Exactly. Erasure. Every single persons experience is unique, labels are only useful descriptors if their meaning is clear and agreed upon. I'm totally willing to accept that my experience falls under the transgender umbrella, but only insofar as it refers to sociological conditions. It's not a useful term to describe my experience as an individual because it has no medical connotations. I'm a woman with a transsexual past. That medical term implies treatment of a condition. People can identify as transsexual and not undergo any medical procedures at all, that is absolutely fine and in no way contradicts a persons right to identify as transsexual (I prefer the term transsexed, if we're being picky)
A  perfect example of this happened to me the other day, I had to out my transsexual past to someone. She looked at me with total confusion and asked "Are you a hermaphrodite?" I laughed and said "No, and people don't really use that word anymore...." My point is, I explained I have a transsexual past. I've had medical interventions that have altered the physicality of my body. This is not the same experience as a drag performer or recreational cross dresser or an intersexed person or a genderqueer or a butch or a femme or any other descriptor one cares to use.
I'm not for a second saying that takin hormones or having surgeries excludes or includes anyone. The point is saying "I have a transsexual past" is shorthand for "I've undergone, or perhaps intend to undergo, various medical interventions to make my body more closely aligned to how I feel as a human"

It's not political, it's not separatist, it's not exclusionary, its  simply using language to acknowledge someone's right to self definition and actualisation.

As a scientist and medic I and my colleagues use terms to describe conditions. The use of them is that we can understand what each other means without debate.

If I say a patient has type 1 diabetes I know what it means. If I say I am transgender they know what it means.

It does not invalidate me as a woman or a transgender man as a man. I just describes a condition I was born with.

Reading anymore than that into it is banal IMO.

Quote from: Stochastic on December 19, 2013, 05:10:43 AM
I find that the term "transgender" rolls off of the tongue much easier than "much stronger feelings than crossdresser but have not transitioned and still trying to find a functioning place in society". That is why I prefer the term.

Julia

Please be careful with these comments. Cross-dressers are very welcome on this site as are all people. We have no judgement values on validity.

Cindy

Quote from: Cindy on December 19, 2013, 05:52:15 AM


Please be careful with these comments. Cross-dressers are very welcome on this site as are all people. We have no judgement values on validity.

Cindy

One of issues is that actually there seems to be that cross-dressers actually are another sort of umbrella term which has no specific criteria... I can pretty much imagine some sub-types of cross-dressing which would most probably not be welcome on this site at all... I mean the category which is absolutely not into anything related to gender identity or should we rather say gender expression? but rather, when the activity becomes a sort of sexual orientation. I was very surprised when I read the classic description of a cross-dresser, because it totally did not match my perception, which has been made by media as well as from what I am seeing on a daily basis on various trans*related advertisment boards. Or is there any specific difference between CD and gay/bi ->-bleeped-<- - the latter being only into this for purpose of sexual intercourse with guys?
And the same can be said about transsexuals as well (also, anything *sexual immediately has that immediate connotation).

Quote from: ♡ Emily ♡ on December 19, 2013, 06:05:14 AM
One of issues is that actually there seems to be that cross-dressers actually are another sort of umbrella term which has no specific criteria... I can pretty much imagine some sub-types of cross-dressing which would most probably not be welcome on this site at all... And the same can be said about transsexuals as well (also, anything *sexual immediately has that immediate connotation).

Speak for yourself, please, I welcome anyone here. Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 19, 2013, 06:09:06 AM
Speak for yourself, please, I welcome anyone here. Hugs, Devlyn

Would You also welcome an explicitly straightforward ->-bleeped-<- (not an admirer!), who is open about only being into pre-op girls with all the following?

Besides, there is a huge difference between accepting individuals and groups. One might be very accepting with a group, per se, but still have issues with specific individuals - which is perfectly normal and acceptable too, because we all are human beings with our own flaws and benefits. But it is perfectly OK to be accepting and non-accepting at the same time.

Quote from: Cindy on December 19, 2013, 04:38:10 AM
As a scientist and medic I and my colleagues use terms to describe conditions. The use of them is that we can understand what each other means without debate.

If I say a patient has type 1 diabetes I know what it means. If I say I am transgender they know what it means.

It does not invalidate me as a woman or a transgender man as a man. I just describes a condition I was born with.

Problem is Cindy, as I have tried to point out, it doesn't, or at least not very well, and/or to the level of detail that might be conveyed by the Type 1 Diabetes label that you cited.

The inclusion of a vast range of different conditions under the TG term, has made its precise medical application rather uncertain, and in fact in discussions we've already had in our course, the conclusion is that broad terms like this have quite limited application.

I suppose the nearest equivalent might be cancer, but again the differences between say a papilloma, a sarcoma, a myeloma, an adenoma, and a carcinoma are quite extensive. To merely say "cancer" may broadly define the disease as one of improperly regulated cell division but there is also much that it does not tell one... and quite a lot of that is stuff one needs to know before concluding that one understands.

Thus it is with transgender. It is so broad a term, that application of the label may even lead to more questions and misapprehensions than one might have had before one started. Thus my contention that it is not a terribly useful label either medically or in any other way, because it mainly seems to promote confusion.

Quote from: ♡ Emily ♡ on December 19, 2013, 06:13:12 AM
Would You also welcome an explicitly straightforward ->-bleeped-<- (not an admirer!), who is open about only being into pre-op girls with all the following?

Sure, as long as they follow the rules, which state that we aren't a dating site. Here is the first sentence of the TOS:

" Every one is welcome at Susan's Place provided you follow a few basic rules"

You can brush up on the rules here: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html

Hugs, Devlyn

We protect members from ->-bleeped-<-s. We ban trolls. We ban haters.

The Mods work pretty hard to keep this site free for people of any gender issue.

I was publicly loathed when I worked the streets as a cross dressing prostitute. I'm only now dealing with it.

I advise great caution in continuing this conversation in public.

PM me if you have issues

Cindy

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 19, 2013, 06:18:24 AM
Sure, as long as they follow the rules, which state that we aren't a dating site. Here is the first sentence of the TOS:

" Every one is welcome at Susan's Place provided you follow a few basic rules"

You can brush up on the rules here: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html

Hugs, Devlyn

One of paradox with all kinds of rules is that they can be easily bent and manipulated by knowledgeable and enthusiastic person. Also rules cannot provide an exhaustive set of replies to all kinds of situations, thus allowing to disregard going into the substance of issue.

Also, I am not going to post anything more in this thread, because this is one of those threads, which we most probably wont see in the next morning...

Quotetransgender...  ...is so broad a term, that application of the label may even lead to more questions and misapprehensions than one might have had before one started. Thus my contention that it is not a terribly useful label either medically or in any other way...

Quoted for truth and justice.

And yes I am close to locking this thread.

It upsets me to do so.

Why are transgender/transsexual whatever people so unaccepting of each other?

Cindy

Quote from: Cindy on December 19, 2013, 06:41:28 AM
And yes I am close to locking this thread.

It upsets me to do so.

Why are transgender/transsexual whatever people so unaccepting of each other?

Cindy

I will post contrary to what I stated before.
We are. We are accepting towards each other as a group. It is the individual experience and individual representatives which have issues. I have no issues with cross-dressers, drag-kings, androgynous and many others. I have issues when people say that they are Z and act in Z-manner, whereas they are clearly X - and this is because they they dont know themselves where they are at - which is mostly because term "transgender" is too broad, loosing its edge and purpose. And the biggest issue is - that they - and others - will assume that because of example of "Z", everyone else - X, Y, W - are the same.
And btw, term "transsexual" has no value or meaning as well. I have seen many examples of people considering that they are transsexuals or tgirls - but they are essentially not.

Quote from: Cindy on December 19, 2013, 06:41:28 AM
And yes I am close to locking this thread.

It upsets me to do so.

Why are transgender/transsexual whatever people so unaccepting of each other?

Cindy

Forgive me Cindy but I honestly can't see how questioning the specificity and usefulness of a definition amounts to lack of acceptance...

I do understand that some in this thread have wandered into other areas and personally I don't want to go there, but I do think there is a valid question here if we can just steer away from the emotive stuff about validity.

The fact that I do not perceive myself to be the same as someone else does not mean that I see them as invalid - just different - and to quote my late partner "to be different is not wrong." However to quote myself "I don't mind being hated for what I am, but I'm damned if I want to be loved as something I am not."

OK.

Thank you Emily.

I'm always happy to listen to an explanation.


Cindy

Quote from: Doctorwho? on December 19, 2013, 06:49:58 AM
Forgive me Cindy but I honestly can't see how questioning the specificity and usefulness of a definition amounts to lack of acceptance...

I do understand that some in this thread have wandered into other areas and personally I don't want to go there, but I do think there is a valid question here if we can just steer away from the emotive stuff about validity.

The fact that I do not perceive myself to be the same as someone else does not mean that I see them as invalid - just different - and to quote my late partner "to be different is not wrong." However to quote myself "I don't mind being hated for what I am, but I'm damned if I want to be loved as something I am not."

Honey you know how much I love you!!

But I have to draw a Moderators line.

That is my job.

Cindy

And also, when we at least have - very questionable - medical definition of transsexualism (ICD F64.0) - which is, btw, bound to be changed by next edition of the ICD, I would assume that "tgirl" is also covered by umbrella term. Honestly, I have totally no clue as to who/what is considered to be a tgirl.

So, how about gender-varianted people / gender-identity-varianted-persons (and dont kill me for abusing English language - it is not my native tongue and for that reason I dont care ). GVP... almost sounds like GDP...

Dr who you make a point, but the broad problem with broad terms is laziness. People use them and will always and forever use them cause they are easy, no ones gonna remenber millions of health conditions just to be politically correct, just like no ones gonna remenber all the terms under the umbrella of transgender.

Huh. Homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual etc. are all descriptive scientific terms. I think.

I assume the same with transgender. I mean, what else do I use? I mean, I assume that transgender means having a psychological gender different from the bodily gender, at least at birth.

I actually prefer the term "transgender" to "transexual".  In my opinion, transexual sounds too sexual and doesn't sit comfortably in my head.  But that's just me!  The rest of you are free to apply whatever terms you like to yourself