WTF!!! You have a d--k??!!!
http://sexualnature.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/wtf-you-have-a-dick/ (http://sexualnature.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/wtf-you-have-a-dick/)
10/22/2008
The woman had it coming to her. In no way do I have anything against transsexuals, to each his own. Becoming a woman was your decision and we have to respect that. But I feel that if your going to get involved with a man who is not gay, you had better let him know that you were not born this way!! I understand that you do not want to walk around with a sign on your forehead and you'd like to be treated equally. Guess what? Whether you'd like to believe it or not, you are not equal to a natural born woman.
Oh, he absolutely had to make sure we knew our place before explaining he was against murder (but not domestic violence).
Also, the comments there are...stupid.
That's one of the most idiotic things I've heard this week.
(And I've heard a lot of idiotic things...)
My final point: Even though it is your decision to live your life the way you want, you should not subject other people to dealing with it because YOU feel they should. Its just like when you meet a person who has children, or has an std, or anything that could potentially affect the other person in anyway, you should let them know. If you feel like you can not let them know because your pretty sure they won't be able to accept it, then maybe that's not the person you should be pursuing. So just be honest or leave them alone lest a situation like this occurs and then whose to blame?
Yeah, being a transsexual woman is as bad as having STDs... or children. Besides, next time someone beats you to death with a fire extinguisher, bear in mind that your killer may not be to blame.
Who knows if it will see the light of day but I left this: You know plenty of women are born with different genetics from what is considered the norm. You know, without ovaries, or maybe who don't really grow breasts. That doesn't make them non-women.
These incidents have nothing at all to do with lack of disclosure from the victim, it has everything to do with violent masculinity. Men like these are the ones with the problem. Discovering that someone is different from how you thought is a part of dating, you don't KILL them for it! And YOU shouldn't be justifying that killing with "well she should have told him".
Knowing that there are people out there who hold these kinds of views is really scary!!!! I pray that I never come within a 100 miles of them, and that at some point in their life they learn some acceptance.
I found in the comments beneath the article very comical, especially where another person stated that a TS's vagina is nothing like a natal woman's, and that is why we go after younger/inexperienced men!!!!
Ah maybe that is my problem, I need to go after younger more inexperienced men......yeah right.....Unless they have Matt Damon looks and money, I think I keep to my own dating style. The last thing I need in my life is a inexperienced, non-mature, man who needs to learn the facts of life.
The way I see it a person was murdered. This person can spin any kind of spin on it or make all sorts of excuses. He should be punished for taking a life.
Gennee
My advice, don't link or even promote that place.
From the looks of it, there is few who read it, buy linking to it, you are only giving this person a boost in readers ad search engines.
Not to worry. I think most people who would ordinarily not give us and our plight a second thought are disgusted by these types of vile, slanderous diatribes. If anything, he is calling attention to the sick hatred towards our kind and garnering support for our cause. I think we stand to benefit from this kind of polarization.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on October 25, 2008, 11:00:00 PM
Not to worry. I think most people who would ordinarily not give us and our plight a second thought are disgusted by these types of vile, slanderous diatribes. If anything, he is calling attention to the sick hatred towards our kind and garnering support for our cause. I think we stand to benefit from this kind of polarization.
good point. the vast majority of human beings are disgusted by inhumanity.
haha this kills me. he says that implants always look different on guys. I left a comment on that so he can eat his words lol.
Audrey
There is no excuse for any type of physical abuse inflicted upon another such as battering, or spousal abuse or raping is no difference whether committed against a trans female, cisgender female, or a child, it is all an act of power with no other excuse except to dehumanise an individual they perceive as below them or lesser they they are, Don't fear the unknown, be strong, have mastery over it, show it whose boss. I think it's outrageous how they handle these brutal heartless king ->-bleeped-<- males. Well, usually males in most cases, only serve a small portion of their sentence for their crime, then released again onto the unsuspecting general public. Let loos to once more prowl the streets like some primeval predator. I was out there on the streets and I do know well about the vigilance. The general public have telephones and cell phones but on the streets word travels many miles in just one night. Martial law, quite possible if need be.
Cindy
Posted on: October 26, 2008, 05:21:47 am
Well I tried to post the above but it just keeps saying Please fill out required fields. I don't want to give out my email or any other particulars except the abbreviation for my first name.
Cindy
i'm sorry but everyone you meet absolutely does NOT need to know if you have an std, only the people you're sleeping with and your doc. this is almost as bad as mentally "challenged" people being allowed to kill you because they don't know the difference between right and wrong. and i sure as hell ain't no ->-bleeped-<- either, bitch yes, ->-bleeped-<- no.
Warrior Princess Mickie
Quote from: The Only Warrior Princess Mickie on October 27, 2008, 02:50:13 PM
i'm sorry but everyone you meet absolutely does NOT need to know if you have an std, only the people you're sleeping with and your doc. this is almost as bad as mentally "challenged" people being allowed to kill you because they don't know the difference between right and wrong. and i sure as hell ain't no ->-bleeped-<- either, bitch yes, ->-bleeped-<- no.
Warrior Princess Mickie
I think your saying what they meant. That you should tell the person you are sleeping with. They said that you shouldnt have to walk around with a sign on your forehead meaning you dont have to tell everyone but you SHOULD tell the person who you are involved with clearly. I think you may have read that wrong.
QuoteIn the case of this woman being murdered...I really dont think he needed to go that far.
Well I find in here the only four accurate words: I really dont think
And while we are at it, he dont spell gud neither.
What is there to even think about in this case? He murdered her. End of story. Give him 30 days in the electric chair.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
http://sexualnature.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/my-allegedly-offensive-post-on-transsexuals/ (http://sexualnature.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/my-allegedly-offensive-post-on-transsexuals/)
People shouldn't have to cater to other people's bigotry.
That is all I'm going to say in the matter.
Im trying to post a story about a friend of mine and I assume it is being removed because it has something to do with this blog. I honestly think there was a very serious message here. I can see how everyone wants to think this guy is bashing but if you really listen to the words its not like its a bunch of crap. A friend of mine ended up in the hospital over something like this and I dont take it lightly. You might want to believe everyone should accept you but the reality is that they don't and just because this person pointed that out doesnt make them the bad guy. In no way did they say that they would beat up a transsexual if they had the chance or anything of that nature. They were just saying that alot of straight men dont like it and we should know that because something like what happened to my friend could happen to anyone on here for trying to ignore that. Im sorry for being the face of reality here but everyone here is turning the message in that blog into transsexual discrimination and its not.
Posted on: November 17, 2008, 01:20:01 pm
Quote from: TamTam on November 17, 2008, 12:14:16 PM
People shouldn't have to cater to other people's bigotry.
That is all I'm going to say in the matter.
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
I read NOWHERE where this person said there should be separation or laws or anything for that matter that seperate us as humans. To say you should let the person your getting involved with KNOW what they are getting involved with so they can make the decision on their own to continue a relationship or not is not bigotry. Its called honesty.
one4me, shut up. Your mentality is the same as the wifes who tried to defend why their husbands hit them or their children. Its not being a TS, its hanging out with violent scumbags thats the problem.
I'm down with the honesty deal, the best surprise is no surprise.
Quote from: Danacee on November 17, 2008, 04:31:02 PM
Your mentality is the same as the wifes who tried to defend why their husbands hit them or their children. Its not being a TS, its hanging out with violent scumbags thats the problem.
Do you feel it should be ok for you to lie to people whenever you feel like it and you should never be penalized for it. How would you like it if someone tricked you into having sex with them? You wouldnt like it would you? Well thats exactly what your doing when you lie to someone about who you are when it matters to them. No one likes being fooled no matter what the situation but obviously you think there should be some exception for you. And the word is WIVES not wifes. Now you shut up.
Posted on: November 17, 2008, 07:18:26 pm
Quote from: tekla on November 17, 2008, 04:37:27 PM
I'm down with the honesty deal, the best surprise is no surprise.
;) finally someone gets the point! That is the bottom line here. Just be honest with yourselves and others about who you are. I am not in anyway supporting the guys who were abusive because that is unexceptable in any case. SO IS LYING TO PEOPLE! So yes, I do agree with the
bloggers point that honesty is the best policy with it comes to situation like this for your OWN safety. And if you feel that is should be ok for you to deceive people then you are going to get yourself into a world of trouble one day.
Quote from: one4me on November 17, 2008, 06:27:58 PMHow would you like it if someone tricked you into having sex with them? You wouldnt like it would you? Well thats exactly what your doing when you lie to someone about who you are when it matters to them.
I think it's a bit more complex than that, personally.
We have a situation where say, a transsexual (or intersexed) woman who has not had bottom surgery and is getting sexually involved with a cissexual man.
The woman is presenting as a woman because she in fact, is a woman.
If she still has a penis in some form that doesn't make her a liar for presenting that way. The cissexual man assumed this woman wouldn't have a penis, but if he got involved with a cissexual woman who had a hysterectomy he would assume she had a uterus too. Her not telling him so doesn't make her a liar.
The issue in any of these types of cases is with the MAN involved. He is reacting to his assumptions being incorrect.
Now, there are two ways to react, if he is not attracted to women with intersex or transsexual histories, he can say "I'm sorry, I assumed you were cissexual and this doesn't work for me" and go on his merry way (I will refrain from getting into the latent unaddressed issues I believe such men have with their own sexualities) or a variation along the lines of "I'm sorry, I not sexually attracted to people with a penis", OR he can go all irrationally rageful as in the case originally brought up and beat or kill this woman for, well, whatever exactly is going on in his head at the time, it sure seems like what they really get angry about are those latent issues I mentioned earlier, like somehow being attracted to someone with an intersex or male history makes you GAY OMG.
My point is, the issue really, really, never lies with the T or I person. Yes there is baggage that comes along with ones sexuality and gender. Some guy might see my hairy legs and get instantly turned off, fine he's not my type, we make these kinds of negotiations in establishing relationships constantly. But if I jump into bed with some guy and he discovers a much loathed hairy bush, he's not going to kill me for it. Why? Because it's understood that a part of dating is dealing with the fact that not everything one assumes about another person is going to be true. And there is simply no justification for reacting to that discovery in the way of the original story, none.
Quote from: whatsername on November 17, 2008, 07:07:21 PM
Quote from: one4me on November 17, 2008, 06:27:58 PMHow would you like it if someone tricked you into having sex with them? You wouldnt like it would you? Well thats exactly what your doing when you lie to someone about who you are when it matters to them.
The woman is presenting as a woman because she in fact, is a woman.
If she still has a penis in some form that doesn't make her a liar for presenting that way. The cissexual man assumed this woman wouldn't have a penis, but if he got involved with a cissexual woman who had a hysterectomy he would assume she had a uterus too. Her not telling him so doesn't make her a liar.
The issue in any of these types of cases is with the MAN involved. He is reacting to his assumptions being incorrect.
Now, there are two ways to react, if he is not attracted to women with intersex or transsexual histories, he can say "I'm sorry, I assumed you were cissexual and this doesn't work for me" and go on his merry way (I will refrain from getting into the latent unaddressed issues I believe such men have with their own sexualities) or a variation along the lines of "I'm sorry, I not sexually attracted to people with a penis", OR he can go all irrationally rageful as in the case originally brought up and beat or kill this woman for, well, whatever exactly is going on in his head at the time, it sure seems like what they really get angry about are those latent issues I mentioned earlier, like somehow being attracted to someone with an intersex or male history makes you GAY OMG.y
I agree that there is no excuse for reacting in any abusive manner. That is not the point here. Now there are some people who may be aware of the terms you used here but honestly, most straight men are NOT. All they know is man/woman. Not cissexual man/cissexual woman as opposed to transsexual. In a perfect world you would like for most men to be so understanding, and trust me they will be more understanding when you are upfront about it! But for you to present yourself as a woman to a straight man, the last thing he wants to find is a penis no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. Even post op is unexceptable! They do not want to know that in any way shape or form were you ever the owner of male genitalia. What you guys are not understanding here is that it is not about YOUR feelings and how you THINK things should be. It is about reality and the way things are. Not saying they should be this way, but since they are this way, the bottom line is we care about all of technical terms and psychological aspects of the situation. These guys do not, and that is what is made clear in the BLOG, not in the stories it cited. This person was just trying to get their point across of how seriously crazy some people will go over this stuff and its not a joke. As much as you want to pretend and believe that not every one is like this, there are alot of straight men out there who would harm you for this and those are the men that cant be messed with.
I don't think my expectations of men are unrealistic at all.
Although I am perfectly aware that the current average male (and female) are not familiar with all the terms I used, well, I'm in Womens Studies so that's not a new situation for me. :P Using them gets them into circulation in wider circles.
To simply shrug off the thinking that allows situations like the one cited to happen is along the same lines to me as shrugging off rape apology. Feminists don't do that because the stakes are simply too high to do so, and the same is true here.
Society is constantly a work in progress, but we have to keep working towards how we know things should be. And holding people responsible for their actions is the first step, that means holding rapists responsible for raping and murderers responsible for murdering, and not passing the blame off on the raped or the murdered.
Quote from: whatsername on November 17, 2008, 08:43:11 PM
Society is constantly a work in progress, but we have to keep working towards how we know things should be. And holding people responsible for their actions is the first step, that means holding rapists responsible for raping and murderers responsible for murdering, and not passing the blame off on the raped or the murdered.
And again with the lack of understanding...the blame was NOT being passed off on the victim! The statement was that you should protect yourself and avoid putting yourself in potentially dangerous situations. I can understand how you all want to turn the story into whatever you want it to be but honestly it is what it is, and yes the world today is a work in progress and people may be more accepting of things tomorrow than they are today. In the meantime keep yourself safe.
As a cissexual woman I have had to learn ways of protecting myself also. They were reinforced constantly growing up, the threat men potentially represent to me was understood at a young age. I can not and do not claim to understand the additional coping mechanisms needed for trans or intersex folks to survive, though I know they exist. Please don't think that I am disregarding your history with violence, its effect on you, or criticizing you for encouraging people to stay safe. That is not my intent at all, and indeed I have friends who by all rights should be dead because of this kind of violence, so my argument is not coming from a "lack of understanding" or a denial of the severity of these instances but from what I believe is an absolutely vital line in the sand.
The line is simply this: the person committing atrocities against another person MUST be held responsible.
I don't think we need to be told to keep ourselves safe... Do we? Don't we as women (in this particular case) learn very quickly what actions we need to perform, and what activities to avoid to keep ourselves safe? Aren't those beaten into our heads on a regular basis?
We are all conscious of the compromises we make in our lives to keep ourselves safe. Aren't we?
My thing is that they ARE compromises. I know they are, I'm sure you know they are. And we shouldn't HAVE to make compromises to "stay safe". That is idealistic, I know, but I think as long as we let the conversation revolve around us and how we can stay safe we are in some ways letting abusers off the hook, when the conversation should be revolving around THEM and their atrocious actions.
Until there is a resounding "HOW DARE YOU" response to abusive behavior like in the article from the mainstream I feel like I have to just yell it louder to compensate, and going immediately into the compromises to be made (compromises I'm confident we all are already making as best we can) seems to reinforce exactly what they want...For us to continue making adjustments FOR THEM, thinking how WE can adjust OUR behavior FOR THEM, instead of insisting to be treated like human beings BY them. When it's doing the latter which will eventually, gods willing, make it possible for us to live in, take up space in the world without making compromises.
And that's not to attack what you're saying, really, but to explain why my posts have focused as they have.
I am late to the party as usual. But Yes you should tell them, but when is the question.
And to blame the TS for being beaten or murdered, is the same thing as blaming the victum for rape.
now here you come with the same statement...no one is BLAMING the Transsexual for this situation, again must I say it over and over....VIOLENCE WAS NEVER SUPPORTED HERE! So stop trying to say that Im blaming the ts or saying that the other guy should be let off the hook! Any one who can take another persons life should not be able to walk the streets in my opinion!!! What Im saying is that you guys dont realize that the blogger was just pointing out the fact that the ts put herself in a dangerous situation in which case anything could have happened. But to say it was the ts FAULT that she was murdered is like saying that its any woman who wears a mini skirt's fault if they get raped. That would be ridiculous! But when wearing that mini skirt you should know to stay out of dark alleys or anywhere someone could potentially harm you BECAUSE you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is the key here, just stick with guys who will accept you for who you are completely because if you go around meddling in the water with sharks for fun then dont be surprised when your ass gets bitten.
Quote from: Danacee on November 17, 2008, 04:31:02 PM
one4me, shut up. Your mentality is the same as the wifes who tried to defend why their husbands hit them or their children. Its not being a TS, its hanging out with violent scumbags thats the problem.
You are probably quite correct about the violent scumbags. But why leave yourself open to an adverse reaction by trying to be secretive about your situation?
There are a lot of men out there who will react this way (I am not for one minute suggesting it is right) so why put yourself in that position?
So I agree with one4me dont put yourself in a place that might turn bad. No matter what you think about people accepting you as you are.
I dont.
Quote from: Janet Lynn on November 18, 2008, 12:18:42 AM
But Yes you should tell them, but when is the question.
What about postops?
~Kate~
Quote from: Kate on November 18, 2008, 08:46:33 AM
Quote from: Janet Lynn on November 18, 2008, 12:18:42 AM
But Yes you should tell them, but when is the question.
What about postops?
~Kate~
You could still get a very adverse reaction when they eventually find out. Isnt it always best to be honest ?
Quote from: Kate on November 18, 2008, 08:46:33 AM
Quote from: Janet Lynn on November 18, 2008, 12:18:42 AM
But Yes you should tell them, but when is the question.
What about postops?
~Kate~
Now this right here is the core of the topic.
If you are pre op and a man is coming on to you whom you know is completely straight, you can automatically assume they will be turned off to know you are transsexual. By making this assumption you will save yourself alot of trouble by just not taking it any further from there. If you see the man has kind gentle qualities then you may be able to share your situation with out a bad reaction. Just get the person in private and tell them. You'd be surprised how understanding some men can be as long as THEY are not put into a compromising situation.
Now post op I would say take the same measures because you never want to risk a straight man finding out this information on his own. It can be very upsetting for them because like the blog said, in their mind this makes them look gay, regardless of what you believe. Thats when things can turn ugly. Just avoid putting them into any compromising situation before being made aware of who you are.
Read my edited post.
Posted on: November 18, 2008, 09:04:59 am
Quote from: Kate on November 18, 2008, 08:46:33 AM
Quote from: Janet Lynn on November 18, 2008, 12:18:42 AM
But Yes you should tell them, but when is the question.
What about postops?
~Kate~
LOL, Kate is all like, YAY!
:icon_flower: for Catherine for understanding the message im trying to put forth.
And @ the person who said I will never win this arguement. I can agree with you. As long as there are mtf or ftm out there who try to get away with lying in situations where they shouldnt and end up getting caught and hurt badly, I know I haven't won. But you better be guaranteed I will still try my best to get my message across to someone.
My opinion is that the wise gals here will tell you, yes, by all means be honest. That is what they say amongst themselves.
But if an outsider comes along telling them they HAVE to be honest they go all Roe v Wade and invoke the female privilege thing; it's my body.
Or they try to shift blame and say you are homophobic for freaking out because she has a d__k. A total disconnect with reality.
At the end of the day you must realize this is a TS support site. We are here to support each other and even though we know the truth, we're not going to let just any douchenozzle tell us the time of day.
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 09:12:07 AM
As long as there are mtf or ftm out there who try to get away with lying...
Are postops really "lying?"
Say a guy is attracted to me (please, say that a lot, I need to hear it, lol), and we start dating with the expectation of a possible heterosexual relationship.
As a postop, what have I "lied" about? He's expecting hetero sex... I can provide it. Nothing was misrepresented.
Yes, I get that a lot of guys would freak out upon learning my history. I get that withholding that part of my past is risking trouble. I get it. But ethically, in The Perfect World, I'm under no obligation to reveal my past to anyone, IMHO.
~Kate~
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 09:20:34 AM
My opinion is that the wise gals here will tell you, yes, by all means be honest. That is what they say amongst themselves.
But if an outsider comes along telling them they HAVE to be honest they go all Roe v Wade and invoke the female privilege thing; it's my body.
Or they try to shift blame and say you are homophobic for freaking out because she has a d__k. A total disconnect with reality.
At the end of the day you must realize this is a TS support site. We are here to support each other and even though we know the truth, we're not going to let just any douchnozzle tell us the time of day.
Yes you are right, but support does not include telling somone to get all feminist about a situation that could be very very dangerous.
Quote from: Kate on November 18, 2008, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 09:12:07 AM
As long as there are mtf or ftm out there who try to get away with lying...
Are postops really "lying?"
Say a guy is attracted to me (please, say that a lot, I need to hear it, lol), and we start dating with the expectation of a possible heterosexual relationship.
As a postop, what have I "lied" about? He's expecting hetero sex... I can provide it. Nothing was misrepresented.
Yes, I get that a lot of guys would freak out upon learning my history. I get that withholding that part of my past is risking trouble. I get it. But ethically, in The Perfect World, I'm under no obligation to reveal my past to anyone, IMHO.
~Kate~
The key words here are "The Perfect World". Our world is not perfect yet. You can daydream about your situation not being a problem one day all you want. I agree that you're are not obligated to reveal your past. That is up to you. My only scruple about that is if your NOT going to reveal your past, you better hide it damn well because if he finds out and he's one of those nutcases who will freak out, then you will know you could have saved yourself the danger by just being honest from the beginning. But no, noone is absolutely OBLIGATED to be honest. Its just the right thing to do to ensure your safety and the other parties contentment.
i avoid this situation as much as possible. i don't date and i sure as hell will never date a "cissexual male".
my wife and i are doing quite alright for the most part.
oh and being completely honest up front doesn't guarentee your safety either, that man like in this case still may decide to beat the living hell out of you and kill you, i'm surprised i don't remember reading any one post that scenario. the world is not perfect and never will be. that ended when Adam and Eve ate from the Forbidden Tree of Fruit!
Warrior Princess Mickie
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 09:35:32 AM
The key words here are "The Perfect World". Our world is not perfect yet. You can daydream about your situation not being a problem one day all you want. I agree that you're are not obligated to reveal your past. That is up to you. My only scruple about that is if your NOT going to reveal your past, you better hide it damn well because if he finds out and he's one of those nutcases who will freak out, then you will know you could have saved yourself the danger by just being honest from the beginning. But no, noone is absolutely OBLIGATED to be honest. Its just the right thing to do to ensure your safety and the other parties contentment.
You know, I believe they are very well aware of this. I think what they are doing is pushing boundaries and testing the limits of our conventional thinking. Kate and the others know that no matter how convincingly they pull it off their past will catch up to them at some point. She knows she will have to be honest, she's just trying to figure out where exactly that is in the relationship continuum.
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 08:13:25 AMno one is BLAMING the Transsexual for this situation
Quoteif you go around meddling in the water with sharks for fun then dont be surprised when your ass gets bitten.
In my opinion, these statements contradict each other.
Quote from: Catherine on November 18, 2008, 09:23:05 AMsupport does not include telling somone to get all feminist about a situation that could be very very dangerous.
You'll please notice I did not once advocate a course of action for anyone but for US as we are
responding to these incidents and holding people responsible as a wider
community. And in fact that I went on at length about the compromises we make to stay safe. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear but I was supporting those compromises, but I was advocating understanding them for what they are, and taking actions
as a wider community to work towards a day when they are not needed.
I also continue to reject the idea that any trans-person is "lying" about who/what they are by not disclosing their entire history. If you are a woman, presenting yourself as one is not a "lie".
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 09:35:32 AM
But no, noone is absolutely OBLIGATED to be honest. Its just the right thing to do to ensure your safety and the other parties contentment.
It's just that "honest" word that's bugging me. I have this hangup about honour and honesty, so for someone to think I was dishonest... well it just really makes me feel awful.
But this all sounds like I'm dishonest by default, that the INSTANT I flirt with a hetero guy I become a dishonest person right up to the point I "come clean" about my past. It makes me feel like I'm a sexual predator who's moved into the neighborhood where everyone needs to be "warned" of my presence first.
But I haven't done anything wrong! I AM female, I can provide the heterosexual relationship that I'm "representing" just fine. Sure, a guy might freak out if he found out my past. But he might freak out that I root for the Eagles or have to wash between every toe or my world will end (bit OCDish) too, ya know?
Yea, I know you're right. It's just NOT fair though :(
~Kate~
Quote from: Kate on November 18, 2008, 10:01:02 AM
But this all sounds like I'm dishonest by default, that the INSTANT I flirt with a hetero guy I become a dishonest person right up to the point I "come clean" about my past. It makes me feel like I'm a sexual predator who's moved into the neighborhood where everyone needs to be "warned" of my presence first.
Exactly.
*hug*
And that's why I can't accept this "honesty" argument. Oh yes, I am a fan of full disclosure, I think it is the best method by which to find someone with whom you're truly, truly compatible. But there are some really vicious elements to that argument in this context, that to me question the "truth" of one's very
identity and that just doesn't sit right.
But yes, for the record, to stay safe I do advocate deciding what compromises you can live with and making them. Just as I don't go out alone at night unless I have to. *shrug*
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 09:35:32 AM
That is up to you. My only scruple about that is if your NOT going to reveal your past, you better hide it damn well because if he finds out and he's one of those nutcases who will freak out,
Hmm... if he's 'one of those nutcases who will freak out', why wouldn't the warning signs have been there long before it ever got to the stage where saying anything or not became an issue?
The trouble I have with this is that anything in life is inherently dangerous. Crossing the road is dangerous. But we don't go around telling everyone to stay on one side of the street because there's always the chance that some nutjob could be tanked up on drink or drugs and go ploughing into you. We assume that most drivers
aren't nutjobs and obey the rules of the road.
These emotionally unstable... individuals... who perpetrate violence and murder based on little more than insecurity about their masculinity or heterosexuality, surely they aren't representative, either. Otherwise prisons would be full to bursting with 'aggrieved' men who felt it was right to take their anger out on someone in such horrific ways for not telling them about an aspect of their past that, to them, no longer features in their life.
The anger, and expression thereof, is the issue that needs addressing, not the trigger that set it off... because to have that capacity hints at an inherent disregard for humanity, transsexual or otherwise. If you asked a hundred guys, in complete confidentiality, what they would do if they found out a woman they were dating had a transsexed history... how many would say "I'd kill her without a second thought"? I'm betting not many.
You don't tell an abused wife/girlfriend: "Well really it's your fault, you should have told him beforehand that you don't always remember to keep the fridge stocked with beer."
Perhaps the best thing to do is to get to know someone first, without dating them. Find out what sort of a person they are. I refuse to believe that these instances are anything other than the exception rather than the rule, and that
most guys are like that.
Failing that, learn self-defence and/or get a big-ass can of pepper spray... or a stun-gun... and keep it in your purse.
I think that it's a very sad day for humanity if we have to go around wearing a little badge that says "I'm a transsexual, please don't kill me."
Quote from: Leiandra on November 18, 2008, 10:19:10 AM
Crossing the road is dangerous. But we don't go around telling everyone to stay on one side of the street because there's always the chance that some nutjob could be tanked up on drink or drugs and go ploughing into you.
Comparing crossing the street with changing your sex and all the ensuing reality? Hehe, I got in trouble for making such analogies.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freefoto.com%2Fimages%2F01%2F08%2F01_08_52---Duck_web.jpg&hash=8a61c112212f4f339c77a433eb159b934af3bd36)
I'll show you mine...
Quote from: Leiandra on November 18, 2008, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 09:35:32 AM
That is up to you. My only scruple about that is if your NOT going to reveal your past, you better hide it damn well because if he finds out and he's one of those nutcases who will freak out,
Hmm... if he's 'one of those nutcases who will freak out', why wouldn't the warning signs have been there long before it ever got to the stage where saying anything or not became an issue?
The trouble I have with this is that anything in life is inherently dangerous. Crossing the road is dangerous. But we don't go around telling everyone to stay on one side of the street because there's always the chance that some nutjob could be tanked up on drink or drugs and go ploughing into you. We assume that most drivers aren't nutjobs and obey the rules of the road.
These emotionally unstable... individuals... who perpetrate violence and murder based on little more than insecurity about their masculinity or heterosexuality, surely they aren't representative, either. Otherwise prisons would be full to bursting with 'aggrieved' men who felt it was right to take their anger out on someone in such horrific ways for not telling them about an aspect of their past that, to them, no longer features in their life.
The anger, and expression thereof, is the issue that needs addressing, not the trigger that set it off... because to have that capacity hints at an inherent disregard for humanity, transsexual or otherwise. If you asked a hundred guys, in complete confidentiality, what they would do if they found out a woman they were dating had a transsexed history... how many would say "I'd kill her without a second thought"? I'm betting not many.
You don't tell an abused wife/girlfriend: "Well really it's your fault, you should have told him beforehand that you don't always remember to keep the fridge stocked with beer."
Perhaps the best thing to do is to get to know someone first, without dating them. Find out what sort of a person they are. I refuse to believe that these instances are anything other than the exception rather than the rule, and that most guys are like that.
Failing that, learn self-defence and/or get a big-ass can of pepper spray... or a stun-gun... and keep it in your purse.
I think that it's a very sad day for humanity if we have to go around wearing a little badge that says "I'm a transsexual, please don't kill me."
I think you would be quite suprised at how many Men would have a seriously bad reaction to finding out that a sexual partner was transgendered. I dont think they would say they would kill the person but I would expect a lot to say they would give the woman a good beating.
This is why I advocate that pre-op should date within our own community. Once you are post-op then it would be a different story. If you were a bio and had had a hysto, are you obligated to tell a potenical mate you can have kids.
OK may be that wouldn't get you killed, but like Kate said do we get to live a 'Normal' life.
Quote from: Leiandra on November 18, 2008, 10:19:10 AM
If you asked a hundred guys, in complete confidentiality, what they would do if they found out a woman they were dating had a transsexed history... how many would say "I'd kill her without a second thought"? I'm betting not many.
That's the hypocrisy that makes me crazy. I'm betting that if most guys knew they could "get away with it," meaning have a relationship with someone they knew was TS... but be absolutely 100% sure that no one ELSE would ever find out her history... he'd be fine with it.
Or am I wrong?
Is it REALLY homophobia? Or is it
"OMG, what if my buddies find out I slept with.. a... a.. ex-man? They'll make fun of me! How DARE I be made a fool of!"~Kate~
Quote from: Kate on November 18, 2008, 10:47:21 AM
Quote from: Leiandra on November 18, 2008, 10:19:10 AM
If you asked a hundred guys, in complete confidentiality, what they would do if they found out a woman they were dating had a transsexed history... how many would say "I'd kill her without a second thought"? I'm betting not many.
That's the hypocrisy that makes me crazy. I'm betting that if most guys knew they could "get away with it," meaning have a relationship with someone they knew was TS... but be absolutely 100% sure that no one ELSE would ever find out her history... he'd be fine with it.
Or am I wrong?
Is it REALLY homophobia? Or is it "OMG, what if my buddies find out I slept with.. a... a.. ex-man? They'll make fun of me! How DARE I be made a fool of!"
~Kate~
I think you are wrong. Most Hetro men would run a mile from a relationship with a TS.
I know there are a lot who would have a relationship but they are in the minority.
Plus he has the added benefit that you understand perfectly his need to sit around watching sports and eating Cheetos in his underwear all day Sunday.
Quote from: Kate on November 18, 2008, 10:47:21 AM
Quote from: Leiandra on November 18, 2008, 10:19:10 AM
If you asked a hundred guys, in complete confidentiality, what they would do if they found out a woman they were dating had a transsexed history... how many would say "I'd kill her without a second thought"? I'm betting not many.
That's the hypocrisy that makes me crazy. I'm betting that if most guys knew they could "get away with it," meaning have a relationship with someone they knew was TS... but be absolutely 100% sure that no one ELSE would ever find out her history... he'd be fine with it.
Or am I wrong?
Is it REALLY homophobia? Or is it "OMG, what if my buddies find out I slept with.. a... a.. ex-man? They'll make fun of me! How DARE I be made a fool of!"
~Kate~
The bedrock of homophobia is simply that, Kate, the unerring fear that someone might discover it (my desire) and feel like I am less-than.
We seek, most often, the conformity of the basest opinions out of fear of what others might "think of me." Without the fear a thing is simply a like or dislike, easily embraced or left alone.
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on November 18, 2008, 10:58:52 AM
The bedrock of homophobia is simply that,
I don't see where this comes in to play in the situation at all, except for maybe being a cheap blame shifting tactic.
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 11:04:41 AM
Quote from: Nichole on November 18, 2008, 10:58:52 AM
The bedrock of homophobia is simply that,
I don't see where this comes in to play in the situation at all, except for maybe being a cheap blame shifting tactic.
Well, we see what we are capable of seeing.
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on November 18, 2008, 11:21:21 AM
Well, we see what we are capable of seeing.
Nichole
Or, we see what we are predisposed to see according to our best interests at the moment.
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 11:04:41 AM
Quote from: Nichole on November 18, 2008, 10:58:52 AM
The bedrock of homophobia is simply that,
I don't see where this comes in to play in the situation at all, except for maybe being a cheap blame shifting tactic.
From whom to whom?
Whichever way one slices, spins or twists it, there is
never any excuse or justification for hate-fuelled violence and cold-blooded murder. None.
That's the fundamental essence of everything here. Regardless of who said what or didn't say whatever and when, and "oh, well if you'd done this at this time then you'd have been okay"... at some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions and not look for convenient scapegoats to absolve themselves of guilt.
"Oh, XXXXX drove me to it! She should have said something beforehand! Then it wouldn't have happened."
Well... no one
forces a person to pick up a gun/knife/fire extinguisher/whatever. No one
forces a person to physically attack another human being in those situations. The actions are those of the individual and the individual alone. And they are the one responsible for them.
There is only one person to blame when someone is beaten or murdered, whatever the 'reason', and that is the person who commits the act. That's all there is to it.
Kelley, having read a lot of your commentary I am well aware that you are not likely to see what I think I see. I don't believe in any way that that makes either of us more or less valid in any way.
As a CD who lives life as male you are going to have a different place to see from than I have.
Phobia's are always about "fear." That's why they are called "phobias." At the base of a social "fear" is the fact that the person with it will somehow not fit in, be held in regard by his peers and friends. He tends to base his life, or she hers, on that idea: that a particular behavior or set of thoughts is somehow anathema and will lead to horrid consequences.
The resulting anger that builds with the recognition that they have managed to find themselves at such a pass often makes for a desire to eradicate the "reason" for the fear. That often comes down to an eradication of another human being who very likely had no desire to tumble the fearful one's self-belief.
Those us us wih that same "fear" tend to be understanding of the person who experienced the fear. That tends toward a justification of ourselves and our notion of how "we might act" in the same situation. No blame of any sort, simply the delving into a possibility of where these phobias come from and what makes them so deadly in so many cases.
Otherwise they would simply be likes or dislikes: such as whether or not one would choose to eat tapioca or forego it. I really don't think most of us see that sort of like or dislike as a reason to kill or harm.
Now, how was that "shifting blame?" You've pretty-much argued throughout that Angie Zapata had an obligation to reveal "the real truth" about herself. If Ray Andrade hadn't experienced a blow-job would that somehow have saved her life? Or is it possible that he would have had the same reaction over just corresponding with someone he felt was a man and he felt attracted toward?
It seems to me like whatever "blame" there is, is very rightly down to his phobias. Not that she didn't have any. She simply showed she was not irritated with things about him to the point she felt she had to kill him to keep herself safe from him. He, on the other hand, showed quite graphically that he didn't feel that way.
I have the impression from some of your comments that you might feel much the same as he did. But, no one is shifting any blame to a place it doesn't belong, except, imo, in regard to those who argue that his actions in killing another human being out of his own "fear" of how he'd be seen is somehow not a shifting of the blame to the dead woman from the live man.
Nichole
Quote from: Leiandra on November 18, 2008, 11:35:49 AM
Whichever way one slices, spins or twists it, there is never any excuse or justification for hate-fuelled violence and cold-blooded murder. None.
That's the fundamental essence of everything here. Regardless of who said what or didn't say whatever and when, and "oh, well if you'd done this at this time then you'd have been okay"... at some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions and not look for convenient scapegoats to absolve themselves of guilt.
"Oh, XXXXX drove me to it! She should have said something beforehand! Then it wouldn't have happened."
Well... no one forces a person to pick up a gun/knife/fire extinguisher/whatever. No one forces a person to physically attack another human being in those situations. The actions are those of the individual and the individual alone. And they are the one responsible for them.
There is only one person to blame when someone is beaten or murdered, whatever the 'reason', and that is the person who commits the act. That's all there is to it.
Nobody on this thread has said that there is an excuse for violence. Judging from the way you write I'm pretty sure your reading comprehension level is such that you got it.
You know the point that's been made. You can argue it all day and maybe you will feel comfortable and secure in the knowledge that you are right. But one thing is certain, if you indulge in that particular behavior you are putting yourself at risk. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about your safety. It's just common sense. Argue with that enraged ->-bleeped-<- as he is beating the crap out of you, tell him he has latent homosexual tendencies because he has a problem with a transgirl. I doubt it will change how he feels.
Wouldn't the better course of action be to not put yourself in that situation to begin with?
The point of the blog, lest you've forgotten, was how much one can sympathize with Mr. Andrade's reaction. Should one do some things to eliminate the possibility of violence against her? Well, yes.
But, if violence seeks her out should she be damned for leaving her home? Having a job? Perhaps running a red-light when a "phobic" cop is sitting at the corner waiting? I might do that if I felt I had to justify the cop's actions if he slew her or maimed her or beat her down. But, finally, we all live our lives.
And we cannot know for a certainty or even a probability when violence and hatred will discover us, or by what means.
Trust me, I have no desire to bed at any cost any guy. Just not going to happen. I find them too fragile in their egos and with a notion that they will somehow not be at fault for injuring me if I should tell them my history.
Is that a snark on guys? Well, I suppose it could be read that way, but honestly I put it at the feet of how guys get raised and the bs we pass along to them and allow them to cling to. If my ego is gonna be so got out of joint by going to bed with a trans man that I feel I have to kill him afterwards to protect myself, then it strikes me that the problem is in me, not him. Of course the converse of that would be true as well.
N~
Nichole,
Thank you for the thesis on phobia. I still fail to see how homophobia has anything to do with a hetero guy's rightful anger at being deceived. His instant feelings about it are totally valid. He does not need to examine his own sexuality as deeply as you do, after all, he's just a regular guy who is happy with his body and his sex life.
The problem lies in the fact that a choice was denied him, that is just the inescapable fact. The bottom line is that it is stupid to put yourself in that situation. And yes, his violent reaction would be wrong and criminal. But is it worth your safety to be right?
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 11:50:09 AM
Nobody on this thread has said that there is an excuse for violence.
You know the point that's been made. You can argue it all day and maybe you will feel comfortable and secure in the knowledge that you are right. But one thing is certain, if you indulge in that particular behavior you are putting yourself at risk. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about your safety. It's just common sense. Argue with that enraged ->-bleeped-<- as he is beating the crap out of you, tell him he has latent homosexual tendencies because he has a problem with a transgirl. I doubt it will change how he feels.
Wouldn't the better course of action be to not put yourself in that situation to begin with?
But, for the sake of argument, if I wasn't gay... I should point out that even after full transition, I would probably still be more physically imposing and able to defend myself than any 'enraged ->-bleeped-<-' that decided to try anything. Plus I have military self defence training, so it's highly unlikely that there'd be any 'beating the crap out of me'.
So... um... yeah, I would be perfectly happy to discuss things with him in a calm, rational manner... at least whilst he's hog-tied to the refridgerator, cooling down a little. :)
There's risk involved with everything. What it comes down to is risk management. If you're afraid of getting beaten for something, don't walk around meekly, like you're doing something wrong and have to apologise for even being alive... learn to defend yourself. :)
Quote from: Nichole on November 18, 2008, 11:59:59 AM
The point of the blog, lest you've forgotten, was how much one can sympathize with Mr. Andrade's reaction. Should one do some things to eliminate the possibility of violence against her? Well, yes.
But, if violence seeks her out should she be damned for leaving her home? Having a job? Perhaps running a red-light when a "phobic" cop is sitting at the corner waiting? I might do that if I felt I had to justify the cop's actions if he slew her or maimed her or beat her down. But, finally, we all live our lives.
N~
This is an actual quote from the original blog:
"In the case of this woman being murdered...I really dont think he needed to go that far. In no way shape or form is it ok to KILL any living human being. It is not in your power to decide whether a persons life should be ended or not. He didn't even have sex with the person yet. Yeah you got your dick sucked. Big deal, you got a hummer by a ->-bleeped-<-...deal with it. See, this is the type of ->-bleeped-<- that Im talking about when people just want to to what they want to do to satisfy their own sexual nature and dont think about the consequences or how it may hurt other people, and in the end probably hurt you."
How in any way, shape or form was this the persons way of
sympathizing with the murderer? Please explain that to me.
See this is where everyone was turning that blog into what THEY wanted it to be.
The guy clearly said about Andrade's reaction, "big deal, you got a hummer by a ts. Deal with it." That was pretty much a sign that the person who wrote this blog is NOT a bigot because they are saying that he should have just sucked up the fact that he was mistaken and NOT gone so far as to do what he did.
Quote from: Nichole on November 18, 2008, 12:55:34 PM
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 12:10:10 PM
Nichole,
Thank you for the thesis on phobia. I still fail to see how homophobia has anything to do with a hetero guy's rightful anger at being deceived. His instant feelings about it are totally valid. He does not need to examine his own sexuality as deeply as you do, after all, he's just a regular guy who is happy with his body and his sex life.
The problem lies in the fact that a choice was denied him, that is just the inescapable fact. You can rationalize it away with psych-babble all you want but the bottom line is that it is stupid to put yourself in that situation. And yes, his violent reaction would be wrong and criminal. But is it worth your safety to be right?
Quote from: Nichole Lemme see, Kelley. Whatever feelings arise in the poor lil ole guy are totally valid and his ability to act on them is somehow justifiable?/quote]
Yes, I suppose my ability to comprehend has totally left me when it comes to your argument.
At the risk of being seen to have "jumped on you" I'll leave you to your thoughts. You're welcome to them. Let's just hope that the next time you dress-up, no one who might derive some fear from seeing you crosses your path and ends it there.
It simply seems to me that you are entrenching yourself in an untenable position in order to not make any change, or even acknowledge that perhaps a change might be needed, in your own "phobias." So it goes.
Nichole
Saying that someone would derive fear just from
seeing a CD and end it there is a pretty lame comparison to this topic being that this is about going as far as having
sexual relations with heterosexual men. Not walking past them.
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 12:34:25 PM
Leiandra, risk management isn't so much about being bold as it is being smart. Being so bold that you do stupid things you know are going to get you hurt and then thinking you can change reality is just insane.
Not talking about you of course, nothing personal.
Anyway we had a discussion much like this on another thread last week and you stood by and allowed a few others to break the rules, even chimed in with them a few times, just like you are doing now. Then you jumped on me...perfect timing.
Lol. I must be insane, then. ;D I've often suspected as much. ;)
I dunno, I guess it's not so much about being bold or smart as much as it's about wanting to be normal, or as close to as possible. And I wouldn't want to go through everything to do with transition, attempt to put that old, unwanted part of my life behind me for the last time... only to have to have it stamped all over a relationship 'passport' in order to be able to explore that part of my life.
Call it belligerance if you like. :-\
I know what you're saying, honey, and I can see your point of view. In a lot of ways I agree with you, but doesn't there have to be some personal responsibility on behalf of the other person to control their temper?
Um... I'm not sure where you got the idea that I 'jumped' on you. As I said at the time, it wasn't specific to any one member. That thread was getting out of control. I apologise if you felt a personal affront by that, Kelley. It was in no way intended as such.
The way I see it, transgendereds should not have to feel different to women, or take extra cautions, and it's not their fault if they are posed with risks they did not ask for - however that doesn't negate the fact that it is just good sense to take steps to avoid danger when it presents itself.
In an ideal world, I should be able to cross the road when the little man turns green, and not need to look left and right. In an ideal world, all the drivers on the road will have stopped as soon as the traffic lights go red. In an ideal world, I should not have to feel more vulnerable simply for being a pedestrian, and it's my right to be able to cross a road safely.
But we're not *in* an ideal world. And when I cross the street I still look left and right, doing so is not some admition of my own handicap or inferiority, it is just survival instinct. It's not a question of whether it is fair or not, the fact remains that you know you are running the risk of something like this happening to you the moment you make the decision to take the risk.
It is that risk which must be accepted, not some insulting limitation on yourself. Whether rational or not, sometimes people are going to feel and react this way, and there's no getting around that fact. It's just good sense to try and take precautions, it has nothing to do with fair or unfair, it's about survival.
Truth Seeker
Quote from: one4me on November 18, 2008, 01:15:25 PM
@ Nichole:
I would have replied in private but I see no reply button.
Any true, common sense information that is twisted and corrupted into being viewed as bigotry does deserve defending.
Okay, yeah, you need need two more posts to do that. Sorry, my bad for not paying attention.
Your blog post can stand alone for what it is, was. That you aren't responsible for the commentors to it is simply self-evident.
How people are going to accept or not accept your pov and how well they read it and comment on it, here or there, you simply cannot control. It's the nature of blogging in public. We don't chose our readers nor their attitudes.
You've made a very good case for not feeling like the two commentors you had on the blog. But, fact is, you don't need to apologize for or explain them in any way. They are not you and you haven't the power to do that anyway. If you accept comments from pretty much anyone, which as I read it, you do not, then perhaps choosing to allow those two rather than any others might make one wonder why those two. But, even then allowing them doesn't mean you agree with them.
Nichole
Hmmmmmmmm, practically missed this entire thread, don't even remember if I made a coment or not but I do agree with you Leisandra, not just because we are friends but because it is common sense what you have said:
QuoteI'd rather not make this personal, if you don't mind. It's about an issue, not a person.
And judge not, lest ye be judged.
But, for the sake of argument, if I wasn't gay... I should point out that even after full transition, I would probably still be more physically imposing and able to defend myself than any 'enraged ->-bleeped-<-' that decided to try anything. Plus I have military self defence training, so it's highly unlikely that there'd be any 'beating the crap out of me'.
So... um... yeah, I would be perfectly happy to discuss things with him in a calm, rational manner... at least whilst he's hog-tied to the refridgerator, cooling down a little.
Now, can we get back to the issue at hand, please?
There's risk involved with everything. What it comes down to is risk management. If you're afraid of getting beaten for something, don't walk around meekly, like you're doing something wrong and have to apologise for even being alive... learn to defend yourself.
A word of caution to all. I have a friend who is the coordinator for the Trans support group here in Vancouver. She told me a little story about an expereince she had two years ago when she was one year into full time on HRT. She is a tall girl and use to have the muscle bulk to go with it.
I know we have had a discussion about this before but it might be the smart thing to refresh peoples minds. After some time on HRT you will lose muscle bulk, I have, I can still lift stuff and push pull what ever but with much more difficult then before.
Well my friend was on foot just coming out the other end of a highway overpass when this guy not watching where he was going just shoved her to one side and all she could see was red, didn't even stop for a second to think and she just lunged at the guy, the momentum pushed him against the concrete wall of the overpass. Immediately he lunged back at her. She would have been mince met if this other girl hadn't come out of no where and grabbed the guy by the arm and shouted for him to stop. He stopped and looked at his companion as she said, What were you about to do? Hit a girl? Fortunately that ended it.
Cindy
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 12:10:10 PMI still fail to see how homophobia has anything to do with a hetero guy's rightful anger at being deceived. His instant feelings about it are totally valid. He does not need to examine his own sexuality as deeply as you do, after all, he's just a regular guy who is happy with his body and his sex life.
As I see it there are basically two issues and two thought processes going on with this topic. And both revolve around the concept of "deception".
One strain of thought, which it seems you're arguing Kelley, is that this cis-man was deceived by full genetic disclosure not happening within a sexual relationship.
The other strain of thought, which Nichole articulated and which my argument came from as well, is that it is not lack of disclosure but something deeper which causes rage at discovery of a trans or intersex past/present.
This is basically what I was arguing earlier, that there is something unique to the information of a trans/intersex past. That other information is routinely left out of discussion before sexual relations take place, and that discovery of it, even important, life impacting sorts of things, do not result in murder. Taking that into account, there must be a unique element to the information of T/I to the person hearing it, that DOES cause such reactions.
I think Nichole hit the nail on the head, that unique element is homophobia.
The man
in this case is not upset that you didn't share information with him. Certainly a man you've been married to for 20 years probably IS upset at that, but that's not the case we're discussing here. The man in this story is upset because you "lied" to him, you "fooled" him into think you're a "real" woman. It's not your words or your lack of words that creates this "lie", it is your
very existence and his response to
your existence. He is attracted to you, and by his definition you are not a "real" woman, but in fact a man. Thus he was attracted to a man, in his mind. His resulting rage is therefore rooted in homophobia.
This is also a larger part of what I was arguing before, these responses from these men
aren't about you (the T/I person) they are purely
about themselves and their fear of what their attraction to you means to their self identity.
This is why my cissexual husband wouldn't respond this way. I discussed this with him last night, setting up a scenario wherein he meets an attractive woman, they go home together and when things get naked or shortly before, he discovers she has a penis. I asked him what he would do. He said he would be a mixture of disappointed and terribly amused. Amused at this "oops" moment, because he is simply not sexually attracted to penis. Disappointed that he's not actually getting laid that night.
I asked him if he would feel this woman lied to him or deceived him. No, he said.
This is not to laud my husband, he's a good guy and I love him but he's far from perfect and yes we butt heads. But it does reflect something about hetero-cis men in my opinion. You say that they don't need to examine their sexuality in depth the way Nichole did. I couldn't possibly disagree more. In fact I think het-cis guys are the ones who MOST need to examine their sexuality, because (as my husband reflects) I believe their homophobia is directly rooted in their NOT doing so.
This is why he generally dislikes other het-cis guys. He finds them homophobic and it bothers him. Their lack of security in their identities and sexuality grates on him. And he attributes it directly to the fact that they don't ever think about their sexuality, don't entertain the possibility that they might not be "all the way" straight. They can't even think about it because it causes how they view themselves to shift so much. Whereas he did. It occurred to him one day to be curious about the possibility and so he went out and watched some gay porn, studied it, absorbed his reactions to it. What did he discover? Did nothing for him, he envied the guys for their bodies a little bit, and then he went on his merry way.
I think if every "hetero" guy did this same thing, two things would happen. 1. There would be more gay guys in the world (:P) and 2. us women would not be abused or murdered by them anymore (because I think misogyny and homo/transphobia are inseparably linked but that's an argument for another time) at the very least gay men and trans women in all their variations wouldn't be. It is that sort of thinking that I am trying to encourage by the "hard line" I take on this issue (where ever these stories emerge).
[edited for grammar mistakes]
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 08:30:25 PM
I know in this community homophobia is accepted as a term used to describe even the objection to homosexuality. However, a phobia must meet some strict criteria to qualify as such.
You mean like, killing people over it?
QuoteSomeone who's sensibilities are shocked upon discovering that their prospective partner is something other than what was presented
No, not other than presented. That person made specific assumptions based on presentation that are not always a biological reality. The presentation is still accurate, simply the person underneath is more complicated than the simple-minded binaries our culture has naturalized as "normal". But you know what they say about assumptions. ;)
QuoteI'd call that a healthy fear even if they are misinformed....But then as a group of people whose very self is based on the concept of warping everyday ideas of what nature is, I can see why you don't get it.
I never thought I would read something like this in a community created to be supportive of T2QQI people. You have plenty of places where you can spout this sort of ignorant junk, why don't you just leave it there. "Warping what nature is"?! Not even a little bit.
Guess I read the first post or two here a while back ... will read the lot eventually.
But f*** if you date a macho guy pre-op and "hide it" guess you're wishing yourself onto the "TG Day of Rememberance" roll ?
Can honestly understand why a guy like that would have a gut reaction to hit you ...
Sure I did it, but with "academic type" guys who I figured didn't have a violent bone in their body.
Post-op now guess I'm never going to be "outed" in bed, so I take way more risks in relationships.
But I'll always tell a guy if its about repeat sex, if its looking serious, you just don't hide stuff like that do you ?
Laura x
I don't have a problem with you, ladies. I love you, I am more like you than not. You have schooled me and forced me to re-think many long-held beliefs.
Quote from: Kelley on November 18, 2008, 08:30:25 PM
I know in this community homophobia is accepted as a term used to describe even the objection to homosexuality. However, a phobia must meet some strict criteria to qualify as such. Simply being in fear of something is not enough. It must cause the person serious life difficulties and interfere with their ability to function on a daily basis.
Someone who's sensibilities are shocked upon discovering that their prospective partner is something other than what was presented is reacting the way the vast majority of the population would. I'd call that a healthy fear even if they are misinformed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The violent reaction is not justifed or even sympathized with. It is not however entirely unanticpated. It's the nature of the beast.
But then as a group of people whose very self is based on the concept of warping everyday ideas of what nature is, I can see why you don't get it.
I think I understand that last line, in fact I even agree with it. However I would have chosen a more...tactful way of stating my point.
if I read and understand right, sometimes we lose sight on what it means to be confronted by us. After all, society has determined that there are only two sexes and two genders. Black and white. But we all know differently, we live with it and we try to get others to understand, though it is sometimes a slow process. I think I get more surprised when people find out about me and that i'm
not the first transfolk they have meet.
So walk a mile in the other guys shoes. Not only are they under constant stress to be manly and macho but constant scrutiny by peers to see if they are gay. All the ladies here can sympathize with this situation, as we all had to deal with similar BS. So here is a guy being presented with a woman he likes, except that under the hood was something he wasn't expecting. So not only is he thrown for a loop right there, but suddenly he has to confront who he is in less then 60 seconds. Then comes the natural resentment we all share for things that complicate our lives, in this case the woman who stands before him. I don't condone the violence, but I can understand the reasons. In fact it is the rare individual who can be given such a shock and be completely calm afterwords. I've meet a few, and only a few who fit that bill.
So yes, we do warp what nature is...
in society's eyes. That is why they fear us and don't understand us. We challenge their concepts and historically this is usually meet with resistance, sometimes even violently. Living with this means that sometimes we forget about the fact that not everyone has. I was 20 when I first meet my first trans person, before that my only exposure was the Jerry Springer show. Even then, the one I meet probably wouldn't be the best spokesperson. We all have to remember that as we interact with people and let them know this very personal aspect of ourselves.
Strange, freaks of nature, weird, queer, odd, alien etc, etc, yep I can attest to those descriptions by those whom folks in this group call cisgender. I spent most of my life working, talking, and sharing with cisgender folks and I have heard those quaint epithets as mentioned above. For most cisgender folk they brand everything that differs from them as queer, and shows like "Jerry Springer" that exploit the willing do no good for anyone.
Some cisgendered people don't mean any harm by it. I believe that actually most don't. They are by and large ignorant, or unknowing of the subject of transgender and transsexual and queer. The majority of people are unfamiliar with the gender variances and don't truly even know the distinction of one from the other, except from what they see in the media which is usually derisive towards the relatively small transsexual community. It seems that the distinction of transsexualism becomes blurred when considered a part of the many gender variances.
There has been much progress in the enlightenment of opening people's minds in the past century, but there is still much antiquated mindset remaining in society at-large today. Many people still fear what they don't understand, or fear the unknown without considering its possible effects on them. It is like the reaction many have upon seeing a strange insect that appears to be a threat to them. The automatic and instinctive reaction is to stomp on it before it somehow crawls up their pant leg and bites their genitals causing them to die of genital bug bite syndrome.
Cindy
The correct description of a phobia is that it must be an irrational fear, one which you cannot control. It doesn't neccesarily have to be something which frequently imposes on your life, it simply has to be irrational.
For example, the fear of falling is rational, it's perfectly logical to be afraid of that. Hence it is not a phobia. The fear of flying, however, is a phobia is because it is not rational. Now at the end of the day, fear is fear, whether classed as a phobia or not. Phobias are more like a malfunction, an unavoidable short cirtuit that causes fear, but the fear itself remains the same as any other kind of fear.
Fear is there for a reason, to warn of us danger and to compell us to protect ourselves from it. In times of heightened stress fear can literally take over our good senses and virtually force an action that the mind percieves is neccesary for survival. To comprehend this outside of the phobia example, just imagine yourself in a situation in which your life is genuinely at risk.
Ever leaned too far over a tall balcony, and felt your body shock you into pulling back? Raised your hand on instinct to protect yourself from a falling object? What if you were attacked? You can imagine the adrenaline that would start pumping, how the mind would become deadset on finding a way to survive regardless of your situation?
These manifestations of fear are exactly the same as the fear felt through phobia, the only difference being, in phobias the fear is not necessarily justified - how it effects you however remains the same.
So I agree, Kelley, that homophobia is often a misused term, used to justify mild intollerance or hate, however that doesn't mean that the only definition of a phobia is something which makes every day life harder. Most people can live just fine with phobias, and those that do have them may seem perfectly ordinary.
I would imagine in fact, that if someone were, genuinely homophobic, it might be easy to dismiss them as small minded or foolish, but even a seemingly biggoted fear is still a genuine fear, and real phobias are not something that one can control. Your actions, however, in my opinion, are always something which ultimately you have power over, and everyone should be held accountable for what they do.
All I'm saying is this does not invallidate the claim that in some situations, a genuine -albeit hard to understand- fear may have cajolled the reaction in the first place. My main point was really just to correct you on your definition of phobia though. :) All controversial topics aside, it is very possible for someone to be phobic to the point of acting irrational or violent without it seeming neccesary to us.
Truth Seeker
Quote from: Annwyn on November 19, 2008, 07:09:27 AM
Quote from: Nichole on November 18, 2008, 12:55:34 PM
Whatever feelings arise in the poor lil ole guy are totally valid
Very.
Quoteand his ability to act on them is somehow justifiable?
Please don't put up a false dichotomy on Kelley simply because she isn't blindly following your point of view.
QuoteYes, I suppose my ability to comprehend has totally left me when it comes to your argument.
You're the one arguing with her.
QuoteLet's just hope that the next time you dress-up, no one who might derive some fear from seeing you crosses your path and ends it there.
It simply seems to me that you are entrenching yourself in an untenable position in order to not make any change, or even acknowledge that perhaps a change might be needed, in your own "phobias." So it goes.
I'd expect more coming from a moderator.
I believe it's time to shift back to where this thread was before the name calling began,(or a moderator could just be responsible and close it after a few pages of bitching back and forth, regardless of who started it). I interpreted that as a few major points:
1) that the man's feelings were justified, but the actions were not.
2) the actions were predictable. what hasn't been fully discussed is if the actions are predictable, is the performer of the action or the person who stimulates the person to perform that action more to blame?
3) phobia has a loose definition that varies between the victim and the perpetrator. The word defines simply as, "fear." Perhaps the proper thing to question would not be phobias, but bigotry?
In answer to your point 2.
I would expect given the circumstances of the murder. That the perpetrator will in all probability get off with Manslaughter. I believe this would probably be the case in the UK possibly in the States.
Manslaughter is accidental killing. Running over someone you didn't see in a car. Defending yourself using excessive force. Things that can't be helped.
This man deliberately dug up evidence to support his suspicions of her being transsexual and then acted on those suspicions. Possible case for premeditated murder. The clause that he acted out of shock end when he had time to consider the likely the two possibilities of her situation and decided to act the way he did even after time to consider.
Running over someone you did not see is more like negligent homicide, unless there is some element of recklessness. Fleeing from a crime with a cop hanging onto your car and he falls off and dies, that is the typical example of manslaughter. It is "reckless disregard for the probability of fatal harm" that is necessary at common law. It might be the case that some jurisdictions would have a law for manslaughter that is specifically defined to include a negligent vehicular homicide. But it would probably require that the driver be committing reckless driving at the time or something like that.
At common law in the US, first degree murder is usually premeditated, while second degree murder is usually spontaneous and occurs in response to some kind of stimulus. Second degree murder is often called a "crime of opportunity" because the stimulus was the unanticipated opportunity to get some money or whatever. There is a theory that second degree murder can be mitigated to manslaughter if the stimulus is one that is viewed as particularly "nasty." The typical example is a man catching his wife in bed with another man. Sufficient "nastiness" seems to be a morality judgment taken together with how rare the stimulus is and its propensity for driving an otherwise lawful person to commit murder by driving them over the edge temporarily. Under what is called the "slow burn" theory, there have been cases in which first degree murder was mitigated to manslaughter. The typical example is a man finding out his wife is sleeping with another man and then driving to wherever one of them is and killing them.
I think the defendent here will have a more difficult time getting manslaughter in view of the fact he found out about her situation long before he killed her. That is not to say it is not impossible that he will get manslaughter, or that an affirmative defense of temporary insanity might be successful.
As always, I Am Not Your Lawyer (IANYL). This Is Not Legal Advice (TINLA).
I have cleaned up this topic. Think three times before posting on this thread. If someone crosses the line on this thread or takes it off topic I will ban them for 3 days. Keep it to the issue and do not resort to personal attacks or name calling. If you see any of that in this thread use the report this thread option don't respond in the thread. If this thread gets out of hand again I will re-lock it forever.