologize for coming across as a [game player]. i was [not] playing any games, or including any of [you] in any game.  my question was not directed at anyone in particular so i'd appreciate it if your answers are not directed at me either.  thank you very much.

Hey all...gee, what a fun time I missed because I had to work all weekend (and then some).

First of all, YES!!! Anyone who seeks help and support, regardless of label applied or accepted, SHOULD AND WILL be welcome here (provided they play by the rules).  Anyone who thinks otherwise should try walking a mile in the the other one's high heels.

Secondly, as an androgyne who has male plumbing, I have considered breast augmentation in order to better present as either sex, but have no problem with what is between my legs.  No, I don't consider myself to be a woman, but neither do I consider myself a man.  So, if I had my breasts done but had no plans to ever get SRS, and you caught me skinny-dipping in the neighbor's pool, what term WOULD you use to describe what you saw?  More often than not, the term under discussion here would probably be used.

Additionally, I can forsee a time, in the right circumstances, where I would present full time as female for extended periods of time, yet never consider myself one.  How would you describe me then?

Thirdly, I, too, am not fond of the term ->-bleeped-<-, but if that is what someone wants to call themselves, who am I to argue?  Nobody fits any label 100%, but us humans, we want everything identified so we can file it away.  That is why I use labels: as a jumping-off point...a kind of landmark in the gender world.  This gets you in the neighborhood and as you begin to know more about me, the directions to who I am become clearer. 

Bottom line, I'm me...I am who I am.  What labels I chose to call myself, imperfect though they are, are used for communication purposes, not as self-descriptions.  What I am called by others, I have little or no control over.

And Finally...HOW DARE SOME OF YOU!  HOW DARE YOU JUDGE WHO IS FEMALE AND WHO IS NOT???  So you have a person who looks like a woman but has a penis and no plans to have it removed.  So what?  You have no problems accepting as female someone who claims to be female but presents as male and has no plans to transition anytime soon, yet you have trouble believing that this hypothetical "->-bleeped-<-" could be?  You should be ashamed of yourselves. 

.........Laurie   

P.S.  Sorry for the thumping, but closed-minded people really tick me off.  To see some who I have great respect for acting in such a manner really bums me out.

Quote from: LaurieO on February 07, 2007, 12:38:56 AM
So, if I had my breasts done but had no plans to ever get SRS, and you caught me skinny-dipping in the neighbor's pool, what term WOULD you use to describe what you saw? 

I'm not sure that I would care... Sorry Laurie.  Now, if you had some very cool pool toys, I might join you for a swim.  I do support your position however.  I don't care what people call themselves.  I'm very big on non-discrimination..... even for things that I personally don't care for (which includes a lot of right wing falderal).   But I'm not so sure that this is a term that people use for themselves.  I've only seen this term used to sell porn.

Cindi

QuoteSo, if I had my breasts done but had no plans to ever get SRS, and you caught me skinny-dipping in the neighbor's pool, what term WOULD you use to describe what you saw?

Honestly? I'd probably be speechless (for once) if I caught anybody skinny-dipping, but in all seriousness if I absolutely had to describe what I saw I would (most unfortunately) say "it" because there is no appropriate word (that I know of) to describe.

Now, I'll call anyone what they wish to be called, but I have to know that info first before anyone can expect me to call them that. If I see someone naked that I don't know who has mixed sexual features, I'm not going to know which (if either) gender they consider themselves to be. I wouldn't have a clue as what gender to refer to them as or even if the are an androgyne or not.  This isn't a lack of respect. It's a lack of vocabulary.

QuoteNobody fits any label 100%, but us humans, we want everything identified so we can file it away.  That is why I use labels: as a jumping-off point...a kind of landmark in the gender world.

This is an excellent point. We need labels to be able to give people the proper respect when we are talking to them and about them. They can be used for as much good as they can be used for harm in this respect.

That's just my two cents...

Edit: Fixed Quote - Melissa

Quotewho am I to argue?

QuoteHOW DARE YOU JUDGE

Exactly.

^*shrug*

  Strangely enough an event similiar to the "pool" thing described by Laurie happened to me once.

  I was snorkling off a near deserted beach on the coast of Florida.  I happened to see a boat slowly idling by close enough I could see the topless driver who appeared, to me, to be male but had rather large feminine breasts.  The boat anchored probably around 40 yards away and the driver appeared to be tanning so I swam in the opposite direction to give him/her privacy. 

  When I got back to the beach my friend mentioned that he saw the same thing I did.  I was content with leaving the subject at that but my friend, who being a quizzical person by nature, decided to swim out and talk to the person in the boat.  I was a little surprised by how long they talked...I assumed the boat driver would have sent him packing upon arrival. 

  After what must have been a half an hour or so my friend swam back and related the abbreviated version of the conversation.  He said that he point blank asked the boat driver what gender he/she identified before engaging in conversation.  The driver said that "he" identified as male and that he was surprised someone would verify that before asking the most obvious questions.  Of course the "obvious" question came up and he told my friend that "While I am male in every other way I developed breasts during my teens and they continued to grow as they would on a woman.  My friends and family urged me to have them removed because of the difficulties it would cause me later in life.  While I was comfortable with my body I initially agreed and had intended to have the surgery but I had a change of heart.  God made me this way.....and while most people don't understand it I accept it.  It's created a lot of difficulty in my life but it's important to be true to myself and I am who I am."

  Considering that I was struggling with my own gender conformity at the time and nobody knew about it I found some peace in what he told my friend.  While his gender was never in question to him it was constantly in question by those around him.  He chose a path that was obviously difficult and found peace with himself despite the turmoil around him because of that decision.  I remember thinking that he was one of the bravest people I had ever met. 

 

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 07, 2007, 09:49:26 AM
...but in all seriousness if I absolutely had to describe what I saw I would (most unfortunately) say "it" because there is no appropriate word (that I know of) to describe...I wouldn't have a clue as what gender to refer to them as or even if the are an androgyne or not.  This isn't a lack of respect. It's a lack of vocabulary.

No need to refer to gender, really - you could tell people that you saw a person with breasts and a penis.  Then they could know what yousaw and you wouldn't have to be inappropriate.

hugs & smiles
helen

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 07, 2007, 09:49:26 AMHonestly? I'd probably be speechless (for once) if I caught anybody skinny-dipping, but in all seriousness if I absolutely had to describe what I saw I would (most unfortunately) say "it" because there is no appropriate word (that I know of) to describe.

...

This isn't a lack of respect. It's a lack of vocabulary.

Well, there's ze (hir), and ey (em, eir). The word "it" etymologically goes back to when there was a distinction between animate and inanimate. Anyway I only know of 2 gender neutral pronouns so I figured I'd mention them. :)

Or... you could say nothing.  Is it that interesting?  I suppose to some it is.

Cindi

hehe...
as always Kimberly went on and on about the subject!
hehe..........
sorry kimberly----hugs your way could not resist! :icon_lips: :o
Ricki

Wow, or maybe whoa...........or even, woe.  I've read this entire thread, and even though it strayed quite a bit from the initial question, I am dismayed to learn that there is a clear predjudice in this enlightened forum, against people who consider themselves transsexual mtf, and still for whatever reason, do not undergo SRS.   I pose a question......did anyone who has undergone SRS refer to themselves as anything other than female, or transsexual??? Gender, my dears, is between MY ears, not yours

Quote from: Bev on February 09, 2007, 12:27:01 PM
Wow, or maybe whoa...........or even, woe.  I've read this entire thread, and even though it strayed quite a bit from the initial question, I am dismayed to learn that there is a clear predjudice in this enlightened forum, against people who consider themselves transsexual mtf, and still for whatever reason, do not undergo SRS.   I pose a question......did anyone who has undergone SRS refer to themselves as anything other than female, or transsexual??? Gender, my dears, is between MY ears, not yours

Bev please don't assume everyone here feels the same way hon, I don't.

Quote from: Bev on February 09, 2007, 12:27:01 PM
Gender, my dears, is between MY ears, not yours

I *love* it ;)

Kate

Quote from: Susan on February 09, 2007, 12:49:08 PM
Bev please don't assume everyone here feels the same way hon, I don't.

Whoa!   :angel:

Quote from: Bev on February 09, 2007, 01:15:13 PM

Quote from: Susan on February 09, 2007, 12:49:08 PM
Bev please don't assume everyone here feels the same way hon, I don't.

Whoa!   :angel:

Why whoa?

Bev,

As you can tell from reading the chain, I was not happy about the way things were being said either.  In defense of my "esteemed colleagues" (that's political-speak meaning "those jerks over there"), their attitude caught me completely by surprise, as I have conversed with many of them over the last few months and have nothing but love and respect for them.  It only goes to show that each and every one of us have preconceived notions about things we really haven't thought very much about, and sometimes they just pop out before we realize what we are saying.  This applies to everything from race, gender, politics and religion to more mundane things like which brand of canned corn is best and what we think about people who actually enjoy watching Jerry Springer.  We all are human and none of us are perfect.  To the credit of many, they have admitted their failures and you can be sure they will think a little deeper before making comments like that again.

And you can also be sure that Susan (I thank God for her every day) keeps an eye on things and does not put up with those who make a habit of unacceptable behavior.

With that said, it was disheartening to realize that here, in our safe-to-be-your-true-self outlet, situations like this can occur.  It may take me a little time before I can once again open up some of those deep-dark secret areas to this board, and that is a shame.  We fight these feelings within ourselves because society condemns them (or ridicules them, which may be worse) and so we hide them away.  One of the best things about Susan's Place is that everyone is welcomed and embraced, regardless of where they fall along the gender spectrum.  All those things you couldn't admit to those around you, like wanting to dress like a girl, desperately wanting SRS, or even telling the world you love bluegrass music (guilty), you can tell folks here. 

This one hit particularly hard for me because, as an androgyne and without the Porn connotations, I am already living mentally as a "->-bleeped-<-" (though I don't like that word and would not use it to identify myself), part male and part female.  It is not too far fetched to imagine that one day my outside may match my inside, though right now I have no idea what the specifics would be.

Anyway, don't give up on the people here.  They are all good folks and care more deeply than you may realize.  Let's use this as a wake-up call to check our attitudes at the door and be a little more careful before we jump on the bandwagon.

Love........Laurie



     

I think that this discussion has been a very healthy thing for us.  It brings to the surface our own group dynamic and has forced out the issue that, yes we too, are capable of discrimination.  As a group, we will have the tendancy to exclude others we percieve to be not like us.  It is something that happens in any group. It is something that must be examined from time to time in any group.

With this understanding, perhaps we can adjust our perspective and be more inclussive in our own thoughts and actions.  I would hope that we can all learn from it.

Chin up!

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 09, 2007, 06:23:00 PM
As a group, we will have the tendancy to exclude others we percieve to be not like us..

Or perhaps others whom we fear may be more like us than we'd like to admit ;)

Kate

Yes Kate, it is a basic instinct of self preservation.  It's our job to overcome those basic instincts and refine our thoughts and actions to become intelligent human beings.

Chin up!

Cindi

Quote from: Susan on February 09, 2007, 01:53:15 PM

Why whoa?

whoa?   ....   Just expressing pleasant surprise at an immediate positive response from the top.  Whoa!.....it's a good thing, like super wow!  ;)

Bev

Quote from: Bev on February 09, 2007, 06:52:40 PM
whoa?   ....   Just expressing pleasant surprise at an immediate positive response from the top.  Whoa!.....it's a good thing, like super wow!  ;)

You should have known how i would feel about it without having to say it, but I am glad I did :)

I could have made this a TS only site I intentionally chose not to. I could have also said it was TG only Leaving out the IS, SO's, Androgynes, and non-transgendered,  but we would be that much poorer without them being a part of our community.

I am personally glad when anyone decides to bless us with their point of view especially when they may not have the same viewpoint as me.

Quote from: LaurieO on February 09, 2007, 02:15:23 PM
Bev,

....... it was disheartening to realize that here, in our safe-to-be-your-true-self outlet, situations like this can occur.  It may take me a little time before I can once again open up some of those deep-dark secret areas to this board, and that is a shame.
 
........Anyway, don't give up on the people here.  They are all good folks and care more deeply than you may realize.  Let's use this as a wake-up call to check our attitudes at the door and be a little more careful before we jump on the bandwagon.

Love........Laurie 

LaurieO,

I was disheartened as well.
We are a group of people who share common bonds that most others on the planet do not, but the key is, we are all people.  People have opinions.  People have flaws.  I have both. 
The one attribute we all have in common, however, is compassion.  Now that, with our ability to embrace the diverse population that we represent, will keep me coming back.

Love,
Bev

An important lesson for all to hear. Just because someone belongs to an oppressed group, does not mean that they in turn, cannot oppress yet another group. I have seen this attitude in the TG community for years, which is why I steer clear of those so self-identified. In a nutshell, Post-op TS thinks she is better than pre-op TS, who thinks she is better than non-op TS, who thinks she is better than ->-bleeped-<-, who is sure she is better than cross-dresser, etc etc and on and on.  :: sigh ::  Women comparing who has the (biggest) deepest vagina, who is orgasmic and who is not, who passes the best......
And the strange thing is, natal women look at this behaviour, and go....WTF?

Here is the bottom line: being a WOMAN IS EXPERIENTIAL!  It is not something you can buy from a surgeon, from a department store, off a rack, or learn from watching beautiful women in old movies. Females are born, women are made. Regardless of the status of your genitalia at birth, only you know if you were born female or male. But, all the surgery in the world can't make you a woman, if you have not lived as a woman.

QuotePeople have opinions

clever! i have mine, we have ours, they have theirs, you have yours.

my [personal interpretation] of things.

1. sex is the biological difference at birth of people [penis, gonads/vagina and ovaries]
2. gender, however, is usually defined by two things. one is [the difference between how men and women are treated in society], and the things that are generally accepted as [feminine] or [masculine] in our culture.
3. transgender, is someone that [often thinks] that [their physical sex] is not the same as [their psychological identity].
4. transexual, is [someone that will seek hormonal and/or surgical treatment] in order to [bring their body into alignment with their psychological identity.]

QuoteGender analysis recognises that:

    * women's and men's lives and therefore experiences, needs, issues and priorities are different
    * women's lives are not all the same; the interests that women have in common may be determined as much by their social position or their ethnic identity as by the fact they are women
    * women's life experiences, needs, issues and priorities are different for different ethnic groups
    * the life experiences, needs, issues, and priorities vary for different groups of women (dependent on age, ethnicity, disability, income levels, employment status, marital status, sexual orientation and whether they have dependants)
    * different strategies may be necessary to achieve equitable outcomes for women and men and different groups of women/

http://www.gdrc.org/gender/framework/what-is.html

may sound shallow but it's what i believe.

My opinion here..
But i do not think some of it ( the steer in the posting to either categorize or profile or group-however you wanna call it)
has anything to do with gender i think its more human nature.
humans have it seems always grouped and created levels of levels within themselves and their cultures..
Race as an example (without listing what we all know)
money / income?  Poor-working class-upper class-wealthy
Size/looks?  you have the thin breeds, the chunky breeds, and the over weight peoples, and each one dissects and categorizes the next...
On and on.....
anyway i guess my point is when things turn in discussions i think in this case it was not all about gender more some of us reacting in human feelings or terms.
Laurie.. Please do not stop posting some of your inner most feelings...  It would harm me more than help me to see someone of your caliber close down some!  I know i have been tested with this (on some posts i have read/been in) as well and have walked on some egg shells avoiding some topics.  but i have not closed down ...
Please........ :eusa_pray:
xoxo
Ricki

Quote from: Thundra on February 10, 2007, 10:19:07 PM
An important lesson for all to hear. Just because someone belongs to an oppressed group, does not mean that they in turn, cannot oppress yet another group. I have seen this attitude in the TG community for years, which is why I steer clear of those so self-identified. In a nutshell, Post-op TS thinks she is better than pre-op TS, who thinks she is better than non-op TS, who thinks she is better than ->-bleeped-<-, who is sure she is better than cross-dresser, etc etc and on and on.  :: sigh ::  Women comparing who has the (biggest) deepest vagina, who is orgasmic and who is not, who passes the best......
And the strange thing is, natal women look at this behaviour, and go....WTF?

Here is the bottom line: being a WOMAN IS EXPERIENTIAL!  It is not something you can buy from a surgeon, from a department store, off a rack, or learn from watching beautiful women in old movies. Females are born, women are made. Regardless of the status of your genitalia at birth, only you know if you were born female or male. But, all the surgery in the world can't make you a woman, if you have not lived as a woman.

Hi Thundra, experiences have a lot to do with this way of thinking. The experiences of a post-op TS are obviously much different from the experiences of another person in the TG spectrum who is not post-op , so IMO, these experiences make these two individuals "different" in that sense.  Nevertheless this does not give anyone the right to feel "superior" to others. 


tinkerbell :icon_chick:

tink my love! Very nicely put!
Two kisses coming your way.. :-*  :-*
do not worry they are from me and not my slobbering puppy hunny!
Ricki

QuoteOr... you could say nothing.  Is it that interesting?  I suppose to some it is.

Whoa! Don't get mad at me! The question was how would you to describe what you saw...that was my answer.

Yeah, I know it was ignorant, but that was my point. I think it's important for us to realize that not everyone has the necessary knowledge to react to things that seem out of the ordinary to them in a way that doesn't cause hurt feelings.  I think (hope) that everybody here knows that I have only the best-intentions towards the TG community that I wouldn't intentionally inflict harm on somebody because of that.

It's important to have definitions that are generally accepted so that everybody knows what your talking about and what the context of it means. If "->-bleeped-<-" is generally accepted as a sex-worker that has mixed sexual characteristics than I don't see why they shouldn't be supported here. If "->-bleeped-<-" is generally accepted as an offensive term for someone with mixed sexual characteristics, then it should be made known that it's inappropriate to call someone by that term. The problem: it doesn't seem to have been properly defined.  Definitions seem to be what the fuss is all about anyways.

And Julie, I thank you for providing me with the words that I didn't know before. I would have no problem using them!

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 12, 2007, 09:47:00 AMAnd Julie, I thank you for providing me with the words that I didn't know before.

You're very welcome. :)

QuoteHi Thundra, experiences have a lot to do with this way of thinking. The experiences of a post-op TS are obviously much different from the experiences of another person in the TG spectrum who is not post-op , so IMO, these experiences make these two individuals "different" in that sense.  Nevertheless this does not give anyone the right to feel more "superior" than others. 

Definitely a valid point in that last line!

But.....more importantly, it is experiences that colour who we are, and how we think. After all, no two women are alike. Similar perhaps, but not alike.

Now, using your example as a template, and changing the terms, we get:
The experiences of a {natal female} are obviously much different from the experiences of a {post-op woman}, so IMO, these experiences make these two individuals "different" in that sense. Stating such, we see where the germ of the seed that creates the superior attitude comes from in the first place.

Why not adapt the same attitude that most women do: if you are a woman, you are a woman. Regardless of your past, you are here now, and hopefully will continue to be part of the sistahood the rest of your life.

Now, for certain, there are plenty of women I do not get along with. Some women are poor, and some wealthy. Some dark-skinned, and some light skinned. Some have periods, and some do not. And to that I guess we must now add, some women are born with a vagina, and some otherwise.

But what about she-males then....people that label themselves as she-males? Are they women? You don't know unless you ask them? If other women accept that person into their fold, than who am I to argue with them? But then, I label myself a womyn, not a woman.

Hi,

   I've been tied up and have lost touch with some threads. When I read the original posting for this thread from Steph, I didn't think anything except:

  I have no problem with a person identifying as She-Male. I understand the negative conotations, however, language is fluid.

   And then I thought:

   Different people learn in different ways. It may be possible that a person identifying theirself as a she-male has only had limited access to the concept. To be honest, I was so programmed that I never even concieved (intellectually) that I could ever physically be anything other than male (though I did feel like a girl) until I was in the Army at 19 years of age. Someone pulled out a pornographic book that revolved around 'she-males', though I don't think the book was titled as that. It was about 1981 and I was shocked! I had no idea what was happening. I told the person to put the damned book away because I'm a reserved person anyway, however, for years after that, I thought those people in the book (who I had only glimpsed) must have been born that way.  Even more wierd, I somehow identified with them. It may be what brought about my brief acceptance of my female self when I was about 21 or 22.
   The feeling I got, though, was that I was a freak. I have a weird brain and I assumed that all Trans people were in porn, so I put it out of my mind as well as I could have. I also didn't know of the term 'trans' and so I thought of myself as a kind of she-male, but born without breasts. (I am weird [a double freak, perhaps?]).
   Later, the freak stereotype was reinforced by the advent of the crappy daily talk shows, which made me truly hate myself.

  Anyway, A person just might not know any better at first and refer to themselves as a she-male.

   [beware, intended tongue in cheek humor ahead]
   An alternative explanation concerning why someone may refer to themself as a she-male is that the (damned) youth culture keeps changing the meaning of words (Join me in prefering the company of she-males to that of young people ;D). It's possible that "she-male" may one day be the new "23 skidoo" or whatever the hell they say now.
   [End of humor zone]

    In the event that a 'she-male pride' movement starts, I'm okay with that. If an individual needs help, that's where I come in. They can refer to themselves as "cranberries" for all I care. I just want to help make them feel better if that's what they need.

    ***Concerning education:
   I consider myself lucky that I am in this group on Susans. I would say that we are an educated bunch; whether through schooling or hard knocks. We must remember, however, that there are still people with little or no access to the same amount of computer time/use that we have. A person who doesn't fully understand the Trans(everything) concepts and who may not have serious access to a good doctor, may just be confused in terminology.

   I would like to think that the cool attitude that keeps this site in order will continue to accept those who are needy and to bounce the troublemakers for being troublemakers and not for being different.

As usual, I mean no one no harm, nor do I intend anyone any damage (except young people [give me back my youth, you fiends!!]).


Love, Love, Love, and hold my hand,

Rebecca

Very well said Tundra.


Linda Ann

Love being female :angel:

Quote from: tink
Correct! if you are a woman, you are a woman.  The problem arises when someone who is not a woman tells the world to call them one.  IMO someone who is a woman will label themselves as a woman, will present themselves as a woman, will have the gender roles of a woman.  But most importantly, a woman IMO, is someone who is accepted and respected in society as such.  I just don't support any notion that a man who crossdresses every now and then and calls himself a woman is a woman at all.  I'm sorry I don't.

tinkerbell :icon_chick:

lol, i have to agree with tink or like the old saying says "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it must be a duck.  yet, if a [duck looks like] a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, then we can't call it a duck, can we?  regardless of how this duck identifies.  i can call myself cleopatra queen of the nile, but if society does not see me as cleopatra, it is just that, an illusion....or even worse a delusion.
socially, [we] [don't distinguish] male from female[based on genitals or gender identity] [sorry to burst everyone's bubbles] because we[don't have access] to that. instead, [we] take a look at their physical characteristics: do they [look], [act], [show] stereotypically female or male? that's how society accepts us.

and btw when i use the word [we], i'm referring to an impersonal [we] ;)


maybe this link will help because there's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding even in our community.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/shapeshift/20050201.html

Quotelol, i have to agree with tink or like the old saying says "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it must be a duck.  yet, if a [duck looks like] a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, then we can't call it a duck, can we?  regardless of how this duck identifies.  i can call myself cleopatra queen of the nile, but if society does not see me as cleopatra, it is just that, an illusion....or even worse a delusion.

But if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, but all the other ducks do not accept it as such.....then is it a duck? And conversely, if it looks like a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, and the ducks DO indeed accept it as one of their own, then is it a duck?

I have found both of those circumstances to be very true! So, if the one labelled non-duckish by you IS accepted by the woman's community ( any group of women), and the duckly looking one IS NOT....well, then who is being delusional? Personally, I have met way too many people from the TG community that are obsessed with appearances, and are not REAL, and most women can sense that, even if they do not say anything because they want to be polite. Combine that with the fact that most people from a TG background WAY overestimate their ability to "pass," and you end up with a fairly delusional lot.

IMO, people from a TG background ought to spend more time working on "being" their gender, and much less time trying to "appear" as their gender...because women and men are far more diverse than anyone could ever imagine.

Quote from: Katia on February 12, 2007, 11:36:32 PM
lol, i have to agree with tink or like the old saying says "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it must be a duck.  yet, if a [duck looks like] a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, then we can't call it a duck, can we?

Yes, I sure can... on this forum at least, I don't care what they "appear" to be or act like. If they say they're a woman, then as far as my support here goes, they ARE a woman.

Kate

QuoteYes, I sure can... on this forum at least, I don't care what they "appear" to be or act like. If they say they're a woman, then as far as my support here goes, they ARE a woman.

Kate

Yes indeed. It is simply about respect, especially on a site like this one.

As far as my own opinions go, well, I keep them to myself for the most part. It doesn't really matter what I think about TG, or TS, or post-op or pre-op or whatever. If I stated them, all it would do is cause a bunch of controversy, and I'd be accused of being hateful.

Basically, I believe that everyone ought to be able to label themselves anyway they want.
The only time it would matter to me, is if I was involved with someone -- then it would matter to me a great deal.

I think everyone would do well to remember that most, not all, but most natal females do not view anyone TG, TS, IS, she-male, etc as their equal. Especially since no one in those categories (a.) menses (b.) bears children (c.) has to put up with being a second-class citizen from the time they are born. In the eyes of most natal females, having surgery does not make you different from someone that has not (except of course if they are sleeping with you.)  You can quack all you like, but if other women don't quack back atcha, maybe you ain't a duck.

Tink,

Yeah!!!  We are here to help and support each other, regardless of our feelings about whether or not they fit "our" definition of transgendered...maybe especially if they don't.  People join this forum because they have questions and/or concerns, and our mission is to do our best to help them sort things out and comfort them while they are going through hard times.

I understand your feelings and respect your right to them...whether or not I agree with them.  I appreciate your thoughts and comments, not to mention your support and comfort on more than one occassion.

One question though...if a person who identifies as a ->-bleeped-<- considers themselves to be a woman, do you think your opinion of their womanhood matters any more to them than their opinion of your womanhood matters to you? 

In this place, if someone says they are male, female, both, neither, some or all of the above, part chipmunk or whatever, it's not our place to argue with them.  Some well placed respectful questions may be in order, but if they persist in their belief, who are we to say they are wrong?

Hugs....Laurie

 

Quote from: Thundra on February 13, 2007, 07:08:36 PM
You can quack all you like, but if other women don't quack back atcha, maybe you ain't a duck.

Quote from: TinkThe magical word IF....as long as I am perceived as a duck that quacks, they will always quack back at me!

And yet if passing and who we're accepted or perceived as is the measure of who we ARE, then doesn't that make all pre-trans (or non-passing) F2Ms "women?"

No, *I* don't believe they are, but the logic here gets confusing. Perhaps the problem is we're trying to squeeze too many concepts under one word ("woman"). Agreed, calling someone a woman who has never lived or been accepted as one seems inaccurate. And yet that doesn't mean they don't *identify* as... well, what do we say? Female perhaps?

Which is why I've always had trouble calling myself a woman, my not even being fulltime yet. But heck, even female doesn't quite work for me since the only real physical difference is my hormonal balance. So what's left for me? "Girl" perhaps? Strangely, that's the only term that somehow sounds right to me, for me... at least for now. I'm not physically female, I'm not socialized as a woman, I'm more a *potential* than anything for the moment.

Hmmmm. Labels. Evil things I tell ya, EVIL ;)

Kate

QuoteI don't want to repeat what I have already said previously, but just to answer your question:  I think that we are going overboard with this topic here thinking about "what if's" that IMO, are just "too fantastic" to be accurate.  As I said previously, I think that if someone is a woman will label themselves as such, or they will opt for other terms such as TS, TV, or TG but not she-male considering the connotation that this noun carries.   But going back to your question, no I don't think that my opinion of their "womanhood" will matter at all.

Hmmmm. Well, I can see your POV, but I think we need to be careful when we say something like this:

QuoteI think that if someone is a woman will label themselves as such, or they will opt for other terms such as TS, TV, or TG but not she-male considering the connotation that this noun carries.

Why?  Because in saying "I think that," you are postulating about something you have not necessarily been exposed to directly. In my own experience, I have known women of every stripe, and it is an extremely diverse group. Some have been TG, some TS, some IS, some BI, some dykes, some boi's, some butch, and yes.....some she-male. I would not have previously brought up the examples I noted about she-males in the woman's community, had I not met these women myself, and communicated with them and the women friends they were involved with.

I have not been talking about what if's, but I have mentioned personal experiences, that were not at all fantastic. While I respect your POV, I get the feeling that your experience and the diversity of women you have met and known is much smaller than my own.

In your own experience, you believe, as is your right, that she-male is a derogatory term with negative connotations. I would agree, that in certain quarters, and in some situations, that is true, but not always. What I have been trying to relate, is that there is a group of women, that do in fact label themselves as she-male, and are proud of who they are, what they do to earn a living, as well as the fact that many of them have friends -- woman friends of many stripes.

Just as dyke has carried a negative connotation, as well as queer, for myself, it a badge of honor that I am proud to display. Yes, I am a dyke, and I identify as queer, and I am a womyn, and I am very proud of who I am. It all depends of your POV.

My personal view of "passing" is well known. Simply stated again: the point in passing, is that there is no point. If you are attempting to "pass" AS something, than you are not that thing. You have to BE that thing. Otherwise, you are just "acting as" instead of "being."
Further, if you have to "pass" to be accepted by other women, than you are simply trying to fool them into believing you are one of them. If you cannot simply be yourself, and be accepted by other women as one of them, than you are living a lie.

IMO, of course. You are obviously free to disagree with me, and my opinion in no way affects your own perception of reality.

one question though and i swear i'm done with this topic! ;)
since the label ->-bleeped-<- is a derogatory term, and the definition of the word [derogatory] is;

QuoteLibrary > Words > Dictionary
de·rog·a·to·ry (dĭ-rŏg'ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
   2. Tending to detract or diminish.

derogatorily de·rog'a·to'ri·ly adv.
derogatoriness de·rog'a·to'ri·ness n.

doesn't this mean that people who identify as [->-bleeped-<-] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves ???

Just a little in house cleaning up...

If you are going to quote something please list who or what the source of your quote is.  It saves readers from reading back through the whole thread to find out who said what.

Thanks a bunch folks

Steph

Quote from: Katia on February 14, 2007, 12:20:51 AM
one question though and i swear i'm done with this topic! ;)
since the label ->-bleeped-<- is a derogatory term, and the definition of the word [derogatory] is;

QuoteLibrary > Words > Dictionary
de·rog·a·to·ry (dĭ-rŏg'ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
   2. Tending to detract or diminish.

derogatorily de·rog'a·to'ri·ly adv.
derogatoriness de·rog'a·to'ri·ness n.

doesn't this mean that people who identify as [->-bleeped-<-] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves ???

That assumes that ->-bleeped-<-s find the term to be derogatory. You feel it's derogatory, but you're not a ->-bleeped-<-. It's very much like an African American using the N-word. If THEY don't find the word derogatory when referring to THEMSELVES, then how we view the word doesn't really matter, and we can't draw THEIR conclusions based on OUR use of the word.

Oy vey!  Such questions from the little ones!  They are so cute!!  :: sigh ::

First of all, you are making an assumption, and then basing your conclusion on that assumption.  Where did we all agree that the term she-male is "ALWAYS" a derogatory term?
As I previously stated, one person's negative term is another person's badge of honour.  It all depends on your POV.

Quoteone question though and i swear i'm done with this topic!
since the label ->-bleeped-<- is a derogatory term, and the definition of the word [derogatory] is;


Quote
Library > Words > Dictionary
de·rog·a·to·ry (dĭ-rŏg'ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
   2. Tending to detract or diminish.

derogatorily de·rog'a·to'ri·ly adv.
derogatoriness de·rog'a·to'ri·ness n.


doesn't this mean that people who identify as [->-bleeped-<-] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves

Soooo, what if I again use your statement as a template and substitute myself, for example?

Quotedoesn't this mean that people who identify as [a dyke] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves 

In many quarters, the term dyke is used in a disparaging manner, especially by men that hate us for stealing their women, or taking their jobs. When men use it in that fashion, they are intending to say many things, among them that we are less than real women, ala the she-males. However, in MY community, we call our selves dyke, and say it with pride, because to us it means that we are outside the purvue of men, and we are immensely proud of that distinction.

So, I would ask you in turn, using your reasoning, whether then you would refuse to also call me a woman?  Not that I care either way, but if we continue to substitute other terms for she-male with the same effect, than it seems to me your pool of people that do not deserve your respect seems to grow.

Further, if you feel you have the right to refuse to respect the wishes of someone, and how they care to be addressed, does that also mean that you then accept the right of other people to judge you in a similar fashion?  Opens an ugly can 'o worms, that one does!

IMO, it is much easier to just honour whatever term someone asks you to use in referring to them. How does it hurt YOU to act otherwise, and why?

QuoteCorrect! if you are a woman, you are a woman.  The problem arises when someone who is not a woman tells the world to call them one.  IMO someone who is a woman will label themselves as a woman, will present themselves as a woman, will have the gender roles of a woman.  But most importantly, a woman IMO, is someone who is accepted and respected in society as such.  I just don't support any notion that a man who crossdresses every now and then and calls himself a woman is a woman at all.  I'm sorry I don't.

tinkerbell icon_chick

Here is where it all gets tricky. Who defines what a woman is or isn't? Some people have a very encompassing view and others a narrow view. One problem is the lack of choices recognized by society, it's more or less assumed that if one is not a man, then one must be a woman. Maybe this is true for some, but not always... there's plenty of undefined places on the continuum. I'm not simply speaking rhetorically here, I am one of these people for whom neither label fits. It took lots of soul searching to come to this understanding. But there is no category for me in daily life, and that isn't always an easy path either.

zythyra

Quote from: Thundra on February 13, 2007, 07:08:36 PM
You can quack all you like, but if other women don't quack back atcha, maybe you ain't a duck.

Quote from: thundraOy vey!  Such questions from the little ones

so, are we now challenging each other or the issue?

Quote from: rules15. You may challenge the issue, but never the person.

Quote from: thundraFirst of all, you are making an assumption, and then basing your conclusion on that assumption.  Where did we all agree that the term she-male is "ALWAYS" a derogatory term?
As I previously stated, one person's negative term is another person's badge of honour.  It all depends on your POV

assumption?

Quote from: thesaurus dictionaryOverview of noun assumption

The noun assumption has 4 senses (first 2 from tagged texts)
                                     
1. (341) premise, premiss, assumption -- (a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play")
2. (218) assumption, supposition, supposal -- (a hypothesis that is taken for granted; "any society is built upon certain assumptions")
3. Assumption -- ((Christianity) the taking up of the body and soul of the Virgin Mary when her earthly life had ended)
4. assumption -- (the act of assuming or taking for granted; "your assumption that I would agree was unwarranted")

Quote from: urban dictionary->-bleeped-<-     
       
   

1. A derogatory term used mainly by the porn industry meaning preoperative male to female transsexual.  Also called sheboy; ladyboy; chick with a dick.

2. A rather crude way to describe a transsexual who sells her body for sex, usually one who does NOT want genital reconstructive surgery (GRS). True transsexuals wanting GRS find it offensive. ->-bleeped-<-s are popular in the porn industry.

3. An odd mix of a man and a woman.

4. A "thing" that has both boobs and penis.

5. A gay man who dresses as a woman and who enjoys showing off his penis in pornography. They often lie and call themselves transsexuals. However, ->-bleeped-<-s are men and always will be, while MtF transsexuals are really women in their hearts, minds, and souls.  Because their penis is an essential part of who they are, ->-bleeped-<-s refuse to have it amputated. Their lack of hatred for their genitals demonstrates they are not transsexuals. True-TS's with self-respect don't associate with ->-bleeped-<-s.

6.  A "what'zit" or a person with an ambiguous gender.

7.  A ->-bleeped-<- is a male who has undergone several surgeries to look like a female, it consists of surgery of the face, breasts, butt, and body hair. Some men like to have sex with ->-bleeped-<-s because they are originally males and know the right techniques to please a man.

8.  Sisters with snakes / broads with rods/hoochies with hoses / vixens with vipers/tarts with tools / hotties with hammers / femmes with footlongs / prostitutes with pogosticks/tricks with tripods/goddesses with goliaths/

9.  An offensive term used to describe someone who has characteristics of both a male and female person.

10. A person that is a man and a woman.

11. A dragqueen hooker.

12.  She/Male - A homosexual male parading around, masquerading as the   opposite sex.

and the list goes on and on with [extremely] offensive terms that i don't dare to post here.  so the word ->-bleeped-<- is offensive because it implies that transexual women, weirdos with penises, and hookers are the [same thing], thus derogating us as simple sex objects and depraved freaks.

Quote from: thundraIn many quarters, the term dyke is used in a disparaging manner, especially by men that hate us for stealing their women, or taking their jobs. When men use it in that fashion, they are intending to say many things, among them that we are less than real women, ala the she-males. However, in MY community, we call our selves dyke, and say it with pride, because to us it means that we are outside the purvue of men, and we are immensely proud of that distinction.

hmm, [if i again use your statement as a template], then maybe a natal female who's a feminist and very proud of it should be perfectly fine with being called the [C] word?  ???  this reasoning only causes chaos and confusion.

Quote from: thundraFurther, if you feel you have the right to refuse to respect the wishes of someone, and how they care to be addressed, does that also mean that you then accept the right of other people to judge you in a similar fashion?  Opens an ugly can 'o worms, that one does!

my answer to this question doesn't make any difference to what the term ->-bleeped-<- is associated with.

Quote from: thundraIMO, it is much easier to just honour whatever term someone asks you to use in referring to them. How does it hurt YOU to act otherwise, and why?

not imo.  why? because i firmly believe that if a term is [hateful] to a particular group of people, they should withdraw it, not adopt it.

Quote from: thundraHow does it hurt YOU to act otherwise, and why?

katia = woman
if ->-bleeped-<-s = women, then
katia = ->-bleeped-<-s

not gonna happen..

If somebody describes themselves with a label and says that they are 50% female or any other percentage I respect that

If somebody does not fit a label and says that they are 50% female or any other percentage I respect that

If somebody describes themselves as born female and 100% female then I respect that

If somebody has feminine elements & is confused or not sure of these elements or find it varies......then I respect that

If somebody has increasing feminine feelings and feelings of womanliness.....then I respect that

Each person has a viewpoint on their own femininity....

Nobody wants somebody else dictating to them what their level of femininity is

.........or doubting their integrity.....

Whether a person has a label or not......... if somebody says they feel x% feminine......I respect that

Whether we have a label or not we are free to decide how feminine we feel

We are all free to decide for ourselves.......... & also free to change our mind without constraint

Nobody can shackle or cage us with something that is not true about our own level of femininity ........

Whether we have a label or not .........nobody can take away our freedom to say what level of femininity we feel we are......

misty xxx

Quotekatia = woman
if ->-bleeped-<-s = women, then
katia = ->-bleeped-<-s

not gonna happen..

Well, I must say, this has been an eye-opening bit of discourse for me, personally!

I can honestly say that I have never met amyone before now, that used definitions, from a dictionary no less, to reinforce their opinions. I must admit, that I am completely nonplussed.

I guess I can only reply, that I form my own opinions for myself, and care little for what other people think, let alone what a dictionary defines for me. IMO, the english language is much too rich, fluid, and evolving to depend on what a book will tell you something means.
In fact, I would opin that by the time a dictionary gets around to defining many terms, or phrases, that it could already be outdated.

Next, I would reply, that since I vehemently disagree with you, as would many others, that she-male is a strictly derogatory term, that any person has a right to define themselves anyway they so choose. They DO NOT have a right to define YOU anyway they choose.

For example: I hate the "N-word" as it is used to berate people of colour. But, if a person of colour decides to use that word to describe themself, than it is not my business to tell them they cannot.

I find it difficult to comprehend how a she-male calling herself a woman disparages you, personally?  She is not calling you a she-male. She is not saying anything to you at all. She is speaking for herself only. If you then choose to bend logic to "prove" that something she does disparages you, well.....I have no answer for that.

Again an example: I am a dyke. If a transsexual woman, of any stripe chooses to tell me that she "is also a dyke," what am I to think of that? She may or may not have a vagina.
She was not raised as a woman, nor did she experience the challenges that come from that process. So what am I to think when she calls herself a dyke? How about nothing? How about I could care less what she calls herself? It does not affect me in any way.

So, using logic, I would put forward the thought that you are choosing of your own free will to be offended when a she-male calls herself a woman. IMO, she is doing nothing to hurt you. Nor, do I believe that you would be hurt to honour her request to be addressed as a woman.

But, I am offended that you, who are herself marginalized by the mainstream public, would in turn marginalize someone else in turn. I simply do not understand that action or behaviour. I see it in the queer community all the time, and it does nothing to unify people, but instead works to divide people.

I can offer you my philosophy of life to try. Live and let live. Do whatever you please, because as long as it does not directly affect me, I do not care. Wanna engage in beastiality -- OK. (as long as the beast isn't hurt)  Wanna take drugs -- OK (as long as you don't wreck into my car and kill me, or steal my stuff to buy meth).  Jump off a bridge -- OK (as long as you don't hurt anyone else when you land.) Wanna have homosexual sex with men for $$$ and then call yourself a woman -- OK.  Whatev.

Finally, this is the last of my discourse here. Is this what you want?

natal females  = woman
if transsexuals = women, then
transsexuals = natal females

Well, using your logic, that's not gonna happen either.  I can't see how that can make you feel better.

Quote from: Thundra on February 15, 2007, 08:14:10 PM

Quotekatia = woman
if ->-bleeped-<-s = women, then
katia = ->-bleeped-<-s

not gonna happen..

Well, I must say, this has been an eye-opening bit of discourse for me, personally!

I can honestly say that I have never met amyone before now, that used definitions, from a dictionary no less, to reinforce their opinions. I must admit, that I am completely nonplussed


I guess I can only reply, that I form my own opinions for myself, and care little for what other people think, let alone what a dictionary defines for me. IMO, the english language is much too rich, fluid, and evolving to depend on what a book will tell you something means.
In fact, I would opin that by the time a dictionary gets around to defining many terms, or phrases, that it could already be outdated.


Next, I would reply, that since I vehemently disagree with you, as would many others, that she-male is a strictly derogatory term, that any person has a right to define themselves anyway they so choose. They DO NOT have a right to define YOU anyway they choose.

For example: I hate the "N-word" as it is used to berate people of colour. But, if a person of colour decides to use that word to describe themself, than it is not my business to tell them they cannot.

I find it difficult to comprehend how a she-male calling herself a woman disparages you, personally?  She is not calling you a she-male. She is not saying anything to you at all. She is speaking for herself only. If you then choose to bend logic to "prove" that something she does disparages you, well.....I have no answer for that.

Again an example: I am a dyke. If a transsexual woman, of any stripe chooses to tell me that she "is also a dyke," what am I to think of that? She may or may not have a vagina.
She was not raised as a woman, nor did she experience the challenges that come from that process. So what am I to think when she calls herself a dyke? How about nothing? How about I could care less what she calls herself? It does not affect me in any way.

So, using logic, I would put forward the thought that you are choosing of your own free will to be offended when a she-male calls herself a woman. IMO, she is doing nothing to hurt you. Nor, do I believe that you would be hurt to honour her request to be addressed as a woman.

But, I am offended that you, who are herself marginalized by the mainstream public, would in turn marginalize someone else in turn. I simply do not understand that action or behaviour. I see it in the queer community all the time, and it does nothing to unify people, but instead works to divide people.

I can offer you my philosophy of life to try. Live and let live. Do whatever you please, because as long as it does not directly affect me, I do not care. Wanna engage in beastiality -- OK. (as long as the beast isn't hurt)  Wanna take drugs -- OK (as long as you don't wreck into my car and kill me, or steal my stuff to buy meth).  Jump off a bridge -- OK (as long as you don't hurt anyone else when you land.) Wanna have homosexual sex with men for $$$ and then call yourself a woman -- OK.  Whatev.

true.  language is fluid and rich.  i know that some people have included certain [hateful] terms as part of their normal speech, yet if [everyone] started [uninhibited language] in forums or the streets, it'd degenerate into chaos and even violence; thus, it'd be [unsafe] which is an [infringement] upon people's rights.

i do care what people say about me because what people say/think about me and others is [feedback] and is related to one's reputation.  and how does society define good and bad?  it's very simple; [fruits are deeds], iow it's like hunter and pray.

Quote from: thundraFinally, this is the last of my discourse here. Is this what you want?

natal females  = woman
if transsexuals = women, then
transsexuals = natal females

Well, using your logic, that's not gonna happen either.  I can't see how that can make you feel better.

lol,  i'm perfectly aware that i'm [not] a natal female.  believing otherwise would be a delusion so much so that i'd have to call ->-bleeped-<-s transexuals or women.   :D

No wonder i drink thors Hamer vodka !   :icon_drunk:
source: 
J&J Nordic
Blombergs Säteri
533 93 Källby
Sweden
LOL
ricki

In the FTM community I wonder if there is any opposition to "he-fems"

......oh dear what have I gone and started now!! :)

Quick pass me the vodka Ricki.........

misty xxx

LoL, never heard the term "he-fems". There's only one guy who's doing a lot of porno work, Buck Angel. He calls himself a man with a [insert synonym for cat here]. I've heard gay men refer to FtM's as "guys with pies". I'm not keen on either Buck's term or the latter term applied to me. But I don't object to Buck calling himself that at all. It's just marketing for him.

Maybe because we're less likely to be sexually objectified, there isn't really an analogous situation.

Dennis

Quote from: Dennis on February 17, 2007, 02:34:29 PM
LoL, never heard the term "he-fems". There's only one guy who's doing a lot of porno work, Buck Angel. He calls himself a man with a [insert synonym for cat here]. I've heard gay men refer to FtM's as "guys with pies". I'm not keen on either Buck's term or the latter term applied to me. But I don't object to Buck calling himself that at all. It's just marketing for him.

Maybe because we're less likely to be sexually objectified, there isn't really an analogous situation.

Dennis

Hi,
    I am a very curious person. I heard of Buck Angel by accident, probably while reading about Howard Stern, I think. At first, I was horrified by Buck's profession and the way he exploits himself, but then I realized that he is exploiting himself. In a way, it's inspiring how Buck uses his base impulses and works it to his advantage. I'm NOT advocating for porn here. Please don't misunderstand me. I hope to make the point that Buck is his own man and he seems happy with what he's doing.

   What I got from Buck as a person is that he is not really obsessed with body image. I also found that even though I don't necessarily approve of Buck for his choice of professions; I also haven't judged him the way I would judge a woman whether she is natal or a "she-male". for making the same choices.

   That's pretty wierd, huh? I discovered I have a double standard when it comes to Males and Females who decide to do the 'unmentionable' as a living. I always consider the females to be downtrodden and abused. I never considered that about men, even the only T-man I've seen (Buck) who does that stuff.

   Whack me with a stick  ???. I am now confused over the difference with empowering one's self and being exploited. I guess the real difference is; who gets the income and whom has control over whom.


Yucky topic, :P

Becca

Here seems to be the core of our disagreement:

Quotei do care what people say about me because what people say/think about me and others is [feedback] and is related to one's reputation.  and how does society define good and bad?  it's very simple; [fruits are deeds], iow it's like hunter and pray.

I could care less what anyone thinks of me, unless it involves me missing a paycheque.
As a dyke (homosexual), I have already dealt with the loss of so-called friends, family, etc.
In my life, and I am MUCHO older than you, I have seen society evolve over and over, and each time, things that were verbooten are now acceptable -- among them say, divorce, working women, and inter-racial relationships.

The current situation of society battling homosexuals over marriage as a concept, and the churches finally noticing trans-folx as a threat to their way of life, are but the latest in a long string of civil disorders that lead to additional freedoms for the oppressed groups. In a few generations, people will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about.

Your last comment was quite interesting. Do you see yourself as prey if you do not try to fit in? In my own experience, I have found that the more I try to fit in, the more power I give to people to try to influence how I live. I have found that my best defense is a good offense. I say what I will, do what I want, and go where I want. I exude confidence. The more you behave like prey, the more likely you will be prey. I have had close friends murdered, and I will never allow myself to be put in that position.

So, we operate within different parameters. For me, a label is just that -- a label. I have no problem with any of them, as long as the person defines themself that way.

i'm tired today, arguing about ->-bleeped-<-s does not benefit [me] in anyway, so from now and on i will ignore this thread. my points are well-stated, i will NEVER  see ->-bleeped-<-s as women. i can dance around this topic with words and so called experiences, but i will NOT change my points of view.  period.

First of all I will define what she-male is to me: a person who wants the physical traits of both sexes, most often a genetic male who has BA but probably doesn't take hormones so they can still perform sexually as male.  Forgive me for the simplistic definition but there's a lot of grey area here for me.

As far as accepting them, absolutely.  If we want to be accepted for who we are we should be able to accept others for who they are.  Do they require their own section?  I don't see the need right now.  But if the numbers are great enough and it doesn't become a porn focused section I would have no objection.

My two cents...

Julie

Quote from: Tinkerbell on February 17, 2007, 06:02:28 PM

Quote from: misty on February 17, 2007, 12:53:03 PM
In the FTM community I wonder if there is any opposition to "he-fems"

......oh dear what have I gone and started now!! :)

Oh boy, here we go again... ;D..LOL....well, actually I have heard of the term
he-she for FTM's, but as far as I am concerned it doesn't have any negative connotations.  IMO, it is the same as saying MTF or MTW (man to woman) although I have to admit that he-she doesn't sound right either for some reason.

..and yes, Buck  ::), I know who he is and what he does, but again, the sexist part of me is talking here, a FTM can get away with things of that nature and still be called a man, not the other way around.


tinkerbell :icon_chick:

   That's it! I'm a sexist! [I'm not joking]
    Honestly, I learned from this thread that I have a double standard and small sexist attitude about some things. I'm fine with that, though. Understanding one's own self is important.

   I'll second Julie Marie's supporting those who identify as 'you know what'. As long as there is a boundary and a standard. The same standard to which we here hold ourselves in terms of support, acceptance, and propriety.

   Also, as stated earlier, with a little time, the person who identifies as 'you know what' might come to realize that they are using a possibly derogatory term and find an alternate method of identification.

  Also again, as are others, I too am in need of a different topic. This topic was a good one. It brought up a topic and allowed it to get well wrung out.


Wringing my hands over peace,
becca

   

Quotei'm tired today, arguing about ->-bleeped-<-s does not benefit [me] in anyway, so from now and on i will ignore this thread. my points are well-stated, i will NEVER  see ->-bleeped-<-s as women. i can dance around this topic with words and so called experiences, but i will NOT change my points of view.  period.

Works for me. Nobody was asking you to change anything girlie. I was just attempting to bring into the open the discrimination that goes on in this community, against other members of that same community. It is the reason I no longer feel sorry for Trans, or TG or TS people, and why I will not lift a single finger to help any of you. Some of you are worse than the average bigot I come across in your idears, attitudes, and behaviours.
So, I guess I am done here too -- nothing has changed in this community.

Quote from: Thundra on February 18, 2007, 10:52:05 PM

Quotei'm tired today, arguing about ->-bleeped-<-s does not benefit [me] in anyway, so from now and on i will ignore this thread. my points are well-stated, i will NEVER  see ->-bleeped-<-s as women. i can dance around this topic with words and so called experiences, but i will NOT change my points of view.  period.

Works for me. Nobody was asking you to change anything girlie. I was just attempting to bring into the open the discrimination that goes on in this community, against other members of that same community. It is the reason I no longer feel sorry for Trans, or TG or TS people, and why I will not lift a single finger to help any of you. Some of you are worse than the average bigot I come across in your idears, attitudes, and behaviours.
So, I guess I am done here too -- nothing has changed in this community.

Sounds to me like you're looking for someone to disagree with. There were other points of view other than the one you quoted.

Why look for the negative and bring it to the forefront?

Dennis

To give folks a chance to cool down this topic will be locked for a week from today.

Steph
This topic has now been unlocked.

Please keep this thread civil and on topic, any further nonsense and the topic will be re-locked and possibly deleted.

Steph

A wise move Steph, providing cooling time.  What's interesting is seven pages of posts, and I didn't discern one She-Male in the crowd.  Hopefully everyone is moving on. Perhaps I should not even make a comment on it; I certainly don't wish to stir it up - so, how about those Mets?

Susan Kay  >:D

Would I welcome someone who self-identified as "she-male" here.  Of course.

I have some comments on some of the previous posts but I'm going to start them in a new thread.

Bev

Seeing as I think of myself as both male and female:
Hello!
Would I get the surgery to become a ->-bleeped-<-..? Well... That's a tough question, for me. I mean... On the one hand, it'd be awesome. I'd love to be, physically, between, or both, sexes.
On the other: There's not turning back, of course, and social stigma... Well, it's not what one'd call in favor of '->-bleeped-<-s.' At all.
Besides; all the costs for the required plastic surgery... well, I've got trouble paying the rent, as it is. And then there's just the fear of the entire process. And how to tell people. Hello; I've changed my name to Anne. (Where I come from, it's a unisex name.)
I'm simply not ready for that, and don't know if I'll ever be.
But it's nót about pornografy, and it's nót about sex. It's not about not giving up the penis for... Sexual reasons or anything.
It's about wanting to be both genders, physically. Because I don't feel completely male, and I don't feel completely female. I feel both.
(I've ran about for years wishing I was born fully hermaphrodite. You know; with both a vagina and a penis. Having this... Skin behind my testicles just feels flawed. It allways has.)

Nice, honest post! I would like you to know that you've got my support whatever you would like to call yourself.  The best word might be "complicated", but it's cool, I think average is boring. ;D By the way, where are you from that Anne is a unisex name? (I'm just a curious person)

I'm from the Netherlands. Frysland, to be precise. In the rest of the NL, Anne is mostly a female name, with some exceptions. (Mainly Frysians) In Frysland, however, Anne is fairly intersex. Often, it is written Ânne for men, but not allways.
Thankfully, my parents were so kind as to pick my 'female' name for me, just in case I'd be born a girl: GéAnne. (After me grandmams. Gée and Anne.)

Oh, that's really cool!

Quote..and yes, Leigh had her views and I found this which coincides exactly with what I think:

Wow.  I cannot believe you went there. I was assuming (hoping) this thread was dead, since everyone had the opportunity to spew out all their nasties.

First off. I knew Leigh Sparks better than anyone here. I was at times her closest friend, roommate, confidant, lover, and played devil's advocate for her on many occasions. Other than her leather dad, I was the first person she called when she was in a jam -- #2 on the speed dial.

Leigh was a slut. She would tell you so, to your face. She had friends in pretty much every community: lesbian, trans, gay, BI, kink, and on and on. Those who knew her loved her dearly. I think she slept with half of Portland.  LOL!!!

She had a real thing about someone using the label woman, who had not lived as a woman. As you all know, her thing was being accepted by other woman (or ducks) as she liked to say. Leigh had friends who were she-male. How she viewed them, in the context of being accepted into the lesbo community, I am unsure. Her big thing was getting upset when someone, who knew of her background, would come sauntering up to her in public like they were her best friend. That bugged her bigtime. She hated that.
She would stand up for anyone's right to express themselves as they see fit, but she hated having her privacy invaded.

I often asked her why she stayed here year after year, after she finished her transition.
Her reply was always that she did it for the kids. She did it to help anyone struggling to find out where they belong. She sure struggled to find her place, whether anyone here knows it or not. It's also how she developed a tolerance for everyone struggling for acceptance and identity, and how I got dragged in here. You can thank our Miss Leigh (or curse her?)  She felt that the people here needed a broader point of view, and I certainly have that, cause I am a big broad.

So, she was a dichotomy like everyone else. On the one hand, she'd fight for everyone's right to be themselves, but on the other hand, she resented when someone she did not necessarily like invaded her space. And like a lot of women that transition, she sometimes felt the need to keep a distance or space between herself, and other women who transitioned. So, there was this tug of war thing that went on in her head.

But, let me say, uncategorically, that she hated -- H-A-T-E-D, all of the sniping that went on the GLBT community. It upset her, that people in this community, who are the current red-headed step child (as she liked to say) for abuse, would then turn around and heap abuse on other people. That is one thing we did agree on.

So yeah, I did hear her espouse the view that you dug up from her, because it is relating to definitions used by the HBSOC. But....I also heard her at various times express the view that she wished there was no HBSOC, and that she wished at other times that they were tougher in their stance.

It was like this: She really had no problem with anyone identifying as they wish, presenting as they wish, and hanging out with who they wish......as long as it was not in HER particular group. THAT is the truth. She didn't want anyone to embarrass HER.

But that became less of an issue over the time that I knew her.

I would advise that we all follow her example. If she didn't like someone, or how they presented around her, or how they identified, she wouldn't necessarily post it out there for all to see -- to create a controversy. She'd do what all women do -- call her friend over to her side, and vent, rather than making a big stink.

If you don't like she-males, or non-ops, or post-ops, or whatever, that is your business. But what is to be gained by coming here and throwing down a gauntlet? To draw a line between yourself and someone else, so that you can feel better about yourself. There are LOTS of things I do not like about the people in this community, and views that can be incendiary to say the least. But what would I gain by expressing them here and making someone feel two feet tall?

I don't get it?  There are plenty of people out there in the real world more than happy to label you out of existence. According to them, you are all nuts.

Sometimes the finger-pointing that goes on in this community reminds me of people from the religious community. I once asked a strict Baptist associate of mine why it was so darned important to point out how flawed everyone else is, and why they would go to hell for what they do. I asked her, wouldn't it be great if everyone was forgiven, and went to heaven? She was appalled! Her reply?  What good is living a pious life and suffering if everyone gets to be saved? And therein is the rub! It is the exclusivity that makes it VALUABLE.

If everyone that self-identified as a woman, or female, or whatever was accepted as such, would transitioning and whatnot be as important? Is that why it is necessary to label ourselves apart from other people, or to be exclusionary in doing so?

You know my opinion. I could care less. I hate everyone equally.

Ladies, what are you really arguing about here? She-males? All this fuss over two stupid little words, I doubt it...seems more like the definition of a woman? Why is this such a big deal? I know I'm a woman, I know you're both women, I know my fiancee is a woman, but if I didn't think you were women, wouldn't you still think you're women? So what difference does it make then? Your definition isn't going to change anybody else's definition, so all you can live by is your own definition. Why blow this up bigger than it needs to be when there are more important things to be worrying about? And Thundra if you hate us all so much than why do you bother being here?

Quote from: SusanKay140 on February 28, 2007, 11:56:08 PM
A wise move Steph, providing cooling time.  What's interesting is seven pages of posts, and I didn't discern one She-Male in the crowd.  Hopefully everyone is moving on. Perhaps I should not even make a comment on it; I certainly don't wish to stir it up - so, how about those Mets?

Susan Kay  >:D

Soorry Susan Kay. As I said somewhere earlier I love my breasts and would even like them more developed but I do not hate or want to get rid of my penis and testicules. Does that make me a potential She-male? I don't care. On the continuum from male to female or vice versa.  I am happy and connected to my true identity when I express my own wholeness with both sides as complementary and not necessarely in opposition or in conflict with each other. May be I am lucky, I have found my own place ... if it distresses others that is their problem. If they need to stick a label on me to feel secure about their chosen one, let them do so.

And NO! I am not sitting on the fence, I just took it down and now I am free to roam on either side as I please*. It wasn't and still isn't always easy (with all the mind-cops around), but, oh yes, I love it! I wouldn't give it up for all the gold in the world!

I don't need any label, (CD, TV, Androgynous, She-male, 3rd sex, heterolesbian,etc...)**.  I know who I am, I am glad of the richness of experiences it has given (and still  gives me), I am proud of the insights I gained because of it and, believe it or not, the people I love and respect accept me as I am.

Love, Light and Respect

Maebh.

* No wonder that "An madra uisce" (my boat) is a smuggler's yawl.
** At a push I might not mind too much TG in the sense of Transcending Genders

Quote from: Maebh on March 05, 2007, 10:54:56 AM
... On the continuum from male to female or vice versa.  I am happy and connected to my true identity when I express my own wholeness with both sides as complementary and not necessarely in opposition or in conflict with each other. May be I am lucky, I have found my own place ... if it distresses others that is their problem. If they need to stick a label on me to feel secure about their chosen one, let them do so.

And NO! I am not sitting on the fence, I just took it down and now I am free to roam on either side as I please*. It wasn't and still isn't always easy (with all the mind-cops around), but, oh yes, I love it! I wouldn't give it up for all the gold in the world!

I don't need any label, (CD, TV, Androgynous, She-male, 3rd sex, heterolesbian,etc...)**.  I know who I am, I am glad of the richness of experiences it has given (and still  gives me), I am proud of the insights I gained because of it and, believe it or not, the people I love and respect accept me as I am.

Love, Light and Respect

Maebh.

* No wonder that "An madra uisce" (my boat) is a smuggler's yawl.
** At a push I might not mind too much TG in the sense of Transcending Genders

Hmmmm Maebh, I seem to recall that words similar to yours being spoken by many a TS to express themselves, so it would seem that you certainly fit in, belong and have a place here.

Steph

Quote** At a push I might not mind too much TG in the sense of Transcending Genders

Maebh, I very much like the idea of TG as Transcending Gender. It's certainly where my journey has taken me, I'm not one, not the other, just somewhere in between.

zythyra

Quote from: Steph on March 05, 2007, 11:15:51 AM

Hmmmm Maebh, I seem to recall that words similar to yours being spoken by many a TS  to express themselves, so it would seem that you certainly fit in, belong and have a place here.
Steph

TS?  ::) Qui vivra, vera. Well we'll see.

Anyway Seph; thanks for the welcome and the inclusion. Sometimes one can get the impression that some TS think that they are the only ones that are real or genuine and that others are either mere amateurs dabling with gender boundaries or stranded on their way to full self realisation.

Quote from: zythyra on March 05, 2007, 01:27:54 PM

Maebh, I very much like the idea of TG as Transcending Gender. It's certainly where my journey has taken me, I'm not one, not the other, just somewhere in between.

zythyra

Merci. Go raibh mile maith agaibh. Thanks a  :icon_bunch:

By the way, I think too that the rebel  :icon_2gun: in me also kind of likes and enjoys enormously Transgressing the culturaly imposed boundaries of the genders roles and limitations.  >:D


LL&R
Maebh

I'll put in my two cents worth, and I'm sorry if I'm repeateing anything that may have previously been said. I was just reading that she-males are neither male or female, but technically they do start off with a male body and they alter it by taking feminine hormones or getting breast implants and then they have FFS done but they do keep what's between their legs. Now like early transitioning transsexuals, that's the only comparision that I see. But due to the topic of this post, I'd see no problems with having them here.

Gina  :icon_biggrin:

Would I accept them and help them?

One of the most simple responses so far: Absolutely, it isn't for me to judge them and I like to help people when I can



**HUGZ**

Quote from: Steph on January 31, 2007, 09:46:44 PM
OK lets stay on topic folks, enough with the cutesy names.  The question is not if you like the term She-male, but would we support a person who joined Susan's who identified as a She-male.

Like it or not there are people out there who are she-males, who are not trying to save money for SRS by working the porn industry, and who are quite happy with what they are.  So if a person joined Susan's and identified as a She-male, would you provide them the same support as the other members, is there a place for them here?

Zythyra, Sheila, and Riki you make good points

Steph

In posing this question one must first ask what YOU define as *she-male* I would think. And, I am surprised anyone would even ask. Isn't Susan's a place for support for all in a sense? I am here. I am not TG. Just because I am a quasi SO means I gain entrance or acceptance here?
Is it possible for one to be happy somewhere in the middle of gender? I would imagine it is. Isn't it similar in an opposite sense as being androgyn?
Who are we, any one of us here, to turn up a nose to someone in need of support?

Yeah, I say we love everyone equally.

All hearts are created equal. Appearances and labels need not apply.

On a tangent...

Isn't the Frysian language the closest language to English, and the closest living lanuage to Old English before the Norman invasion?

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 17, 2007, 12:08:27 PM
On a tangent...

Isn't the Frysian language the closest language to English, and the closest living lanuage to Old English before the Norman invasion?

I don't understand why Norman would invade somebody's country. Is Norman a She-male? Are you trying to tell us that she-males have violent tendencies? I must study upon this new revelation.    >:D

Only She-Males called Norman, and only if they gang up together.

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 17, 2007, 12:20:37 PM
Only She-Males called Norman, and only if they gang up together.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was getting nervous.

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 17, 2007, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 17, 2007, 12:20:37 PM
Only She-Males called Norman, and only if they gang up together.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was getting nervous.

Honis soit qui mal y pense

LLL&R

Maebh

Quote from: Maebh on May 17, 2007, 05:42:29 PM

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 17, 2007, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 17, 2007, 12:20:37 PM
Only She-Males called Norman, and only if they gang up together.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was getting nervous.

Honis soit qui mal y pense

LLL&R

Maebh

That's league of the garter isn't it? Shame on those who think this is shameful - a bit of kingly crossdressing if the Horrible History series gave me any justice.

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 18, 2007, 04:54:11 AM

Quote from: Maebh on May 17, 2007, 05:42:29 PM

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 17, 2007, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 17, 2007, 12:20:37 PM
Only She-Males called Norman, and only if they gang up together.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was getting nervous.

Honis soit qui mal y pense

LLL&R

Maebh

That's league of the garter isn't it? Shame on those who think this is shameful - a bit of kingly crossdressing if the Horrible History series gave me any justice.

Me am confused

I didn't read all of the posts, but wow, I can't believe there are people who would think that just because a transsexual woman choose not to have the surgery, they have to be called ->-bleeped-<-s and not real women. That's pretty ...well...pretty close minded.

The "male" genital  does not have to be male for all transsexual women. For me, I think it's ugly, I don't really like it, but I don't have to get rid of it to be a woman, and i don't care what anyone thinks, I can enjoy my sexual part as a female in the privacy of my own orgasm (when i am alone, thank you very much) and if I want to keep it and you think that's not a womanly thing to do, well, I don't give a crap what you think. Of course, if i was given a chance to magically turn my part into a vagina, hell yeah, but surgery is not for everyone, sorry.

People might say i am still a boy or a ->-bleeped-<- if i don't have srs, but I don't think of myself as a ->-bleeped-<- or a boy. I am a human being with a female gender, and my decison about srs is my personal choice.

Quote from: asiangurliee on May 18, 2007, 11:31:19 AM
I didn't read all of the posts, but wow, I can't believe there are people who would think that just because a transsexual woman choose not to have the surgery, they have to be called ->-bleeped-<-s and not real women. That's pretty ...well...pretty close minded.

The "male" genital  does not have to be male for all transsexual women. For me, I think it's ugly, I don't really like it, but I don't have to get rid of it to be a woman, and i don't care what anyone thinks, I can enjoy my sexual part as a female in the privacy of my own orgasm (when i am alone, thank you very much) and if I want to keep it and you think that's not a womanly thing to do, well, I don't give a crap what you think. Of course, if i was given a chance to magically turn my part into a vagina, hell yeah, but surgery is not for everyone, sorry.

People might say i am still a boy or a ->-bleeped-<- if i don't have srs, but I don't think of myself as a ->-bleeped-<- or a boy. I am a human being with a female gender, and my decison about srs is my personal choice.

i agree. SRS doesn't magically turn anyone into a woman. You either are or you aren't to begin with.

Yes if they prefer to call themselves ->-bleeped-<-s.

I prefer to call myself different and I can relate to many people on this forum.

W

We sure are burning up a lot of bandwidth being offended for someone else.  Are there any she-males on here?  Surely one would have come forward by now if so.  And if not, I think this whole discussion is moot.

Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on May 18, 2007, 03:22:39 PM
We sure are burning up a lot of bandwidth being offended for someone else.  Are there any she-males on here?  Surely one would have come forward by now if so.  And if not, I think this whole discussion is moot.

Kristi

   Hi Kristi,

   I think the point of the discussion was a kind of "what if" scenario. I think that overall, it's been good in that it has brought up some discomfort within some of us about how others present themselves. I think it has given people an opportunity to think about how they feel in this respect.
   If a she-male turns up tomorrow, they will have a different experience than if they had turned up before this thread.

   I think you're right, though, it's wound itself out.

Quote from: Kristi on May 18, 2007, 03:22:39 PM
We sure are burning up a lot of bandwidth being offended for someone else.  Are there any she-males on here?  Surely one would have come forward by now if so.  And if not, I think this whole discussion is moot.

Kristi

Kristi,

I am not offended at all.   If I was better looking I would have gotten a movie contract. ;)

W

Eating more bandwidth i'll say i'm suprised this is still active since the last time I was on line here..
Hunny says wow too in dog lingo!
She's not trans.. But OCd close enough to not be normal!
anyway Kristi your pic is gorgeous, i'm soo jealous! WOW!
Nice seeing everyone's posts!
Beck i missed you !
Ricki

I've missed you too, Ricki!

I was close to sending out an SOS.