So, it's something that has fascinated me as much as being entirely complete as a woman and that is having everything done but getting the final operation, or atleast putting it off. I haven't been able to pin-point much on the subject, how it's treated. Just about anything I look for on it turns up a lot of... uck sites, guys with horrible boob jobs messing with themselves or whatever.
I know for a fact that this is something that I've been interested in being ever since I started learning about sex. Perhaps it's a strange mixup of wanting to be very feminine but still haven't an attatchment to that part, or it's from a warped sense of sexual identity, or whatever, it's just that I think that I need to find out what it's like being like this before I can go onto the next step.
I don't know if therapists reccomend hormone therapy for transsexual patients who don't feel the immediate need for SRS. I don't know how legal gender change recognition could happen or any of that stuff. I know that Susans is a very conservative site and this might be way out of normal but it's simply something that has to be address, seeing as there is a very large trans community that is well beyond being simple crossdressers, but falling short of SRS, and seem to live just fine with a mixed up identity and some even seem proud of it.
So, I guess that's what this whole thread's discussion is for, anything about it. Please don't go flaming people for being who they are. And I do consider these people transsexuals still, they have no desire to be seen as male in any way, shape, or form, except when everything's off.
I know exactely where you are coming from kalt and SRS alone certainly doesn't make anyone a woman......
I've seen gorgeous girls in Brazil who still have their thingy......and definite looking men in London who don't have their thingy....
There is a lot to being a women and being percieved as a woman..........and it's not all just about genitalia or SRS.
A mixed up identity might be a perfect match for a mixed up world. The older the person is, the shorter the period in their life where real SRS was possible. That adds into it. And there are just a lot of different paths in life that people can take. Its not like engineering where there is one best solution. Different wants and needs move people one way or the other. There are different places and background too. Even in the SRS there are several distinct paths that people seem to travel on. Access to resources is a critical factor for many. I think how you came about incorporating being TG into your life - or how you never do - has a lot to do with it too.
Don't let yourself feel judged by anyone, dear Kalt. You know who you are. And if SRS is not right for you, so be it. Anatomy is not identity or destiny.
Quote from: kalt on December 20, 2007, 03:29:18 PM
I don't know if therapists reccomend hormone therapy for transsexual patients who don't feel the immediate need for SRS. I don't know how legal gender change recognition could happen or any of that stuff. I know that Susans is a very conservative site and this might be way out of normal but it's simply something that has to be address, seeing as there is a very large trans community that is well beyond being simple crossdressers, but falling short of SRS, and seem to live just fine with a mixed up identity and some even seem proud of it.
There are two types of transwomen, those who want srs from the start and those it's not an issue in their life. Sounds simple, and for many it is that simple. Some of the latter change their mind as they transistion. The reality is that without srs you'll always be in between genders legally, maybe having some documentation changed, such as drivers license (name and sex) and employment, credit, etc. (name). In every state it is the requirement for legally changing your birth certificate, except Ohio right now, to be legally female to have all your state and federal documents changed.
And yes, a therapist can recommend hrt and a physician prescribe it, if only so you can see what happens. Any physicians will require you to recognize and understand the effects of hrt and accept all liablity and responsbility for your health - most have forms to sign. They will prescribe dosages based on their experience with others and yourself, how you react and develop. You will be the judge, so remember don't sacrifice your health.
Good luck.
--Susan--
Thank you all, these were quite the opposite of the replies I was expecting, actually.
The truth of the matter is that I grew up with the desire to be female. My father was a very pornographic man and somehow I ended up viewing all that anatomy and stuff from a very young age. As I grew older, I get obsessed with looking at it myself. Some of it was as sexual as could be expected for a 9 or 10 year old kid, other bits of it were from a strong envy to have those bodies, the female bodies. I came across the entire heshe ->-bleeped-<- scene one day and that seemed to be a kind of large turning point in my life, when I one: realized that transition was possible and two: found a new sexual attraction, er... identity. As much as a women I want to be in society, sexually I guess I want to be be that inbetween deal, strange and such. I'd actually love to end up shooting some scenes and having some fun in that kind of community. Of course, I have other goals in life, like being a doctor and finding a stable, life partner and even children. So the operation is going to happen, I just want to see how long I can delay it. I guess if after two years I still want more satisfaction from living in between, and I have lost all my muscle and pass convincingly and beautifully(as i know I will), then I could lower the hormones to lower my risk for health complications and rely on previous feminization, boobs jobs and the assets I already have for passing, seeing as I'm a very feminine looking individual already.
But yeah... this is a part of the trans program that seems to only be addressed in pornography. I don't see any support of it besides a small bit of myspace community, and even that is highly sexual in nature. It's something that's genuine, that's very real, and that needs to find more attention in this area of the human psyche that is crying out for it all the time.
Many of these adult models hit it big doing their thing, and then some get surgery and already have connections to continue high class modelling for big labels, without even having to take r-rated shoots after surgery. It's an amazing thing that a model has, to have it known to herself and everyone else that she's on top of something, that she's beautiful and attractive. It might seem shallow but, models are some of the happiest people I know. Of course, some get on drugs and mess up and all but, overall, I think it's a great thing to consider, along with regular college and all^_^
Quote from: kalt on December 21, 2007, 08:53:56 PM
Thank you all, these were quite the opposite of the replies I was expecting, actually.
The truth of the matter is that I grew up with the desire to be female. My father was a very pornographic man and somehow I ended up viewing all that anatomy and stuff from a very young age. As I grew older, I get obsessed with looking at it myself. Some of it was as sexual as could be expected for a 9 or 10 year old kid, other bits of it were from a strong envy to have those bodies, the female bodies. I came across the entire heshe ->-bleeped-<- scene one day and that seemed to be a kind of large turning point in my life, when I one: realized that transition was possible and two: found a new sexual attraction, er... identity. As much as a women I want to be in society, sexually I guess I want to be be that inbetween deal, strange and such. I'd actually love to end up shooting some scenes and having some fun in that kind of community. Of course, I have other goals in life, like being a doctor and finding a stable, life partner and even children. So the operation is going to happen, I just want to see how long I can delay it. I guess if after two years I still want more satisfaction from living in between, and I have lost all my muscle and pass convincingly and beautifully(as i know I will), then I could lower the hormones to lower my risk for health complications and rely on previous feminization, boobs jobs and the assets I already have for passing, seeing as I'm a very feminine looking individual already.
But yeah... this is a part of the trans program that seems to only be addressed in pornography. I don't see any support of it besides a small bit of myspace community, and even that is highly sexual in nature. It's something that's genuine, that's very real, and that needs to find more attention in this area of the human psyche that is crying out for it all the time.
Many of these adult models hit it big doing their thing, and then some get surgery and already have connections to continue high class modelling for big labels, without even having to take r-rated shoots after surgery. It's an amazing thing that a model has, to have it known to herself and everyone else that she's on top of something, that she's beautiful and attractive. It might seem shallow but, models are some of the happiest people I know. Of course, some get on drugs and mess up and all but, overall, I think it's a great thing to consider, along with regular college and all^_^
Go for it. There's plenty who chose those options. Just do what makes you happy.
Pornography is as natural as prostitution. As old as the hills!
I too envied those gorgeous female bodies. I wanted one too. I also thought that the ->-bleeped-<- pornographic world held somewhat of an attraction for me. It was all transitory.
Maybe my libido died early. Maybe my T level dropped off the face of the map overnight. I don't know what it was but my recent feelings prove that my desire to be female has absolutely nothing to do with any sexual desire. I will actually be happy to be a 52 year old (unattractive) woman.
I am honestly overjoyed that some of these '->-bleeped-<- models' are happy, because that is not the impression that society portrays. I stand to be corrected.
There are understandably many reasons for staying non-op; sex, finances, fear, relationships ....
I personally do not undertand the idea of being a non-op. Just a personal thing. I accept that we are all different. There are a lot of other things I don't undertsand either. I hope it doesn't make me ignorant.
I have alays had the desire to be completely female. I still have a long way to go. It is my personal dream. I am old fashioned, and find it hard to learn new tricks, but if a form of boutique sexual/gender orientation is made available, I am sure that society will always find a way to profit from it.
Do you really want to have children of your own? You could adopt. Or get a dog.
My therapist recommended HRT without any confirmed commitment on my part. She quite rightly believes that there is a spectrum of possible outcomes. One to suit every individual. The journey is really an obstacle course with consequences.
Hugs
jenny
Hrrm. There's a thing called sperm banks, I guess I should look into them, eh?
The odds of finding love, fame, and fortune in porn are not good.
I have a friend who is a pre op transsexual and doesn't want SRS. She is NOT a ->-bleeped-<- and works everyday as a female. She looks female and has all the right mannerisms and ticks all the right boxes. I have also seen many post op transsexuals who sadly do not look female.......Femininity is completely instinctive, and naturally built into a persons persona so there is something far more to being female than a genital operation which isn't a cure or a magical trick that makes someone suddenly become female...
I was non-op m2f ts for a few years before coming to realization of myself as androgyne. As far as I'm concerned, it's a valid trans identity, although it seems to be derided by some who don't believe that it exists. Be who you are, there are many unique expressions of transgender!
y2g
Before I transitioned I felt that SRS was not a priority, that social transition was the most important thing. I also realized early that my financial resources were not strong enough to devote a large portion to something that only I would benefit from. I have others who rely on my support.
That said, now that I live full time my body dysphoria has increased. I never used to hate looking in mirrors, now I do, especially when the male bits are exposed. On top of that my political and social rights, as was mentioned, are severely impacted because of my in-between status.
For me, the best thing would be that we can get protection from discrimination because of our medical status, that the exclusion for trans people would be removed from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Then, the insurance companies would not be able to exclude us from coverage and many many more currently non-op trans people would be able to finish their transitions.
hugs & smiles
Emelye
I know non-op people and Androgynous people as well.
I think for a non-op and Androgynous person it can be hard to be in the trans community because they don't conform to what everything "thinks" they should conform, to.
Hmmmm...well, the term non-op has a history. This is what I said on a different thread:
Quote from: Tink on November 24, 2007, 02:40:46 PM
Initially the term non-op transsexual was introduced by Harry Benjamin to identify those transsexual people who couldn't have SRS due to medical reasons. Eventually, the term became a wee bit less stern and more people started to identify with it, especially those who couldn't afford surgery. However, IMO, I think that there are people out there who aren't transsexual but identify with this term as a way to justify their behavior. I have met people in the past who wanted to have their penis enlarged surgically but said they were non-op TS ???
This is the kind of behavior that needs to stop. If you can't have surgery for medical or financial reasons, then yes, you are a non-op transsexual (some will prefer the term pre-op though but whatever..). Nevertheless, a transsexual will never choose to have *that thing* enlarged instead of having it removed. Such behavior doesn't fit the definition of TS by any standards.
tink :icon_chick:
Also, a term that is not well-known in the community to identify a non-op transsexual is
transgenderist.
http://www.firelily.com/gender/gianna/transgenderists.html
tink :icon_chick:
Quote from: Tink on December 22, 2007, 01:46:52 PM
Hmmmm...well, the term non-op has a history. This is what I said on a different thread:
Quote from: Tink on November 24, 2007, 02:40:46 PM
Initially the term non-op transsexual was introduced by Harry Benjamin to identify those transsexual people who couldn't have SRS due to medical reasons. Eventually, the term became a wee bit less stern and more people started to identify with it, especially those who couldn't afford surgery. However, IMO, I think that there are people out there who aren't transsexual but identify with this term as a way to justify their behavior. I have met people in the past who wanted to have their penis enlarged surgically but said they were non-op TS ???
This is the kind of behavior that needs to stop. If you can't have surgery for medical or financial reasons, then yes, you are a non-op transsexual (some will prefer the term pre-op though but whatever..). Nevertheless, a transsexual will never choose to have *that thing* enlarged instead of having it removed. Such behavior doesn't fit the definition of TS by any standards.
tink :icon_chick:
Also, a term that is not well-known in the community to identify a non-op transsexual is transgenderist.
http://www.firelily.com/gender/gianna/transgenderists.html
tink :icon_chick:
I'm sorry Tink, but you're being pretty close-minded on this subject. A transsexual is someone who wants to be the another gender. Surely you're not going to imply that non-op transsexuals identify as male, are you?
Reading what you wish was said instead of what was said is a common ailment
on all forums since the dawn of the internet. It sure makes for a more
world more polemic than it actually is...
Quote from: Kiera on December 22, 2007, 07:28:11 PM
Quote from: kalt on December 22, 2007, 07:10:25 PMA transsexual is someone who wants to be the another gender. Surely you're not going to imply that non-op transsexuals identify as male, are you?
Ouch! If the shoe fits Kalt!
She said it appears some alledgedly "non-op transsexuals" really don't fit the profile. ::)
Your not reading properly.
:icon_bunch:
Oh. Silly me. Luckily I have an automatic apologiization machine to make up for my frequent mishaps. Mmhmm.
Quote from: kalt on December 22, 2007, 07:10:25 PM
I'm sorry Tink, but you're being pretty close-minded on this subject. A transsexual is someone who wants to be the another gender. Surely you're not going to imply that non-op transsexuals identify as male, are you?
Hmmmm....I know I can be
close-minded about certain issues, Kalt, but I don't think I'm being
shallow here. Sorry to be blunt but no, I am not being shallow. Anyhow Kalt, I DISAGREE with you anyway, a transsexual; is someone who is ALREADY one gender , but has the body of the other. We DESIRE TO LIVE AND BE ACCEPTED AS MEMBERS OF THE MENTAL GENDER. This is generally accompanied by the strong desire to make our BODIES (NOT OUR GENDER) congruent as possible with our true gender (MENTAL gender) through hormones and surgery. As a reference, I NEVER WANTED TO BE FEMALE, I WAS ALREADY FEMALE, do you know what am I saying? Perhaps, this is the distinction between people who ARE and those who "WANT TO BE".
tink :icon_chick:
I am a non-op male to female transsexual. I have a medical condition that precludes any surgery other than a liver transplant. It would be very dangerous. I have been medically stable for several years now and when I began transition I knew that GRS may not be in my stars. Three months into transition my hepatologist confirmed my fears. I have been able to undergo hormone therapy and it has been very effective for me. I'm passable and I live my life full time as a woman. I have a good career. I'm respected by my colleagues and clients. I've changed my name and gender legally and despite not having surgery I'm legally a woman and my birth certificate says so. I've learned to live with many limitations and this is just another one of them.
I've never hated my body, well, maybe when I'm overweight. The important parts of transition for me are in my heart and in my head. Very few people see me without clothes and only one doesn't have an MD following their name. My journey has been spiritual and I've chosen my path despite the obstacles in my way. You gotta work with what ya got ;)
BTW Irony of ironies, my insurance covers GRS and other surgeries to a lifetime benefit of $75,000
Do you really think that you can change the nature of what you are merely by wishing it? - LK Hamilton
Hi Claire, welcome to Susan's I admire people like you who refuse to say no. I am 7 years full time and 4 years a post-op. I would love to share some more with you later. My Soul Mate and I are heading out the door right now but will be back later.
Have a wonderful day
Cindy
Thank you for the welcome, Keira! I'm glad to have found this spot. It looks like your friend John is doing well. With some luck I'll have a succesful outcome too. I've been on the list for 5 years now. The first 2 were a struggle with frequent hospital visits and a few scary moments. Then a new med came out that changed my life. My MELD declined and now is stable at 14. My doctor says I could stay this way for a long time. He told me that I shouldn't put my life on hold waiting for a liver and I took his advice. With a new grasp of my own mortality I decided to make my time count.
I have wanted to transition for years but put it off thinking now's not the time. I finally realized that now is the time! Transition came easily for me. My family and friends have been accepting and I've started a new career in social work. Life is good right now and I'm enjoying it as best I can!
Quote from: Tink on December 22, 2007, 01:46:52 PM
........ If you can't have surgery for medical or financial reasons, then yes, you are a non-op transsexual (some will prefer the term pre-op though but whatever..). Nevertheless, a transsexual will never choose to have *that thing* enlarged instead of having it removed.
tink :icon_chick:
Yepperrs, I can't think of any transsexuals that would want to do anything with the 'thing' except have it remanufactured into a female organ, provided they had the resources, etc
Quote from: Tink on December 23, 2007, 02:05:16 AM
... a transsexual; is someone who is ALREADY one gender , but has the body of the other. We DESIRE TO LIVE AND BE ACCEPTED AS MEMBERS OF THE MENTAL GENDER. This is generally accompanied by the strong desire to make our BODIES (NOT OUR GENDER) congruent as possible with our true gender (MENTAL gender) through hormones and surgery.
tink :icon_chick:
Now THAT, sounds like fact, to me anyhow.
Nichole
Quote from: Claire de Lune on December 23, 2007, 04:05:18 PM
I am a non-op male to female transsexual. I have a medical condition that precludes any surgery other than a liver transplant. It would be very dangerous. I have been medically stable for several years now and when I began transition I knew that GRS may not be in my stars. Three months into transition my hepatologist confirmed my fears. I have been able to undergo hormone therapy and it has been very effective for me. I'm passable and I live my life full time as a woman. I have a good career. I'm respected by my colleagues and clients. I've changed my name and gender legally and despite not having surgery I'm legally a woman and my birth certificate says so. I've learned to live with many limitations and this is just another one of them.
I've never hated my body, well, maybe when I'm overweight. The important parts of transition for me are in my heart and in my head. Very few people see me without clothes and only one doesn't have an MD following their name. My journey has been spiritual and I've chosen my path despite the obstacles in my way. You gotta work with what ya got ;)
BTW Irony of ironies, my insurance covers GRS and other surgeries to a lifetime benefit of $75,000
Do you really think that you can change the nature of what you are merely by wishing it? - LK Hamilton
Hrrm, gimme your insurance giver and policy, ima go bug em till they cover me.
It's a valid medical term; yet, let's not confuse non-operative transsexuals with male prostitutes or fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-s who only want a female appearance (from the belly button up) in order to satisfy a sexual urge or get "customers".
Quote from: Natasha on December 28, 2007, 08:19:44 PM
It's a valid medical term; yet, let's not confuse non-operative transsexuals with male prostitutes or fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-s who only want a female appearance (from the belly button up) in order to satisfy a sexual urge or get "customers".
Of course not. It's something genuine for many of us. It's real community out there that needs to be accepted by more than a few perverts.
Quote from: Natasha on December 28, 2007, 08:19:44 PM
It's a valid medical term; yet, let's not confuse non-operative transsexuals with male prostitutes or fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-s who only want a female appearance (from the belly button up) in order to satisfy a sexual urge or get "customers".
I take an inclusive view of the transgender community. Professor and attorney Jillian Todd Weiss has been a major influence on my thoughts so I'd like to share this excerpt from an essay she posted titled
Trans Studies at http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/transstudies.htm#three . I hope you find it as useful as I have.
Transsexuals vs. Crossdressers. I often hear people trying to explain "transgender" by confidently reciting a list. "For example," they will say, "there are transsexuals who have sex change surgery and live full-time as the opposite sex, which is different from crossdressers, who are male heterosexuals who like to relax by putting on female clothing in privacy." This statement is fraught with problems, but I would like to address the most dangerous one: the idea that transsexuals and crossdressers are different in some important way. I recognize, of course, that the two are distinct, but I dispute the importance of that distinction. It is a distinction without a difference.
Transsexuals wish to be and consider themselves to be the opposite sex. Crossdressers do not. That is the sole distinction. It is a matter of intent only, and not action or behavior. Because of this, one cannot tell by looking who is a transsexual and who is a cross-dresser. On the one hand, some transsexuals have never worn clothing of the opposite sex; and some have not had surgery and never will. Yet they validly declare themselves transsexuals. On the other hand, some crossdressers have taken medical intervention to change their bodies; some wear clothing of the opposite sex all or most of the time and pass undetectably as members of the opposite sex, though they do not consider themselves members of the opposite sex. The only difference is the label that a person chooses to take. There is no "real" difference between the two, except as a self-identification. A physician cannot distinguish between a crossdresser and a transsexual by physical examination (though that doesn't stop them from trying).
There is a social difference, however. Transsexuals are given more credence in society because "transsexualism" is seen as a "medical condition", a gender "identity", whereas "crossdressing" is seen as an extreme eccentricity, a gender "expression". There is no basis, however, for this notion other than fiat. These are both identities and expressions, and there is nothing that distinguishes them as concepts. The attempt to limit "gender identity" to one's identification as male or female reprivileges anatomy as a hierarchical structure. The attempt to use surgery as a dividing line does the same. It makes no sense to spend three decades arguing that "anatomy is not destiny", only to begin arguing that "identity is destiny" or some such thing.
The plain fact is that modern society is willing to accept transgenders as long as they reenact gendered norms, in reverse, challenging nothing, and to the extent they "pass." Who is really being protected by this construction of "gender identity"?
Hi Claire,
I'm so sorry for your terrible choice that you MUST make between physical well-being and congruence.
Professor Weiss makes good points, Claire. We definitely do tend to define people in large groupings rather than by individuals. And I have to agree with this:
Quote It makes no sense to spend three decades arguing that "anatomy is not destiny", only to begin arguing that "identity is destiny" or some such thing.
Our tendency to divide and distinguish between types is consistently problematic. We seldom account for the fact that people, in general, bleed blood that can be used in their veins by others. That we sweat, laugh, cry and hope very much alike, except for the desires we each carry within ourselves.
And I think one of the 'fears' that many post-ops and soon-to-be post-ops carry is that somehow another's inability or lack of desire for the same goals will manage to 'prejudice' all the nons out there against the entire group. I spoz we tend to neglect that if 'they' know, they are likely enough to have the prejudice anyway.
Gender is one of those things that had we not been given the genetics we have been given we would seldom if ever question, let alone think about. I believe most people never do. They simply believe without ever testing their beliefs to any degree until they face transsexuality or ->-bleeped-<- or androgynism. (Forgive the categorizations.) Most people 'feel in themselves' that there are only two and that physical form defines both.
In point of fact, I tend to 'believe' that myself, although knowing from deep experience that there is a complication, a large one, in that regard. Yet, dislike it as I do within myself, I still tend to distinguish my TSism from TGism (CDs, TVs, etc) not so much as a difference in kind, but as a difference in internal make-up. (Perhaps another difference without a difference.)
There seem to be no easy answers and that we can discuss this at all seems hopeful to me. I see differences, but also know that within those differences there are loving and lovable human beings that are incalculably 'worthy.'
Within us all there seems to be a biological imperative to perceive 'us' and 'them.' What were the major differences in so-called Neanderthals and so-called Cro-magnons? There were very few, much having to do with hair, shape, physical strength and ability to make sound with a voice. Yet, there appears to have been a wholesale slaughter of the former by the latter due to greater technology and greater capacity to reproduce. And, I imagine, a wholesale 'fear of the other.'
I often think this is a biological thing within 'apes.'
I would LIKE to think that we are all "being protected by the construction of 'gender identity.'" But I do get the point in that piece of essay. Thanks for posting it. If it gives us cause to simply consider, whether or not we come to that same conclusion, it is worth the while it took to post it.
Hugs,
Nichole
Quote from: Claire de Lune on December 29, 2007, 09:59:16 AM
Transsexuals wish to be and consider themselves to be the opposite sex. Crossdressers do not. That is the sole distinction. It is a matter of intent only, and not action or behavior.
Isn't that a bit like equating guys who play paintball on weekends pretending to be warriors for fun and relaxation... with professional soldiers who put their lives on the line every second of every day to do what they do?
~Kate~
Hi Kate, I love your distinction. When Wing Walker and I went to see our interviewer for a job volunteering working with Trans people he coined our transitional years as "The walk of heroes."
Cindy
these days everyone that cross-dresses on weekends calls themselves ts ::)
as far as 'outsiders' are concerned, a ->-bleeped-<-, a cross-dresser, an androgyne, and a transsexual woman are all just different words for a 'man in a dress'.
The transgender community uses this to their advantage; in the last few years, there has been an increase (small, but still significant) in the general understanding and acceptance of transsexualism; we've made advances socially, legally and medically, and the transgender activists want some of that acceptance for themselves which is why there is this subtle insistence that transsexual people come under the "transgender umbrella", and therefore society can't deny "other transgender" people the rights and acceptance that it's beginning to offer to transsexual people. all nonsense, of course, but very plausible, and it carries with it a dangerous barb for us.
lumping transsexual people into the transgender camp means that we are viewed as having a psychological problem, and are told to either get over it, or "see a shrink" to have it fixed. as a result, the proper medical treatment of hormones and surgery can become more difficult, if not in some cases impossible to obtain. jobs can be denied. the denial of the right of marriage in some states and countries (due to the belief that "assigned with one sex at birth, means you are always that sex", results in the refusal to change birth certificates) is also reinforced. this creates the possibility of revoking this right in other states and countries, where transsexual people are considered to be transgender, since transgender people are almost never considered by the general public to be any sex other than the one they were assigned to at birth.
being considered transgender does me, a woman born transsexual, more harm than good. why? because it creates the probability that i will be viewed as "born a man, always a man" even though i was never a man. i was born transsexual; i've had treatment for that; i'm anatomically female.
furthermore, it doesn't matter that i've had the corrective surgery, or that i've spent years in therapy, and thousands on hormones, hair removal, other medical treatments and speech therapy; because as a "transgender" individual one's sex never changes from the one you're assigned at birth. it also creates the nasty unspoken subtext of "why can't you just live with what you have, and be happy with it like a cross-dresser, ->-bleeped-<-, she-male, drag queen or other does?" fyi i'm a woman who was born transsexual. and i'm not "transgender".
I think there's two camps here.
GID at various level (some start as crossdressers).
- Feeling of not fitting in birth sex at various level
In the first case, if we take as a basis that there is a biological imperative here
(which still remains to be prooven without a doubt but many clues hint in that direction)
Then its not a lifestyle decision, its part of who we are as human beings and cannot change it.
- In the GID camp, there are two main "factions" with their own continuum.
- Somatic (closer to Body image dysphoria, no social aspect at all)
- Social dysphoria
- And a combination of both at various level or somatic and social dysphoria.
Most people with GID have social and somatic dysphoria at various levels.
- A classic TS would have extreme somatic and social dysphoria
- Living as a non-op would be unbearable no matter the cost.
- A Non Op would generally have a much stronger level of social dysphoria than somatic dysphoria
- Depending on how much the somatic component is strong, they could live for either a while
as a non op, or in some case were the body component is small, forever.
- when making decisions, humans weight factors against each other, if you're deathly
afraid of operations and have a less than extreme somatic component for whatever
reason, you could choose to go non-op.
- The thing is that non-op have a GID at a level that afford them the option to have a choice.
- Someone with mainly a somatic dysphoria, can actually live as a male or androgyne
and have a female body.
- Someone with mainly a social dysphoria could live as women, without any body modification
(if they can) and be satisfied with that (it is often possible for those in their early 20's with little beard to do so).
CD and she-male would do it mostly for reasoned conscious reasons with no biological imperatives.
- Most she-males I know are in the sex industry, which I don't think is a coincidence.
- That's why I place them here instead of with the non ops.
At this point I'm thinking I won't do it. Too much money. One day when they can put a real vagina on/in me I probably will, but not until then.
I like women. Women generally like my freakishly large clit. I have a good imagination. Tadaa!
Thank you, Nicole. I've learned to accept my limitations and move on. Life presents us with challenges and like any other disability we must learn to accept and compensate for physical realities.
I think that much of TS behaviour is defined by a desire to conform to the expectations of the medical community. The SOC sets a standard for how a TS is supposed to look and feel and individuals conform to the rules of the gatekeepers. If a person lives in compliance to a set of rules long enough they tend to internalise those beliefs adopt them as there own. It's a form of institutionalisation.
People tend to put others into large large groups and sub-groups within. The public groups all LGBTI people into the category of queer and then breaks us out into components and sub-sets to those. We, TSs, do it ourselves. Trying to change this system of belief would be extremely difficult and I believe not achievable in the short run. I think it will be 2 or 3 generations before there is a general acceptance of gender fluidity. My experience in transition in the work place was that I could be who I wanted but I had to be consistent in my gender presentation in regards to bathrooms, pronouns and presentation. That was fine with me but had I been bi-gendered it would have been a problem.
I have problems identifying with the entire spectrum contained under the TG umbrella. A drag queen seems more like an actor than a person with gender identity issues. I've met several of The Sister of Perpetual Indulgence out of costume and they have been large gay men who carry the gender switch no further than the dressing room door. As such legal protections really aren't necessary for them. If we are to attain ENDA and hate crime legislation on a national level I think it would be prudent to pursue it for transsexuals only in the beginning.. At this point the public and legislators would be more willing to accept people that make the change but remain faithful to the gender binary. Other types of transgender people could be brought along as people become accustomed to greater gender variation.
"If we are to attain ENDA and hate crime legislation on a national level I think it would be prudent to pursue it for transsexuals only in the beginning."
And yet you use Franklin's quote about hanging alone. Which one is right? Are we together, or apart. Or is it like Animal Farm, where 'some animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?'
In fact, I think a simple wording that covers simple presentation would be easier to pass then full TS rights, which often winds up with an attached argument about both marriage and money. Sadly, if you really look at the victims of trans gender crime you will find that most of them DO NOT do not fit the strict standard you propose. Do they count? Do you think you should have a protection that you would deny to both Brandon Teena and Gwen Araujo?
Quote from: Claire de Lune on December 31, 2007, 12:43:46 AM
If we are to attain ENDA and hate crime legislation on a national level I think it would be prudent to pursue it for transsexuals only in the beginning.. At this point the public and legislators would be more willing to accept people that make the change but remain faithful to the gender binary. Other types of transgender people could be brought along as people become accustomed to greater gender variation.
Sorry, Claire. I appreciate the idea, but that quote is just too close to the justifications that Barney Frank and the HRC used to exclude all forms of Ts.
The idea that some of us need coverage and other 'can be brought along as people become accustomed to greater gender variations,' for me, is to say that some of us are more human than are others, at least for the present.
I cannot accept that formulation. Almost like we had said in 1964 that Civil Rights are good, but only for people like and lighter than Lena Horne right now. We can bring along darker folk as people become more accustomed to darker skin colors.
Believe me. I do not want men in the bathroom, changing rooms, etc with me, and my view of CDs and TVs is that they are men who dress sometimes as women for their own senses of well-being. But as a protected class, which is what ENDA was setting up, why do they deserve less protection if they are assaulted or slain for doing what they are doing? I just cannot support that.
Nichole
You're taking me much more broadly than I intended. I'm not in favor of leaving any anybody behind. I'm suggesting that we have to clearly define just who is being protected. The more clearly that is done the more the more politically palatable protective legislation will become. In California we have all the protections provided in ENDA. The original legislation contained protections only for LGBT folk but the courts extended it to include TGs as well.
Tekla, I didn't propose a strict standard of anything. By transsexual I meant people that are living or seek to live their live in their true gender. I believe both Gwen Araujo and Branden Teena would be included by that standard.
Quote
Believe me. I do not want men in the bathroom, changing rooms, etc with me, and my view of CDs and TVs is that they are men who dress sometimes as women for their own senses of well-being. But as a protected class, which is what ENDA was setting up, why do they deserve less protection if they are assaulted or slain for doing what they are doing? I just cannot support that.
ENDA had nothing to do with hate crimes, Nichole. It is solely aimed at employment discrimination. The hate crimes legislation which did provide sentencing enhancements went down to defeat in the Senate. That was certainly a symbolic loss but I have my doubts about how concerned bigots are about sentencing enhancement when they are already committing a crime that may result in a death sentence.
The goal is to bring everyone along. I just think it would be more easily done in increments than trying to shove the whole package down the straight worlds throat.
Well you propose two standards, the first:"people that make the change but remain faithful to the gender binary." I think would exclude Brandon and Gwen as neither were on HRT, neither were under the care of a doctor, neither were preparing for SRS.
Second standard: "seek to live their live in their true gender". I'm not even sure how you would begin to qualify that.
Third, and this is the kicker, the real incremental method is to A) get these laws passed on a local level, B) get them passed on a state level, then, and only then, C) get a national law. There are two reasons for this. First, and the most important, employment discrimination cases tend to be filed on a local level first, then drift up to the state level. Such discrimination is hard - almost impossible - to prove, as most employers are not going to leave any sort of paper trail that would act as a 'smoking gun.' You would need some form of corporate communication stating "don't hire ->-bleeped-<-s" or something to that effect. Any employer, or their lawyers, will contend that the other person who was hired was "a better fit to our corporate culture" so some such nonsense, that though untrue, is again, almost impossible to prove. In a place like the SF Bay area where so many people apply for every job, many of whom are highly overqualified for them, its very hard for a person suing to meet the burden of proof that they were singled out for discrimination. Moving it up to a federal level not only makes that harder (as the burden of proof is even higher), its much, much, much more expensive. That's why most federal suits are done as class actions, the cost is too much for one person to carry, for as long as it would take - and the federal court system is very, very slow. Moreover, it would be much easier to get a fair hearing from the SF DA, or Jerry Brown on the state level, then anyone in the Bush Department of Justice.
One of the reasons that so few people in the Bay Area got all upset about EDNA is that we have those laws in place on a local and state level, and thus, have far less need for a Federal law - nor is anyone in SF under any sort of delusion that the Bushies in the DoJ would be jumping for joy to start suing their favorite major corporations on behalf of gays and lesbians, much less ->-bleeped-<-s. (And we have much bigger problems with Miss Nancy over the funding for the war and the non-impeachment stuff, then over the EDNA bill.)
The second reason for doing the local > state > national route is that by the time you get to a national level, you have had cases in lower courts that could be cited. By that time you have the beginnings of a body of decisions that could be used to guide to fashion the federal decisions.
And, perhaps there is no discrimination in SF (I doubt it) but in the 15 years that the local law has been in place, there has not been a successful lawsuit. As I said, its way hard to prove.
In the end, any standard on this that takes anything greater than presentation is going to be doomed. More MtFs have SRS then FtMs at the current time - do we exclude them? What about those who for medical reasons can not have either HRT or SRS? And, many, many, many of our brother and sisters can not afford it - they (like so many Americans of all stripes) are living paycheck to paycheck, often only a check or two from being homeless, the cost of the entire run Shrink > Endo > HRT > Surgeon > SRS is far beyond their means. Excluding the MtFs and the poor, and the sick, would make such legislation little more than a 'rich, healthy girls protection act."
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
Quote from: tekla on January 01, 2008, 12:15:06 PM
Well you propose two standards, the first:"people that make the change but remain faithful to the gender binary." I think would exclude Brandon and Gwen as neither were on HRT, neither were under the care of a doctor, neither were preparing for SRS.
Why do you think that? A person doesn't need to have surgical proceedures our hormones to be TS do they? While California statuatory law prescribes "gender enhancing surgery" to obtain a legal gender change, judges can and do set it aside if circumstances warrant it. Gwen Araujo was clearly very passable. She was also 17 years old at the time of her murder. "The four defendants in the murder of Gwen Araujo were sentenced to prison. Two of the men, were convicted of 2nd degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life. The other two took plea bargains to voluntary manslaughter. One of Brandon Teena's killers received the death penalty while the other got life i prison.
QuoteSecond standard: "seek to live their live in their true gender". I'm not even sure how you would begin to qualify that.
Do we really want to make this a discussion on rules of evidence?
QuoteThird, and this is the kicker, the real incremental method is to A) get these laws passed on a local level, B) get them passed on a state level, then, and only then, C) get a national law. There are two reasons for this. First, and the most important, employment discrimination cases tend to be filed on a local level first, then drift up to the state level. Such discrimination is hard - almost impossible - to prove, as most employers are not going to leave any sort of paper trail that would act as a 'smoking gun.' You would need some form of corporate communication stating "don't hire ->-bleeped-<-s" or something to that effect. Any employer, or their lawyers, will contend that the other person who was hired was "a better fit to our corporate culture" so some such nonsense, that though untrue, is again, almost impossible to prove. In a place like the SF Bay area where so many people apply for every job, many of whom are highly overqualified for them, its very hard for a person suing to meet the burden of proof that they were singled out for discrimination.
I agree with you about beginning at the local and state levels. The reason to go for federal legislation is that some places will never accept LGBT people on their own. Should we have different rights in South Carolina than we do in California? You can't prevent people from being people. If you have to choose between 2 equaly qualified applicants wouldn't you choose the peson you'd most like to work with?
Well I often have a choice about who I am working with, as do some of my other friends, and we always choose each other first. In part that is because we like each other, and have been working together for decades, and its also because we know and trust the work the other can do.
Brandon Teena is a very strange case. I have no doubt that being trans led to his murder, but I do not think it was the only reason. If it was, I think they would have killed only BT - and might have got away with it. But three people were killed. And where most hate crimes are crimes of passion, the three were executed, which is a whole other level of murder. I've always thought Meth (very big business out in that area), but there was a lot of crime going on with that group (the two killers were already two-time felons, not the best choice of running buddies - and charging them with rape would have been a third strike in a three strikes state, so that was a mandatory life without parole, which of course is part of the problem with the 'get tough on crime 3 strikes stuff, at that point you have almost nothing to lose, which is why most police do not favor them). His troubles really started with the arrest for check forging, (which is not smart in a very small town,) and he was in Fall City to begin with because of legal trouble in Lincoln. So the Hollywood version (shocking) was not the full story. But it also may be that BT just got caught up in what a friend of mine once called "Twin Peaks on the Paririe" because that little section of the country is very, very weird.
As for the standards, and the law like a 'bright line' something they can test and point to, what you are proposing is that everyone is TS if they say they are, in that case, would not all TG people simply claim to be TS? To say she was "highly passable" does that become the standard? Because that would really skewer things, I know lots of people who after HRT and SRS are not achieving that goal.
And, at some point, if your talking about a legal deal, you are talking about evidence. About a standard of proof. About a way to define who is - and who is not - in the class you are trying to protect.
And, under our system of federalism, there are differences between the states, and people do have differing rights from state to state. Trust me, getting caught smoking marijuana is a lot different in SF (where they might tell you to put it out, maybe) and Texas, or South Carolina.
First of all the penalty for pot is a ticket with a possible $500 fine. I once said to an SF cop "To get a ticket in this town you'd have to walk up to a cop, blow smoke in his face and insult his mother." The cop replied "That might not do it either."
My point in mentioning Gwen and Brandon was that normal criminal sanctions were severe enough without hate crime enhancement. Gwen's killers got 2nd degree murder because the crime lacked premeditation which makes it no less monsterous in my mind.
I don't know of any specific behaviours that are common to all transsexuals other than there own declarations. Whether or not they're telling the truth or not is something the court can decide.
Yes federalism does apply at present. That's why a federal standard that mandates equity is needed in recalcitrant states like Texas and South Carolina.
The reason for federal hate crime law that covers transgendered is basicallly to fill in when the local juridiction has not done its job. That's what happened in the 60's with civil rights laws that allowed the federal government to intervene down south and which probably cost the democrats their solid southern base (which the republicans were very happy to fill).
To be perfectly clear: There is no such a thing as a non-op transsexual by CHOICE.
If someone transitions and wants to keep willy......they are not (maybe somewhere in the TG spectrum but not transsexual) a transsexual. The term transsexual is a medical one and the drive to bring the body and mind into congruence defines the condition. I believe that some peeps have gone to a lot of trouble to try and blur lines to excape from their association with their fetishistic drives and coattail medical legitimacy.
Quote from: Pia on January 03, 2008, 01:01:02 PM
To be perfectly clear: There is no such a thing as a non-op transsexual by CHOICE.
If someone transitions and wants to keep willy......they are not (maybe somewhere in the TG spectrum but not transsexual) a transsexual. The term transsexual is a medical one and the drive to bring the body and mind into congruence defines the condition. I believe that some peeps have gone to a lot of trouble to try and blur lines to excape from their association with their fetishistic drives and coattail medical legitimacy.
i concord. "non-op" is a term that's becoming increasingly difficult to justify. in the past it referred only to those people who were born transsexual but were unable to have surgery for clinical reasons.
yet improvements in surgical and anaesthetic techniques and procedures now mean that there are very, very few people who are genuinely unable to have surgery for those reasons, so it's being increasingly used by the transgender community to further blur the distinction between "transgender" and "transsexual".
Quote from: Keira on January 01, 2008, 04:51:44 PM
The reason for federal hate crime law that covers transgendered is basicallly to fill in when the local juridiction has not done its job. That's what happened in the 60's with civil rights laws that allowed the federal government to intervene down south and which probably cost the democrats their solid southern base (which the republicans were very happy to fill).
I wrote to Bush the answer was the local people can handle it. I wrote to the State Senator he said he supports "Family Values" go figure.
also, the term non-op transsexual is an oxymoron. the term "transsexual" was coined by a reporter in the late 50's after christine jorgenson had her surgery. at that point in time, there were only 2 terms. ts for those who got/wanted surgery, and tv for those who didn't. the term tg was coined in the late 60's around the time of the stonewall riots and was first used for those who lived as the other sex without the surgery. so it was for someone who was more serious than a crossdresser, but without the desire for a complete transition. that is what a non-op is, not a preop who must stay there. non-op is in one's head, not in their circumstances.
if a person cannot have the surgery, they are a preop, rather than a non-op. If they could get the surgery, they would. a non-op is one who would never get the surgery even if you wrote them a check for a million dollars.
furthermore, for me, can't-op or "perpetual preop" is not the same as non-op. a non-op has nothing against their original parts below. non-op is a mindset rather than a condition. what i call a can't-op is someone who is too disadvantaged, sick, or elderly to get the surgery. so there is a big difference between having the non-op mindset and simply being unable to get the surgery.
btw i do not attach ts onto the end of non-op. i consider the non-op a variety of tg and to be honest, i find it (the term) degrading. if you want the surgery at all, you are preop. "pre" means before. i'm sure you already know that, don't cha?
I found this whole discussion interesting - I have been stearing clear of this - but glad we are trying to get down to people feelins at last
Quote from: Kate on December 29, 2007, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: Claire de Lune on December 29, 2007, 09:59:16 AM
Transsexuals wish to be and consider themselves to be the opposite sex. Crossdressers do not. That is the sole distinction. It is a matter of intent only, and not action or behavior.
Isn't that a bit like equating guys who play paintball on weekends pretending to be warriors for fun and relaxation... with professional soldiers who put their lives on the line every second of every day to do what they do?
~Kate~
I so relate to the quote of Claire. Given that terminolgy I am still a cross dress. My thoughts now are 'when I become female I will be able to .....'. Yeap - that is right - with a male body I still consider myself to be male. OK - I accept my brain acts in a female way but that fact of the matter is I have a perfactly functioning male body which is why I need/want to transistion.
I am a very logical person - being a programmer by trade I use logic all the time. I started to cross because 'I wanted to be female' and that want is only getting stronger as the years goes by. I now know it is possible and hence I start the process hoping my life will become better as my body will match my brain.
I have had to look outside of Susans for support as there are very few people in here who would understand what I have just said. I know there are people out there that feel the way I do and I am satisfied I am taking the right steps (even if I do get scared sometimes).
Alice
PIA
What if indeed GID was a continuum due to the interaction of multiple genes and environmental
factors. Then, why should TS be more magical than whoever's on the scale. There's
also the whole issue of somatic and social dysphoria.
There's very little theory devellopped beyond clinical psychology (and most of it it the big
public sector clinics); which only looks at the extreme of GID
so this is a very skewed view of the possible actual population of those that have
GID and even TS in general (since the street population and those who go the private route
are not well counted).
At the biological level, the originating phenomena could be much
broader.
Considering the varying levels
of GID even amongst TS that want the operation. Some are plainly suicidal about doing it, even going to the extreme of self-mutilation, while others can wait 2-3 years till all their eggs are in a row. For some TS wanting the op, the social aspect is by far more important than the physical aspect, which is more like the cherry on the sunday.
I feel that many TS resist vehementally the possibility that there is actually a gradation of GID along the somatic and social aspects. The classical TS is the one where the somatic dysphoria crosses a threshold. But, why would a TS feel such a need to seperate oneself from others with less dysphoria if its indeed part of the same phenomena.
Quote from: Keira on January 03, 2008, 07:23:43 PM
PIA
What if indeed GID was a continuum due to the interaction of multiple genes and environmental
factors. Then, why should TS be more magical than whoever's on the scale. There's
also the whole issue of somatic and social dysphoria.
There's very little theory devellopped beyond clinical psychology (and most of it it the big
public sector clinics); which only looks at the extreme of GID
so this is a very skewed view of the possible actual population of those that have
GID and even TS in general (since the street population and those who go the private route
are not well counted).
At the biological level, the originating phenomena could be much
broader.
Considering the varying levels
of GID even amongst TS that want the operation. Some are plainly suicidal about doing it, even going to the extreme of self-mutilation, while others can wait 2-3 years till all their eggs are in a row. For some TS wanting the op, the social aspect is by far more important than the physical aspect, which is more like the cherry on the sunday.
I feel that many TS resist vehementally the possibility that there is actually a gradation of GID along the somatic and social aspects. The classical TS is the one where the somatic dysphoria crosses a threshold. But, why would a TS feel such a need to seperate oneself from others with less dysphoria if its indeed part of the same phenomena.
Excellent points, Keira. Thank you.
And as long as we are talking about 'real' this and that. Perhaps we want to look at other statistics as well.
One I can think of that I almost never see discussed on internet forums is that statistically 'real Tses' are white, middle to upper class people living in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe.
Most especially that could be said if "post-ops" are counted exclusively. Statistically speaking, I would think that someone, Focus on the Family, say, might well focus on the idea that in their parlance: "Transsexualism is a mental disorder that arises in white males of western European culture and relatively wealthy socio-economic status and is not particularly prevalent anywhere else in the world nor among other socio-economic classes."
I think that statistically speaking Pia, Natasha, or any one else would have a tough time of building a factual argument against such statistics.
And no, I don't think you are gonna find any support by bringing up the Hijras in India, most of whom never have a surgery other than an orch, nor the katoey in Thailand who reside in much that same social class and end result as do the Hijras.
Now we could actually have that discussion, but wouldn't that make everyone rather uncomfortable? I know it does me. So, maybe we could just realize that when we discuss 'real' this and 'real' that we tend to 'blur' the fact that we may also be thought of as 'unreal.'
Given that, perhaps the problem might be solved were I to simply embrace the reality of myself without seeing any need in making some rather pointless comparison with anyone else at all.
For me that might just mean that I had found some self-acceptance and had no further need to try to find my acceptance through comparing myself to someone else who I 'a priori' classify as 'unreal.'
But, that is just me and my thoughts about myself and the way I view the world. Maybe, though, I have no point at all. Perhaps someone else might decide that?
Nichole
Quote from: Pia on January 03, 2008, 01:01:02 PM
To be perfectly clear: There is no such a thing as a non-op transsexual by CHOICE.
To be perfectly clear, you're absolutely wrong.
QuoteIf someone transitions and wants to keep willy......they are not (maybe somewhere in the TG spectrum but not transsexual) a transsexual.
How is that?
They want to be percieved and appreciated as a woman. They want to live, act, behave, and love as a woman. Just because someone wants to hold onto her libido does not make her any less of a woman!
Let me reiterate:
I want to be a woman. I want to see someone else staring back at me in the mirror, a female. I want to be seen as, spoken to, known as, flirted with as, and accepted in every single aspect of my life as a woman. I have been doing that, it's been my mission. I will not, however, sacrifice my one means of a truly satisfying libido. I will hold onto my drive as long as I can until it doesn't function anylonger. Even then, I will happily do things to keep it as functional as possible in the interests of preserving length and sensetivity which can be transferred to depth and recovery after surgery. I am not disgusted by what'd down there and in no way view it as something in my way to womanhood. A deep voice, a bad frame, rough skin, those I could view as physical obstacles. But not this thing. I'm just happy with my penis and I will be just fine with it as a woman. I'd rather have a functioning penis than a nonfunctional vagina any day, any time. If I could have a functional vagina, then I'd go for it 100%. But until then, I'll stick to what I've got and enjoy it. Oh and yes, I won't be the only one either.
This dogma of who's a TS and who isn't is holding this community back as much as any rednecked political group is. If we can't even figure it out, and we lash out at those who don't conform to your tiny images of what's classified as, "standards for joining our group," then how do you possibly think anything will ever get better? The facts are that genitilia to not define gender. This is the core of transgender acceptance. And yet, here you people are, sneering at it, ridiculing it, hating it, because it's different, because it's not like you.
Anyone with me? Is anyone on this site going to step outside of the box, instead of just running away from one into another one? Is anyone NOT going to look in the mirror and pass judgment, thinking, "I'm more of a woman than she is, because if I change my external appearance then I'll look more like one." Hrrm? Is the path of a MtF's journey to become a true woman really just who can spend the most money on operations, or is it something deeper?
Quote from: kalt on January 03, 2008, 09:57:14 PM
Anyone with me? Is anyone on this site going to step outside of the box, instead of just running away from one into another one? Is anyone NOT going to look in the mirror and pass judgment, thinking, "I'm more of a woman than she is, because if I change my external appearance then I'll look more like one." Hrrm? Is the path of a MtF's journey to become a true woman really just who can spend the most money on operations, or is it something deeper?
Hey - I am with you all the way. I have never been on the inside of the 'susans' box. If fact if you read what I wrote earlier today you will of seen me say 'I am male until my body is female'. Everyone else has been saying they are female from the start despite their body.
Stick arround Kalt so we can split open the gender box so everyone who has gender issues can enjoy being here.
Alice
Kalt, wanting people to step out of the box, is as oppressive as people wanting people to choose a box. There's NO BOX. Almost nothing is know about why we feel gendered or not, where does the whole classification system come from!!
Can you really classify something tha'ts on a continuum (If its the case); its like calling number 1 better than 9, what's the point of it!
What I think we all should do is just treat everyone as human beings, respect their humanity and that will be wonderful. There's so much beauty in the human condition that chopping it in little pieces with labels seems insightly. Those labels are needed to communicate abstractly, when the object's not there, but it rarely fits reality perfectly even in cases unlike ours, where definitions would seemingly be unequivocal.
Quote from: kalt on January 03, 2008, 09:57:14 PM
I'd rather have a functioning penis than a nonfunctional vagina any day, any time.
See
How much risk of loss of orgasm would you be willing to take for SRS? (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,17994.0.html) for reference...
~Kate~
Also depends what you mean by functioning.
What freaks me is becoming incontinent; that not a swap I'd be ready to go for.
Lack of sensibility, that I can live with since its possible to get orgasm other ways...
Quote from: Keira on January 03, 2008, 10:14:03 PM
Kalt, wanting people to step out of the box, is as oppressive as people wanting people to choose a box. There's NO BOX. Almost nothing is know about why we feel gendered or not, where does the whole classification system come from!!
Can you really classify something tha'ts on a continuum (If its the case); its like calling number 1 better than 9, what's the point of it!
What I think we all should do is just treat everyone as human beings, respect their humanity and that will be wonderful. There's so much beauty in the human condition that chopping it in little pieces with labels seems insightly. Those labels are needed to communicate abstractly, when the object's not there, but it rarely fits reality perfectly even in cases unlike ours, where definitions would seemingly be unequivocal.
I agree with you. I'm not in any way proclaiming one 'type' of transsexualism being better than another, I'm simply combatting the highly judgemental oppression facing anyone who doesn't jump to fit in, even inside a community that has meetings, campaign and other such methods to bitch about how left out they themselves feel.
I quite agree with you Kate.
Cindy
Quote from: cindybc on January 03, 2008, 11:53:40 PM
I quite agree with you Kate.
Cindy
Argumentum Ad Populem.
Catering to the dogma of susans.org doesn't really sway my will.
Females who have a desire to keep their male genitilia have no right to judged by other transwomen.
Quote from: kalt on Today at 19:57:14
Quote
Anyone with me? Is anyone on this site going to step outside of the box, instead of just running away from one into another one? Is anyone NOT going to look in the mirror and pass judgment, thinking, "I'm more of a woman than she is, because if I change my external appearance then I'll look more like one." Hrrm? Is the path of a MtF's journey to become a true woman really just who can spend the most money on operations, or is it something deeper?
I'm with you. I'll go so far as to say GID is not a disorder. Transgenders are just a variation of the norm. The gender binary is largely a social construct and gender identity is linear. I know many psychiatrists and psychologists that treat TG/TS people that share that a opinion. When I came out to my own shrink he asked me if I was happy. When I replied that I was he said. "Then don't worry about it, if you begin to have difficulty we'll talk about it." I didn't and we never did. In my posts on passing legislation I was talking about a political strategy, not a core belief.
When I hear of people having thorasic surgery (rib removal) to enhance there figure I wonder about their sanity. All surgeries have risks and openning up your chest just isn't a good idea. How does one live as woman if she spends most of her time recovering from surgeries?
Well I aint got one of them anymore anyway, yuk why would I want to have one again?
Cindy
Quote from: cindybc on January 04, 2008, 01:34:02 AM
Well I aint got one of them anymore anyway, yuk why would I want to have one again?
Cindy
Some people have all the luck! ;D
Quote from: kalt on January 03, 2008, 09:57:14 PM
Anyone with me? Is anyone on this site going to step outside of the box, instead of just running away from one into another one? Is anyone NOT going to look in the mirror and pass judgment, thinking, "I'm more of a woman than she is, because if I change my external appearance then I'll look more like one." Hrrm? Is the path of a MtF's journey to become a true woman really just who can spend the most money on operations, or is it something deeper?
I don't live in a box. There are plenty of others here as well. I believe that there are as many expressions of being transgender as there are trans people. Some need to have SRS to be happy, others don't. Do what feels right for you. I want to create a world in which one can live at any point along the continuum, openly and safely.
y2g
Quote from: kalt on January 03, 2008, 11:57:39 PM
Quote from: cindybc on January 03, 2008, 11:53:40 PM
I quite agree with you Kate.
Cindy
Argumentum Ad Populem.
Catering to the dogma of susans.org doesn't really sway my will.
Females who have a desire to keep their male genitilia have no right to judged by other transwomen.
Awl, I didn't "mean" anything by my post. It's just when you asked, "Anyone with me?" I remembered a similar poll that might answer your question.
Personally, I can't stand seeing it aroused. It's one of the most humiliating things imaginable for me. But I have no right to project that discomfort upon you and insist YOU feel it too.
~Kate~
Why this whole non-op TS thing keeps coming up, I have no idea :-\.
I'd probably attempt to make some kind of "go with what you got and what you believe, and let everyone else do that as well and stop caring about theirs cause it dont hurt you and yours dont hurt them" plea, but in my experience that never works and someone gets angry at me for not being enough of a true transsexual or some other BS like that.
My genitals are my business, no more, no less. I'd still be a girl no matter what kind of thing I had down there. And I'd be mightily upset if people felt it neccesary to question the validity of my identity or my gender based solely on whatever the hell down there looks like. And therefore, I can understand that, oh my god, other people might actually feel the same way?
Empathy can be a bitch, but I dont think you can mess with it once you got it. The world starts looking like a beter place, you know?
Megan
Quote from: Kiera on January 04, 2008, 08:19:56 AM
QuoteThe real-life experience is not defined by ability to pass as a non-transgender woman or man. Rather, it is defined by actualizing and continuously expressing one's unique gender identity
From: Endocrine Therapy for Transgender Adults in British Columbia: Suggested Guidelines
Wait! What happened to the part about who's more trans than whom? Whydya leave that paragraph out, Kiera! How unfair that is.
MY rule here is simply this: when I am numbered among less than 1% of the population of the world, does it really matter who may or may not be at the 'top' of that 1% of the population? Is it worth the argument? Very large ocean, very small breed and school of fish.
Nichole
This is getting to confusing for this old gal. Packs her bag, throws it over shoulder walks out to the edge of the highway and sticks her thumb out. Transport pulls over and Cindy hops in throwing her back in the back compartment and waves good by at the folks behind her standing on the edge of the road. The transport driver shifts his rig into gear and slowly pulls away then picks up speed again once the rig is back on the ashfalt of the two lane highway.
Cindy
Quote from: Nichole W. on January 03, 2008, 07:58:37 PM
Given that, perhaps the problem might be solved were I to simply embrace the reality of myself without seeing any need in making some rather pointless comparison with anyone else at all.
Nichole
nichole, sorry but i don't think we're discussing anything "pointless" here. also allow me to remind you that if you consider this topic to be "pointless", all you've got to do is ignore it.
having said that, this thread has nothing to do with being "more trans than thou". i'm just basing my answers on the distinction between transgender and transsexual. it has been my experience that many self-proclaimed transgenders expect that to mean the same thing as "transsexual", while the reality is, they are gender variant (tv, cd, drag queen, androgyne, she-male, etc) and do not admit it. i'm perfectly ok with gender variant people if they are honest, yet i'm not ok with any orientation or gender who is dishonest.
i think that hiding one's gender variance behind the label and/or pretense of something else can be hurtful to the image and the fight for equal rights by honest lgb & tss. the more i read about this thread, the more the term "she-male" comes to mind.
there's an interesting thread that needs to be read by some of you. you'll be surprised how many people here like that term:
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,9831.0.html
Quote from: Nichole W. on January 03, 2008, 07:58:37 PM
[some paragraphs about the racial and socio-economic make-up of 'post-op' transsexuals that indicate they are overwhelmingly white, western European culturally and relatively rich in terms of overall world population.]
Now we could actually have that discussion, but wouldn't that make everyone rather uncomfortable? I know it does me. So, maybe we could just realize that when we discuss 'real' this and 'real' that we tend to 'blur' the fact that we may also be thought of as 'unreal.'
Given that, perhaps the problem might be solved were I to simply embrace the reality of myself without seeing any need in making some rather pointless comparison with anyone else at all.
For me that might just mean that I had found some self-acceptance and had no further need to try to find my acceptance through comparing myself to someone else who I 'a priori' classify as 'unreal.'
But, that is just me and my thoughts about myself and the way I view the world. Maybe, though, I have no point at all. Perhaps someone else might decide that?
Nichole
BTW, count me as someone who does not like THAT term at all. In fact, I find it rather offensive.
Just for clarity's sake I thought I would put that quote above into context.
I think this shows that I was talking about statistical averages of demographics among post-op TSes. I said such comparisons tend to make me uncomfortable and I would rather not have a lengthy discussion about that.
Therefore:
for me going anywhere past what I know of myself I find pointless.
You may not.
To ignore a hot topic would be sorta not doing my job around here.
Nichole
now we're understanding each other. differences of opinion as usual.
Natasha, I understand that you can be frustrated by some people's saying all T are the same.
For some, there is clear no GID; its just a run of the mill compulsion.
But, as I said, we know so little of GID and if its a binary or not, that discounting
them as not like us. What if some WHERE LIKE US. We just don't know for sure
what causes GID and what are all its expressions.
There SOME gender variants that seemingly are wannabee GIDer, but I
content that not all are, and who are we to say which is which when
so little is know of the whole thing.
The thing I don't like about people challenging someones definition of their identity using the term "transsexual" is that, to me, it becomes a clear challenge to the identity of that person.
I'll use myself as an example. I don't identify "as" a transsexual, but I will happily use that term to describe myself because of the situation. I was born with the physical body of a genetic male, and I consider myself, my brain, my identity, to be female. Hence I transitioned socially, as well as taking the medical and legal steps, to live my life as female. Not too difficult to understand. The term fits, I'll use it to describe my situation rather than launching into a lengthy monologue in attempting to explain my particular situation. I dont think it matters one bit when I transitioned, what I want to do with whats between my legs, any more than what I had for breakfast yesterday, as to whether I am allowed to use that term to describe myself.
I use the term in the sense that it is a simple term that implies that I ID as the other binary sex to which I was not biologically assigned to at birth, and wish to live my life as a member of that sex. Now, I could really care less these days if anyone feels the need to imply, for whatever ridiculous reaons they want, that I can't call myself transsexual, I'm pretty stable and secure with my identity these days - a few years ago though, when I was still depressed, alone, desperate for acceptance and understanding from people I thought felt the same way as myself, someone challenging my use of the term meant something altogether. To me it felt like a direct attack on my identifiying as female - that I wasn't dysphoric enough, that I wasn't comitted enough, that I wasn't allowed to call myself a woman because here these people are, who call themselves women or men and also call themseleves transsexual, telling me that because of this, or that, I'm not like them so I'm not transsexual. I can call myself a transgenderist if I like - and I should feel perfectly OK with that.
To someone searching for acceptance, the last thing they need is an attack on their identity from those they see as sharing the same identity. It's cruel, it achieves nothing. So stop it. Challenging someones identity when the cold be in a vulnerable state and needing support is only going to either annoy people, or make things a hell of a lot worse. It's not going to help.
Megan
Quote from: Natasha on January 04, 2008, 05:04:55 PM
the more i read about this thread, the more the term "she-male" comes to mind.
Damned right, and it should, because it's exactly what's being discussed.
A "->-bleeped-<-" is just as much of a female as any other transwoman, if she identifies herself as a female and not as a "->-bleeped-<-" except by pure aesthetics only noticeable when exposed.
"->-bleeped-<-s" who live life as a female are in fact, female. There are plenty of, "->-bleeped-<-s" in this world that live life without anyone ever knowing except intimate partners. Just because a few get on the web and wave their dicks around doesn't mean others should have to suffer for those perverse labels.
Even some "->-bleeped-<-" models who display their bodies upfront and proud on the web could be females. If they are displaying themselves to be seen as female, appreciated as female, but just happen to have an attatchment, then how are they any different from a female online displaying herself with a bunch of crazy tattoos or with three boobs? I mention bizaare things specifically because I recognise it is a bizaare aspect in a select few people's sexuality. You will find though, that the people who find themselves attracted to that kind of market identify as heterosexual. Not bisexual, not homosexual. They see the "->-bleeped-<-s" as purely female and appreciate them as such. I've got a ton of friends on myspace who are both Non-op women and their admirer's, I know the story pretty well.
She-male is rarely used in a non sexual way and rarely used by the person itself, its mostly a third party thing.; so I understand not wanting to associated with it since the person itself is not using it.
But, the core remains, if someone ID's as female, whatever way others ID her as she-male or non-op is totally irrelevant to me. That's how most people in society will see them anyway and for most, that's all that matters. If she works in the sex industry and markets herself as ->-bleeped-<- to make a buck doesn't change how she ID's herself.
BUT, there are some who have had breast implant and limited hormones (keeping their potency) and ID as male!!! It does exist!!! Often its very screwed up effeminate gays who do that and making a buck in the sex industry is more important than their own self-respect. Here, well, I can only feel pity. But, it's their life so hey...
Quote from: kalt on January 04, 2008, 09:05:11 PM
A "->-bleeped-<-" is just as much of a female as any other transwoman, if she identifies herself as a female and not as a "->-bleeped-<-" except by pure aesthetics only noticeable when exposed.
That would be a pre-op or non-op transsexual (not a she-male). Or better yet, a woman. A she-male, as far as I am concerned has a male gender identification and identifies as a she-male (not as female/woman) The term she-male carries a negative connotation, usually associated with the porn industry.
tink :icon_chick:
Quote from: Keira on January 04, 2008, 09:17:54 PM
there are some who have had breast implant and limited hormones (keeping their potency) and ID as male!!! It does exist!!! Often its very screwed up effeminate gays who do that and making a buck in the sex industry is more important than their own self-respect.
Wow. People actually do that?? *shudders* keeping that male potency sounds awful to me. DIE TESTICLES DIE!!!!
Quote from: Laura91 on January 04, 2008, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Keira on January 04, 2008, 09:17:54 PM
there are some who have had breast implant and limited hormones (keeping their potency) and ID as male!!! It does exist!!! Often its very screwed up effeminate gays who do that and making a buck in the sex industry is more important than their own self-respect.
Wow. People actually do that?? *shudders* keeping that male potency sounds awful to me. DIE TESTICLES DIE!!!!
Tons of heterosexual erotic crossdressers experiment with hormones too, I guess seeing it as an extreme form of CDing with a female body rather than just clothes.
~Kate~
Quote
Tons of heterosexual erotic crossdressers experiment with hormones too, I guess seeing it as an extreme form of CDing with a female body rather than just clothes.
~Kate~
I will never understand how anyone could find crossdressing to be erotic. Wearing womens clothes is quite boring to me.
Hi, I dress like what ever moves my moods and in accordance with the weather, of course. Whether it be a knee length sun dress with a sun bonnet. In fall and winter, I will wear ankle length dresses if there is an occasion for it. I will also wear slacks and a camisole and top. I so love it here in BC where you don't need to wear all those heavy clothes. I always dress in sharp looking clothes where ever I go out for whatever the occasion. I can go out shopping for a sack of potatoes in sharp looking clothes just as well as for going out with Wing Walker for the evening with much pride. I am proud of who I am and I am certainly without shame of who I am.
Cindy
Clothes for me are never boring because they are a means of self-expression.
They reflect who I am in general, and my mood of the moment like Cindy said.
It may make me feel sexy, confident, etc.
I am transsexual and by no means a "->-bleeped-<-." I find the term as disgusting as the photo captioned at the end of this posting.
Here is an excerpt from the writings of Virginia Prince, one who referred to himself as a cross dresser and then a ->-bleeped-<-, and finally a transgenderist:
"Prince's Philosophy
In the pages of her magazines Transvestia and Femme Mirror and in occasional articles in the professional literature, Prince has forcefully expounded her views on transvestism. The psychiatrist, Hugo Beigel, referring to her as a 'prophet', wrote that "transvestism is her creed and its acceptance by the world her mission" (1969: 118-119). Benjamin (1966: 36), in a discussion of Prince's work, refers to her as "teacher, mentor and spokesman for the ->-bleeped-<- 'sorority'".
Prince (1976: 3) claims to have been the first person to abbreviate the term ->-bleeped-<- to 'TV' in about 1955. She also claims to have 'coined the words "->-bleeped-<-" and "transgenderist" as nouns describing people like myself who have breasts and live full time as a woman, but who have no intention of having genital surgery' (Prince, 1997a: 469).
The distinction of three types of males who may share (in a beautifully dated phrase) "the desire to wear feminine attire" (Prince, 1957: 82) is the main point of her first short piece in the professional literature in 1957. Pointing out that Havelock Ellis and Hirschfeld had distinguished transvestism from homosexuality almost 50 years earlier, she argued that there was still a tendency to confuse the two. The picture, she said, was further complicated by the discovery of transsexualism and the possibility of sex reassignment surgery.
She distinguishes the homosexual and the transsexual from what she calls the "true ->-bleeped-<-" (Prince, 1957: 84). The true ->-bleeped-<-s are "exclusively heterosexual. Frequently they are married and often fathers." She continues, "The ->-bleeped-<- values his male organs, enjoys using them and does not desire them removed"(1957: 85). She later began to call the true ->-bleeped-<- a "femmiphile" (FP), defined as "lover of the feminine" (Prince, 1973: 22)."
This link will take you to the entire article: http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/2000/king20.htm (http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/2000/king20.htm)
Is a picture worth a thousand words? If you open this link you will see a ->-bleeped-<- indulging in sexual activity with a male partner. It is pretty raw. I found it on Google images. Remember, this is raw nudity and the activity of a ->-bleeped-<- so if you want to avoid it, please don't click on the link. Caution!!!!! Really nasty stuff!!!!! I, for one, would sooner be dead than to look like this.
Oops! Sorry! I forgot the link. Anyone wanting to see this, please ask on this thread.
Lest I forget, I move that this thread be locked.
Wing Walker
I know who I am and where I am going, and it ain't as a ->-bleeped-<- or transgendered!
I understand the negative feelings towards ->-bleeped-<-s shown on this thread, but Kalt has asked for our help in exploring her identity and sexuality. I hope we can set aside our personal feelings and opinions enough to help her out, rather than make her feel badly about herself.
~Kate~
Kate, there is no good way of defining she-male since the term is so closely associated with
the porn industry. We're not the one that have defined this way. Considering the negative semantic
hole this term is in, I'd doubt it can be rehabilitated as a person's positive attribute.
Non-op for me doesn't define intent for me (though it does for others seemingly), simply a current state that may or may not change in the future. As for pre-op, it has a feeling of process, and
going somewhere and intent that doesn't go well will the confused and the people will less somatic dysphoria.
In all, I wonder if any terms are really needed to define the genital's configurations.
If someone is living life as a women, she's living life as a women and maybe non-op TS is
the closest defining term (since for me non-op has no value assessment for me, its merely
descriptive).
Quote from: Keira on January 05, 2008, 11:11:27 AM
Kate, there is no good way of defining she-male since the term is so closely associated with
the porn industry. We're not the one that have defined this way. Considering the negative semantic
hole this term is in, I'd doubt it can be rehabilitated as a person's positive attribute.
Non-op for me doesn't define intent for me (though it does for others seemingly), simply a current state that may or may not change in the future. As for pre-op, it has a feeling of process, and
going somewhere and intent that doesn't go well will the confused and the people will less somatic dysphoria.
In all, I wonder if any terms are really needed to define the genital's configurations.
If someone is living life as a women, she's living life as a women and maybe non-op TS is
the closest defining term (since for me non-op has no value assessment for me, its merely
descriptive).
It's just a word. Consider it a pejoritive if you like but why so much concern about it? The meaning of words changes over time. I could not have imagined 1980 that "queer" would by 1990 have lost it's value as an insult. Our disdain is what gives the word "->-bleeped-<-" its power to offend.
Porography is something everyone loates but most watch. Like most other art forms 99% of it is krap, but that 1%... I used to hold to hold it in disdain until I met a porn actress/model. She is a very smart, very kind and will do what it takes to promote her art work. Needles to say she's very sex positive and a feminist, too.
Queer was never as pejorative as she-male.
And even when it was pejorative, its meaning was not only associated with gays,
queer had a broader meaning initially.
Words to have meanings for a reason; communcation.
If you want to use one against type I've got nothing against,
but be ready for a lot of mis-communication when talking to others.
in 1980 in the Los Angeles area (Isn't LA a culture center? All that movie biz and stuff?) queer was synonomous with ->-bleeped-<-. Obviously ->-bleeped-<- get's a rise out of you But other transgender people wear it with pride. At least until they've had political reducation.
Quote from: Keira on January 05, 2008, 11:11:27 AM
Kate, there is no good way of defining she-male since the term is so closely associated with the porn industry.
Oh I know it... but I don't want Kalt to feel like we're saying SHE is disgusting or whatever. She asked for help. I don't know if telling her how grossed out we are, and protesting how WE aren't "one of those people" is helping her.
~Kate~
Oh give me a break Clair de Lune, nobody I know WEAR IT WITH PRIDE in my neck of the wood, or in the immediate vicinity and Montreal has a pretty big T comminity and I've been involved with it since early 90's!!! At most its a regional term in a minority of the T community (if at all).
Kalt, who you are and how you manage that is the important aspect of your question. Doctors do say that maintaining the penis is an important aspect of SRS, at least in regard to having enough tissue & to having it in good condition for the surgery. Elasticity is a positive thing for depth and post-srs elasticity. How you do or do not do that is strictly up to you.
If someone else has a problem with what and how you are doing what you are doing, it's just that. Their problem.
Your self-definition is also yours to have and hold as you see fit. Those are all items that the rest of us may have feelings about, but not a one of us lives your life or makes your decisions for you. That's the beauty of having separate lives.
However you choose to manage your affairs are, I'm certain, quite valid. As noted above, surgeons do recommend such practices prior to srs. Whether or not they make a difference, are prejudiced notions by male-physicians or just nonsense, I have no idea.
Best of fortune in your quest to achieve your own answers to living your life in a way that leads to your success and fulfillment.
Nichole
Quote from: Keira on January 05, 2008, 11:11:27 AM
Kate, there is no good way of defining she-male since the term is so closely associated with
the porn industry.
Mmhmm, so are females. But, I think they're pretty well defined.
"->-bleeped-<-" is nothing but a slang term that some people glorify in and other people despise.
If people want to sit back and call any non-operative transsexual a ->-bleeped-<- then they can do so, but it doesn't mean that they are correct. "->-bleeped-<-" is a term that was started in the porn industry and should stay in the porn industry. I think that people shouldn't be so harsh on them either, the ones in the porn industry. Looking at it from their point of view, feelings of gender confusion can lead to life situations and mental states that take a toll on a person's mental health and judgment. I feel rather sorry for people who've been through so much in life that they feel the need to take pride in being a freak. And yes, I think that ->-bleeped-<-s are freakish in that they destroy the beauty of a female. In no way do I consider a non-op transsexual a freak. But, those poor people have been through so much. There's always a market for any good looking girl with her thing still to pose for, and some people just get too much into it maybe. I know quite a few that are mentally stable and happy, however.
QuoteNon-op for me doesn't define intent for me (though it does for others seemingly), simply a current state that may or may not change in the future.
And that's exactly right. I know quite a few and most have full plans to do something about in the future, but simply have no desire to at the present time.
QuoteIn all, I wonder if any terms are really needed to define the genital's configurations.
If someone is living life as a women, she's living life as a women and maybe non-op TS is
the closest defining term (since for me non-op has no value assessment for me, its merely
descriptive).
Thank you for understanding.
Non-Op transsexual isn't just a purely MtF thing either. Working in a gym I know about half of the elite female bikers have no chest at all. Some of them rep out pullups and heavy weights better than the guys do, without steroids. They look pretty masculine. I don't see how they're any different in body from a FtM that decided not to transition. It's not a one way street, it's just always been socially more acceptable for a girl to put on a pair of jeans than a guy to put on lace and mascara.
Quote from: Keira on January 05, 2008, 12:11:54 PM
Oh give me a break Clair de Lune, nobody I know WEAR IT WITH PRIDE in my neck of the wood, or in the immediate vicinity and Montreal has a pretty big T comminity and I've been involved with it since early 90's!!! At most its a regional term in a minority of the T community (if at all).
And that's where the problem is - "Nobody you know". I would offer that there are in fact folks who do wear it with pride, whether we find it a disgusting term or not. Just because some here find the term disgusting doesn't make it so. There are some out there who find transsexuals disgusting, but we know better don't we.
Steph
Steph, as I said, I've been around the TS, CD and T community in montreal a LONG TIME,
more than 15 years. I actually said that my answer was REGIONAL.
When I say, nobody I know, I'm not talking about close friends. Its not like if people
self-identifying as such could be a secret I would never hear about (unless its only something
done by a small minority of street trans (which I know less about. But, I do know a few)).
As I said, it might be some people do call themselves like that (instead of being called that way
by others); but not around this area. I won"t vouch for LA, NYC or anywhere else
since I don't know those areas.
I think the ire is raising because peeps are confusing two very different terms: non-operative transsexual and she-male. They are not the same & shoudn't be used interchangeably to avoid confusion.
Most trans men don't get genital reconstruction. Even if they can afford it and have no medical reason they couldn't, many are waiting in hopes that better surgical options may be developed. That doesn't make them less than men.
And some peeps just don't want it. It's a major surgery. It costs the earth, it's extremely painful, and it carries risks like any surgery. Some people decide it's not worth it. It's not like surgical reconstruction (for trans people or anyone else) *makes* one who one is; a trans woman is a woman, a trans man a man, regardless of their anatomy at any given moment. Options for physical alteration (including but not limited to surgery) just improve quality of life. If someone decides the risks are too great or the probable outcome unsatisfactory, that's their perogative. That's what the term non-op means, not to be confused with the term she-male because of the stigma "she-male" carries.
Quote from: Keira on January 05, 2008, 12:11:54 PM
Oh give me a break Clair de Lune, nobody I know WEAR IT WITH PRIDE in my neck of the wood, or in the immediate vicinity and Montreal has a pretty big T comminity and I've been involved with it since early 90's!!! At most its a regional term in a minority of the T community (if at all).
Well, I know a few. It's not a term I would use to describe myself or have others use for me, but that's beside the point. I'm not willing to pass judgement on them. I'm a functioning professional woman that happens to be non-op yet I get the since that some see me as less than because of my anatomical status. That's what bothers me most about this entire thread. I'm not Christian but I think the words of Jesus apply here; "judge not lest ye be judged".
I have a good friend that lives in Montreal that is woman in transition. I had a long discussion with her about the use of the word
queer in describing the LGBTI community.
With that, I'm done with this thread. Stay warm, Keira!
You're not in this thread Clair de Lune, but I never said anything about Non-Op, the opposite, non-op means what it means. Not operated on, nothing more. If one TS that actually wears the term She-male with pride exists please direct me to that or those person so I can educate myself. Until then, this mythical person is just an abstraction used as a rhetorical device.
Hi, Valentina,
Finally someone gets the picture!
I have no qualms about whoever wants to be whatever but we are who are TSs are dead serious about our desire to be as close to natal women as we can be and what we need and want to accomplish. We will not be at peace until it's all done, HRT and GRS.
And yes, in my opinion ,if a pre-op who has not had the surgery because of finances or health problems that preclude surgery but still desire it, I would say is as much transsexual, F - M or M - F as I am, and I am a post-op. Any pre-op, regardless of how they gather the money needed for their GRS would be welcome in my home.
Yes it is true that some trans people are sex workers who work the streets to pay for their surgery. There was a non-op member here on this thread who incidentally appears to have vanished. She was unable get surgery on the account of some medical reason or another. That made sense until the label *non-op* was turned into a three ring circus.
Cindy
Quote from: Valentina on January 05, 2008, 04:41:32 PM
I think the ire is raising because peeps are confusing two very different terms: non-operative transsexual and she-male. They are not the same & shoudn't be used interchangeably to avoid confusion.
Most trans men don't get genital reconstruction. Even if they can afford it and have no medical reason they couldn't, many are waiting in hopes that better surgical options may be developed. That doesn't make them less than men.
And some peeps just don't want it. It's a major surgery. It costs the earth, it's extremely painful, and it carries risks like any surgery. Some people decide it's not worth it. It's not like surgical reconstruction (for trans people or anyone else) *makes* one who one is; a trans woman is a woman, a trans man a man, regardless of their anatomy at any given moment. Options for physical alteration (including but not limited to surgery) just improve quality of life. If someone decides the risks are too great or the probable outcome unsatisfactory, that's their perogative. That's what the term non-op means, not to be confused with the term she-male because of the stigma "she-male" carries.
Halleluja!
Quote from: cindybc on January 05, 2008, 05:35:26 PM
we are who are TSs are dead serious about our desire to be as close to natal women as we can be...
If a non-passing person doesn't desire FFS, are they then not a transsexual?
~Kate~
Quote from: Kate on January 05, 2008, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: cindybc on January 05, 2008, 05:35:26 PM
we are who are TSs are dead serious about our desire to be as close to natal women as we can be...
If a non-passing person doesn't desire FFS, are they then not a transsexual?
~Kate~
Doesn't mean anything besides their content with who they are probably.
Quote from: kalt on January 05, 2008, 01:41:31 PM
Quote from: Keira on January 05, 2008, 11:11:27 AM
Kate, there is no good way of defining she-male since the term is so closely associated with
the porn industry.
Mmhmm, so are females. But, I think they're pretty well defined.
Yes, they are, and they don't have penises and cannot possibly be confused with a "chick with a dick."
Quote
"->-bleeped-<-" is nothing but a slang term that some people glorify in and other people despise.
If people want to sit back and call any non-operative transsexual a ->-bleeped-<- then they can do so, but it doesn't mean that they are correct.
Question
And so are other terms that are disparaging of race, ethnicity, religion, economic status. Such terms are slang but they are also pejorative and offensive.
Quotation
"->-bleeped-<-" is a term that was started in the porn industry and should stay in the porn industry. I think that people shouldn't be so harsh on them either, the ones in the porn industry. Looking at it from their point of view, feelings of gender confusion can lead to life situations and mental states that take a toll on a person's mental health and judgment. I feel rather sorry for people who've been through so much in life that they feel the need to take pride in being a freak. And yes, I think that ->-bleeped-<-s are freakish in that they destroy the beauty of a female.
Question
Is there any objective evidence of the how "->-bleeped-<-s" got into the porno industry? Are they doing their work unpaid or under duress? There is an assertion of gender confuaion on the part of "->-bleeped-<-s." Is there any objective, or even reliable anecdotal evidence of their gender confusion?
Quotation
In no way do I consider a non-op transsexual a freak. But, those poor people have been through so much. There's always a market for any good looking girl with her thing still to pose for, and some people just get too much into it maybe. I know quite a few that are mentally stable and happy, however.
Question
Is this from a personal knowledge of these people? Why are they non-op? Where is the objective evidence of the assertions in the preceding paragraph?
QuoteNon-op for me doesn't define intent for me (though it does for others seemingly), simply a current state that may or may not change in the future.
And that's exactly right. I know quite a few and most have full plans to do something about in the future, but simply have no desire to at the present time.
Question
The prior two sentences are confusing the state of being pre-op with non-op. Is this a personal knowledge, on the web, or third-hand?
Quote
How can the term "->-bleeped-<-" or "non-op" transsexual be applied to those who for whatever reason desire to have GRS but cannot yet find a way to have it done? Can we look into their heads and see objectively that they are
QuoteIn all, I wonder if any terms are really needed to define the genital's configurations.
If someone is living life as a women, she's living life as a women and maybe non-op TS is
the closest defining term (since for me non-op has no value assessment for me, its merely
descriptive).
Thank you for understanding.
Quote
Non-Op transsexual isn't just a purely MtF thing either. Working in a gym I know about half of the elite female bikers have no chest at all. Some of them rep out pullups and heavy weights better than the guys do, without steroids. They look pretty masculine. I don't see how they're any different in body from a FtM that decided not to transition. It's not a one way street, it's just always been socially more acceptable for a girl to put on a pair of jeans than a guy to put on lace and mascara.
Women who are body builders are unquestionably women. How are they in any way comparable to F to M men? The foregoing paragraph does not state that these women are binding their breasts and seeking in any way to change their inner or outer genital organs.
There is a difference between living life as a transsexual person and a "chick with a dick" or "she male." It goes well beyond outward appearances and being a "lifestyler." It's the difference between being a paintball-shooting "weekend warrior" and a Marine serving in Iraq. Those Marines appreciate how deeply commitment to an ideal goes.
Posted on: January 05, 2008, 07:38:18 PM
Quote from: Kate on January 05, 2008, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: cindybc on January 05, 2008, 05:35:26 PM
we are who are TSs are dead serious about our desire to be as close to natal women as we can be...
If a non-passing person doesn't desire FFS, are they then not a transsexual?
~Kate~
Is gender defined solely by facial features?
Wing Walker
QuoteThere is a difference between living life as a transsexual person and a "chick with a dick" or "she male." It goes well beyond outward appearances and being a "lifestyler." It's the difference between being a paintball-shooting "weekend warrior" and a Marine serving in Iraq. Those Marines appreciate how deeply commitment to an ideal goes.
Didn't you say the same thing on Genderlife yesterday?
Hi Kate
And yes, of course FFS included. what ever one feels they need to requiere to pass as closely to a natal woman as we can. Myself, what baffles me more is how ones health insurance covers most of the transition except SRS and FFS because, it is classified as cosmic surgery???? Say what? they treat TS's only so far. Now if the Dr's that diagnose you with having GID and the only fix is HRT and psychological treatment, and being processed is by the physical for the most part, why not include the surgery? It should be part and parcel of the treatments.
Cindy
Including FFS in the treatment opens a pandora's box. People cannot even agree here on wheter its more to adjust to our image of what a women should be rather than what a women is. For a few, its absolutely needed, but for most, its something they will do for their own internal peace (and that's why I did my rhino and brow bossing shave).
Quote from: Claire de Lune on January 05, 2008, 07:52:33 PM
QuoteThere is a difference between living life as a transsexual person and a "chick with a dick" or "she male." It goes well beyond outward appearances and being a "lifestyler." It's the difference between being a paintball-shooting "weekend warrior" and a Marine serving in Iraq. Those Marines appreciate how deeply commitment to an ideal goes.
Didn't you say the same thing on Genderlife yesterday?
No, I didn't. I am not familiar with Genderlife.
Wing Walker