Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Hello,

I have read Gilmartin's male lesbian definition and it totally fits me.
The problem I'm now having is, I am quite comfortable beeing male,
but I being 30 of age now, masculinization is pushing forward more and
more, of late my beard is beginning to spread to the cheeks etc. I like
seeing myself as androgyne, boy-like and I am starting to suffer more and
more from the hair-problem, I am already having a hard time shaving etc the ->-bleeped-<-
off all the time on my whole body. (my body is model-slim and I look rather
androgyne (face-wise), so the hair is the main male problem that I have been
hating since I was I dont't know 10 or so, when it begun growing). I also
suffer from the hair becoming even stronger and general masculatization that
occurs after age 30. Of course I know of electrolysis etc., my question however
is a different one: I have decided that once my facial hair have become so
much/strong that they really bother me, I'll have some of them removed through
those means -- however, as I see it, part of the development that is now
taking place (as I said I'm 30) is, to my knowledge, due to hormone levels.
I am wondering if there is a possibility to work against those hormone
levels WITHOUT becoming female, but "just" not to become MORE MALE in the
course of higher hormon levels and general aging-related maleness. As for
the hair problem, I am particularly wondering if there is a need for action
now: I.e., would it be better to NOW have hair electrolyzed (e.g. because
follicels will become stronger and stronger) / NOW do whatever hormone
intervention (e.g. because hormone-induced transformations are difficult
to revert), and not when I'm e.g. 35. I suppose things will stay bearable
until then, but I guess at 35 it will be time for action and I don't want
to curse myself for having started earlier (the fact that electrolysis (or blend
method whatever)/ takes some time to do as such because of the amount of hair,
is not the problem, because I don't need quick results and also just want
to keep the status quo or slowly revert it to a 25-years-old level).
So basically, this threat is about "male lesbians"/male androgynes who primarily
hate their male body hair, but other than that can easily pass as somewhat
feminine heterosexuals.

thanks

the Violet Owl (how's that for a stupid nick ? ) ;)

ps. I'm not a native speaker, sorry for mistakes in the above.

Quote from: violet_owl on January 20, 2011, 05:18:48 PM
I have read Gilmartin's male lesbian definition and it totally fits me.

It's also totally misogynistic - and appropriating an identity that does not belong to you.
'Lesbian' is very specific in meaning. If you do not identify as female, you cannot be a lesbian.

I identified as a man-dyke for years.

I even married a couple of women who were lesbian identified when we first met.

(granted I am MTF and I really am a lesbian but I think it is possible to be a male-lesbian)

Quote from: violet_owl on January 20, 2011, 05:18:48 PM
I am wondering if there is a possibility to work against those hormone
levels WITHOUT becoming female, but "just" not to become MORE MALE in the
course of higher hormon levels and general aging-related maleness.

Early in my transition I went to a gender therapist, and then endocrinologist with these exact same concerns. In my case I wasn't ready to address full HRT, but I definitely saw my masculine features setting in around my early 30's, and my libido even seemed higher for some reason, increased facial and body hair growth, receding hairline etc.

In my case my doctor put me on "Avodart". With this drug alone I noticed a slight softening of my skin, less body hair, and the receding hairline was stopped in its tracks. It did little to "feminize" me, and didn't lower my libido much, but in my case it did do what I wanted it to do in terms of slowing down the effects that long-term T was playing on my body. This isn't the only drug that can do this, there are others. There may be risks to taking Avodart for extended periods and so you definitely should not do this on your own without monitoring from your doctor, but it has worked well for me during the last 18 months or so. The only issue with Avodart is that it's not available as a generic in the US, so I must have my doctor send the prescription to a Canadian pharmacy to have it filled in order for me to afford it. I have since added Spiro to the mix and that too made a difference.

Basically I'd recommend you talk to your doctor about this because it certainly is possible to achieve close what you want with a relative degree of safety (if you are under a doctor's care).

As for facial hair there really isn't much you can do other than electrolysis or laser. Facial hair doesn't seem to be affected by lowering T (except that you might have no "new" areas sprouting).

Hi to all.

@Madelyn: your post has been really, really helpful. Thanks a lot. I will be doing some research on this
before potentially returing to this thread. I am already taking Finasteride (been taking this for 5 years) to
prevent hair loss, and I have of course heard of Dutasteride but decided in favor of Finasteride for safety
reasons. Again, thanks.

@Vexing, what terminus would you propose that would better fit? Why exactly do you think it is misogynistic?
Please read Gilmartin's definition if you haven't yet done so. see his book on "love-shyness", available for
free on the internert. Gilmartin is somewhat confused, but the definition he's giving has practical value in
that it accurately describes my feelings.

Finasteride I have some experience with. It is prescribed at two different levels. I took the higher dosage (for prostate problems). I, and another poster on this forum, had some breast growth. Apparently, most don't have lasting breast growth, though. The nipples became very pleasantly sensitive to the touch. I had a feeling of excitement and euphoria. I can't speak to long term effects since I only took it for a matter of months. When I stopped the prescription, my body returned to its previous state. Pity.

S

Quote from: violet_owl on January 21, 2011, 06:26:30 AM
@Vexing, what terminus would you propose that would better fit? Why exactly do you think it is misogynistic?
Please read Gilmartin's definition if you haven't yet done so. see his book on "love-shyness", available for
free on the internert. Gilmartin is somewhat confused, but the definition he's giving has practical value in
that it accurately describes my feelings.

The term 'passive male' would fit better.
It's misogynistic because it's a male appropriating female specific terminology for his own use. If you can't understand that as misogyny, then it's pointless trying to further educate you.

I can understand the mysoginy angle.

But I am not so sure that 'passive male' exactly works.

I know using my mtf self as a referance fails but its all I have to work with. I couldn't say back in man-dyke days I was passive.

Just lesbians have a certain mindset that is not found anywhere else in society. What could one call a male who lives in that mind set?

Quote from: Vexing on January 21, 2011, 11:55:43 AM
The term 'passive male' would fit better.
It's misogynistic because it's a male appropriating female specific terminology for his own use. If you can't understand that as misogyny, then it's pointless trying to further educate you.

How about just not replying then?  You aren't answering the OP's question, so why bother posting?  If that is the term that the OP wants to use, that's their business, not yours.  There's no reason to go out of your way to be snotty.  That last sentence was absolutely unnecessary.

And violet_owl, I'm sorry, but I don't know much about hair removal.  A couple posts on this thread just got under my skin.  Pay no mind to the term police.  I'll get off my soapbox now.


Now back to the OP's original question...

Quote from: Jaimey on January 22, 2011, 02:13:43 AM
How about just not replying then?  You aren't answering the OP's question, so why bother posting?

Because I have just as much right to express an opinion?

QuoteIf that is the term that the OP wants to use, that's their business, not yours.  There's no reason to go out of your way to be snotty.  That last sentence was absolutely unnecessary.

I couldn't care less what term they use. They could call themselves an Anarcothermiplexitorian. If that term was misogynistic, I'd probably still point that out.

Hello,

sorry to say so, but 'passive male' certainly does not convey the main point. I do respect it if
others dislike the label "male lesbian", however for lack of anything better I will continue
to refer to these individuals by <<so-called "male lesbians">>. One might be able to think
of better terminology, but I won't waste time on this.

@Vexing: Well, I'm willing to try to understand your POV. Answers to the following questions
will likely "educate" and illuminate me: Do you think the term "female gay" misandric? If not,
I can't see consistency in your logic. Do you also disapproveof the terms girl->-bleeped-<- / guydyke?
In any case, speaking from a male POV, I would never even think of a women who refers
to herself as "female gay" as misandric. (I do think there is equally a lot of misandry and misogyny
in Western society.) I'm out of this discussion, though, if you are biased within the
feminism/masculism spectrum. I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere in that case.
I also find some irony how men who wish they were lesbians and totally adore women find
themselves being labeled as misogynic. I have heard of this happening though, and I'm really
curious on what's going on here. (Also, are male-to-female transsexuals misogynic if they
call themselves "women" after transition? Do they also "appropriate female specific terminology
for their his own use"/"appropriating an identity that does does not belong to them"?)
I really don't know much about feminst theory, but I guess it might be along these lines:
Masculism and feminism are not symmetrical since discrimination against men works
differerently than it does against women (domination). So this explains why "female gay" is
not seen as misandric, while "male lesbian" is seen as misogynistic, as one could see a
domination aspect because a man is using a dedicatedly female term. In contrast, men do
not feel dominated when a women takes the word "gay". Did I get these interpretations right?
But the interesting point is this: Men who are *weaker* then women naturally cannot dominate
them. Hence my POV is, when a normal heterosexual researcher coins the term "male lesbian",
I can well see misogyny to it. However, when a self-identified "male lesbian" chooses this
term so refer to himself, I see no misogyny to it, but rather I see misandry on a women's part who
fails to see how power is distributed here, and who fails to see the huge variance between men
and this individuals mindset in particular.
I am really interested in understanding the misogyny point, since this does not seem to
be just Vexing's view - I have also heard s.o. else point out that in fact one should expect "lesbians
will *hate* men who self-identify that way. I wasn't able to understand that, and I still have
difficulties -- which makes me courious. Especially since this is not a side-remark, but in fact
Vexing wrote *TOTALLY misogynistic". That's just too much not be curious if such a thought
initially would never have come to my mind.
Other points: thinking of it, "passive male" is just as much an insult. Beeing passive is in
no way a conditio sine qua non for the "male lesbian" identity. Worse, it negates the core
point of suffering within these individuals and lets me question whether you really have
read and understood the concept.
I am aware I might be feeding a problematic discussion here, but I still want to understand the misogyny
angle.

Quote from: violet_owl on January 22, 2011, 04:25:55 AM
I really don't know much about feminist theory

Clearly.
I strongly suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

OMG!

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 05:50:26 PM
It's also totally misogynistic - and appropriating an identity that does not belong to you.
'Lesbian' is very specific in meaning. If you do not identify as female, you cannot be a lesbian.

I do unfortunately, fall in that "biological male lesbian category." I always knew from the time I was 12, I was going to be a lesbian of some kind and I never really knew about this until now that I identify as a woman named "Ava". This is obviously a very controversial topic.

Quote from: cynthialee on January 20, 2011, 09:35:20 PM
I identified as a man-dyke for years.

I even married a couple of women who were lesbian identified when we first met.

(granted I am MTF and I really am a lesbian but I think it is possible to be a male-lesbian)

Man-Dyke? Oh, dear me. If memory serves me correctly, I've heard of the really offensive term term dyke (I remember being called that when I was bullied in middle school).

Quote from: Vexing on January 22, 2011, 04:31:15 AM
Clearly.
I strongly suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

I have to agree with Vexing on this part.

Hello Vexing and Aeverine Zinn,

you have a point in criticizing my musings on this, since I indeed should have re-read
re-read some basic articles on feminism and feminist theory beforehand to rule out any core
misunderstandings on my part. I have done so in the meantime (no, I have not read whole
*books* in the meantime, but I hold that it is possible to discuss this without such prequisites - do
you at least agree at least on this part?)
As I understand it, one point of feminism is criticism of how language and terminology are
implicitely derived from a masculine basis/perspective as the "default", and feminity as a secondary
instance. (FWIW, as a side note, regarding the termini Guydyke/Girl->-bleeped-<-, not being a native speaker,
I didn't immediately see how these are more than problematic, so pls ignore my mentioning of them.)

Despite my efforts to find any, I still, after some more reading on feminism, cannot see core
misunderstanding and "cluelessnesses" in my previous posts. Since both Vexing and Aeverine Zinn
agree that I don't get it, may I ask you to either take the time to point out what I'm missing. I
have done my part and put some effort into this, but I find it rather intelectually disrespectful
leaving me guessing and simultaneously throwing disrespectful side-remarks at me. So
please go somewhat into detail and pls help me to grasp the problem and point out the errors in
my previous posts. I really want to understand this. This also applies to core misunderandings of
feminism. Please write a few lines. I'd really appreciate.
Thanks for your efforts.

re terminology: "'Lesbian' is very specific in meaning. If you do not identify as female, you cannot be a lesbian." Well, one can *to some extent* identify as female (agreed?), so one can also *to some extent* identify as lesbian. And, how about "would-be translesbian"?

Violet, good luck getting something useful from asking for an explanation of the objection to the term male lesbian. The reaction has the distinct flavour of having touched a personal nerve. I would wonder if the objector even knows why they feel strongly enough about it to be denouncing your comments here. Their posts about it just feel combative to me. I think your use of the label "male lesbian" is fine.

Hi sfem,

I am aware of the personal nerve aspect! Still I'm interested WHY this nerve has been hit, and
I also think there's s.th. to learn here. I have read some of Vexing's other posts, which were fine,
and it would be naive of me just to forget about this. Also, I am not used to being denounced
intellectually to such an extent. In fact, I'm feeling intelectually intimidated. This makes me
curious and I want to resolve this strange thread. I'm have given up internet discussions
long ago, but here I'm making an exception since both Gilmartins concept and an
understanding of feminism, and an understanding of unexpectedly hitting personal nerves
nerves are important to me. That's just too much to ignore.

Hi Violet,

I'm going to *try* and explain a bit about the term, even though I am not as well-read on feminist theory as many of the other posters here.

Lesbian is an identity word that is only used by women. Putting a modifier like "Male" in front of it denigrates the powerful female identity of lesbians & women in general.

Let me give another example. Imagine that someone is a member of another minority group. For example, the person could be Jewish or maybe black (e.g., "African-American" in the States).

If you tell someone, well, I'm a believing Christian, but I feel like I'm *also* Jewish, and you go around calling yourself a Christian Jew, that would really tick off a lot of Jews. Because it denigrates what their identity is by not understanding that for hundreds to thousand(s) of years, Jews have been oppressed for being Jewish and *not* Christian. Even groups like "Jews for Jesus" are very controversial and upsetting to the Jewish community, because being for Jesus is incompatible with all denominations of Judaism.

Or let's say you feel like you identify with the struggles or beliefs or feelings of people of a minority race. You can say, "I'm a white African-American" (or use another accepted slang term), and people will be offended or insulted. Someone with white privilege can feel symapthy with or similar to someone of a minority race, but you can't just take their identify terminology and modify by an experience that is the antithesis of what it means to be that identity without ruffling feathers. Yes, there is a concept of a white n*****, but so far as I can tell, this is not a flattering term, and it's developed as it's own distinct term.

In a nutshell, the phrase "male lesbian" is taking something - male privilege - that is the antithesis of the experience that lesbians have (as women), and as a result, it can be offensive to many. I'm not going to comment of the other terms you mention, because I don't know how they are viewed by others and in what context they are used.

Other people might say that this is all semantics and why should we get bogged down in talking about terminology. But words matter. Terms matter. There is a reason people get up in arms about being called a f****t or around here the T word. I think it's important to understand that just because you don't find a term to be offensive, that doesn't mean other people won't. Also, please note that it's been a struggle for many transwomen to find acceptance in the lesbian world, and that there is still a lot of education going on about what gender identity is. They are struggling to find acceptance both as trans and as lesbian. Using terms like "male lesbian" can give fodder to lesbians who want to reject transwomen and claim they are still men, so I understand why people may be protective or want to make sure that the language being used in a trans support community is non-offensive and accurately representing what both the trans identity is and the lesbian identity is. 

Also, some of what you are saying, though, sounds like a standard trans experience. If you are asking: what do you call someone who is born male-bodied, but thinks that she is more like a woman and not a man and attracted to women, then the answer is: That's a lesbian. But there is nothing male about it!

Quote from: Sean on January 22, 2011, 10:25:37 AMPutting a modifier like "Male" in front of it denigrates the powerful female identity of lesbians & women in general.

Is this also the basis for radical fems saying that using the modifier "transgender woman" or "transsexual woman" also somehow denigrates women? Or that someone labeled "male" at birth and therefore (the radical feminist would say) "experienced in male privilege" adopting the label "woman" (even without the modifier) is also denigrating women in a similar way a white person calling themselves black would? It seems a very similar line of thought to me and I don't entirely understand the distinction (other than one being about race, the other about gender, but the lines of thought feel similar). What would be our response to that in the trans context?

Please know I am asking this as a sincere question. I haven't had a lot of exposure to trans nor radical fem philosophy and I very much want to understand more. To be honest I don't have a full understanding of all this (but I would like to think it's still worth educating me about it).

Quote from: Madelyn on January 22, 2011, 11:52:29 AM
Is this also the basis for radical fems saying that using the modifier "transgender woman" or "transsexual woman" also somehow denigrates women? Or that someone labeled "male" at birth and therefore (the radical feminist would say) "experienced in male privilege" adopting the label "woman" (even without the modifier) is also denigrating women in a similar way a white person calling themselves black would? It seems a very similar line of thought to me and I don't entirely understand the distinction (other than one being about race, the other about gender, but the lines of thought feel similar). What would be our response to that in the trans context?

I think the same argument is being applied when people object to "transsexual woman" - that there is something about transsexual that is inappropriate when added to woman. I think the logic is the same, I just think it's misapplied (or erroneous) when used to prevent trans women from claiming the identity of woman.

From the perspective in which gender identity is accepted as distinct from biological sex, the two situations are clearly different. In one case ("male lesbian"), the modifier MALE is directly in opposition to the identity of LESBIAN. Men are not women. Lesbians are women. In the other case ("transsexual woman"), the modifier TRANSSEXUAL is *not* directly in opposition to the identity of WOMAN. Transsexuals can be women. In fact, many trans women rightfully object to the term "transsexual woman" because the modifier of transsexual implies that they are different from "women" who don't need a modifier at all. [Personally, I think the modifier of trans CAN be useful sometimes, but it depends on the context. Sometimes it IS relevant, just as it is relevant to mesh the identity of black with woman or Jewish with woman to form a combined identity unit of "Black Woman" or "Jewish Woman" that means something DIFFERENT than just being the sum of the parts of different identities.]

Anyway, those radical feminists who object to the term 'transsexual woman' are denying that transsexuals are actually entitled to claim the identity of woman altogether. I find those objections illegitimate, because they stem from a point of view that denies the reality of gender identity as a concept altogether, which is inconsistent with what we know scientifically.

Quote from: Sean on January 22, 2011, 10:25:37 AM
Lesbian is an identity word that is only used by women. Putting a modifier like "Male" in front of it denigrates the powerful female identity of lesbians & women in general.

This. This x 9000.
Having struggled so long and hard to claim an identity - a powerful female identity - it is galling that a male identified person decides to pluck this term out from under the noses of lesbians and use it to describe himself. The whole point of claiming the identity was to empower women to feel strong and liberated; to give them a solid, female only identity to stand behind, to rail against Patriarchal mores and oppression, to prevent men from taking anything more away from these women.
And then a man comes along and claims this incredibly important, female only, identity.
If you, Violet Owl, can't see what's problematic about this, then I cannot educate you any further.

Quote from: Aeverine Zinn on January 22, 2011, 04:47:45 AM
Man-Dyke? Oh, dear me. If memory serves me correctly, I've heard of the really offensive term term dyke (I remember being called that when I was bullied in middle school).

Dyke is like the "n" word.  You can use it among your own.  It's reappropriation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation)

Words are powerful.  Lesbians aren't going to be appreciative of a man's appropration of that word and identity.  Is it sexist to think that to be a passive or "feminine" man you are a woman?  Androgynous or if you're going by that book "love shy" heterosexual seem to fit better.

It sounds like the OP wants youth and no body hair.  This does not a woman make. 

If you are a white (or majority in-power racial/ethnic group of your country) male it's kind of best to tread lightly when discussing the appropriation of identity without the social/political struggles.

Quote from: sfem on January 22, 2011, 07:12:28 AM
Violet, good luck getting something useful from asking for an explanation of the objection to the term male lesbian.

I think my last post provided a very adequate explanation.

QuoteThe reaction has the distinct flavour of having touched a personal nerve.

Since I'm not a lesbian and identify as a heterosexual woman, I cannot fathom how this could possibly have touched 'a personal nerve'.

QuoteI would wonder if the objector even knows why they feel strongly enough about it to be denouncing your comments here.

Yes, I most certainly do know why I object to misogyny, because misogyny is inherently wrong.

QuoteTheir posts about it just feel combative to me.

Misogyny should always be fought at every turn, so I'm not surprised that I came across as combative  :)

My dad, in his attempts to understand things when i came out to my family, tried to attach the 'male lesbian' label to me and I have to admit we had a couple of arguments about it...i definitely didn't like it then and i certainly don't like it now.

Hello, thanks to everyone who contributed. This was really important to me. A note to Vexing,
I do understand the problem. Thanks for your criticism. I'd really love to continue participating in
this discussion but I can't afford this at the moment (too little time to do so).

Just one final remark: I think there is some misconception about the identity problem I have.
I would clearly like to turn into a woman and then would feel attracted to women. As a man,
I have difficulties with physical interaction with women *because I often do not like the idea of the
woman feeling attracted to me as a man* - I'd prefer her to be attracted to me as a woman.
I don't have too much problems with my male body as long as I can keep it sufficiently androgynous,
and as long as I know the woman is attracted to androgynity. Still, I am very ambivalent as to
what feels right. Certain masculine aspects feel authentic, others do not. I am stuck between
two unappealing options. Either stay with the current status quo, or consider a transformation,
which will lead to a state of my body that will cause even more problems - I decidedly do not
want a male body that has been transformed into a female body, I either want a female body
with no signs of fomer masculinity - or else I prefer the androgynous male body. So summa
summarum, it's 80 to 20 for the androgynous male body (versus altered body), but 100 to 0 for
the "authentic" female body versus the male body. (And 0 to 100 for a TS body versus a
fully masculinized body. So there. This explains my fear with ageing. This is not just about
youth and a small problem with body hair. I also have been wondering if pressure to undergo
a transformational process is correlated with ongoing masculization in the course of ageing,
which would really frighten me a bit. It would essentially mean I am heading for a terrible future.
I am really glad I have laser/blend options. As you can see from the pro-con percentages,, this
is vital for me, since clinging androgynity is my only option to remain in-sync with my body.
I don't know what to call this condition - its essentially an androgynous heterosexual male
who would greatly prefer to be *born* a lesbian woman, yet chooses to remain an androgynous
male for above given reasons. (so there is some "multiple identy" aspect to this.) hence the term
"male lesbian", which is just a misleadingly shortened description of this somewhat complicated
situation. note that androgynity is not a prerequisite of this - it applies to me, but there are
probably many self-described "male lesbians" (pardon the term, will clarify in the next sentence)
who don't have this specific urge (androgynity) within their male identy.
So the correct description of this "condition" is "heterosexual male who stronly whished he was
*born* a lesbian and to whom a sex change does not appeal". This is a horrible condition, in fact.
Therefore the term "male lesbian" must be seen as such: ***A lesbian upon whom maleness has
been coerced.*** (@Vexing: mind this sentence, please!) It is not to be read "a male who takes lesbianism to attribute it to himself",
but "a male who feels like a lesbian upon whom maleness has been coerced, but who has
no other option other than dealing with his maleness and reluctantly making the best out of it."

Okay, seriously, can we stop right there with the 'male lesbian' crap already? You're mansplaining. Please stop it.

FYI, if you were to take hormones of any sort, there is no guarantee that your orientation would remain static; I was attracted to women pre-hormones and am now exclusively attracted to men.

What a welcome we gave you, Violet_Owl! Usually, first postings are greeted more warmly. And, to think, some have called Androgynes mild-mannered.

You've met Vexing, our self-identified supervixen. I love her, because interacting with her makes me be clearer about my meaning and the words I use to express that meaning. Since, I am here to learn, her prodding is quite valuable. You say you don't have time to continue the discussion, but I hope you will find the time to return in the near future.

There is a distinction between being an androgyne and looking androgynous. If you want a woman to recognize your female side, that is possible regardless of how you look on the outside and regardless of the woman's sexual orientation. There are plenty of strong, heterosexual women. You do need to be clear about who you are (aside from any label) and what roles you are comfortable with. Do you want her to drive when you go out together. To decide where you will go on a date. Do you want to cook and take care of the house? Do you want to wear a nightgown to bed? Do you want her to call your male bits by the corresponding names for female bits? Do you want to take her name if you marry? Vexing will tell you, there are no roles that are inherently for one gender or another. She--your hypothetical partner and, I guess Vexing,too--may be relieved you don't want to transition.

If you haven't already done this, it will help to discuss your issues of gender (and aging) with a therapist who specializes or has experience in gender.

S

Thanks, Simone.
Looking up in the dict what mansplaining means, thanks once again for pointing
things out, Vexing.
Whilst you may be right in your points, I see no reason to be condescending.
This is the very behavioral pattern you rightfully criticize in men. Hence, you're
in the midth of an arms race (and of course it's the other side who was the
initial aggressor) and launching preemptive strikes all the way long.

Quote from: violet_owl on January 23, 2011, 04:28:15 AM
Thanks, Simone.
Looking up in the dict what mansplaining means, thanks once again for pointing
things out, Vexing.
Whilst you may be right in your points, I see no reason to be condescending.
This is the very behavioral pattern you rightfully criticize in men. Hence, you're
in the midth of an arms race (and of course it's the other side who was the
initial aggressor) and launching preemptive strikes all the way long.

You're misconstruing annoyance and anger for condescention.
FYI, it's extremely insulting to compare male behaviour to the behaviour displayed by a trans woman.

 :police: Oh for crying out loud.  Both of you leave it now or this goes official and I will be handing out sanctions. (which I am trying hard not to do).

The two of you will never agree on this one. There are many terms that people use that I find inexplicable or downright insulting. They still use them anyway so get over it already!

I don't understand the term Male Lesbian, and indeed I think it could be rather confusing to people, but then people who live on the Isle of lesbos don't like Gay women calling themselves lesbian either. In fact they took it to court and complained that it was an insult to them.

There also was a time when a man could be Gay without being homosexual. Point is language evolves and anyone who thinks that a social group has a monopoly on a particular term is not dealing with reality.

So this escalating irritation must end now. You both have a right to an opinion, but the fact that you find each others opinions irritating does NOT require that the other party immediately changes their POV.

You have both now drifted towards personal attack territory which is a violation of site rule 15 https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html) A mutual apology and a cooling off would be a good idea.

Or would you rather I put my official site police hat on and issued a set of official warnings?  :police:

Ps - as one of you has now gone offline I shall suspend my decision on whether to issue a formal warning until later when you have both read this post. Depending on how things progress from here I, or indeed other moderators may or may not decide to take more robust action.

Sorry, my convictions are not for sale.
If standing up against misogyny can be construed as a personal attack on someone, then I'm 100% guilty - hand out my punishment.

- I'll try my best to remain fair.
- Personally, I would like Vexing to continue posting uncensored.
- My impression is that I myself have, in the past, done far to little trying to
  understand what feelings are going on in a (female) feminist's mind and
  have done to little to understand that perspective they have and the position they
  are in.
- At the same time, I believe the *very* same is true for not taking
  any effort whatsoever to try to enter the perspecitve and identiy that
  is described in Gilmartin's book, on Vexing's part.

Quote from: Vexing on January 23, 2011, 06:10:16 AM
Sorry, my convictions are not for sale.
If standing up against misogyny can be construed as a personal attack on someone, then I'm 100% guilty - hand out my punishment.

:police: vexing It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the convictions that are in question here as you should well know.

It is ONLY a matter of the manner in which they may be expressed. Phrases like STFU are rude and aggressive and can be construed by some as a form of personal attack. You will note that that was all I changed in your post.

Opinions can be deeply held. If truth be told I hold similar reservations to you about this issue, but on this site at least, those opinions MUST be held in a way which is respectful of the right of an individual to hold a contrary view. Telling someone to "Shut The F*** UP", which was what you originally said before I edited it, can by no stretch be considered a respectful way to address them.

Did you but know it I constantly argue your case in staff sections of the forum which, you cannot see against a few who might like to hang you out to dry. Sadly you have now left me no choice.

20 point warning! Not for the opinions but for the manner in which you evidently WILLFULLY CHOOSE to express them despite frequent warnings to tone it down.  Also for arguing moderator decisions. :police:

@rejennyrated

I am new to this kind of thinking and I'd like to invest into it, either adopting it, or
at least understanding it. Whilst I have doubts and fear my logic and argumentation
might be faulty, the process of my self-correction and re-adjustment proves difficult because
attention is drawn to the personal attracks an either side (which will hopefully stop),
and because I personally still feel I am not provided with suffient information and
arguments to fully understand the criticism I am confronted with. Is it mainly
about the word "lesbian" that should not be used by men as an attribute, for given
reasons? Or is there more to it, and more to criticism about Gilmartin's concept? I.e.
is the use of the word "lesbian" your sole "reservation on this issue", or is there more to say?
I'm really interested in more opinions. I am still struggling to understand how a
mindset that at least intends to be pro-feminine is faced with accusations of misogyny.
I am repeating myself, though. This might be going in circles. Still, a few more opinions
might shed more light on this. So I really encourange everyone reading this thread to
leave their POV. Greatly appreciated.
In fact, I am becoming so aware of all these gender problems that I have just been asking
myself if asking for  Vexing not to be censored is an act of subconscious patronizing as she can well speak for herself.
Am I on the right track here?

--
corrected: options=opinions.

Low levels of hormone blockers would prevent additional facial hair developing... You'd find it hard to get them theough proper channels tho and I'm forbidden to tell you howto get them through other channels.

I should point out apart from the confusing man lesbian thing which I don't get you sound abit like me age 16-20 struggling with my gender identity. not that I'm trying to hijack your identity.

I also like you when I was young had massive dysphoria at my facial hair so much so that I tried to get laser hair removal at a young age 19 as more and more of it was coming in. While I wasn't happy as a male I could have possibly at that time endured had I been able to live as a highly androgynous male.

My attempt to stop it failed I should point out as long as you have T in your body your body will continue transforming vellus hairs into terminal hairs. That was my experience and it was soul crushing I couldn't get it to die as soon as I killed the things they would just regenerate. waste of money in my experience.

Eventually I realized that it's just not going to stop. My dysphoria or my body with T on it driving closer toward "male" And that really nothing short of the whole transition is going to help me.

Violet Fox, Sean and Japple have warned against hijacking the experiences of minorities. There is an example in the Jewish press right now: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=203410 (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=203410). A Fox News commentator complained that she was the victim of a blood libel. To Jews everywhere, the term "blood libel" has a highly charged meaning, and a specific reference. For centuries, Christians and other anti-semites have accused Jews of killing children to use their blood in the manufacture of matzah. The charge, do I have to mention?, is false and ludicrous since the making of matzah is strictly regulated by Jewish law, and can be made only from flour that has been watched to ensure no fermentation and water, and must be baked within 18 minutes of having been mixed. Nevertheless, Jews have been tried, convicted, and executed--and murdered without benefit of trial--for the alleged crime. For a Christian to hijack that term to complain that she has been wrongly, in her eyes, criticized in the press is highly offensive to Jews, including me.

You say you want to be treated as a woman. Be careful what you wish for. The UN reports that "At least one in three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or abused in some way, most often by someone she knows..." http://www.peace.ca/oneinthreewomen.htm (http://www.peace.ca/oneinthreewomen.htm) We male-bodied individuals can say we identify with women, we have a woman's soul, or whatever; until we walk vulnerably and forever after in a woman's shoes, we dare hijack their terms for their experience. Understand that it is the term, not your experience or dysphoria, or even Gilmartin's research, that is so offensive.

S

Quote from: Simone Louise on January 23, 2011, 08:14:59 AM
We male-bodied individuals can say we identify with women, we have a woman's soul, or whatever; until we walk vulnerably and forever after in a woman's shoes, we dare hijack their terms for their experience.

I don't understand completely what you mean here. Do you feel it's offensive for transgender MTF people to call themselves women because they came from a male bodied experiences with all the implied rights and privileges?

Quote from: Madelyn on January 23, 2011, 08:45:28 AM
I don't understand completely what you mean here. Do you feel it's offensive for transgender MTF people to call themselves women because they came from a male bodied experiences with all the implied rights and privileges?

I took it this way also.

just sayin'

Quote from: Madelyn on January 23, 2011, 08:45:28 AM
I don't understand completely what you mean here. Do you feel it's offensive for transgender MTF people to call themselves women because they came from a male bodied experiences with all the implied rights and privileges?

I speak for myself alone as a person with a male body unaltered by HRT or surgery (except a TURP that I don't think counts). I believe I said that those who have altered their bodies so that they are for all intents and purposes women, and will be for the rest of their lives, and as such are vulnerable as any other woman, are in a different category. I am certainly not offended if a woman calls herself a woman. Are you?

I am trying to figure out what it means as a male bodied person to know I am a woman (Perhaps, I do find it offensive to call myself a woman). And I sit in the dust at the feet of those of you who have figured it out already.

S

Quote from: rejennyrated on January 23, 2011, 06:42:52 AM
Also for arguing moderator decisions. :police:

At no point did I argue with your decission. As it can be clearly seen in this thread, I embraced the decission.

ANYWAY...

Violet actually sounds like per *might*, at some point, move more towards or completely into the female...   and there's a lot of transsexual lesbians out there.
A friend of mine who's pre-op for strictly financial reasons-she's a biker chick, butcher than me...probably V.O. also...probably a lot of straight cisguys...She's still all woman.

So there's gender and then there's gender presentation.  I actually think androgyny might be a better term to use ATM?
There's some really dumb hetero cisguys who use "I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body," as a lame way to try to pick up women.  Beyond that, not too many people will know what you're talking about.
I read that about 25% of a survey sample of transwomen remained gynephilic after surgery.  I can't remember the number before surgery but I think it was more like 50-60% So changing orientation along with sexual characteristics does happen-for a number of transsexual people.  Not all.

Now if the cisgen female population was 25% gynephilic, I would have gotten lucky with the ladies way more often in my twenties... I am disappoint ;).

Skimming the article about "male lesbian" and I don't think variances in temperament are the same as gender variance.   What Gilmartin's talking about are hetero males who dislike the role society forces them into. Which I can see...it's part of the reservations I have about ever being male...or female.  The roles.  Both genders get forced into them-and males get a lot less leeway when it comes to gender "transgressions."  Of course I also feel weird about not having any roles as an androgyne-no templates.  People who step outside the gender templates get punished, sometimes physically, by the people around them.

But I think Gilmartin's getting the gender and the gender role confused.

Quote from: Jaimey on January 22, 2011, 02:13:43 AM
How about just not replying then?  You aren't answering the OP's question, so why bother posting?  If that is the term that the OP wants to use, that's their business, not yours.  There's no reason to go out of your way to be snotty.  That last sentence was absolutely unnecessary.
And violet_owl, I'm sorry, but I don't know much about hair removal.  A couple posts on this thread just got under my skin.  Pay no mind to the term police.  I'll get off my soapbox now.
Now back to the OP's original question...

This,Really.....I think I counted 6 MTF orFTM that kept this stupid discussion going in Androygyne Talk. It seems that more often than not that when some stupid argueing is going on here that that is generally the case. By that I mean putting down, making negative comments, etc. If You don't like what the topics or discussions here in the Androgyne section, why do you bother to read them and then try to 'correct' the discussion?
   If You don't understand what it is to be Androgyne, why not just read and possibly learn what it is about. Enough of the comments from MTF and FTM are offensive in their nature, yet when an Androgyne tries to explain their position, You try to 'educate' us about who we are.

   I end up staying away from Susans for days, and refrain from making comments and joining into Androgyne discusions for this very reason. Vexing....learn to mind your own business. If you or anyone else wishes to sidetrack the threads here into your own agenda, start a discussion about it somewhere else, or just start another thread. The sometimes militant attitude from some (and I only mean some) that do not belong here shouldn't have to be put up with.

   I come here for discussions that deal with Androgynes. I get very tired of it turning into another discussion by MTF and/or FTM.  And thats not to say that your questions and comments are not appreciated, it's the arguing with an Androgynes point of view.
   I've been coming here for a little over a year now. I've grown to really like the intelligence, sense of humor, compassion, dedication and generosity of sympathy that is always brought to the discussions by so many from everywhere here at Susans. It's what keeps me coming back. It's something that I can always look forward to here.

I'd really like it to stay that way, because so many of you feel like family and I love you all for that.
If I listed everyone that I feel that way about, it would be far longer than what I just wrote...

Amen, atvian.  :eusa_clap:

As androgynes, we often have to play with terms until we figure out what fits us best.  It's a process and we should be encouraging violet_owl in their search.  Perhaps, from what I've read anyway, the term "male-bodied lesbian" would be a better fit, specifically referring to this bit:

QuoteI would clearly like to turn into a woman and then would feel attracted to women. As a man,
I have difficulties with physical interaction with women *because I often do not like the idea of the
woman feeling attracted to me as a man* - I'd prefer her to be attracted to me as a woman.
I don't have too much problems with my male body as long as I can keep it sufficiently androgynous,
and as long as I know the woman is attracted to androgynity.

That, or perhaps, a male-bodied, female-identified androgyne who happens to be gay.  Again, do whatever it is you need to find yourself, violet_owl.  And honestly, when it comes down to it, the labels are only there to help us understand ourselves and each other.  They're a tool and nothing more. 

...and here I told myself I wouldn't respond again.  Sorry.  I hope you can find a solution for the hair situation.

I've come to realize that as an androgyne my advice or experience is not necessarily relevant (or even wanted) on the other sections of the board because my situation is not the same - i'm not walking the same walk.

That's a totally fair attitude, and I understand and respect why people feel this way. It's hard to take advice or to respect someone that's not living the same situation, and has not gone through the same difficulties. So i now read those sections of the board but rarely comment anymore. I respect the prevailing viewpoint.

But - it's gotta work both ways. Is it fair for people that are not walking our walk to come into the androgyne forum and tell us how we should feel and what we should say? When the same courtesy is NOT extended to us?

Jaimey is right - as androgynes our walk is diffferent, and we spend a fair amount of time trying on new terms and discovering what fits and what does not fit. I think that violet_owl is just going through that process. I also think that this situation could have been handled better.

Civil discourse is always welcome here, of course.

Apologies for treading on any toes.

Quote from: Helena on January 24, 2011, 10:59:52 AM
Apologies for treading on any toes.

I'm probably not really the person who should say this (since I wasn't all that involved), but your apology is very much appreciated (even more so because you aren't the one who really needs to do it...at least I don't remember your post being all that volatile).  :)

Helena, I'm the one who should and should've by now. An apology from you isn't needed. I don't think anything that you said or anyone who is on this thread need to apologize, with the exception of myself. And it wasn't that long ago that you graced us with very regular comments and joy around here. I miss you hanging around. I miss Jeenyrated and you going back and forth over things in a way that made them fun and more important because of it.

I was just going through the list of members here from the most posts on down. Out of twenty pages, it averaged I suppose half a dozen people I recognize per page. By that I mean I have at the very least read comments and opinions. I didn't see a single name that I had anything truly bad to say anything about. That's not to say there wasn't times, but I don't recall any that were signicant enough to remember. I just know they are all good people, and in the long run are not going to make everyone happy all the time. But they always try. Sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. We should all know that here, as tough as it is.

I unleased a torrent of frustration in a truly angry moment. I've wanted to go back and just delete it, but that won't change anything. I said it, I'm owning up to it, and it wasn't by any means a proper way to respond to anyone here.

I'm sorry I haven't said anything sooner, I just couldn't quite put together the words in my head so they would come out the way I've been thinking about this whole thing.

I said something along the lines of 'if you don't belong here', that has been at the top of my list of how do I say what I mean.
   Everyone belongs here and everywhere else on here. period. That is apology 1.
Apology 2 is making over the top accusations that MTF and FTM take over this area. Yeah, sometimes a majority participating are just that, but it is never to the exclusion of any of the Androgynes here. I made it sound that way. yeah that was #2.
Yes I take some of the comments personally as an Androgyne, but that is no reason to not comment and just stew about it, which I have done. If someone here can explain it so that it is an understanding, which happens a lot, then no harm done and somebody walks away knowing a little more. I made a rant about it, I apologize, thats 3.

Helena, if you look at the thread, you were the only one who threw out an apology. That's because I think the apology is one that has to come from me.

#4, the last one here. For Everyone here, staff included (where would we be without them) I apologize, I am sorry for my rude and unnecessary comments.

I just hope that this gets to all who need to hear this from me.

The disclaimer I threw in at the bottom of my rant stands. and the list of all of you who have made a difference in my yr here is still longer than what I just wrote.

Thanks for at the least, just reading this far...
Ativan

I do want to say that I think that the frustration you expressed, atvian, as been expressed by others as well and it isn't wrong to feel that way, other than to say that one or two people often ruin it for everyone, case in point: this thread. 

The one thing we all need to remember is that it is our jobs to support each other on our journeys.  I think that both you, atvian, and Helena have apologized for something that neither of you really contributed to and that you both have a maturity that I and others lack.  :)

I really do love the unicorn forest.  :-*

I've removed the Androgyne area from my visible list of forums.
You'll never hear from me again.
I don't expect the same courtesy in return, of course.

Well....I'm sorry you were made to feel that is necessary.
If I don't hear from you here, then I will read your comments as I have in the past in other areas. You do make some well put opinions and information out there.
This thread was just a bad day, I accept it that way.
Here's my personal apology. I did point you out and made a point of singling you out.
It was wrong and I'm sorry for that.

Just like I said, I've been silent trying to put the words together to apologize and that includes you personally. Takes me awhile sometimes.
So check in here in the Unicorn Forest if you'd like. Its hard for some of us here, there isn't any clear cut definitions, and I'm afraid that it makes it even more frustrating to listen to it, especially if you are not of the walk that we walk.

I wouldn't mind hearing from you here, it's usually confusing for us too. I hope we can keep arguments out of discussions, they don't seem to work well with Androgynes, and I will try not to argue with you.

Ativan

Quote from: Jaimey on January 26, 2011, 11:59:47 PM
one or two people often ruin it for everyone, case in point: this thread. 

I really do love the unicorn forest.  :-*

I was one of the one or two people.

And I to love the unicorn forest, it can often be my safety net, just to come here and listen. Onward!  :)

Quote from: ativan on January 26, 2011, 11:52:18 PM
And it wasn't that long ago that you graced us with very regular comments and joy around here. I miss you hanging around. I miss Jeenyrated and you going back and forth over things in a way that made them fun and more important because of it.

Aww, thank you...I really do remember those days quite fondly. It's been a really interesting journey for me when I started out I was pretty much an accidental androgyne...I didn't want to be male and thought I could never be female and as a result didn't feel like either. I remember leaving the house in april last year with a face full of stubble and a bra on and feeling happy when i confused the hell out of some girl :laugh:

Now it's a case of even with three days growth (it needs to grow out for electrolysis :o) I'll still get called miss or love. I do miss hanging out in here cause you guys are some of the best, but as I've progressed on my journey I've felt more and more like a bit of an interloper...probably because as I've grown into who I should always have been i've moved further away from the middle ground of the gender spectrum towards the binary. That actually came as a surprise, i thought i'd just pivot round the middle ground a bit, but i think as i did that someone must have coated the floor in a lo-friction coating because i've slid a lot further from the centre than i thought i would. Hell I thought i'd never been seen dead in a dress, but I absolutely adore them now...suitably alternative, emo or rockerbilly of course :laugh:

But thank you, reading that just made my day.

As one of the quieter unicorns in the forest, I have sat by the sidelines biting my tongue since last Saturday. I have left other forums for this exact same reason. And one for the home team puts a big ol smile on my face.

Quote from: ativan on January 27, 2011, 12:27:20 AM
It was wrong and I'm sorry for that.

Then if you would be so kind, ask for the point of negative reputation you bestowed on me - while you were having a bad day - to be removed.  :)

I had no idea I could do that, I thought about throwing in an applaud, but that doesn't take it away. It's been back there in the tangled mess of my mind, and yes, I need to get that done.
I'm going to look into it right now.
I would also like the staff to reconsider some of their warning, also.

OK Vexing, it is done.

I was only having a thread gone to hell moment, not so much a bad day.
I will assume the same for you?

Ativan

The androgyne part of this forum often has discussions about labels you are not the only person who has used the term "Male Lesbian"  normally there is no issue with the term as long as you can explain it.  Before I had accepted my gender difference I told a number of people that I felt more like a Lesbian then a straight man" I have used a number of terms that people have said "you can't use that" but on this forum most people are fairly happy leting you identify how ever you feel right but I very rarely post outside the Androgyne areas because people outside don't accept and understand us

Jeez, people.  Vicious.  You know, there are only so many transpeople in the world.  I kinda feel like we should be supporting each other instead of ripping each other's heads off.

This thread just will. not. die. will it? :)

Probably not. I apologized.  just to be civil and do the right thing.

I'm still waiting for the same from her. She claims to have hidden this board from her and will never come back, but I seriously don't think that is competely true.

I left the door wide open. It will stay that way. In effect, no this thread isn't going to die.

I hope it doesn't.

I think it also came down to the time for non-binaries to speak out about how binaries can make hurtful and contradicting statements in this section.

What I stated in my apologies stands as I wrote them.

Jaimey has started a very good topic addressing issues about this thread. I hope that it takes off and the air can be cleared here in the forest.

Always have a better day...

 :police: Ahem... I don't really think we should be attacking Vexing - as you may have notice she hasn't been around for some days now, not because she has been banned, but because she has decided to take a break of her own volition. I believe she has asked for her account to be deleted but don't quote me on that. I dare say she will be back in due course, but until then please lets just try to put this one to bed.  Thanks folks :police:

I don't really think of it as attacking, as it is a reasonable expectation.
I'm trying to take a break myself. I really have a lot of things I should be doing.

Always, a better day

A note to all - users do not have the ability to retract smites. They may later applaud the same member returning their rep to their original number but that's as far as it goes. The rep log is reviewed regularly and inappropriate or unwarranted smites (as judged by staff) are reversed. Smites and applauds are all voluntary. Members are never under any obligation to attempt to neutralize or undo a smite they gave regardless of apology, cessation of disagreement, or anything else.

Warnings given by mods are only subject to retraction by Susan or the current forum administrator. Asking mods to reconsider is a violation of rules 2 and 20.
However, this is just a note and no warning will be given this time. Further violations in this thread (or elsewhere) will result in warnings or other appropriate action.

Quote from: violet_owl on January 20, 2011, 05:18:48 PM
So basically, this threat is about "male lesbians"/male androgynes who primarily
hate their male body hair, but other than that can easily pass as somewhat
feminine heterosexuals.

I don't have a problem with the terminology of male lesbianism.  I have more of a problem with the practicality of achieving it.

The problem with sexual characteristics is that you can't pick and choose.  It is not a salad bar.  If you try to take hormones to become a feminized male, it essentially makes you less male by definition.  Hormonally, androgens and estrogens work in certain ratios which determine their effects on the cells of the body.  If you try to reduce androgens (even without attempting to increase estrogens) you have changed that ratio of chemicals in the body.  So the real question is, exactly how much "male" are you, and how much "lesbian" are you?  For example, if you started growing breasts, would that be all right?  If you blocked your hormones and had reduced sexual functioning, would that be acceptable?  If you began to look like a she-male with curves and a feminine pattern of fat distribution, would that be agreeable?

If you alter your hormone levels, you will inevitably get some changes, and reduction in body/facial hair will almost certainly not be on the top of the list of changes you are likely to experience.  In fact, facial hair tends to be very resilient to hormone treatments.  Maybe the hairs would get lighter, and maybe they would grow back slower, but you would probably have to alter your hormone levels a lot to make any significant dent in your facial hair problem.  How feminine are you willing to become in order to try to change the aspects of your body that you do not like?  You have already stated that you don't want to be stuck as some half-man/woman looking person.  But the more you play around with either reducing androgens or increasing estrogens, the more like that person you are going to become.

If you try to alter your hormones, how much feminization are you willing to tolerate in your attempt to demasculinize the areas of your body that you do not like?  If you do not have an answer to that question, then you need to do a lot more thinking before you make any decisions.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 29, 2011, 05:01:25 PM
So the real question is, exactly how much "male" are you, and how much "lesbian" are you? ....

If you try to alter your hormones, how much feminization are you willing to tolerate in your attempt to demasculinize the areas of your body that you do not like?  If you do not have an answer to that question, then you need to do a lot more thinking before you make any decisions.

Did you see this later posting by the OP?

QuoteI would clearly like to turn into a woman... .... I am stuck between
two unappealing options. Either stay with the current status quo, or consider a transformation,
which will lead to a state of my body that will cause even more problems - I decidedly do not
want a male body that has been transformed into a female body, I either want a female body
with no signs of fomer masculinity - or else I prefer the androgynous male body.  So summa
summarum, it's 80 to 20 for the androgynous male body (versus altered body), but 100 to 0 for
the "authentic" female body versus the male body. And 0 to 100 for a TS body versus a
fully masculinized body.

Elsewhere, in another forum on this site, a woman who transitioned decades ago posted:

QuoteThere are certainly simple medical procedures that would out me very quickly I know that.

That is what bothered the OP of this thread--you could for ever after tell that this she had once been a he.

S

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 29, 2011, 05:01:25 PM
I don't have a problem with the terminology of male lesbianism.  I have more of a problem with the practicality of achieving it.

The problem with sexual characteristics is that you can't pick and choose.  It is not a salad bar.  If you try to take hormones to become a feminized male, it essentially makes you less male by definition.

So the real question is, exactly how much "male" are you, and how much "lesbian" are you?  For example, if you started growing breasts, would that be all right?  If you blocked your hormones and had reduced sexual functioning, would that be acceptable?  If you began to look like a she-male with curves and a feminine pattern of fat distribution, would that be agreeable?

If you alter your hormone levels, you will inevitably get some changes, and reduction in body/facial hair will almost certainly not be on the top of the list of changes you are likely to experience.  In fact, facial hair tends to be very resilient to hormone treatments.  Maybe the hairs would get lighter, and maybe they would grow back slower, but you would probably have to alter your hormone levels a lot to make any significant dent in your facial hair problem.  How feminine are you willing to become in order to try to change the aspects of your body that you do not like?

You have already stated that you don't want to be stuck as some half-man/woman looking person.  But the more you play around with either reducing androgens or increasing estrogens, the more like that person you are going to become.

If you try to alter your hormones, how much feminization are you willing to tolerate in your attempt to demasculinize the areas of your body that you do not like?  If you do not have an answer to that question, then you need to do a lot more thinking before you make any decisions.

I have to turn the notification off on topics. I can't seem to ignore my emails.

I am not trying to take your statements out of context, I did edit them down to what stood out to me in your overall opinion. I get much of what you are trying to say, with the exception of one thing. I appreciate your input, I hope that some find it useful. Some of it I can't. This is just my own personal opinion, I am not trying to represent non-binaries as a whole.

   This is an example of what I had in my rant. It so smacks of a put-down/warning about being non-binary.

  If you take hormones you will be less male? You wouldn't be less anything. You would be more female. Or you could have stated maybe, less male and more female. But hormones will never make you less anything.

   She-male? She-male? You try to reduce it down to something pornographic? Really? Or is it just surveyor symbols? (I wasn't going to leave that in, but I think it makes a point.) The only time I ever heard that term used here was a year ago, and not in the Androgyne sections. Personally I find that statement extremely offensive coming from a binary woman. Do you consider that everyone then, that has some or all female physical attributes with the exception of also having a penis a she-male? Should non-binaries refer to those in physical transition as she-males while in transition?? Would that be proper to you? Would you find it OK if I referred to Binaries in transition that way? I don't and I won't. Ever. I have never heard it used that way around here, with that intent.

   Facial hair can't be stopped with hormones alone. We know that. Laser, etc. is also needed. If Violet_Owl has concerns enough to ask about it, I'm sure that the answers will be along those lines.

   Was it some half-man/woman, or did you mean some man/woman? Are you refering to some non-binaries as only half a man and a woman combination? I want to think you meant man/woman, but I still feel the initial pain somewhat from when I read that.

   The last statement is more of the same, sounding like a put down from a binary, but it is entirely OK, it just sounds that way I suppose from what was written before it.

   If Violet_Owl does not have sufficient answers to that question, it is not more thinking that is so much required, as it is in asking questions in seeking the answers.

   Which was the original intent, after a description that should be respected, of Violet_Owl.

In my Opinion, not to be confused with IMHO.
Always, have a better day
Ativan

Right, I'm locking this thread under rule 15 of the TOS. I think people are starting to take things way too personally here.

Apologies to violet owl for not really getting the answers they wanted

any way, for reference TOS 15

15. Items under discussion shall be confined to the subject matter at hand, members shall avoid taking the other users posts personally, and/or posting anything that can reasonably be construed as a personal attack.

Helena