I have archived that thread, simply Locking it was not enough. Look people I don't want to have to start adding new rules but if that's what it will take, I will oblige you!
Lets see:
- Never judge a person.
- Never criticize someone because of their appearence.
- No one on this board defines someone Androgyne, intersexual, transgendered, a transsexual, or a crossdresser.
- Never force a label on a person based on your opinion of them. Let them label themselves.
- If you disagree with someone's labeling of themselves, keep your opinion to your self.
Look people this is all common sense, or should be! So I will not make these official site rules right now. But if you keep on they will be, and they will be enforced. Lets not let things reach that point.
We are a community on this site, and one which is small enough, without our cutting parts of it away.
Thank you, Susan.
I appreciate that you are taking a stand on this issue.
Megan
I agree with Susan, this is a small community and dividing it (especially by lines of "who is the prettiest TS") is just silly.
I am sorry, it is partly my fault, I am a newbie and I shouldn't have made a controversial thread like that.
But Susan, thanks for taking a stance on this as well. It makes me feel better.
Thanks Susan,
I am in strong support of these guidelines especially
Quote from: Susan on May 20, 2007, 03:25:28 PM
- Never force a label on a person based on your opinion of them. Let them label themselves.
- If you disagree with someone's labeling of themselves, keep your opinion to your self.
We have enough places to find intolerance without finding it here in our own community.
That being said Nikki. Don't take this too far. My message is very limited in utility. If you tell someone based on their description of themself what they would likely be considered under scientifically accepted terms, this would not be in violation of these standards. They are free to accept or reject application of that to themselves. Giving someone the generally accepted definitions of transsexuality, crossdressing, trangender, or other terms would not be a violation either.
Thank Goddess!
Nice job Susan. This is why I respect you. You hit the nail on the head. Technology does not a woman make.
asiangurlie, the problem is not asking the questions. The problem is a lack of restraint in answering those questions for other people.
It's called 'civil' discourse for a reason.
Thundra
Dearest Susan
Thanks for reminding everyone of the basic principles of this site.
A place like here is so rare and precious. For this it deserves to be fiercely protected and defended.
There is enougth s**t thrown at us out-there. It would have been very sad if some people instead of trying to look for help with some unresolved personal issues had been allowed to project their bitterness on others.
Hope, Hugs, Light, Love & Respect.
Maebh
Quote from: Susan on May 20, 2007, 06:39:36 PM
My message is very limited in utility. If you tell someone based on their description of themself what they would likely be considered under scientifically accepted terms, this would not be in violation of these standards. They are free to accept or reject application of that to themselves. Giving someone the generally accepted definitions of transsexuality, crossdressing, trangender, or other terms would not be a violation either.
I want to ask a question if I can. The general accepted definitions are thoroughly explained on the DSM and Harry Benjamin Standards or Care? or where?
As I know, these are the only accepted definitions that I know.
Yvonne,
I don't think that there is serious disagreement in use of the terms from a medical perspective. We get into heated discussion when we come to application in our own personal lives.
There are many, for whatever reasons, will not seek surgery for their condition.
And from that point we create disagreements. I believe that everyone here agrees that we address a person with the name and pronouns they prefer. But that's where an agreement often ends.
I'll let the medical professionals give you the label of their choosing. I stay away from them as much as possible. I don't have a medical practice and so will refuse to use them for the benefit of all here.
I'm sometimes afraid to call someone a woman or a man! Ya gotta wonder what the rest of the world would think of all this. Do you ever think how many terms they've got to learn to even begin to understand us? Shoot, we can't even agree amongst ourselves. :-\
Cindi
Quote from: Yvonne on May 20, 2007, 07:39:19 PM
I want to ask a question if I can. The general accepted definitions are thoroughly explained on the DSM and Harry Benjamin Standards or Care? or where?
As I know, these are the only accepted definitions that I know.
http://dictionary.reference.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender-related_topics
-Emerald :icon_mrgreen:
I appologize deeply as well. I feel partially at fault for introducing terms found on the Kinsey/Benjamin Scale. And honestly a bit of my own unfounded ignorance.
QuoteI don't think that there is serious disagreement in use of the terms from a medical perspective. We get into heated discussion when we come to application in our own personal lives.
But terms and definitions evolve over time. Homosexuality used to be inscribed as a mental disorder until fairly recently, just like GID. Now, it is seen as just another variant of the human genome. Things change, society evolves.
I think that we get into heated "discussions" when someone labels themself a certain way, and then doesn't stop at that. Instead, they continue on, and try to apply their definition to everyone else, as if they were in charge of such things.
I am hoping that we will evolve as people to one day accept people as they are, instead of how we want them to be. As I've stated before, if someone wants to have surgery, fine. If not, fine too. What does it matter to me? It does not. If someone that does not want to have surgery looks and behaves like a woman, than why would I call them a man? Gender role is seperate from sexual anatomy, or so I have been taught to believe.
Thundra, you and I are singing from the same songbook.
Cindi
That is also something this message was intended to stop. No forced labeling. No totally off the wall, twisted definitions either.
Susan..........thanks so much for your common sense, and sensitivity.
I know. . . . .I've participated in some heated discussions in past threads, pretty much agreeing with the rules you have laid out here. I know too, that I put some noses out of joint here and there, and finally stopped following such threads. To the noses I put out of joint: I'm sorry. Mia Culpa. I have a temper, and should keep it in better check.
To quote a popular American folk here: "can't we all just get along?"
Bev