Okay so, I've been having a conflict in feelings lately. I've been having trouble sorting things out in my head, so if a few of my statements are contradictory, that is why. I don't know whether this belongs here or the edge too, so move it if necessary...
I dislike being considered as/grouped with non-transsexual transgendered people.
Basically: Cross dressers and ->-bleeped-<-s. I feel... demeaned or insulted when someone says "transgendered" when they mean "transsexualism." Now, I'm not saying I dislike them. I'm not stating any prejudices or trying to belittle them. I just don't like being told or described (whether directly, indirectly, knowingly, or unknowingly) as being on the same level as them.
I just feel that, even though we have similar struggles, I'm just from a completely different universe with all of it. It's a physiological thing for me, and to be called the same thing as someone who gender bends for sexual/recreational purposes makes me feel misunderstood and anguished and even a little upset/angry.
But the thing is is it makes me feel terrible that I have such negative, perhaps even grudgingly negative feelings towards people that seem so nice and friendly at my support groups. Why? I'm upset with the people that tell me I'm the same, not non-transsexual transgendered people themselves!
I do hold some sympathetic feelings for HBS views, and agree with some of their less discriminatory policies and goals. I don't know if these feelings are just the beginnings of some very aggressive feelings that I see in a lot of people that consider themselves HBSers or if they're just isolated frustrations/confusions I need to work out.
If I could hear others opinions about this maybe I could figure some stuff out about what I'm really feelings.
I suppose that could cut both ways, as sharp edges often do.
Greetings,
Hum, I would have to admit that I too sometime have similar feelings on this topic. When ever I hear the argument when gender identity is added to some city's anti-discrimination law about...well...then that means any man in a dress can enter a womans bathroom! Oh give me a break already, they are lumping transsexuals in the cross-dresser category and simply have no idea what they are talking about; just drives me absolutely crazy...hum...did I miss my E shot this week???
One of the problems is the term transgender in and of itself. The term is an umbrella term, but people fail to recognize all of the categories that make up that umbrella and use the word in the wrong context. This is an education problem and one of the reason why the general public still needs to be educated about trans issues, what it means to be trans, etc. But at the same time, a lot of transsexuals went through a cross-dressing phase before realizing that things went much deeper then simply having a desire to dress as the opposite sex; so for some cross-dressers it is also a physiological thing too.
I don't think you are alone in your feelings...
But why should it feel demeaning?
I understand that there are plenty of straight, misogynistic guys out there who dress up like girls because it humiliates them and therefore excites them sexually. They're caught up in the same gender trap system that we all are which equates femaleness with "bad."
I'm not saying that I'd like to necessarily hang out with a group of "sissies," but I think splitting off into tinier and tinier groups doesn't bring about societal change. When we work to decrease misogyny in society as much as possible, there will not be a class of people who are sexually excited from being "girls."
Just my, very humble, opinion. I could be wrong.
Lia
Gracie, I must say that in many ways I agree with you. I get so sick of being judged in an incorrect way. Some people in the world have no clue as to what "transgendered" or "Transexual" means. All they think of is what they saw in Rocky Horror Picture Show. The world can be so cruel and mean too. I think for the most part though I have taken all the pain I have felt over the years and put it to changing myself. Some of the time I have the attitude that the world can kiss my *** ! But then other times I'm so very concerned about how people view me.
From a straight guy's point of view the porn industry and being under the GLBT umbrella has done the most harm in tainting views about good, honest and moral transsexuals.
The straight guys I know are repulsed by homosexual sexual activity between two men.
Transsexuals and transgenders have no distinction between them. To them they are just effeminate sissies.
That is why I think there should be a distinction between transsexual and transgender and even being sperate from the GLB.
There are still a lot of uninformed folk out there. For some the closest they will ever come to understanding a transsexual is a porn movie and that just ought not to be.
Sadly, many will just continue to lump them with the GLB and they will be nothing more than vile perverted people that they will continue to hate.
I agree with the transsexuals that want a distinction from being lumped with transgenders.
I personally think it should go one step farther and come out of the GLBT umbrella.
But, that's just a straight and little informed opinion.
If I offended anyone, please forgive me.
Alicia
Quote from: Purple Pimp on July 31, 2008, 10:19:25 PM
...but I think splitting off into tinier and tinier groups doesn't bring about societal change.
I agree. I myself am still confused when I look at all the categories to describe the different degrees of gender/sexual variances, CD, TS, TV, Androgyn, etc, etc. I think that it's easier for people who can't understand to just group all of the "variant" people together and go from there. I don't think this is a bad thing, however. I wonder what it would have been like if this whole time it was always considered LGBT instead of just LGB...would we be in the same position as our gay and lesbian counterparts are today? Often you hear that we are "where they were 20 years ago." If we started way back when trying to get the same benefits and understanding for
everyone who is "variant" then the world would be very different.
In my opinion, if it makes it easy for others to understand it, and they happen to group us all together, let them, so long as they accept the fact that we all need the same protections, standards, and rights given to everyone else. As we can see, fighting for one group at a time just makes it a more prolonged process to get adequate rights for
everyone.
Quote from: Alicia Marie on July 31, 2008, 11:47:17 PM
The straight guys I know are repulsed by homosexual sexual activity between two men.
Transsexuals and transgenders have no distinction between them. To them they are just effeminate sissies.
As far as this is concerned, I don't believe people who have this mentality will ever accept us anyways, no matter if we're "classified" under a different heading or not.
Quote from: Isabelle St-Pierre on July 31, 2008, 09:46:50 PM
One of the problems is the term transgender in and of itself. The term is an umbrella term, but people fail to recognize all of the categories that make up that umbrella and use the word in the wrong context. This is an education problem and one of the reason why the general public still needs to be educated about trans issues, what it means to be trans, etc.
Indeed. I don't like the term transgender much and avoid using it to refer to myself. The problem with it when applied to people who don't identify as the gender assigned to them at birth is fairly easy to demonstrate: To the general populace, a m2f transsexual and a male crossdresser wearing a dress are both exhibiting 'transgender behaviour'. To somebody who understands what transsexuality is, a man wearing a dress is indeed exhibiting 'transgender behaviour', however a m2f transsexual wearing a dress is just a woman wearing a dress. She would be exhibiting 'transgender behaviour' if she decided to go out in a men's shirt and tie!
Cindy BC, an interesting idea, a mod's suggesting a transfer of forum without doing that themself, or leaving a report? That doesn't happen often.
Personally, I'd say the conversation is pretty much fine where it is, as this way a group of people can discuss it and it doesn't become another "hidden" conversation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gracie, you are not the only one. Surely there are a lot of women and men who probably feel about the same. I think especially women who have been alienated by choice from the gay-life prior to transition. There can be a lot of embarrassment it seems among some over just that.
QuoteI dislike being considered as/grouped with non-transsexual transgendered people.
I think this is pretty universal. There are times when each of us don't like such groupings. For instance a lot of second-wave feminists felt uncomfortable being grouped with poor, black and lesbian women. All those others made a lot of them feel like people would "get the wrong idea" about them. So, for a good while there were arguments through the late 60s about inclusion and exile. Some of them continue today.
I have this notion that people who are different can still care for, support, and work together one with another.
I mean, do I want to be thought of as a sex-worker because I transitioned? No. But do other woman like me do sex-work? Yep. So we are different, but just how different?
Other people cross-dress. They don't appear to be transitioning, but some who start as cross-dressers later discover that that isn't "enough." They begin transition in earnest and wind up getting surgeries.
There are some women and men who are don't complete all surgeries. OK, that makes them different from those of us who do, but how different?
Andra completed surgery, but is Andra like Lia who also completed surgery? I think they have lots in common, but the identifications they have are different, except as post-ops. So, it seems to me that there is always a variety.
Do we shun people because they are different? African-American and Latina women certainly have a different up-bringing, different ways they have walked through the world from me. But, do those things separate us into three entirely different groups? Maybe to some extent, I suppose that depends on us. But, I'd imagine we are more alike than different.
I have to admit that for me women's issues are more the focus of my life than are "trans" issues or LTBG issues. But, I have an interest in all three and all three do, in some ways, impact my life.
I cannot sort your feelings for you, not that you've asked, :) but I can tell you I have been where you are. In fact, I've been somewhere to the far-side of Cindy BC in my views.
Butcha know? Actually getting to know people who aren't like me in every way has also changed a lot of my earlier views. That's made it much harder for me to maintain a concrete political/social/philosophical wall in my mind and heart between all of our different groups.
I have to admit I also have some reservations about "Transgendered," but I have no reservations about being able to align myself and be friends with people who aren't like me. I don't want to see them unprotected, disenfranchised and exiled just so other people can tell the difference between me and them. That just doesn't ring true for me either.
Nor can I agree with Alicia Marie. Ya see, the way the cissexuals/cisgendered people view us all as the same is their difficulty. I am under no obligation to alleviate their prejudices. They need to do that for themselves by doing something like what I have done. Actually getting to know people who they are currently afraid of. I cannot relieve their prejudices and fears.
No amount of me distancing myself from another is going to show still others that I am somehow different. Those beliefs are their own. The only things that ever make a difference for the prejudiced is actually getting to know and integrate themselves with others. It becomes so much harder then to make blanket statements about any other group. Because, as you see in your support group -- they may be different, but you also find ones that you like and care for. Others, perhaps not so much.
And you also notice that some people always hold onto "philosophical" arguments about difference and sameness no matter what. For them the idea seems more important, I suppose, than what they actually come to discover. Is an idea more important than a person? For me that's the core of this entire discussion. I vote that people are more important than ideas, so, I am willing and able to support transgendered people and number myself among them.
Your choice is your choice, luv. Your comfort is your comfort and only you can reach that. Making a decision like that one way or another doesn't make you a "bad person;" although I have to admit that when I have doubts like that, I sorta think I should try to figure out why I think they are "bad," ya know?
Use your heart and your mind. I think that even if you find that you should separate yourself from crossdressers, genderqueers and even from transsexuals that are not like you, you don't have to be a bad person. You don't have to value yourself at the expense of another. You just recognize a difference.
I recognize difference, but like Lia said, I also recognize similarities, especially in the way many cises perceive and think about us all. Smaller and smaller well-defined and segregated groups when altogether we are probably less than or equal to about 1% or so of the population isn't a great idea. But, that I feel is a practicality. The more allies and fellow-travelers a very small group has, the better chance that that group survives and thrives in a milieu that is decidedly hostile in many respects.
It's a good question and definitely good that you have some ambivalence about how you feel. Ambivalence is usually the first sign that there is something there the person hasn't come to a wholy comfortable place in their life about. Work with that, feel yourself and question yourself. I think you'll discover a place you can comfortably live.
:icon_hug: :icon_hug: :icon_flower:
Nichole
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on July 31, 2008, 09:29:42 PM
I dislike being considered as/grouped with non-transsexual transgendered people.
Basically: Cross dressers and ->-bleeped-<-s. I feel... demeaned or insulted when someone says "transgendered" when they mean "transsexualism." Now, I'm not saying I dislike them. I'm not stating any prejudices or trying to belittle them. I just don't like being told or described (whether directly, indirectly, knowingly, or unknowingly) as being on the same level as them.
For what it's worth...
When I was transitioning, I had to come out to probably 100 or so people over the course of the year (coworkers, neighbors, professional contacts, etc.). And out of all them, I can really only think of 2 people who had "the wrong idea," one of them assuming it meant I was doing drugs and having sex every night with random men, and the other thought it was an "alternative lifestyle" of crossdressing for kicks.
But 2 outa 100 isn't so bad. I don't much like people misunderstanding my motives either, but in *practical* terms it doesn't seem to be a problem... at least not with the general public.
~Kate~
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on July 31, 2008, 09:29:42 PM
Okay so, I've been having a conflict in feelings lately. I've been having trouble sorting things out in my head, so if a few of my statements are contradictory, that is why. I don't know whether this belongs here or the edge too, so move it if necessary...
I dislike being considered as/grouped with non-transsexual transgendered people.
Basically: Cross dressers and ->-bleeped-<-s. I feel... demeaned or insulted when someone says "transgendered" when they mean "transsexualism." Now, I'm not saying I dislike them. I'm not stating any prejudices or trying to belittle them. I just don't like being told or described (whether directly, indirectly, knowingly, or unknowingly) as being on the same level as them.
I feel the same way and have been attacked at times for saying so. They fail to see the point we're making... that we're different. In fact ALL the groups under this d*mn umbrella have little or nothing to do with each other. So you have to ask yourself who does this label (transgender) benefit? Two groups that I can see:
1. The general public because they are too lazy to learn about different groups. It soooo convenient to jump lump us all together for
their convenience.
2. Crossdressers. They feel a lot of shame about their status and grouping themselves with others legitimizes them, makes them feel better. Let me finish before you jump on me. Most of the laws that allow us to do legal name changes, gender marker changes and get new birth certificates
pre-date the rise of the word "transgender". We earned those basic rights back in the late 60's and early-mid 70's. Legally we became legitimized and now crossdressers want that too. The problem being the vast majority of crossdressers have a solid
male gender identity. In my mind they have no business being in a women's restroom ever. Sorry, just being honest. I have no problem with crossdressers, really, but I do have a problem with them claiming to be just like us.
------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia said we should be separate from the LGB folks. Well there are 2 problems with that:
1. Many transsexual people are gay/lesbian or bi.
2. Although we are different we ALL suffer the same discrimination heaped on us by ignorant cisgender straight folks.
I think we need to stay together as the LGBT for important political purposes; greater numbers = more power (when we're not fighting each other).
------------------------------------------------
I think we have to reclaim the word "transsexual". And educate people as to what that
adjective means. I know a lot of people are rolling their eyes right about now. They hate the "sex" portion. Well that's why we have to continue to educate folks! And you are a transsexual person.... don't be shamed by ignorant people. "Transsexual"
is the correct term because we change our bodies sex. We have to take ownership of this word if we are to succeed.
---------------------------------------------------------
The issue I don't have an answer for is the whole "gender identity" vs. "gender expression" in legislation. On one hand I think only "gender identity" should be used. However, that doesn't protect butch lesbians or effeminate gays. They need "gender expression" included. But how do we include "gender expression" without opening a can of worms with CD's (who vastly outnumber us) possibly causing havoc? How do you write such legislation? I think that's the biggest bottle neck right now. Any California folks here? How did they deal with it in their anti-discrimination law? Fom what I can see from the other side of the country whatever you're doing out there it seems to be working. Am I wrong?
Okay this post is long enough. Hopefully I don't get slammed to badly......
Quote from: Beyond on August 01, 2008, 03:34:13 PM
Most of the laws that allow us to do legal name changes, gender marker changes and get new birth certificates pre-date the rise of the word "transgender". We earned those basic rights back in the late 60's and early-mid 70's. Legally we became legitimized and now crossdressers want that too.
First slam, Beyond!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Trouble is it's not going to be a slam. :) You are absolutely right about when those changes were made. And look at the political climate. Women getting certain legal protections, but not the ERA. Gays the same. People of color, Jews, the entire rainbow of civil rights and human rights movements were gaining a lot of momentum.
Anita Bryant became a laughing-stock, not simply to gay/lesbian/bi/trans people, but to a large segment of the population. There were Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and Nixon was unable in large part to dismantle the Great Society. It was, despite higher & more non-social only church attendance , etc, a time when there was much more general concern about treating people right.
What's intervened is the "Reagan Revolution" & the rise and sway of the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, Neo-Con/Irving Kristol, Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Hannity/Coulter groupies and just a more pervasive hesitation to go against that crew by legislatures everywhere.
I honestly think that had those rights not been granted at that time, and in some states they weren't, that getting them now would be extraordinarily more difficult in comparison to what was put in place then. And at that point where would we go, say in 1999?
But that's just this woman's opinion.
Nichole
Coming from the "TG side of the street" on this one (for the moment)....
I think that compared to the mammoth list of issues that need to be
fought for TS rights, the return for educating the world populous in
the difference between TS and TG is going to yield a poor return.
Let's face it most of the newspaper reading public are still being told
that transsexual is the same as drag, TV or CD, and they rarely use
the soft term "gender" as it simply doesn't sell papers. I don't think
the public is necessarily lazy; it just isn't high on their daily priority
list, to go and find out more.
In real terms the LGB community is rapidly gaining public acceptance
these days. Most people in the world will personally know at least
someone who is openly LGB, and they are learning to socially interact
with them as a person and not the label on a daily basis. The same
cannot be said for TS or TG, so in many respects we need to ride
the back of LGB public acceptance, so separation would be a
negative move at this time.
That said, I do understand why there may be an underlying concern,
and I respect those voicing it. :icon_bunch:
Chrissty
Quote from: Chrissty on August 01, 2008, 05:24:12 PM
Coming from the "TG side of the street" on this one (for the moment)....
I think that compared to the mammoth list of issues that need to be
fought for TS rights, the return for educating the world populous in
the difference between TS and TG is going to yield a poor return.
Let's face it most of the newspaper reading public are still being told
that transsexual is the same as drag, TV or CD, and they rarely use
the soft term "gender" as it simply doesn't sell papers. I don't think
the public is necessarily lazy; it just isn't high on their daily priority
list, to go and find out more.
In real terms the LGB community is rapidly gaining public acceptance
these days. Most people in the world will personally know at least
someone who is openly LGB, and they are learning to socially interact
with them as a person and not the label on a daily basis. The same
cannot be said for TS or TG, so in many respects we need to ride
the back of LGB public acceptance, so separation would be a
negative move at this time.
That said, I do understand why there may be an underlying concern,
and I respect those voicing it. :icon_bunch:
Chrissty
From what I know, Transsexualism is a physiological problem. It is completely medical. That, to me, is the separation, and a big one. Sometimes I feel that those with transsexualism don't need laws to protect their rights, they just need public verification that it is a birth defect, not a sexual deviance/mental illness/done for fun and trickery/any other number of reasons non-transsexual transgendered individuals are transgendered.
Posted on: August 01, 2008, 03:52:59 PM
Quote from: Beyond on August 01, 2008, 03:34:13 PM
Any California folks here? How did they deal with it in their anti-discrimination law? Fom what I can see from the other side of the country whatever you're doing out there it seems to be working. Am I wrong?
I don't think california as a whole protected gender expression in the discrimination act, but I think the san diego (where im from) and the san francisco city anti-discrimination laws protect it. But soft-discrimination is so easy to do and so hard to prove, so yeah.
The anti-discrimination law that protects California LGBT folk did not specifically include TG people. The Courts, however, extended the law to include transgendered people. ENDA is of no consequence to Cali queers! ;D
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 01, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
From what I know, Transsexualism is a physiological problem. It is completely medical. That, to me, is the separation, and a big one. Sometimes I feel that those with transsexualism don't need laws to protect their rights, they just need public verification that it is a birth defect, not a sexual deviance/mental illness/done for fun and trickery/any other number of reasons non-transsexual transgendered individuals are transgendered.[
...and I believe that public acceptance at "street" level is what will ultimatly result in what you seek, I did not mention laws here....
I guess under these guidelines, as I am not strictly TV, CD, or TS, and TG is too general.....so I better look to start up a new category for the older "with bits but on hold" ::)
Chrissty
Quote from: Beyond on August 01, 2008, 03:34:13 PM
Am I wrong?
No! actually I am with you 100%!
Quote from: Beyond on August 01, 2008, 03:34:13 PM
I feel the same way and have been attacked at times for saying so. They fail to see the point we're making... that we're different. In fact ALL the groups under this d*mn umbrella have little or nothing to do with each other. So you have to ask yourself who does this label (transgender) benefit? Two groups that I can see:
1. The general public because they are too lazy to learn about different groups. It soooo convenient to jump lump us all together for their convenience.
2. Crossdressers. They feel a lot of shame about their status and grouping themselves with others legitimizes them, makes them feel better. Let me finish before you jump on me. Most of the laws that allow us to do legal name changes, gender marker changes and get new birth certificates pre-date the rise of the word "transgender". We earned those basic rights back in the late 60's and early-mid 70's. Legally we became legitimized and now crossdressers want that too. The problem being the vast majority of crossdressers have a solid male gender identity. In my mind they have no business being in a women's restroom ever. Sorry, just being honest. I have no problem with crossdressers, really, but I do have a problem with them claiming to be just like us.
I concur totally. Very well said. Thank you Beyond! :)
tink :icon_chick:
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on July 31, 2008, 09:29:42 PM
Okay so, I've been having a conflict in feelings lately. I've been having trouble sorting things out in my head, so if a few of my statements are contradictory, that is why. I don't know whether this belongs here or the edge too, so move it if necessary...
I dislike being considered as/grouped with non-transsexual transgendered people.
Basically: Cross dressers and ->-bleeped-<-s. I feel... demeaned or insulted when someone says "transgendered" when they mean "transsexualism." Now, I'm not saying I dislike them. I'm not stating any prejudices or trying to belittle them. I just don't like being told or described (whether directly, indirectly, knowingly, or unknowingly) as being on the same level as them.
I just feel that, even though we have similar struggles, I'm just from a completely different universe with all of it. It's a physiological thing for me, and to be called the same thing as someone who gender bends for sexual/recreational purposes makes me feel misunderstood and anguished and even a little upset/angry.
But the thing is is it makes me feel terrible that I have such negative, perhaps even grudgingly negative feelings towards people that seem so nice and friendly at my support groups. Why? I'm upset with the people that tell me I'm the same, not non-transsexual transgendered people themselves!
I do hold some sympathetic feelings for HBS views, and agree with some of their less discriminatory policies and goals. I don't know if these feelings are just the beginnings of some very aggressive feelings that I see in a lot of people that consider themselves HBSers or if they're just isolated frustrations/confusions I need to work out.
Hi, Gracie, I fully agree with you. I do not wish to be stuck under the transgender umbrella. I am transsexual, M to F, a transsexual woman. As CindyBC said, I am transsexual when relating to other transsexual persons, and always a women, regardless of where I am.
*******************
If I could hear others opinions about this maybe I could figure some stuff out about what I'm really feelings.
Quote from: Isabelle St-Pierre on July 31, 2008, 09:46:50 PM
Greetings,
Hum, I would have to admit that I too sometime have similar feelings on this topic. When ever I hear the argument when gender identity is added to some city's anti-discrimination law about...well...then that means any man in a dress can enter a womans bathroom! Oh give me a break already, they are lumping transsexuals in the cross-dresser category and simply have no idea what they are talking about; just drives me absolutely crazy...hum...did I miss my E shot this week???
One of the problems is the term transgender in and of itself. The term is an umbrella term, but people fail to recognize all of the categories that make up that umbrella and use the word in the wrong context. This is an education problem and one of the reason why the general public still needs to be educated about trans issues, what it means to be trans, etc. But at the same time, a lot of transsexuals went through a cross-dressing phase before realizing that things went much deeper then simply having a desire to dress as the opposite sex; so for some cross-dressers it is also a physiological thing too.
I don't think you are alone in your feelings...
The term, "transgender" was coined by a British male cross-dresser who called himself "Virginia Prince. It was not conjured-up by a person who was transsexual.
I have seen one person who was a crossdresser become curious about truly being transsexual instead. He was a member of the Cornbury Society, a crossdresser group named after Lord Cornbury, a colonial governor of New York who was also a crossdresser.
In talking with this person he told me that he was afraid to go beyond crossdressing because of what his family and the world at-large would have to say about his need to change gender. It seems that he was no longer able to hide his transsexuality and he came out to himself and is coming out to his family as well.
Very early in my transition I had the distinct discomfort of being invited to a meeting of the Trans Gender Education Association (TGEA). Although I was warmly welcomed by persons dressed as women, I was quite ill-at-ease when I heard their voices. They were men! Then I saw a few men enter the meeting-place and head for the women's washroom where they changed into their feminine garb and makeup.
I was glad to leave there.
If the "trans umbrella" closed-up and kept CDs under it, I am sure that we who are transsexual would devise another way to stay out of the rain.
Wing Walker
Edited to remove group slur. -- Nichole
Having reworked this and posted it elsewhere on the web I have removed it from this thread because to leave it would violate the site terms of service.
Nichole
A visceral hatred expressed tends to lead to only hatred. I personally know more than a few TSes, classic ones, "who sound like men."
But here's the fact. Visceral hatred is exactly what killed Angie Zapata. That it is used by sisters just appalls me.
N~
Quote from: Nichole on August 01, 2008, 08:44:29 PM
And actually, Virginia Prince is still alive and she didn't "coin" the term. The term was used before her but she grabbed hold of it. The coining of the term is generally attributed to her by transsexuals. She did say that she meant to destroy the term transsexuality. As far as I know Virginia spoke for herself.
I've never met a CD who was determine to destroy us before. Of course I haven't gone to San Diego to meet Virginia Prince who's about 98 right now either.
A visceral hatred expressed tends to lead to only hatred. I personally know more than a few TSes, classic ones, "who sound like men."
But here's the fact. Visceral hatred is exactly what killed Angie Zapata. That it is used by sisters just appalls me.
N~
Here is the link to the story about Angie Zapata in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/us/02murder.html?ref=us (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/us/02murder.html?ref=us)
Murder and violence are never acceptable.
Wing Walker
Posted on: August 02, 2008, 01:59:00 AM
Here is a link concerning bio information about Virginia Prince:
http://zagria.blogspot.com/2008/04/virginia-prince-1912-pharmacologist.html (http://zagria.blogspot.com/2008/04/virginia-prince-1912-pharmacologist.html)
With the internet being what it is, I cannot vouch for or stand against the correctness of this item.
Wing Walker
well there are some things that need to be said even if it upsets some people. i think we're fine as long as we don't turn to personal attacks, right?
Posted on: August 02, 2008, 04:43:40 AM
ya if you're implying that a crossdresser is a ts, you've go another thing coming. they aren't. even the definitions of this website label them as something entirely different so let's stick to them, k?
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,14714.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,14714.0.html)
Quote from: site standard terms and definitionsTranssexual: a person who is mentally one gender, but has the body of the other. They desire to live and be accepted as a member of the mental gender, this is generally accompanied by the strong desire to make their body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatments.
Crossdresser: a person wears the clothing of the opposite gender, and has no desire to permanently change their sex. There is generally no sexual motivation for the cross-dressing.
->-bleeped-<-: a person who wears the clothing of the opposite gender, and has no desire to permanently change their sex. There is generally a strong sexual motivation for the cross-dressing.
androgyne
androgyne
should i go on?
Having re-worked this and posted it elsewhere I've removed it .
Nichole
Crossdressers aren't ts and that's all there is to it. the rest is just semantics.
I can't tell you what to think.
You can't make me think a way I don't want to think.
(seems like a couple of universal truths for this here particular META-topic...)
So if that be, then I'll address the following to no one in particular. I've said the same thing in other topics.
The word Transsexual carries with it a HUGE negative connotation in general society, and moreso in the Religious Reich segment. Even though it's seen in the 'T' community to denote a distinction of those who live 24/7/365 as their true genders from the 'weekend warriors, that distinction is lost on society-at-large.
Society will also not let any subgroup escape separately from the cursed Transgender Umbrella. They see no difference between a Glam Drag Clown, Candis Cayne, or Angie Zapata. To them it's all the same.
Reclaim "Transsexual" from those forces? How much money 'choo got? Think "Tylenol" as in the Tylenol poisoning a few years back. That kind of heroic (and hugely expensive) campaign is what it's going to take to re-brand the word TransSEXUAL so that it doesn't make a significant segment think of SEX!SEX!SEX!
Quote from: http://christianglbtrights.blogspot.com/2008/01/symbolism-nuditiy-and-sexuality.htmlLast year, I asked my class to tell me the first word that came into their minds when I said the following word: I said, "Gay," and virtually everyone came back with the word, "Sex." Most people don't see LGBT people as being "fully human," or being comprised of many facets that go to make up a fully functional human beings but, rather, they have been conditioned by the paradoxical mind-set regarding things sexual, as honed to a fine art in most religious circles (and imposed on both religious and secular society), to think of LGBT people in terms of their sexuality, and nothing else.
Until that heroic, 'Tylenol'-sized ad campaign runs to re-brand the word "Transsexual", and it's had enough time to work (say, five years,) you are shooting yourself in the foot every time you shove the word 'transsexual' down a str8 Religious Reicher's throat.
And while I'm at it, how are you going to educate the general public in the differences between a Drag Clown, a weekend warrior, and a 24/7/365. Until THEY understand the difference, we're like conjoined twins whether we like it or not. If you think it's easy to change the public's mind , or get them to use the verbiage you wish them to use, I'll trot out my 'Tent Cities' story to illustrate...
You want to make a distinction between 24/7/365 and 'but only on weekends', fine. The right of association is enshrined in the first amendment.
Until general society understands the differences, I'm going to be smart and use the word 'Transgender' because it doesn't have the deeply negative connotations that 'Transsexual has.
Karen
Quote from: redfish the flip-flopper on August 02, 2008, 11:42:49 AM
QuoteShe would be exhibiting 'transgender behaviour' if she decided to go out in a men's shirt and tie!
I dunno, are we ready to label every action that does not follow gender norms as being "transgender behavior?" Wouldn't we kind of be enforcing gender norms by doing so (or have "gender norms" been replaced by "cisgender norms?")
Also, if I were to wear a men's shirt and tie, people might find it a little odd, but I don't think they'd necessarily consider my behavior to be "transgender." However, if someone they read as a man wore a dress, they'd probably be more likely to consider it that way. There's definitely a difference between how people read as female and people read as male are considered - transgender is not free from social construction.
I agree with you entirely.:) I was just demonstrating the flaw with how the term is commonly applied to transsexual people. The issues you state are a big part of why I avoid using the term whenever possible (the presence of at least 3 conflicting definitions in common use is another reason why I avoid it).
The term transgender is certainly not free from social construction, indeed it's largely the result of social constructions.
threads of this nature do not send a welcome message to Cross Dressers. on the contrary, these kinds of threads might just tend to drive Cross Dressers away, and make them feel inferior and stupid.
the Trans clubs that i have seen are absolutely dependent on Cross Dressers. i mean, unless you're talking about dives where the people are mostly um, "professionals." those clubs are mostly Trans, and they are usually not so friendly.
so if you want to have "nice" Trans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers. places like Susan's are very helpful, but occasionally it is also helpful to talk to a real person.
Cross Dressers, though sometimes horny, are neither inferior nor stupid. they are, in my opinion, more friendly and honest than the general public at large. they are intelligent, fun-loving, have a good sense of humor, and are nice to have as friends.
-Ell
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 03:10:07 AMthreads of this nature do not send a welcome message to Cross Dressers. on the contrary, these kinds of threads might just tend to drive Cross Dressers away, and make them feel inferior and stupid.
the Trans clubs that i have seen are absolutely dependent on Cross Dressers. i mean, unless you're talking about dives where the people are mostly um, "professionals." those clubs are mostly Trans, and they are usually not so friendly.
so if you want to have "nice" Trans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers. places like Susan's are very helpful, but occasionally it is also helpful to talk to a real person.
Cross Dressers, though sometimes horny, are neither inferior nor stupid. they are, in my opinion, more friendly and honest than the general public at large. they are intelligent, fun-loving, have a good sense of humor, and are nice to have as friends.
-Ell
I do not agree. This is the "Transsexual Talk" section isn't it? This is the only section I post in. In the past I tried posting in some neutral areas and found that too confusing because different people have way different perspectives. The result was I was often misinterpreted. Out of respect I have never posted in the CD section. I know their needs are different from mine and I would expect that they show us the same courtesy.
A BIG mega-forum like this can't please everybody.
If you subject us to the whims and feeling of everybody else here (Susan's) you might as well shut this whole place down. We need the intellectual freedom and freedom to be ourselves if this place is to satisfy it's mission.
I also think the mods here do a pretty good job of keeping things running smoothly and providing thread guidance when necessary.
Quote from: Beyond on August 03, 2008, 04:54:43 AM
I do not agree. This is the "Transsexual Talk" section isn't it? This is the only section I post in. In the past I tried posting in some neutral areas and found that too confusing because different people have way different perspectives. The result was I was often misinterpreted. Out of respect I have never posted in the CD section. I know their needs are different from mine and I would expect that they show us the same courtesy.
A BIG mega-forum like this can't please everybody.
If you subject us to the whims and feeling of everybody else here (Susan's) you might as well shut this whole place down. We need the intellectual freedom and freedom to be ourselves if this place is to satisfy it's mission.
I also think the mods here do a pretty good job of keeping things running smoothly and providing thread guidance when necessary.
um, i just go to the "Show unread posts since last visit" link, and read, where ever i find an interesting topic. if i accidentally post in a place where i am not welcome...well, i don't know, people here have generally not made me feel unwelcome. well, of course, people do sometimes become argumentative and mean-spirited. this is because anger is often a satisfying type of expression, i think.
Fundamentalists can't get enough of trashing people who do not think like them. There is a "homosexual agenda," they say.
one must defend freedom, or family, or the church.
but at the end of the day, when they are saying their prayers and asking forgiveness, do they admit that their words have hurt other human beings? that with their words, they have been spreading hate?
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 03:10:07 AM
threads of this nature do not send a welcome message to Cross Dressers. on the contrary, these kinds of threads might just tend to drive Cross Dressers away, and make them feel inferior and stupid.
the Trans clubs that i have seen are absolutely dependent on Cross Dressers. i mean, unless you're talking about dives where the people are mostly um, "professionals." those clubs are mostly Trans, and they are usually not so friendly.
so if you want to have "nice" Trans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers. places like Susan's are very helpful, but occasionally it is also helpful to talk to a real person.
Cross Dressers, though sometimes horny, are neither inferior nor stupid. they are, in my opinion, more friendly and honest than the general public at large. they are intelligent, fun-loving, have a good sense of humor, and are nice to have as friends.
-Ell
Lol it kinda sounds like you're calling me a prostitute
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 03, 2008, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 03:10:07 AM
threads of this nature do not send a welcome message to Cross Dressers. on the contrary, these kinds of threads might just tend to drive Cross Dressers away, and make them feel inferior and stupid.
the Trans clubs that i have seen are absolutely dependent on Cross Dressers. i mean, unless you're talking about dives where the people are mostly um, "professionals." those clubs are mostly Trans, and they are usually not so friendly.
so if you want to have "nice" Trans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers. places like Susan's are very helpful, but occasionally it is also helpful to talk to a real person.
Cross Dressers, though sometimes horny, are neither inferior nor stupid. they are, in my opinion, more friendly and honest than the general public at large. they are intelligent, fun-loving, have a good sense of humor, and are nice to have as friends.
-Ell
Lol it kinda sounds like you're calling me a prostitute
well, i wasn't. why would you think that?
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 01:33:50 PM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 03, 2008, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 03:10:07 AM
threads of this nature do not send a welcome message to Cross Dressers. on the contrary, these kinds of threads might just tend to drive Cross Dressers away, and make them feel inferior and stupid.
the Trans clubs that i have seen are absolutely dependent on Cross Dressers. i mean, unless you're talking about dives where the people are mostly um, "professionals." those clubs are mostly Trans, and they are usually not so friendly.
so if you want to have "nice" Trans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers. places like Susan's are very helpful, but occasionally it is also helpful to talk to a real person.
Cross Dressers, though sometimes horny, are neither inferior nor stupid. they are, in my opinion, more friendly and honest than the general public at large. they are intelligent, fun-loving, have a good sense of humor, and are nice to have as friends.
-Ell
Lol it kinda sounds like you're calling me a prostitute
well, i wasn't. why would you think that?
QuoteTrans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers.
Transsexual talk forum isn't really welcome to CDs and TVs. Are we all hookers?
It was a joke observation anyways, don't take it to heart. But in all honesty I really don't think any T club needs CDs and TVs in order for it not to look like a brothel. In all honesty I see more CDs and TVs giving it up than I do TSs.
Quote from: Beyond on August 03, 2008, 04:54:43 AM
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 03:10:07 AMthreads of this nature do not send a welcome message to Cross Dressers. on the contrary, these kinds of threads might just tend to drive Cross Dressers away, and make them feel inferior and stupid.
I do not agree. This is the "Transsexual Talk" section isn't it? This is the only section I post in. In the past I tried posting in some neutral areas and found that too confusing because different people have way different perspectives. The result was I was often misinterpreted. Out of respect I have never posted in the CD section. I know their needs are different from mine and I would expect that they show us the same courtesy.
A BIG mega-forum like this can't please everybody.
If you subject us to the whims and feeling of everybody else here (Susan's) you might as well shut this whole place down. We need the intellectual freedom and freedom to be ourselves if this place is to satisfy it's mission.
Neither is it welcoming to
transsexuals like myself who want to be welcoming of all people. I am one of a handful of people who was here ten years ago. And in that ten years there have been various times when CDs have tried to push TSs away and TSs have tried to push CDs away. Both of those are contrary to the reasons Susan created this place, and in my not-so-humble opinion, this kind of attitude does not belong at Susan's. I've seen Susan put her foot down on it before, and I expect she will do so again.
<end rant>
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 12:59:36 PM
but at the end of the day, when they are saying their prayers and asking forgiveness, do they admit that their words have hurt other human beings? that with their words, they have been spreading hate?
I do.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 03, 2008, 01:46:49 PM
QuoteTrans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers.
Transsexual talk forum isn't really welcome to CDs and TVs. Are we all hookers?
It was a joke observation anyways, don't take it to heart. But in all honesty I really don't think any T club needs CDs and TVs in order for it not to look like a brothel. In all honesty I see more CDs and TVs giving it up than I do TSs.
i don't think it's proper procedure for you to change something i've said, re-word it, then put it in a quote, as if i had said it.
please change that.
-Ell
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 03, 2008, 01:59:32 PM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 03, 2008, 01:46:49 PM
QuoteTrans clubs which are not professional, you need to welcome Cross Dressers.
Transsexual talk forum isn't really welcome to CDs and TVs. Are we all hookers?
It was a joke observation anyways, don't take it to heart. But in all honesty I really don't think any T club needs CDs and TVs in order for it not to look like a brothel. In all honesty I see more CDs and TVs giving it up than I do TSs.
i don't think it's proper procedure for you to change something i've said, re-word it, then put it in a quote, as if i had said it.
please change that.
-Ell
I didn't reword it, that was a direct copy/paste.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 03, 2008, 02:02:15 PM
Transsexual talk forum isn't really welcome to CDs and TVs. Are we all hookers?
It was a joke observation anyways, don't take it to heart. But in all honesty I really don't think any T club needs CDs and TVs in order for it not to look like a brothel. In all honesty I see more CDs and TVs giving it up than I do TSs.
Quotei don't think it's proper procedure for you to change something i've said, re-word it, then put it in a quote, as if i had said it.
please change that.
-Ell
I didn't reword it, that was a direct copy/paste.
[/quote]
well, but you are taking it out of context.
Clubs that are primarily frequented by "professionals" means, if you're asking, that there are alot of Trans girls there who are trying to turn tricks. this statement has nothing to do with you! i wouldn't dare call you a hooker. why would i?
but i wanted to go to Trans clubs, especially earlier in my transition, to talk about bras and tucking, where to find shoes, etc., etc., and to make friends. these kinds of goals are difficult to achieve in a Trans club primarily used by Trans girls to turn tricks. so i go to other Trans clubs. and guess what? there are not enough Trans girls (who have regular jobs) who are interested in going to Trans clubs to keep those clubs viable. why? maybe they are in stealth, have already transitioned, and don't want to be associated with anything Trans, or a thousand and one other reasons.
-Ell
I dunno why you're bringing up night clubs. They have little to nothing to do with internet forums in the respects of their mechanics of drawing people to them. In this case, many stealth transwomen participate in trans forums.
btw, about night clubs. There is a reason those crossdressers are there too. Transsexuals aren't the only people that goto clubs lookin to set up shop
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 03, 2008, 05:21:32 PM
I dunno why you're bringing up night clubs. They have little to nothing to do with internet forums in the respects of their mechanics of drawing people to them. In this case, many stealth transwomen participate in trans forums.
btw, about night clubs. There is a reason those crossdressers are there too. Transsexuals aren't the only people that goto clubs lookin to set up shop
uh, the tone of this discussion sounds like i'm being told to shut my mouth here, and that my remarks are not needed. so...
As far as other people's perception of a TS vs a CD or whatever, I don't think they are more likely to see a TS as a woman than a CD. If anything, the TS, to them, is the worst of the two. So I can't see that being called "transgendered" instead of "transexual" would be an indication of less respect or understanding. So whatever it is that bothers any of us for being called "transgender," I think it is coming from the inside, and not some perception of a more negative view taken of us by the speaker.
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals.
It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am. Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills." For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other. As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism. Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality. How can one claim otherwise?
Whether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate. The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view. Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?
Someone also mentioned restroom usage. People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's. Why is restroom assignment so important? The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family. Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals.
It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am. Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills." For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other. As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism. Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality. How can one claim otherwise?
Whether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate. The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view. Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?
Someone also mentioned restroom usage. People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's. Why is restroom assignment so important? The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family. Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.
You're really jumping to conclusions saying that. Just because someone doesn't want to be associated with someone else doesn't mean they're really just self-loathing. It's a pretty wild accusation, actually.
Where are all those who would claim that EDNA tossed them under the bus, as they so gleefully do the same? Odd, no voices raised? Funny how those that would be offended by being left off, are so quick to leave others off.
Equal rights are equal for all, or else they are not equal.
And I've always thought that what we most dislike in others is that which we really hate in ourselves. If you didn't see yourself in those people, then who else would?
And gee, the nightclubs I go to discourage prostitution, but then again, I've never set out to be an 'escort' either.
But of course you aware of the old joke? "What the difference between a CD and TS?" "Ten years."
I would never go to some TS meeting. Matter of fact, I eschew meetings all together preferring to 'do' while they 'meet' that way its done the way I want, and its much easier to ask forgiveness than permission. And Fait accompli, is the best way to accompli anything in the end. At least it gets done, which is rarely the outcome of meetings. Be that as it may, I'm sure many TS persons start off as CDs. Are they to be excluded? Are they not in 'your universe' also?
And the law in SF regarding bathroom reads as per 'presentation' so that people may use the bathroom they present to using. To date, some 8 years now, there has not been a problem with that, but perhaps we are more tolerant, or just care less. Its not a big deal here, and has not become one.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:02 AM
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals.
It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am. Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills." For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other. As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism. Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality. How can one claim otherwise?
Whether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate. The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view. Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?
Someone also mentioned restroom usage. People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's. Why is restroom assignment so important? The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family. Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.
You're really jumping to conclusions saying that. Just because someone doesn't want to be associated with someone else doesn't mean they're really just self-loathing. It's a pretty wild accusation, actually.
I gather you don't agree with me but you're a bit thin on the why. I didn't say anything about self-loathing or make any accusations. Clarify, please.
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals.
It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am. Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills." For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other. As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism. Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality. How can one claim otherwise?
<snip>
Someone also mentioned restroom usage. People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's. Why is restroom assignment so important? The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family. Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.
See this is what happens when someone simply says "we are different". What's the harm in saying that? By saying it's wrong to say that you are inferring we are the same.
Why is restroom assignment so important? Do I really have to explain that? Try asking a couple dozen women that question. I did last year when I had this discussion on another board and the result was overwhelming. The women responded that it should be a women's only space. In other words NO men, not even crossdressed men. It has to do with we live in a man's world and the ladies room is seen as the one place that's ours, that is for women only.
QuoteWhether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate. The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view. Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?
WTF? Sex and gender are two totally separate concepts. You're starting to sound like a fan of Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence.
I think I've had enough of this. :icon_userfriendly:
This thread :icon_lemon:
Quote from: Beyond on August 04, 2008, 06:51:50 AM
See this is what happens when someone simply says "we are different". What's the harm in saying that? By saying it's wrong to say that you are inferring we are the same.
Why is restroom assignment so important? Do I really have to explain that? Try asking a couple dozen women that question. I did last year when I had this discussion on another board and the result was overwhelming. The women responded that it should be a women's only space. In other words NO men, not even crossdressed men. It has to do with we live in a man's world and the ladies room is seen as the one place that's ours, that is for women only.
I think that restroom assignment is also an important issue because it is the existence of women only and men only spaces that is sick and wrong. We can have private places for individuals and small groups, but it is wrong to label them men only, women only, white only, black only, etc. There is no separate but equal, especially in public accomodations and the workplace. If you want women only spaces everywhere, then you are an anti-feminist. There are a ton of "feminists" out there who do not want equality, and they are fooling themselves. And the number of women who are consciously not feminists is mind boggling. It is just plain irrational.
Feeling that TS is different from CD is one thing. Wanting others to acknowledge the difference is natural, I suppose. But not wanting to be called transgendered becasue it does not distinguish you from CDs is kind of like saying you don't like being called a human being because you are white and it lumps you together with blacks. Of course, it is different becasue there are other levels in the ontology of gender and sexual orientation. But it still looks suspicious. So others feeling slighted by it also seems natural.
I just think that some people are complaining about how the ontology perpetuates public misunderstanding, and others perceive those statements as separatist. Then those others defend the ontology as anti-separatist, and the ones concerened about public perception feel like they've been unfairly and inacurately portrayed as CD haters. I don't think there is a way to make everyone happy here.I think the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class, and because educating the public on the fact that MTF TSs really are women is the lost cause of all lost causes.
I'm convinced that educating the public on the fact that MTF TSs really are women is a lost cause by my experience dating stealth. Like many of us, I had the unrealistic fantasy that I would date a straight man stealthily until he fell in love, and then tell him, and he would accept that I am really a woman. It just doesn't work that way. It is instant rejection, or death threat, or murder attempt, or tearful struggle to accept that ultimately fails when the stress serves as a wedge that breaks apart the relationship. It just does not happen. I am convinced that those who claim it worked for them were not as stealth as they thought.
So I am fully onboard with defending the transgender category, while acknowledging that it is a less than perfect solution. But I think it is the best option. And for those of you who are slightly upset at the imperfection of the descriptor applied to you, I hereby officially validate your feelings. For any of you who hate CDs and want women only spaces that include us and exclude them, talk to the hand. Please PM me so I can put you on ignore.
Quote from: Beyond on August 04, 2008, 06:51:50 AM
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals.
It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am. Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills." For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other. As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism. Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality. How can one claim otherwise?
<snip>
Someone also mentioned restroom usage. People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's. Why is restroom assignment so important? The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family. Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.
See this is what happens when someone simply says "we are different". What's the harm in saying that? By saying it's wrong to say that you are inferring we are the same.
Why is restroom assignment so important? Do I really have to explain that? Try asking a couple dozen women that question. I did last year when I had this discussion on another board and the result was overwhelming. The women responded that it should be a women's only space. In other words NO men, not even crossdressed men. It has to do with we live in a man's world and the ladies room is seen as the one place that's ours, that is for women only.
There is nothing wrong with saying you're different. It's the value judgement that goes with it I have problems withs.
As tekla mentioned, in San Francisco the restroom one uses is determined by gender presentation at the time one uses it. That system seems to work quite well for us. Maybe your local should give it a try, or is that entirely too tolerant or should we have a little Mich Fest in every public space in the USA.
Quote from: BeyondQuoteWhether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate. The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view. Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?
WTF? Sex and gender are two totally separate concepts. You're starting to sound like a fan of Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence.
My statement
is unwieldy and I can see how it could be misinterpreted. I was trying to avoid the bluntness of saying outright that homophobia is at the heart of the notion that "we can't help it that we want to sleep with men". Blanchard, et al, speak of homosexual autogynaphila as the source of transsexuality. Being homophobic and autogynaphilic are too different ideas.
Sexual orientation and gender orientation are two different things. That there is a relationship between sex and gender in our culture is undeniable. Ask any feminist.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 04, 2008, 09:10:07 AM
Feeling that TS is different from CD is one thing. Wanting others to acknowledge the difference is natural, I suppose. But not wanting to be called transgendered becasue it does not distinguish you from CDs is kind of like saying you don't like being called a human being because you are white........
........the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class
........educating the public on the fact that MTF TSs really are women is the lost cause of all lost causes.
There have been times in the past when my mind went in the direction of, "I'm a more
genuine gender variant individual than a
common cd'er is. But then my mind does its' self-policing, and reminds me that once, long, long, and long ago, I thought maybe.....I was just a cd'er. WRONG. But......if I HAD been correct, I would be on the other side of this fence.
In being ts, you are really a smaller part of a larger group of people who are considered QUEER by most of the global population. ....and.....NOBODY wants to be tagged as "queer", the most derogatory descriptor ever.
I keep seeing this "I'm different/I'm better" mindset here and other places, and I find it disturbing that people were honest enough with themselves to transition. Now that they have, they need to be honest with themselves again, and admit they are.................queer.
Hide from yourself if you like, but you can also be honest with yourself. You don't even have to tell anybody you're being honest with yourself ;). Just your own little secret.
Then, put on your skirt, grab your purse, and go to work. Another normal day in the life of a ts.
Queer Bev
Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2008, 03:05:46 AM
Odd, no voices raised?
uh, i've raised my voice for you many times, you.
and so have others.
-Ell
Oh there are a few, but voices crying out in the wilderness, but I do find it funny that so many of those who would argue with others excluding them, would be so quick to exclude others.
As John (so sadly missed he is) plaintively sang....
No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
That is you can't, you know, tune in but it's all right.
That is I think it's not too bad.
And there is a whole lot of that no one is in my tree on this thread.
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 04, 2008, 03:26:06 AM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:02 AM
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals.
It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am. Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills." For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other. As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism. Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality. How can one claim otherwise?
Whether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate. The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view. Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?
Someone also mentioned restroom usage. People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's. Why is restroom assignment so important? The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family. Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.
You're really jumping to conclusions saying that. Just because someone doesn't want to be associated with someone else doesn't mean they're really just self-loathing. It's a pretty wild accusation, actually.
I gather you don't agree with me but you're a bit thin on the why. I didn't say anything about self-loathing or make any accusations. Clarify, please.
QuoteIt displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am. Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills." For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other. As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism. Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality. How can one claim otherwise?
This chunk of your post. Basically you're saying "if you're TS and you want to dissociate from CDs, then you are self-hating, sexually suppressed, and you're not really upset with CDs you just need to get laid."
I find this a wild accusation. You're belittling ones opinions and passing it off as "you just need to get your winky wet"
I think it is time to slow down, state your positions "clearly" without emotion.
Differences of opinions are normal, that is human nature. Personal digs are not necessary here.
Sarah L.
That was a dead-on post, Tasha. I agree with you 100%
Though, just out of curiosity, I want to prod your shower statement. What if the person has been on hormones for a long time? What if the person looks flawlessly like a natal female except that she is pre-op? What shower then? (in the hypothetical case that there isn't a "no shower" option)
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 01:40:10 PM
That was a dead-on post, Tasha. I agree with you 100%
Though, just out of curiosity, I want to prod your shower statement. What if the person has been on hormones for a long time? What if the person looks flawlessly like a natal female except that she is pre-op? What shower then? (in the hypothetical case that there isn't a "no shower" option)
thanks, gracie.
i guess i'd have to say shower at home then; or sponge bath at the sink lol. i mean, after i go to the gym (which is quite infrequent), thats what i have to do. i mean, my top and bottom dont match. and until they do, i will have to make some sacrifices; and while that is a bit inconvenient at times, thats ALL it is -- inconvenience.
also, logically, if i looked flawlessly like a gg (god, i WISH!) then why would i want to out myself in that manner? to me, keeping my past in the past is going to be a big deal. transition is a place i passed through on the way to my final destination, and while it may sometimes be a nice place to visit, i dont want to live there.
Hmm, figured you'd say that, lol. Well, cool beans. Great post.
Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2008, 03:05:46 AM
Where are all those who would claim that EDNA tossed them under the bus, as they so gleefully do the same? Odd, no voices raised? Funny how those that would be offended by being left off, are so quick to leave others off.
Given that I was one of the people working behind the scenes pushing UnitedENDA forward, I think you should know where my voice is raised. My position is for the inclusion of
all gender identities.
Lisbeth
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:21:08 PM
the way a lot of non-transgendered see it is that there is no rational limitation in their eyes. that is why they will fight facility inclusivity every step of the way; expecially when laws are crafted that specifically state "facility usuage" with no other restrictions.
the fear that any old guy can just throw on a dress and waltz into a women's bathroom or locker room may not be well justified, but it is there....and, realistically, if a law is so written, what is to stop someone from doing so? and i will guarantee you that the other side will do so in order to show that it can be done -- and they already have.
i do not find it unrealistic to expect limitations on freedoms. and, personally, while i do not consider myself better than anyone else (quite the opposite actually) i firmly believe that who uses what facilities should be limited. i dont find it unreasonable for those under the treatment of a therapist following the SOC (which means, WITH a carry letter) to use the appropriate bathroom, but under no circumstances should a pre-operative use a shower facility (its only logical, isnt it....when you're naked, you no longer have a choice as to your "presentation").
and whether it is a lost cause to attempt to educate the general public that mtf/ftm really are the gender that they say they are is immaterial. it is what separates ts people from the rest of the tg population. like it or not, there it is.
finally, there is no other recognized medical condition found in the dsm-iv which REQUIRES, as a part of treatment, that someone EMBRACE the source of their discomfort -- ie; the rle/rlt. and, like it or not, it is on this basis where legally we have a leg to stand on, and more and more courts are recognizing it.
i am NOT saying, "well, who cares about the cd or tv or gender nonconformist, they dont have any needs that matter." they DO have needs and they DO matter. HOWEVER, my needs are a ts are DIFFERENT. that doesnt make me better or worse, just DIFFERENT. and acknowledging that difference is not throwing anyone under the bus; anymore than it is acknowledging that there are different needs under the lgbt umbrella as a whole.
here's the big difference to me, what glenda said, and what the general public just doesnt get:
"........the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class"
being ts isn't a "behavior"
why do we get so upset when some newbie comes in and talks about the transsexual "lifestyle"?
transition or die, we say, and we mean it because its true, at least for many of us. so how can it be a behavior? you dont hear "cd or die" or "gender nonconformance" or die. other than our basic humanity, which is not a small thing, the only thing we have in common with a cd/tv IS THE CLOTHES.
transition is life and death to us. to me. and i dont find it unreasonable to separate that need from others under the tg umbrella. we are NOT the same. and i dont think its intolerant to say so.
Pathology bestows gender recognition. What an odd idea.
So, dressing and acting in cross gender roles, going to considerable trouble to procure hormones legally or illegally and finally having your genitals turned inside out by a surgeon is not behavior? Just what is it then?
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 04, 2008, 01:52:28 PM
Pathology bestows gender recognition. What an odd idea.
So, dressing and acting in cross gender roles, going to considerable trouble to procure hormones legally or illegally and finally having your genitals turned inside by a surgeon is not behavior? Just what is it then?
It's a correction.
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:21:08 PM
the way a lot of non-transgendered see it is that there is no rational limitation in their eyes. that is why they will fight facility inclusivity every step of the way; expecially when laws are crafted that specifically state "facility usuage" with no other restrictions.
the fear that any old guy can just throw on a dress and waltz into a women's bathroom or locker room may not be well justified, but it is there....and, realistically, if a law is so written, what is to stop someone from doing so? and i will guarantee you that the other side will do so in order to show that it can be done -- and they already have.
i do not find it unrealistic to expect limitations on freedoms. and, personally, while i do not consider myself better than anyone else (quite the opposite actually) i firmly believe that who uses what facilities should be limited. i dont find it unreasonable for those under the treatment of a therapist following the SOC (which means, WITH a carry letter) to use the appropriate bathroom, but under no circumstances should a pre-operative use a shower facility (its only logical, isnt it....when you're naked, you no longer have a choice as to your "presentation").
and whether it is a lost cause to attempt to educate the general public that mtf/ftm really are the gender that they say they are is immaterial. it is what separates ts people from the rest of the tg population. like it or not, there it is.
finally, there is no other recognized medical condition found in the dsm-iv which REQUIRES, as a part of treatment, that someone EMBRACE the source of their discomfort -- ie; the rle/rlt. and, like it or not, it is on this basis where legally we have a leg to stand on, and more and more courts are recognizing it.
i am NOT saying, "well, who cares about the cd or tv or gender nonconformist, they dont have any needs that matter." they DO have needs and they DO matter. HOWEVER, my needs are a ts are DIFFERENT. that doesnt make me better or worse, just DIFFERENT. and acknowledging that difference is not throwing anyone under the bus; anymore than it is acknowledging that there are different needs under the lgbt umbrella as a whole.
here's the big difference to me, what glenda said, and what the general public just doesnt get:
"........the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class"
being ts isn't a "behavior"
why do we get so upset when some newbie comes in and talks about the transsexual "lifestyle"?
transition or die, we say, and we mean it because its true, at least for many of us. so how can it be a behavior? you dont hear "cd or die" or "gender nonconformance" or die. other than our basic humanity, which is not a small thing, the only thing we have in common with a cd/tv IS THE CLOTHES.
transition is life and death to us. to me. and i dont find it unreasonable to separate that need from others under the tg umbrella. we are NOT the same. and i dont think its intolerant to say so.
ok, assuming that's true, that we are not the same. then what?
there's still an unmistakable sense of hostility towards CD's by some TS's, primarily the ones who say, "they don't belong in our group, they're not like us, they don't understand our needs"
news flash: people are like books. for every 10 you meet, only one or two are gonna make sense to you, or seem worth reading.
i value the wit and wisdom of Tekla and Autumn very much, and if they lived near me, i'd make a real effort to try and hang out with them. so what if they're not TS? they're terribly unique and special human beings.
on the other hand, there are some TS's whose advice doesn't make much sense to me.
people, like books and records, have to be evaluated individually, on
your particular subjective basis. dismissing people because of a particular group affinity is your loss, not mine.
but i will not stand by idly and do nothing while my friends are being trashed for simply being who they are.
-Ell
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 04, 2008, 01:57:27 PM
ok, assuming that's true, that we are not the same. then what?
there's still an unmistakable sense of hostility towards CD's by some TS's, primarily the ones who say, "they don't belong in our group, they're not like us, they don't understand our needs"
news flash: people are like books. for every 10 you meet, only one or two are gonna make sense to you, or seem worth reading.
i value the wit and wisdom of Tekla and Autumn very much, and if they lived near me, i'd make a real effort to try and hang out with them. so what if they're not TS? they're terribly unique and special human beings.
on the other hand, there are some TS's whose advice doesn't make much sense to me.
people, like books and records, have to be evaluated individually, on your particular subjective basis. dismissing people because of a particular group affinity is your loss, not mine.
but i will not stand by idly and do nothing while my friends are being trashed for simply being who they are.
-Ell
Where in this thread has anyone "trashed" or displayed hate towards CDs? I see lots of posts explaining why TSs don't want to be associated with CDs, I see posts explaining why TSs feel there is a large difference between them and CDs. But I have yet to see anyone dissing, ripping, trashing, dismissing, hating on, etc CDs . CDs are fine. A person is a person, and if they're a nice person, then I'm not going to hate them just because they're a CD. But just because I may like some CDs as people doesn't mean I feel it correct to be associated with them. Perhaps I'd associate with them on some other grounds of interest, like film genres or music taste. But associate on the grounds of me being TS and them CD? I don't think so.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 01:55:55 PM
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 04, 2008, 01:52:28 PM
Pathology bestows gender recognition. What an odd idea.
So, dressing and acting in cross gender roles, going to considerable trouble to procure hormones legally or illegally and finally having your genitals turned inside by a surgeon is not behavior? Just what is it then?
It's a correction.
Quote from: Mirriam-Webster Online DictionaryMain Entry:
be·hav·ior
Pronunciation:
\bi-ˈhā-vyər, bē-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
alteration of Middle English behavour, from behaven
Date:
15th century
1 a: the manner of conducting oneself b: anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c: the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment2: the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior.
I never said that it wasn't a correction. You have a way of reading things in my statements that aren't there. Clue; there's lots of sarcasm and hyperbole in my metaphors.
no other recognized medical condition found in the dsm-iv ...
No other condition is self-diagnosed either. So its all just what you say you are. So all the cdgqqi and all the rest could just say......
Not every pathology has the same course of treatment. What works for one is not the same for everyone. Could not GID, like say cancer, range from mild skin conditions that require only a minor amount of work and care, to lung conditions that require major efforts?
A Wiki search here doesn't include a definition for "behavior." Lacking that I would point out the below as possibly having some significance for everyone posting to this thread. Perhaps that way we can all stay on the same page without having to write new ones? Thank you.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
be·hav·ior Audio Help [bi-heyv-yer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. manner of behaving or acting.
2. Psychology, Animal Behavior.
a. observable activity in a human or animal.
b. the aggregate of responses to internal and external stimuli.
c. a stereotyped, species-specific activity, as a courtship dance or startle reflex.
3. Often, behaviors. a behavior pattern.
4. the action or reaction of any material under given circumstances: the behavior of tin under heat.
Also, especially British, behaviour.
[Origin: 1375–1425; behave + -ior (on model of havior, var. of havor < MF (h)avoir ≪ L habére to have); r. late ME behavoure, behaver. See behave, -or1]
—Related forms
be·hav·ior·al, adjective
be·hav·ior·al·ly, adverb
—Synonyms 1. demeanor, manners; bearing, carriage. Behavior, conduct, deportment, comportment refer to one's actions before or toward others, esp. on a particular occasion. Behavior refers to actions usually measured by commonly accepted standards: His behavior at the party was childish. Conduct refers to actions viewed collectively, esp. as measured by an ideal standard: Conduct is judged according to principles of ethics. Deportment is behavior related to a code or to an arbitrary standard: Deportment is guided by rules of etiquette. The teacher gave Susan a mark of B in deportment. Comportment is behavior as viewed from the standpoint of one's management of one's own actions: His comportment was marked by a quiet assurance.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
This little gem is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
No one is forced to associate with another if they don't wish to. Something that also applies, I believe, to this board given Site Rules (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html) and the very convenient "Ignore" toggles placed for everyone's convenience on both member profiles and for topics and particular boards as well.
Please guys. Can we have differences of opinion without the need to get heated over them?
Thank you all.
Nichole
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 02:03:25 PM
i suppose it is behavior in the same way that submitting to chemotherapy is behavioral, or getting a liver transplant is behavioral. you can "behave" in a way that cures you -- or gives you a chance to live a "normal" life -- or you can die.
however, you are totally entitled to define yourself, and your own interpretation of transsexualism. if you have already made up your mind that the treatment of transsexualism is behavioral, there is nothing i can say to change your mind. nor would i wish to.
edit: ellie, i'm not trashing anyone by saying tekla and i are different. i like tekla a lot, you know that. we have different needs, so what? so do you and i, for that matter. i am talking EXPLICITLY about facility usage, which does not, in my opinion, dismiss a group as being unworthy, or make one group better than any other.
i dont feel that i was hostile at all, and if i came across that way, it was certainly not intentional.
I'm transsexual and a liver transplant patient. There is no comparison between the two. My transsexualism has never caused me to hemorrhage or vomit blood. HRT is nothing at all like Rebetron therapy. You don't like spiro? You should try interferon injections.
It is a behavior how one chooses to deal with ESLD as it is transsexualism. There are things worse than death that can be done to you in a hospital or clinic. We who have had chronic and life threatening illness know that regardless of treatment decisions we will never be "normal" again. I will alway be a liver patient. The operation changes my symptoms and therapy, it doesn't eliminate them.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:09 PM
Where in this thread has anyone "trashed" or displayed hate towards CDs?
uh, how 'bout in the title of this thread?
Oh your reading it from the beginning, no fair.
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 04, 2008, 02:36:31 PM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:09 PM
Where in this thread has anyone "trashed" or displayed hate towards CDs?
uh, how 'bout in the title of this thread?
There are quite a few miles in the emotion spectrum that separates "rash" and "hate"
I am slightly peeved or lightly upset, not enraged with hate.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on July 31, 2008, 09:29:42 PM
Okay so, I've been having a conflict in feelings lately. I've been having trouble sorting things out in my head, so if a few of my statements are contradictory, that is why. I don't know whether this belongs here or the edge too, so move it if necessary...
I dislike being considered as/grouped with non-transsexual transgendered people.
Basically: Cross dressers and ->-bleeped-<-s. I feel... demeaned or insulted when someone says "transgendered" when they mean "transsexualism." Now, I'm not saying I dislike them. I'm not stating any prejudices or trying to belittle them. I just don't like being told or described (whether directly, indirectly, knowingly, or unknowingly) as being on the same level as them.
I just feel that, even though we have similar struggles, I'm just from a completely different universe with all of it. It's a physiological thing for me, and to be called the same thing as someone who gender bends for sexual/recreational purposes makes me feel misunderstood and anguished and even a little upset/angry.
But the thing is is it makes me feel terrible that I have such negative, perhaps even grudgingly negative feelings towards people that seem so nice and friendly at my support groups. Why? I'm upset with the people that tell me I'm the same, not non-transsexual transgendered people themselves!
I do hold some sympathetic feelings for HBS views, and agree with some of their less discriminatory policies and goals. I don't know if these feelings are just the beginnings of some very aggressive feelings that I see in a lot of people that consider themselves HBSers or if they're just isolated frustrations/confusions I need to work out.
If I could hear others opinions about this maybe I could figure some stuff out about what I'm really feelings.
It might be nice if we went back to the original question and the tone the post ended with. She asked for other opinions to help sort out her feelings.
Lets try to keep this civil.
Sarah L.
As with any "behavior" it only becomes "life-threatening" given an internal response and the ways one chooses to cope with the problem.
That transsexuality or cross-dressing or being a man or woman and others' reactions to the way any individual handles that and how that set of reactions and feelings are internalized by the person affected is what is life-threatening. Having a condition itself, unless it is liver-disease, a heart condition, diabetes, deviated septum, spina bifida, sickle-cell anemia, etc IS NOT life threatening.
That I may choose to cope with my transsexuality by committing suicide or someone else coping with it by murdering me isn't "caused" by the condition itself. It's caused by my reaction to the way I am or their reaction to the way I am.
Can we please agree to that much? Heck, I've lived with transsexuality for 56 years. I have almost committed suicide twice: once when I was ten and nearly succeeded and the other time a few years ago due to hatred expressed hatefully by another. The second time was ideation, not act. The act was precluded by talking about the desire and my pain with both my partner and my therapist on a Sunday night.
Both were results of ways I tried to cope, not of the fact of being transsexual.
Nichole
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 02:50:11 PM
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 04, 2008, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 02:03:25 PM
i suppose it is behavior in the same way that submitting to chemotherapy is behavioral, or getting a liver transplant is behavioral. you can "behave" in a way that cures you -- or gives you a chance to live a "normal" life -- or you can die.
however, you are totally entitled to define yourself, and your own interpretation of transsexualism. if you have already made up your mind that the treatment of transsexualism is behavioral, there is nothing i can say to change your mind. nor would i wish to.
edit: ellie, i'm not trashing anyone by saying tekla and i are different. i like tekla a lot, you know that. we have different needs, so what? so do you and i, for that matter. i am talking EXPLICITLY about facility usage, which does not, in my opinion, dismiss a group as being unworthy, or make one group better than any other.
i dont feel that i was hostile at all, and if i came across that way, it was certainly not intentional.
I'm transsexual and a liver transplant patient. There is no comparison between the two. My transsexualism has never caused me to hemorrhage or vomit blood. HRT is nothing at all like Rebetron therapy. You don't like spiro? You should try interferon injections.
It is a behavior how one chooses to deal with ESLD as it is transsexualism. There are things worse than death that can be done to you in a hospital or clinic. We who have had chronic and life threatening illness know that regardless of treatment decisions we will never be "normal" again. I will alway be a liver patient. The operation changes my symptoms and therapy, it doesn't eliminate them.
i am guessing that you dont consider transexxualism life threatening. my transexualism, however, as did many others here, resulted in numerous suicide attempts.
the only thing that will "cure" me is transition. it wont make me a "normal" natal female. (which is why "normal" was quoted). but it gives me a chance for some peace.
i do not agree that either having a liver transplant or hrt is behavioral. i think it may be more properly termed as coercive. it is only voluntary to an extent.
Liver transplants are a choice, in fact one needs to constantly prove they are worthy. No one coerced me and I have no fear of death. I know people that have chosen otherwise. I did myself for awhile.
Most people in the world live in misery all the time. No one is forced to commit suicide. That's a choice. A mad one, yes, but still a choice. One may not like living as they are but that doesn't mean suicide is their only option.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 04, 2008, 02:36:31 PM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:09 PM
Where in this thread has anyone "trashed" or displayed hate towards CDs?
uh, how 'bout in the title of this thread?
There are quite a few miles in the emotion spectrum that separates "rash" and "hate"
I am slightly peeved or lightly upset, not enraged with hate.
ok. the facts that you are upset and peevish are duly noted.
when one is so young, as you are, anger searches for many points of exit and expression.
then, we sometimes say things that needlessly hurt the feelings of others.
later, (hopefully not too much later) we learn that protecting the feelings of others is one of the primary objectives of behaving well. it's not an easy thing to learn. you figure, not even the president has learned it.
-Ell
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 04, 2008, 03:33:32 PM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 04, 2008, 02:36:31 PM
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:09 PM
Where in this thread has anyone "trashed" or displayed hate towards CDs?
uh, how 'bout in the title of this thread?
There are quite a few miles in the emotion spectrum that separates "rash" and "hate"
I am slightly peeved or lightly upset, not enraged with hate.
ok. the facts that you are upset and peevish are duly noted.
when one is so young, as you are, anger searches for many points of exit and expression.
then, we sometimes say things that needlessly hurt the feelings of others.
later, (hopefully not too much later) we learn that protecting the feelings of others is one of the primary objectives of behaving well. it's not an easy thing to learn. you figure, not even the president has learned it.
-Ell
My youth has little to do with a lack of empathy I may or may not have.
I am highly aware of how others feel and how the things I say may affect them. But being able to empathize doesn't mean I'm no longer allowed to express how I feel. In my first post I think I did very well in expressing myself without stepping on anyones toes
That's enough sniping, I'd rather not lock the topic.
Sarah L.
As Gracie stated in her first post...
I'm just from a completely different universe with all of it
See Ell, some universes are geocentric - everything revolves around the earth. Some are heliocentric, where it all revolves around the sun. This universe seems to be to be egocentric, where everything revolves around one person.
Because that is the end result of any sort of separatist argument. So when all the cdgqqqietc people move out, then I'm sure there will be problems with other people, they are on drugs (we've got that one already, despite the fact that any research into the field would show that TG persons of all stripes have rates of substance abuse and self medication far above the national average, which is sky high as it is - so the odds of NOT running into people at TS support groups who are not on drugs is almost astronomical) or with people who make more money, or with those who have none -- how demeaning would it be to be compared with a homeless person, or with a sex worker, or with someone who is asexual, or... and, on and on. Because once you start down that path you get to a group of one pretty darn fast.
After all, who is exactly just like you, or me, or Gracie?
As the Gospel according to Money Python states:
Brian: You are all individuals!
Crowd: YES, YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Brian: You are all different!
Crowd: YES, WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT!
Lone Voice: I'm not.
Person next to him: SHH!
I agree with Sarah. If we could simply state our opinions about what Gracie asked about without taking personal offense to the way others feel or don't then the heat here could be reduced without her having to lock the topic to all.
Come on, folks, surely we can do that. Right?
N~
Quote from: Sarah Louise on August 04, 2008, 04:18:01 PM
That's enough sniping, I'd rather not lock the topic.
Sarah L.
I'd kind of rather you did.
Lisbeth
Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2008, 04:33:48 PM
As Gracie stated in her first post...
I'm just from a completely different universe with all of it
See Ell, some universes are geocentric - everything revolves around the earth. Some are heliocentric, where it all revolves around the sun. This universe seems to be to be egocentric, where everything revolves around one person.
Because that is the end result of any sort of separatist argument. So when all the cdgqqqietc people move out, then I'm sure there will be problems with other people, they are on drugs (we've got that one already, despite the fact that any research into the field would show that TG persons of all stripes have rates of substance abuse and self medication far above the national average, which is sky high as it is - so the odds of NOT running into people at TS support groups who are not on drugs is almost astronomical) or with people who make more money, or with those who have none -- how demeaning would it be to be compared with a homeless person, or with a sex worker, or with someone who is asexual, or... and, on and on. Because once you start down that path you get to a group of one pretty darn fast.
After all, who is exactly just like you, or me, or Gracie?
As the Gospel according to Money Python states:
Brian: You are all individuals!
Crowd: YES, YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Brian: You are all different!
Crowd: YES, WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT!
Lone Voice: I'm not.
Person next to him: SHH!
*nods, sadly*
the politics of exclusion begin even before the grass-roots level.
on the playground...
-Ell
Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2008, 04:33:48 PM
Because once you start down that path you get to a group of one pretty darn fast.
You only have to divide the world's population 33 times to get to groups of one.
Lisbeth
Math wise, in terms of interpersonal relationships it gets there even faster.
Back up to the original post.
Quote from: Gracie FAISE on July 31, 2008, 09:29:42 PM
I just feel that, even though we have similar struggles, I'm just from a completely different universe with all of it. It's a physiological thing for me, and to be called the same thing as someone who gender bends for sexual/recreational purposes makes me feel misunderstood and anguished and even a little upset/angry.
For a lot of CDs it is also Physiological, they react differently to the same stress/preasure.
For me I called myself a CD for a long time but now I am being accepted as a TS. I could just as well live between the genders and live as a CD, working as Male. There is no black/white here, we live with the same problem. It takes many years for a CD to come out to herself wondering if she is in fact TS, some go through a period of depression like any TS person. They come out of that period happy to live two different lives, half male and half female. As I said to one of my therapst just recenty, if I stop HRT I get rid of Alice. To me, the CD person accept they have two different personalities and get on with their lives, they are stronger in that regard then me.
CDs are human and face many of to social stigmas TS people face, they hid from their wives cause they are embarised and affraid of lossing their marridge. And Gracie has said they do it for sexual/recreational resons (a stigma) but when you look closly at them you will relised they cross dress for the same reason others have become TS (they need to identify with their female side).
Alice
Quote from: Alice on August 04, 2008, 08:52:39 PM
For a lot of CDs it is also Physiological, they react differently to the same stress/preasure.
For me I called myself a CD for a long time but now I am being accepted as a TS. I could just as well live between the genders and live as a CD, working as Male. There is no black/white here, we live with the same problem.
Thanks for saying this Alice! I believe that it's a continuum, that we're all dealing with some level of gender dysphoria, some more intensely. Once upon a time, I cross dressed occasionally, then I realized I was TS and transitioned. Then I was androgyne and managed to live between genders for years. Now, I don't really know what I am except that I need to move forward again... It's always been the same issue, I've dealt with it in different ways at different times and circumstances.
I cannot discriminate against anyone, CD, drag queen, genderqueer, HBS, heterosexual cisgenders, etc... We're all sisters/brothers, if even one of us doesn't have her equal rights, then what good are they for the rest of us.
Zythyra
Someone here, I forget whom, said that TVs crossdress for fetishistic purposes, while CDs crossdress for other reasons. Long ago, I heard that the crossdressing, for TVs, is purely a fetish for the clothing itself, and they do not think of themselves as women at all, not even while presenting as women. That was some of the information that led me to realize that I was not "just a crossdesser" as I had thought in my teenage years (just=purely, not merely). But I thought then that crossdressers and ->-bleeped-<-s were the same thing. I'm still not sure that I have all of the information. Are CDs really part time transexuals?
Looking at wikipedia, the term "crossdresser" is rather undefined. It seems that it can include anyone who crossdresses but who does not want to change their body medically and does not do it as an impersonation, acting role, masquerade or the like. Seems like it is a catch all category that covers fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-s and people who identify as the other gender but do not plan to transition medically. There is the statement that crossdressers may not identify as the other gender, but not that they do not identify as the other gender. So maybe some of the contention lies in that the term "crossdresser" is not specific enough, and when one person hears it they think part-time, non-op TS, while another thinks fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-.
Still, there is an obvious prejudice against the fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-s, even among many CDs. But the important thing is for each of us to confront our own prejudices and conquer and/or compensate as best we can. In time, bridges can be built, but it takes regular exposure to the persons against whom the prejudice is held.
I think it has been a subject for philosophical debates during the past 2,000 years: Nominalism vs. Realism.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/nominalism_realism.html (http://www.theologicalstudies.org/nominalism_realism.html)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm)
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 04, 2008, 09:33:15 PM
Looking at wikipedia, the term "crossdresser" is rather undefined. It seems that it can include anyone who crossdresses but who does not want to change their body medically and does not do it as an impersonation, acting role, masquerade or the like. Seems like it is a catch all category that covers fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-s and people who identify as the other gender but do not plan to transition medically. There is the statement that crossdressers may not identify as the other gender, but not that they do not identify as the other gender. So maybe some of the contention lies in that the term "crossdresser" is not specific enough, and when one person hears it they think part-time, non-op TS, while another thinks fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-.
There are other options, a CD who is cisgender identified isn't necessarily a fetishist. It's often lost in these discussions that some CDs are just men wanting to express their femininity. Since they often feel they can't do that in their daily lives (how many CDs are men in high pressure jobs, trying to support a family, it seems quite a lot) they have periods of CDing to embrace their feminine 'side'. It's perfectly possible to be a totally male identified CD without any fetishtic/sexual component. There's nothing fetishtic about being a feminine man!
(not that I think you were implying otherwise, I just think it's worth stating)
Quote from: barbie on August 04, 2008, 11:38:32 PM
I think it has been a subject for philosophical debates during the past 2,000 years: Nominalism vs. Realism.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/nominalism_realism.html (http://www.theologicalstudies.org/nominalism_realism.html)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm)
Cleaver, Barbie. I salute you.
I have always viewed it as preposterous to imagine an "ideal model" existing in some nebulous other dimension. That makes me solidly a Nominalist. And that is consistent with my inductive rather than deductive reasoning style. There are no "ideal" TSs or TGs, only individuals who label themselves "TS" or "TG." And so there is no
real dividing line; it is all reification, acting like an imaginary thing really exists.
Lisbeth
Quote from: Andra on August 05, 2008, 04:12:02 AM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 04, 2008, 09:33:15 PM
Looking at wikipedia, the term "crossdresser" is rather undefined. It seems that it can include anyone who crossdresses but who does not want to change their body medically and does not do it as an impersonation, acting role, masquerade or the like. Seems like it is a catch all category that covers fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-s and people who identify as the other gender but do not plan to transition medically. There is the statement that crossdressers may not identify as the other gender, but not that they do not identify as the other gender. So maybe some of the contention lies in that the term "crossdresser" is not specific enough, and when one person hears it they think part-time, non-op TS, while another thinks fetishistic ->-bleeped-<-.
There are other options, a CD who is cisgender identified isn't necessarily a fetishist. It's often lost in these discussions that some CDs are just men wanting to express their femininity. Since they often feel they can't do that in their daily lives (how many CDs are men in high pressure jobs, trying to support a family, it seems quite a lot) they have periods of CDing to embrace their feminine 'side'. It's perfectly possible to be a totally male identified CD without any fetishtic/sexual component. There's nothing fetishtic about being a feminine man!
(not that I think you were implying otherwise, I just think it's worth stating)
OK. I was not aware of that. So is it for stress relief, like when a person who has to boss people around at work goes home and is submissive with their spouse? I'm not trying to say it is a fetish like S&M, but I've known some people in the D&S community who are like that, and it is not for sex. So I'm just trying to relate it to some things I already know about.
But I can see it might be confusing if there is this "feminine side" that can't be expressed in a socially acceptable way, it can lead to stress. So, in that case, the crossdressing might have the effect of relieving the stress, while the strss relief is not the primary motivation.
It might be hard to work out the motivation for it. So I guess I'm asking whether "feminine side" essentially means "submissive side" in this instance, and crossdressing is the modus operandi for the submission ritual. If so, then I can see why some who identify as female might have difficulty associating with someone playing into a gender stereotype in that way. So I want us to have a clear understanding of what the spectrum is, if it is possible, so we can confront real issues and dispel myths.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 05, 2008, 08:46:14 AM
OK. I was not aware of that. So is it for stress relief, like when a person who has to boss people around at work goes home and is submissive with their spouse? I'm not trying to say it is a fetish like S&M, but I've known some people in the D&S community who are like that, and it is not for sex. So I'm just trying to relate it to some things I already know about.
But I can see it might be confusing if there is this "feminine side" that can't be expressed in a socially acceptable way, it can lead to stress. So, in that case, the crossdressing might have the effect of relieving the stress, while the strss relief is not the primary motivation.
It might be hard to work out the motivation for it. So I guess I'm asking whether "feminine side" essentially means "submissive side" in this instance, and crossdressing is the modus operandi for the submission ritual. If so, then I can see why some who identify as female might have difficulty associating with someone playing into a gender stereotype in that way. So I want us to have a clear understanding of what the spectrum is, if it is possible, so we can confront real issues and dispel myths.
Not everyone associates masculinity with dominance and femininity with submission...
"If so, then I can see why some who identify as female might have difficulty associating with someone playing into a gender stereotype in that way." Somebody expressing a facet of their self is not necessarily playing into a stereotype. That's a criticism m2f transsexuals are often of the receiving end of too!
OK. But I still don't understand, so please let me ask some more questions. I think I recall that some CDs crossdress for relaxation as opposed to sexual arousal. I think that is maybe why I am thinking about the stress relief angle. Is it for relaxation then? If so, is it an especially strong sense of relaxation? Is there a sense of compulsion involved? No, I'm not talking about forced crossdressing for humiliation (which I think is on the fetish side, if I'm not mistaken). I just mean is it not really optional?
When I hear the explanation of indulging one's feminine side while still identifying as a man, it conjures visions of just wanting to feel pretty once in a while and enjoy the same kinds of frivolous things a lot of women enjoy. Is that all it is? If so, it would seem like something that could be easily put permanently aside. If not, it would seem to be either some sort of psychological addiction, or a facet of one's identity that can only be neglected for so long.
On the other hand, if it is a compulsive putting aside and escape from the male gender role because it is uncomfortable, well that is gender dysphoria. In response to that, one can embrace many stereotypically hyper feminine behaviors that one might not find appealling on a daily basis. If that is what we are talking about, then I think the difference between the feelings that kind of CD and the feelings of a TS are sort of a matter of degree or progress along a common path.
This is the point at which I can provide actual information instead of speculation. The World Health Organization (WHO) provides a diagnostic manual, the International Catalog of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10), which is more accurate in it's information about GID than the DSM-IV is. The ICD-10 provides the following three categories:
Quote
F64.0 Transsexualism
A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex.
(Lisbeth note: Please, see the word "usually," not "always.")
F64.1 Dual-role transvestism
The wearing of clothes of the opposite sex for part of the individual's existence in order to enjoy the temporary experience of membership of the opposite sex, but without any desire for a more permanent sex change or associated surgical reassignment, and without sexual excitement accompanying the cross-dressing.
Gender identity disorder of adolescence or adulthood, nontranssexual type
Excludes: fetishistic transvestism ( F65.1 )
F65.1 Fetishistic transvestism
The wearing of clothes of the opposite sex principally to obtain sexual excitement and to create the appearance of a person of the opposite sex. Fetishistic transvestism is distinguished from transsexual transvestism by its clear association with sexual arousal and the strong desire to remove the clothing once orgasm occurs and sexual arousal declines. It can occur as an earlier phase in the development of transsexualism.
Transvestic fetishism
http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ (http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/)
Lisbeth
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 05, 2008, 03:51:56 PM
On the other hand, if it is a compulsive putting aside and escape from the male gender role because it is uncomfortable, well that is gender dysphoria. In response to that, one can embrace many stereotypically hyper feminine behaviors that one might not find appealling on a daily basis. If that is what we are talking about, then I think the difference between the feelings that kind of CD and the feelings of a TS are sort of a matter of degree or progress along a common path.
Maybe I can explain...In this discussion I would be identified as CD, but I know in my heart that I am TS. So I guess I am a classic case of TS stuck in an emotional prison where I cannot move for fear of hurting those around me. I say emotional, because I know if it were not for my responsibility to my family, I have the money and would blow it on every treatment going tomorrow... and still have enough to buy a new house, and live without working for around 5 to 8 years.
The fact is, that I am either too weak or too strong (I really don't know which). I'm not about to commit suicide , but this s**t is ripping me apart from within...and I can live with that... because I would give my life for my children, or to save them from someone else who would threaten them. OK there probably will come a time soon when I put my needs higher on my agenda, and they will meet the other side of me, but that is not right now.
But, I've still got to survive, and feed the compulsion to express my inner being, so I am here. Chrissty exists in the shadows, slowly working out that "stress" that seems so difficult to understand, trying to work out the way ahead, trying to help others, and by doing so finding myself.
I was able to live with the label TG, but somehow here CD,TV, or TS don't seem to work for people like me anymore...are there any suggestions where I/we should go? Is TG really such a bad umbrella to exist under?
Chrissty
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 05, 2008, 03:51:56 PM
When I hear the explanation of indulging one's feminine side while still identifying as a man, it conjures visions of just wanting to feel pretty once in a while and enjoy the same kinds of frivolous things a lot of women enjoy. Is that all it is? If so, it would seem like something that could be easily put permanently aside. If not, it would seem to be either some sort of psychological addiction, or a facet of one's identity that can only be neglected for so long.
On the other hand, if it is a compulsive putting aside and escape from the male gender role because it is uncomfortable, well that is gender dysphoria. In response to that, one can embrace many stereotypically hyper feminine behaviors that one might not find appealling on a daily basis. If that is what we are talking about, then I think the difference between the feelings that kind of CD and the feelings of a TS are sort of a matter of degree or progress along a common path.
If you define gender dysphoria and transsexuality as simply being too feminine to live comfortably in 'male role' (for mtfs) or being too masculine to live comfortably in 'female role' (for ftms) then yes CDing* and being TS would seem to be on a continuum.
However don't a lot of transsexuals experience dysphoria that's nothing to do with social constraints? Are all body dysphoria and percieved hormonal issues the result of underlying social dysphoria? Personally I don't believe that's so. There are masculine mtfs and feminine ftms, their existence can't be explained by assuming social issues are the root problem. It seems to me that there are other factors at work (along the lines of the brain sex theory), though the etiology hasn't yet been proven yet.
* I really should have said "CDing soley for the purpose of expressing ones femininity of masculinity and being TS..."
Quote from: Chrissty on August 05, 2008, 04:35:18 PM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 05, 2008, 03:51:56 PM
On the other hand, if it is a compulsive putting aside and escape from the male gender role because it is uncomfortable, well that is gender dysphoria. In response to that, one can embrace many stereotypically hyper feminine behaviors that one might not find appealling on a daily basis. If that is what we are talking about, then I think the difference between the feelings that kind of CD and the feelings of a TS are sort of a matter of degree or progress along a common path.
Maybe I can explain...In this discussion I would be identified as CD, but I know in my heart that I am TS. So I guess I am a classic case of TS stuck in an emotional prison where I cannot move for fear of hurting those around me. I say emotional, because I know if it were not for my responsibility to my family, I have the money and would blow it on every treatment going tomorrow... and still have enough to buy a new house, and live without working for around 5 to 8 years.
The fact is, that I am either too weak or too strong (I really don't know which). I'm not about to commit suicide , but this s**t is ripping me apart from within...and I can live with that... because I would give my life for my children, or to save them from someone else who would threaten them. OK there probably will come a time soon when I put my needs higher on my agenda, and they will meet the other side of me, but that is not right now.
But, I've still got to survive, and feed the compulsion to express my inner being, so I am here. Chrissty exists in the shadows, slowly working out that "stress" that seems so difficult to understand, trying to work out the way ahead, trying to help others, and by doing so finding myself.
I was able to live with the label TG, but somehow here CD,TV, or TS don't seem to work for people like me anymore...are there any suggestions where I/we should go? Is TG really such a bad umbrella to exist under?
Chrissty
Hi Chrissty,
reactions such as yours are exactly why threads of this nature seem so unfair.
this is a support site, you come here for support, and you get this.
what's next? sewing patches on people's sleeves?
-Ell
Hi Ell,
Thank you for your concern, I'm not upset, I got over that a
couple of days ago.
I just want the folks here to realise that we are all people, and
we do not conform to convenient categories or stereotypes.
Never was any good at sewing though....
Chrissty
Christty,
:icon_hug:
O, sweetie. You are strong.
You don't have to sew to be female!! :laugh: :laugh:
More people do what you are doing than they are willing to admit. They want to make sure they fall into the "right" etiology.
The right etiology is the one that applies to you. Period!!
But there's this dirty little MTF-TS (the guys not much at all, so I've found) open secret. We have to tell one story to be valid. Fudigdabowdid!! One story never has told the truth about a conglomeration of folks, never will.
:icon_hug:
Nichole
Quote from: Andra on August 05, 2008, 04:39:05 PM
However don't a lot of transsexuals experience dysphoria that's nothing to do with social constraints?
(raises hand)
Oh, and.... thank you for asking ;)
~Kate~
Christty,
In another thread I said that I use at least 3 labels, femal, TG and TS. It depends on the circumstance and who I'm talking to. I think I really prefer the the TG designation even though I live full time and have done the legal stuff. Surgery may or may not be in my future. There are a number of variables, some of which I have no control over.
You're not alone in putting commitments to others ahead of your own needs and it certainly doesn't diminish you in my eyes. Your time will come.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 05, 2008, 03:51:56 PM
OK. But I still don't understand, so please let me ask some more questions. I think I recall that some CDs crossdress for relaxation as opposed to sexual arousal. I think that is maybe why I am thinking about the stress relief angle. Is it for relaxation then? If so, is it an especially strong sense of relaxation? Is there a sense of compulsion involved? No, I'm not talking about forced crossdressing for humiliation (which I think is on the fetish side, if I'm not mistaken). I just mean is it not really optional?
Most people will CD for stress relief and relaxation. I would even say that sexual angle is part of the same senerio, being able to relax within to make them feel better. You are become female for exactly the same reason, to releive the stress of being male. It is all to relieve the same kind of preasure. Those CDs soming find a way to live with the two lives where a TS person wants to get rid of the constant struggle with their two selves.
*rushes of to work*
Alice
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 05, 2008, 04:02:04 PM
as tekla said in another thread, for cd's the focus is on the clothes.
I just think that is way oversimplified and entirely inaccurate with regard to a lot of CDs.
Posted on: August 05, 2008, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: Kate on August 05, 2008, 05:37:14 PM
Quote from: Andra on August 05, 2008, 04:39:05 PM
However don't a lot of transsexuals experience dysphoria that's nothing to do with social constraints?
(raises hand)
Oh, and.... thank you for asking ;)
~Kate~
Good point. Experiencing horror upon manifestation of the ability to grow a beard, etc. is a bit of a dead giveaway for TS status, I think. If a "CD" experienced that, would it mean they are not CD? What if they presently express no plan to physically transition?
Posted on: August 05, 2008, 10:58:57 PM
One more thing, I am pretty sure it is possible to be all about female clothes without being a crossdresser. I knew one guy who could only be aroused by female clothes having certain feel and textures, but he did not crossdress at all. He just used it as a sex partner. So I think the compulsion to put on the clothes speaks strongly of more than just an attraction to clothing of the opposite sex.
Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 05, 2008, 06:10:38 PM
Christty,
In another thread I said that I use at least 3 labels, femal, TG and TS. It depends on the circumstance and who I'm talking to. I think I really prefer the the TG designation even though I live full time and have done the legal stuff. Surgery may or may not be in my future. There are a number of variables, some of which I have no control over.
You're not alone in putting commitments to others ahead of your own needs and it certainly doesn't diminish you in my eyes. Your time will come.
Thank you for your kind words Claire.
I'm not really too worried about a label that others may apply to me in passing, it goes with the territory, and deep down I know what I am....The problem only starts when the label is used as grounds to separate, or exclude.
As suggested by Nichole, I think there are many more people living with true TS compulsion under the CD banner than might be imagined, and even more stay hidden totally in the general public. I know that part of me has lived in that way, walking around but "trapped" in total isolation for well over 30 years.
In that time however, even when living totally as my male side, I now realise that I was still "seeing" the world through Chrissty's eyes; then switching the gender viewpoint in my head before acting.
This is why I am really indebted the Guys on this site, they are the ones that in the last 2 months have lead me to a much deeper understanding of myself, because we have shared the struggled to be men. I really hope they all succeed better than I have.....
:icon_hug:
Chrissty
Quote from: Chrissty on August 06, 2008, 05:52:24 AM
The problem only starts when the label is used as grounds to separate, or exclude.
I think that we have our own little tower of babel going on here with the label ontology, differences of opinion about what they describe, misunderstandings about the underlying behavior/motivation combinations, relationships between the combinations, potential for coexistence of multiple combinations in the same individual, etc. And then the strife stems from peoples' innate need to oversimplify and categorize things, such as the judgement that it is either all about clothes or all about gender identity. But look at how gender identity was defined in the inclusive ENDA:
GENDER IDENTITY- The term `gender identity' means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.
Sounds like Gender Idenity is being used there to include Gender Expression, but might leave out Intersexed.
And then also the way it is used in Miss Lisbeff's post above from the DSM, where Dual Role Transvestism is categorized as a gender identity disorder.
So any of these terms can be used in many different ways, and we constantly have to ask, "What do you mean by that?" The discussion always yields differences of opinion about the categories and meanings of labels, and strife is inevitable. So I think the term Transgender is especially useful as an uber inclusive category for all things gender aberrant. It avoids revealing those inevitable differences of opinion. And we can all get together and make a list of the things we all need and fight, as a group, for getting all of those things. And then, of course, it is really not helpful when someone in the group pipes up and says, "I don't want to fight for that thing this other person needs because I don't need it, I think it is morally wrong, and I don't want the recognition of my rights to be contingent on the recognition of that other right for that other person." But we do see that happen a lot.
Quote
even when living totally as my male side, I now realise that I was still "seeing" the world through Chrissty's eyes; then switching the gender viewpoint in my head before acting.
I think we call that "the male mask." ;)
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 06, 2008, 08:58:12 AM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 05, 2008, 11:03:42 PM
Good point. Experiencing horror upon manifestation of the ability to grow a beard, etc. is a bit of a dead giveaway for TS status, I think. If a "CD" experienced that, would it mean they are not CD? What if they presently express no plan to physically transition?
Posted on: August 05, 2008, 10:58:57 PM
One more thing, I am pretty sure it is possible to be all about female clothes without being a crossdresser. I knew one guy who could only be aroused by female clothes having certain feel and textures, but he did not crossdress at all. He just used it as a sex partner. So I think the compulsion to put on the clothes speaks strongly of more than just an attraction to clothing of the opposite sex.
your key word is arousal. once again, it not about the clothing!
ts's are not aroused by clothing. its not a fetish. i am as much a woman in a suit as i am in a dress. do i want my outside appearance congruent? of course. and a part of that is done through choice of clothing.
but if i couldnt dress the part -- for whatever reason -- i would still be a woman.
But my point was that a lot of CDs are not aroused by the clothing either. And that at least some of those who are do not wear the clothes. So why is it that CDs who wear the clothes but are not aroused by it are "all about the clothing?" Seems to me there must be more to it.
Women, regardless their etiology, do get aroused by their own clothing. Ya wanna look sexy? be inviting? you see yourself as arousing? Feel just a bit aroused when you're dressed to the nines? That never seems to arise in these discussions.
So what if you're trans and get "aroused" when you dress-up? Like the texture of a fabric against your nipples or your clit or such? Do we truly think other women don't? How laughable!
You'd think the point of trans is simply a journey into abstinence and asceticism! Get real, folks!
The main problem with all this theorizing, from Ray Blanchard to Pogo, is that we tend to ignore certain natural qualities of sexuality and the ways in which people see themselves; that, and we never make those clear distinctions between "gender" and "sexuality."
Sorry, silk and satin feel good against a body, why do ya think we dress and use them for bed clothes so much?
Nichole
P.S. O, come to think it, so do cotton, linen, rayon, even wool on occasions! :)
Don't forget the shoes, Nichole! The thought of wearing al those ugly wing-tips, Oxfords and loafers the rest of my life is what drove me to transition! I tried to make do for years with some lovely Italian cap-toes, but finally I admitted that I needed some pumps, and mules and boots. Don't forget the strappy sandals. Oh hell, nothing less than Carrie Bradshaw's closet would do! :D
Imelda Marcos was a goddess! >:D
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:21:08 PM
i am NOT saying, "well, who cares about the cd or tv or gender nonconformist, they dont have any needs that matter." they DO have needs and they DO matter. HOWEVER, my needs are a ts are DIFFERENT. that doesnt make me better or worse, just DIFFERENT. and acknowledging that difference is not throwing anyone under the bus; anymore than it is acknowledging that there are different needs under the lgbt umbrella as a whole.
here's the big difference to me, what glenda said, and what the general public just doesnt get:
"........the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class"
being ts isn't a "behavior"
why do we get so upset when some newbie comes in and talks about the transsexual "lifestyle"?
transition or die, we say, and we mean it because its true, at least for many of us. so how can it be a behavior? you dont hear "cd or die" or "gender nonconformance" or die. other than our basic humanity, which is not a small thing, the only thing we have in common with a cd/tv IS THE CLOTHES.
transition is life and death to us. to me. and i dont find it unreasonable to separate that need from others under the tg umbrella. we are NOT the same. and i dont think its intolerant to say so.
But a TS person, from my point of view, is someone who is actually in the process of changing their physical sex. It is not an identity. Someone who is going to change their sex thirty years from now but has no plans to do so at present is not TS. Some one who has completed transition is not TS. But they are both transgendered due to past, present, and/or future gender non-conforming thoughts, appearances, behaviors, and/or activities. So, to me, TS is a behavior. What you are talking about is motivation for the behavior.
Saying that different categories of transgendered persons tend to have different needs is just stating a fact. Saying that two transgendered persons in the same category have different needs is also stating a fact. But a problem arises when we seek legislation separately for each sub-category or each individual. A right is not enjoyed by one person having one motivation that is not enjoyed by another person having another motivation. That's called "special rights." Any rights we obtain must be obtained for all and enjoyed by all.
For an example of the problems related to seeking rights for different classes of people separately, just look at ENDA. It was originally written with sexual orientation and gender identity offered as a la carte options. That was a mistake. It should have been offered to protect against discrimination for gender non-conformity, with sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, intersex, etc. all given as sub-categories of gender non-conformity in the definitions. Sexual orientation is a type of gender non-conformity because the choice of sex partner is gender non-conforming. Seeking separate protection on a sub-class by sub-class basis is a mistake. If you advocate for seeking separate legislation for TS and CD, then you must not have a problem with HRC and the non-inclusive ENDA.
Posted on: August 06, 2008, 11:14:37 AM
Quote from: Nichole on August 06, 2008, 11:03:35 AM
Women, regardless their etiology, do get aroused by their own clothing. Ya wanna look sexy? be inviting? you see yourself as arousing?Frl just a bit aroused when your dressed to the nines? That never seems to arise in these discussions.
So what if you're trans and get "aroused" when you dress-up, like the texture of a fabric against your nipples or your clit or such? Do we truly think other women don't? How laughable! You'd think the point of trans is simply a journey into abstinence and asceticism! Get real, folks!
The main problem with all this theorizing, from Ray Blanchard to Pogo, is that we tend to ignore certain natural qualities of sexuality and the ways in which people see themselves; that, and we never make those clear distinctions between "gender" and "sexuality."
Sorry, silk and satin feel good against a body, why do ya think we dress and use them for bed clothes so much?
Nichole
P.S. O, come to think it, so do cotton, linen, rayon, even wool on occasions! :)
Yes indeed! Sexual arousal from clothing and non-conforming gender identity can exist in the same person! They are not exclusive! And that is why evidence of sexual arousal is not an indicator that one is not TS. The DSM even notes that fetishistic ->-bleeped-<- is often an early stage of TS. A psychiatrist I know who evaluated literally hundreds (maybe thoudsands) of TS persons for surgery over the course of several decades told me that every single one with which he had a post surgical interview told him that they had a fetish phase. So when a TS person protests very loudly about the fetish thing, what do you think crosses my mind?
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 06, 2008, 11:14:37 AM
If you advocate for seeking separate legislation for TS and CD, then you must not have a problem with HRC and the non-inclusive ENDA.
That's actually a very good point. Anytime someone excludes another person or group form protection and inclusion just because they aren't doing what you're doing is wrong. This goes for the ENDA not being inclusive of gender identity, as well a someone not being inclusive of another genre under the TG umbrella because "they're not the same as me." Why don't we all fight together for the common good of everyone? I think excluding others goes back to a certain level of selfishness in that you want your needs taken care of before the needs of others.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 06, 2008, 11:20:52 AM
Yes indeed! Sexual arousal from clothing and non-conforming gender identity can exist in the same person! They are not exclusive! And that is why evidence of sexual arousal is not an indicator that one is not TS. The DSM even notes that fetishistic ->-bleeped-<- is often an early stage of TS. A psychiatrist I know who evaluated literally hundreds (maybe thoudsands) of TS persons for surgery over the course of several decades told me that every single one with which he had a post surgical interview told him that they had a fetish phase. So when a TS person protests very loudly about the fetish thing, what do you think crosses my mind?
For some reason, Glenda, all I could read of your response was the first sentence. Perhaps this will help flesh out what you are saying.
This entire "sexual arousal" thang is a result 1) of the way historically the stories of trans women have been related through Benjamin and other early researchers who never asked about it and then wrote their books. The trans women read the books and decided that they needed to follow a script to get surgeries and hormones from the "gatekeepers." Everyone told the same story and no one mentioned sexuality.
2) A reaction to the much bally-hoed BBL stuff that wants to focus transsexuality ONLY on the half of the word, "sexuality." So now we react to that and HAVE to deny any sexual feelings at all yet again! Baloney!
Come now, even monks & nuns of all religions have sexual feelings. ALL people have sexual feelings and ranges of "sexualized" objects are endless!!
Why are trans women supposed to be, very literally, Barbies?
Wow, what a deal that would be. We could all just have "smoothing" done instead of SRS!! Totally sexless.
That would also take care of unfortunate events like the murder of Angie Zapata. If she had had "nothing at all" down there, been totally "sexless," there would have been no murder! What a solution!
3) We automatically default to a position where to have a desire for, an ability for, sex and to enjoy it are simply anathema! To have sexual feelings is to be ->-bleeped-<- or a CD or TV.
To have sexual feelings and desires is
human. That is the core of it all. The rest of this is simply after-the-fact lying, disingenuity (as distinct from lying,) silence or, in the very real cases of some, perhaps many, the result of horrid sexual abuse from one or another age.
(One should also note that in the case of sexual abuse, promiscuity is more frequently a result than is total asexuality.) Why is it so difficult for us to "be real" when we talk about sex and the ways we are moved by it? None of that I just listed denies anyone's validity for "being a woman." Why let the jerks run the show for us?
Thank you, Glenda. I have no idea what you think. :) But I can imagine after having a twinge or two of my own about the matter. >:D
Nichole
P.S. AND, imo, the whole shower/bathroom thingy is a red-herring anyhow, no matter its use. It's an exercise in fantasy that is used to demand difference where none need be. How many CDs are actually gonna try or have? The only instance I have yet heard of is the one that was obviously "cooked" in Maryland to support the contentions of the people who want to change that law in Montgomery County.
In women's bathrooms and generally in women's showers there are walled divisions. They are NOT set-up like the boys' locker-rooms and bathrooms we experienced in middle and high school. Ya takes your shower in private and don't ogle everyone else while you do so under the disguise of water.
If someone "passes" then actually being able to tell would be a miraculous occurrence or require someone to "police" the entry-way demanding strip-searches or, in more restrictive states, gender-marker on IDs checks.
Tasha - I think the point is being missed. I understand the differences you outlined and do agree with them. There is definitely a difference between a CD not being to use the women's bathroom because they are CD and a TS being fired because they are TS. The point I was making, however, was that just because we do or do not agree with what someone else is doing doesn't mean should abolish them from the list of people who should be entitled protections. We should not distance ourselves from them just because they are different than us. We all have different outlooks on everything, but the one thing we all know for a fact is that we need inclusion and protection from discrimination.
I personally do not think that CDs should be able to use women's showers or bathrooms since most of them would probably tell you they do not identify as women, rather they are just expressing their feminine side. To be able to stroll into a place of intimate exposure (showers and the like, not necessarily bathrooms) just because you are out at the time expressing your femininity is not something I agree with. I also do not think that pre-op TSs should be able to use the women's showers (bathrooms are ok) just out of respect for the other women. There are, however, other rights that CDs should be entitled to like the very fact that they CD shouldn't be discriminated against. The main point is that we should all try and come together to fight for everyone's rights and not try and separate ourselves and just focus on our rights.
I think instead of distancing ourselves or not including others we should try and come to an agreement on exactly what rights we all need and are entitled to. Then we can go to the legal system, unified and organized, and fight for those rights. Until then, we are all going to just keep on focusing on our own rights and progression will be much slower. Like I said in my first post in this discussion, if we started out in the beginning as LGBT (or LGBTCDQ...whatever) instead of just LGB, and we fought for the rights of ALL, we would probably ALL be in a better situation now and not have one group with these rights and another group with these rights but not those.
Very well said SarahR. I tend to agree.
Sarah L.
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 06, 2008, 11:35:27 AM
there is a huge difference in advocating that someone in the real life experience portion of transition -- which is, like it or not, a medicallly supervised procedure -- should not be fired simply for complying with that portion of their soc treatment and advocating that anyone who "wants to express their femininity" today can throw on a dress and have the right to shower in a female locker room.
it does not make a cd less of a person to not be allowed in a female restroom or locker room. it does not make a pre-op less of a person to shower at home until their plumbing is corrected.
going home to shower is an inconvenience. losing your job because youre in transition is discrimination. if you cant see that difference, i'm sorry.
a crossdresser does NOT have the "right" to be in a woman's locker room or bathroom. period.
edit: you have the right to believe what you want. you DO NOT have the right to belittle what i believe, or to subtly make baseless accusations. i knew it was a mistake to post in this thread. "tolerance" lol yeah, there's a concept that applies to OTHER PEOPLE.
Hi 'chelle.
i think i'm starting to understand what you're saying.
personally, i don't feel like RLE is much of a "medically supervised procedure," because i have reached a point where i just accept it as how i do things.
if i were somehow prevented from doing that, though, it would be a problem.
big problem.
i keep trying to tell you to start going full time as soon as soon as possible, 'cause i know how much it means to you. but see, i am not a therapist, and my advice could actually do you some harm if it pushes to do something too soon.
you seem to think you are more stressed out with the extremeness of your GID than a CD, closer to the edge, etc., etc. well, just look at how stressed Kate was, 'bout a year ago (and before). But now, look at her go! she's no more stressed out than a "regular" person...
so, please get your stress levels under control by dressing as soon and as much as you can (heh, advice any CD could have given you, too). um, but also, please note that i'm only advising you as a friend, not as a therapist.
Love,
-Ell
I really don't like this thing about always linking bathrooms and shower rooms together. There is no exposure with going to the bathroom. And going to the bathroom is not something most people have much choice over. Unless you have a colostomy bag, when you've got to go, you've got to go. And if you're not allowed to go...
Lisbeth
Quote from: Nichole on August 06, 2008, 11:03:35 AM
Women, regardless their etiology, do get aroused by their own clothing. Ya wanna look sexy? be inviting? you see yourself as arousing? Feel just a bit aroused when you're dressed to the nines? That never seems to arise in these discussions.
So what if you're trans and get "aroused" when you dress-up? Like the texture of a fabric against your nipples or your clit or such? Do we truly think other women don't? How laughable!
You'd think the point of trans is simply a journey into abstinence and asceticism! Get real, folks!
The main problem with all this theorizing, from Ray Blanchard to Pogo, is that we tend to ignore certain natural qualities of sexuality and the ways in which people see themselves; that, and we never make those clear distinctions between "gender" and "sexuality."
Sorry, silk and satin feel good against a body, why do ya think we dress and use them for bed clothes so much?
Nichole
P.S. O, come to think it, so do cotton, linen, rayon, even wool on occasions! :)
Very good point, Nikki. A lot of these attitudes stem from the de-sexualization of women. A 'good' girl is not supposed to get aroused by anything other than a man's touch. There's a denial that women have their own sexuality and hot buttons.
Quote from: Ellie's Miss Lisbeff on August 05, 2008, 04:21:07 AM
Quote from: barbie on August 04, 2008, 11:38:32 PM
I think it has been a subject for philosophical debates during the past 2,000 years: Nominalism vs. Realism.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/nominalism_realism.html (http://www.theologicalstudies.org/nominalism_realism.html)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm)
Cleaver, Barbie. I salute you.
I have always viewed it as preposterous to imagine an "ideal model" existing in some nebulous other dimension. That makes me solidly a Nominalist. And that is consistent with my inductive rather than deductive reasoning style. There are no "ideal" TSs or TGs, only individuals who label themselves "TS" or "TG." And so there is no real dividing line; it is all reification, acting like an imaginary thing really exists.
Lisbeth
Thanks, Lisbeth,
You understand what I want to say. I sometimes face naive 'extreme realists'. I explain to them that even the 'ideal model' itself has been changning and will change.
I sometimes use women's restroom. This is not related with gender identity, but just to avoid fusses in my daily life. My enterance to men's room could be embarassing to both myself and others. I will happy if I could use 'unisex' room, "just for convenience". I think restrooms exist for convenience, not for gender identity. Even the gender signs in the door exisit for convenience. As long as others and I are OK (implicitly), I enter women's room.
Barbie~~
Quote from: Nero on August 06, 2008, 04:49:18 PM
Very good point, Nikki. A lot of these attitudes stem from the de-sexualization of women. A 'good' girl is not supposed to get aroused by anything other than a man's touch. There's a denial that women have their own sexuality and hot buttons.
Thank you, Nero. I thought so as well! :)
Face it, all too often we, trans women, are scared-to-death to admit we have any sexual feelings at all.
O, the hormones made me lose that. Huh? Did the hormones makes you re-grow hair you'd lost from male pattern-baldness? Did the hormones spread your hips? Did the hormones grow you ovaries, a ueterus and a vagina?
I rather doubt that. And to say the hormones removed anyone's sexual desires and thoughts is also, imo, a disingenuous notion as well. But it's one we think we HAVE to use in order to show we are valid, ready for surgery, "real."
Look, E has defintely changed my body, but it didn't make my hips wider or grow me internal organs I didn't have before. But it apparently has made some changes in things that do continue to grow -- like neuronal pathways. One's textural feelings do change.
I'm just not sure why we don't start telling the truth. Not every woman, gg or trans, is going to have an orgasm. There are good reasons for that, some physiological, others psychological. Those reasons do not invalidate anyone's "womanhood." Nor do they validate it either. They simply are an aspect of being human. Period.
Are sexual responses and feelings different sometimes on E than on T? Yes, definitely. Are orgasms different? Yes, definitely.
Ya know how we often say that "passing" is 90% between the ears and 10% in the rest of the body and mannerisms? Well, imo, so is sexual response. It's a brain thang in all of us and the physical responses are less of a factor than how I think of them, consciously and unconsciously.
Are we really so addled as to think that the day before my SRS I am unable to be sexual at all and six months afterwards I can be totally sexual due to a simple operation? O, come on. Where that holds true is in the mind, imo. Not in the body. I mean just think about it. Same tissue after surgery as before, just configured differently. Does anyone really think that Brassard, Bowers, Suporn and Meltzer all manage to connect some "plug" that had been left unplugged before surgery?
Or do we become able to connect that "plug" after surgery?
What was it Sherlock Holmes said? "When you eliminate the impossible; what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."
Yep.
Nichole
Quote from: barbie on August 06, 2008, 06:21:54 PM
I sometimes use women's restroom. This is not related with gender identity, but just to avoid fusses in my daily life. My enterance to men's room could be embarassing to both myself and others.
I stopped using the men's room when my presence would scare all the men into leaving. That sort of thing has never happened when I use the women's room. The choice for me is obvious.
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 06, 2008, 11:35:27 AM
it does not make a cd less of a person to not be allowed in a female restroom or locker room. it does not make a pre-op less of a person to shower at home until their plumbing is corrected.
going home to shower is an inconvenience. losing your job because youre in transition is discrimination. if you cant see that difference, i'm sorry.
So isn't it discrimination in the case of Sandra Goins who was not allowed, while at work, to use either the men's room or the women's room? In her case, she was permitted to use a restroom in a building across the highway or the toilet in the janitor's closet.
Lisbeth
And that's the rule, not the exception, if I am not mistaken. The TS is told to use a private bathroom in another building or several floors down in the basement, etc. It's better than being fired, I guess. But, in truth, employers should provide single use family or unisex restrooms wherever they provide mens' and womens' rooms. And then the transgendered person should not be forced to use only that one. Everyone should be free to use any of them. And anyone who has a problem with it can wait in line for the single use restroom. Personally, I'd like to see them do away with group restrooms anyway. In my view, they just enforce the binary gender concept.
Posted on: August 06, 2008, 10:34:30 PM
Dear Female Employees,
One of your coworkers, much to our annoyance, has informed us that he will be becoming a "she." Normally, we would require "her" to use the hole in the floor in the janitor's closet in place of any of the mens' or ladies' restrooms. However, for some inexplicable reason, we have decided to be fair this time. Therefore, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, your freaky co-worker will be using the hole in the floor in the janitor's closet. However, on Tuesdays and Thurdays, "she" will be using the ladies' room, while the rest of you must use the hole in the floor of the janitor's closet. Anyone mysteriously not freaked out and willing to use the ladies' room with the FREAK on Tuesdays and Thursdays will not be permitted to do so. However, if all of you vote that the FREAK will be permitted to use the ladies' room at all times, then no one will be forced to use the hole in the floor of the janitor's closet. However, the vote must be unanimous. Please cast your vote in the space provided below and return it to the gender police representative on your floor by 5pm today.
Thank-you,
The Management