Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

can dysphoria change?

Started by Rachael, July 26, 2007, 04:22:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nero

Quote from: regina on July 29, 2007, 10:25:28 PMI would hope no one would suggest that because one person did drugs and another didn't, that the first person's anguish was obviously worse. People get into addictions for a lot of reasons, genetic and social.
Holy Mackerel! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Can I not say anything without you pouncing on it?
LOL I don't have hidden messages or agendas in every word I write, ok?
You said something about why I'm not on HRT or something.  Inferring that I'm not 'genuine' or some such.
I just told you what I've been doing for the last decade. I explained that HRT wasn't my top priority, that's all.
I don't know what gave you the idea I was implying it as some kind of dysphoria criteria or some such.
I'm probably 1 out of 2 or 3 people on this site who was that heavy into that lifestyle. All the guys I ran with were non-trans heterosexual men, I never implied addiction was somehow a TS thing or some such.
Almost all my buddies are in the ground. In fact, one just got put there last week. When you live fast, you die fast.
So the last thing I would ever ever do is glorify drug addiction.

Posted on: July 30, 2007, 02:20:59 AM
Quote from: regina on July 29, 2007, 10:25:28 PM
Quote from: Nero on July 29, 2007, 07:29:40 PM

I'm sorry that you felt hurt by something I must've said. I never labeled anyone anything, until I did have one person specifically order my diagnosis. So may I ask why you felt hurt by my posts on the thread and what was said that upset you?

Nero, you gave many examples of ftms who were bugging you who weren't really men in your book... they are still women (remember your 'list.') You said you were primary because you couldn't live as a female at all while secondaries could live in their assigned gender because their GD wasn't as intense. Didn't you state that? I don't want to misquote you, but I swear you said that in many different ways.

I never said it to their face or anything. I don't do that okay. I'm not so heartless as you might think. I've had TS tell me all day long that they pass 100%, when the reality is there's no way in hades they pass 10%. I don't say anything.

There are ftms who I don't believe are men (and mtfs I don't believe are women). What the hell am I supposed to think when a guy is all decked out as male, maybe he's even been on T for ages, and he just plain acts like a girl?
Does not relate to other men in the slightest, is offended by what guys talk about and promptly changes the subject to the 'patriarchy' , his speech is 'affected', he calculates every step he takes, every word out his mouth, every mannerism, before answering any question, you can just hear the wheels turning in his head wondering what the appropriate 'guy' response is - socialization can't have that drastic effect on a person (especially somebody who's supposedly been living a while as male).

I mean sure, we all have certain things of our birth gender we've picked up (pretty difficult not to), but aside from unlearning a few small things, being your target gender should come natural. If you are in fact the gender you claim.
The biggest tell tale - how they react to things. They may have the speech, walk, and mannerisms down flat, but react to everything as their birth gender.
Come on, people! Am I the only one who's witnessed this?
It's blatantly obvious to me. I'm used to being around all guys. There are guys I get along with and guys I don't.
But there's a huge difference in a personality clash with a guy and attempting to kick it with a 'female' who says he's a guy. You can just tell. Really.

Tell me you've never met a TS (even one who transitioned years ago) that underneath all the clothes, the presentation, the surgeries, the affected mannerisms, etc. behaved nothing like their target gender.
I mean this goes back to Shakespearean days. Anyone can put on the garb and 'act' like the opposite gender.
It doesn't mean they are the gender they're impersonating.
I find that the ones who are obviously playing a 'role' ( extremely affected mannerisms, walk, etc. obvious weighing of every word to make certain it's something their target gender would say, etc) are less likely to actually be their target gender.
Quote from: regina on July 29, 2007, 10:25:28 PMYou said you were primary because you couldn't live as a female at all while secondaries could live in their assigned gender because their GD wasn't as intense. Didn't you state that? I don't want to misquote you, but I swear you said that in many different ways.

I did say that. I firmly believe that. How can people ignore the vast difference between a transwoman who was born with severe GID, had severe problems because she acted like a girl, was reprimanded for being feminine, was never 'one of the guys', and whose emotional growth was severely stunted because she could not grow up, she could not be a man, she could not fit into the world of men, etc, etc, etc.

and

A transwoman who admits she felt very little to no GID, never thought about it much, displayed no gender varience (trying on mom's dress once or twice doesn't count), had a perfectly normal childhood aside from maybe an occasional thought that they wished they could wear what the girls' wear or look like a girl, etc. Had a perfectly normal life as a man, was accepted as a man by other men and was a successful family man?

The argument that the latter transwoman was 'stronger', 'of greater character', had a 'winning personality', had a 'high IQ', {insert excuse here}, is absolutely ludicrous and  cruelly minimizes what the first transwoman had to go through because of her severe GID and gender varience.

I don't understand why so many transwomen like the latter feel the need to claim a label they don't fit. I mean a Primary had the experience they had, a Secondary had the experience they had. What the hell is the big deal about admitting that there are different types of transsexuals?
Why in Sam's Hill would a Secondary be jealous that they didn't experience severe soul crushing childhood GID and the inevitable consequences of not being able to 'fake' their birth gender?
That makes absolutely no sense to me. Do Secondaries think Primaries wanted it that way? I sure as hell didn't want it that way. I spent every single day of my life wondering why I might as well be an alien from another planet. Desperately envious of normal kids. I would have sold my soul to have a normal childhood. I was denied everything I ever wanted. I would have given anything to be a normal kid. Or at least treated like one.

I seriously doubt that if a fairy godmother appeared to a Secondary and showed them the future and said right now you're Secondary, but if I change you now to a Primary, you will go through living hell, never experience even a somewhat normal childhood, be denied a proper education, and be hounded about your gender varient behaviour up until your time of transition, but for all this you will win the Primary badge! After all, that's all that's important to a TS.
The Primary badge! You can wear it proudly, and let everyone know how elitist and superior and more of a man/woman you are because you're PRIMARY! Congratulations, kid. You've just hit the jackpot! What do you say?
Shall I wave my wand and make you a Primary?

I seriously doubt any kid would choose that. I mean would anyone go through that in order to not be called Secondary?



Incidentally, there are exceptions to every rule. There are several members here who do not fit the 'severe GID and inability to assimilate rule' but who are in fact Primary.
This is due to the fact they are wood sprites - female spirit beings born into human bodies.
A wood sprite exudes a powerful female aura and enchants everyone she meets. No one can find much fault with a wood sprite thus her ability to live undetected. This ability is not exclusive to TS wood sprites. Non-TS wood sprites are able to live undetected as normal women.
Few have the rare ability to detect a wood sprite.


Nero was the Forum Admin here at Susan's Place for several years up to the time of his death.
  •  

Rachael

gina: get your knickers out of your bum, nero isnt trying to wind you up, or say your not 'propper' ok?

i agree with him here, the primary secondery crap is too much.
if one is primary, they transition at a certain age, secondery, beyond a certain age, dysphoria can arrive at different times, be triggered, OR have to be suppressed (the mind can do powerful things).
if one is secondery? so what?
primary? so what?

our transitions are made no easier by names... thier categoriesed because society needs categories. so does the medical establishment.
s**t happens guys.

I tell you what, if i could manage to MATURE, without this pain and suffereing, i would, if i could get my education, without loosing my parents and family, without interupting my studdies, being forced to grow up too fast, missing my childhood. i was robbed. its like mental rape. its not my choice to be like this, so count your effing lucky stars you got to get through this stage first.
  •  

Sarah Louise

Some of these threads get so crazy that they just suck all my energy and all the life out of me.


Sarah L.
Nameless here for evermore!;  Merely this, and nothing more;
Tis the wind and nothing more!;  Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore!!"
  •  

Rachael

what a very helpful and totally energy sapping post...

R :police:
  •  

Nero

Quote from: regina on July 30, 2007, 10:19:13 AM
And I know I never inferred you're not genuine. I said "I can imagine how other transmen who you identify as 'not male' who are on T will judge you because you're not on it yet make the claim of being 'primary'. That's what I said. And are you really denying that's not the case? That you saying this doesn't bug a lot of people in that situation?
To be honest, I could care less what other transmen think about me. The guys on this board are cool and a couple guys elsewhere on the net, but frankly, I have yet to be impressed by a single one I've met in person. Now that may have something to do with the large gay and lesbian population in my area, and it may be that a lot of the ones I meet here iding as ftm are in fact butch, not male (whether they admit it or not ::)). I really would like to meet some of the guys on this board, but we're talking different countries here.

The thing about T is that a lot of butches take it to gain a more masculine look or whatever but still identify as a butch female, not male. So how the hell can that be the measure of anything?

To be honest, I could give a rat's behind what anyone thinks about the choices I've made. I could give a rat's behind whether someone's upset by what I do with my body. You know, I learned at a very young age that people are going to think what they want about me regardless of anything I do or say. Oh sure, I'm insulted by ->-bleeped-<-s and harpies trying to label me or tell me the 'right' way to be trans, but it doesn't change what I know about who I am.
And I sure as hell don't give a damn what some guy my age with no male experience who's hid behind women's skirts all his life and spouts off about the patriarchy at regaular intervals thinks. Being on T don't make anyone a man.

Posted on: July 30, 2007, 11:17:10 AM
Quote from: regina on July 30, 2007, 10:19:13 AM
Quote from: Nero on July 30, 2007, 04:53:05 AM
Holy Mackerel! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Can I not say anything without you pouncing on it?
LOL I don't have hidden messages or agendas in every word I write, ok?

Oh, chill out Nero, I'm not a harpy out to get you. Everyone has an agenda (moi included), you're just not as good at hiding yours as you think you are. I have no idea why you felt the need to tell me about your addiction past, it's not like I pried it out of you or anything, now did I? It's your own private history and, while I'm nosy and a snoop, I don't need to have people go over their personal hells for my own little private crusades. I'm sorry you had to deal with it and I'm glad you're past having to actively deal with it.
You should know by now with the amount of posting we've done, that I'm not an overly reserved individual. Everybody except maybe some newly registered people knows about that huge chunk of my life. It was my entire adult life.
I was still getting clean when I first posted to this board. There are threads and posts scattered all over this board about it. I don't care. I don't use my name or picture.   
Nero was the Forum Admin here at Susan's Place for several years up to the time of his death.
  •  

Nero

Quote from: regina on July 30, 2007, 12:12:06 PM
Quote from: Nero on July 30, 2007, 11:32:59 AM
To be honest, I could care less what other transmen think about me.

Nobody says you have to care. I was suggesting that you shouldn't be surprised it you get a lot of 'tude from them because of your disinterest. That's all.
'Disenchanted' is the right word. Like I said, I was unimpressed by the ones in my area. There are ones I've talked to on the net and by phone that are pretty cool, but it's doubtful I'll ever meet them. The ones in my area are sort of this clique who all have a background as militant feminists (or so it comes off), who have bigotted views on what defines a transman. For one thing, a transman should be hetero, a transman should be a virgin (in the vaginal sense),etc etc etc. And then most of them man-bash and I just can't relate to any of that. They're also not what I'm used to when kicking it with guys.

Quote from: regina on July 30, 2007, 12:12:06 PM
On the Internet, anyway. But I get this feeling you're not the same in person. Am I right or wrong?
Wrong. Though sometimes I wish I could keep my mouth shut. Everyone who knows me knows full well how I feel about every topic under the sun, the details of every great adventure I've been through, the fact that I'm way less PC in person than online, and knows what the topic of the month is - and the topic of the month pretty much is debated for a month.

Quote from: regina on July 30, 2007, 12:12:06 PM

QuoteI'm insulted by ->-bleeped-<-s and harpies

Please answer with the most appropriate response. Gina M. is:
(a) an *sshole
(b) a harpy
(c) all of the above
(d) none of the above


(e) I plead the fifth
Nero was the Forum Admin here at Susan's Place for several years up to the time of his death.
  •  

Nero

Quote from: regina on July 29, 2007, 10:25:28 PM
Quote from: Nero on July 29, 2007, 07:29:40 PM

I'm sorry that you felt hurt by something I must've said. I never labeled anyone anything, until I did have one person specifically order my diagnosis. So may I ask why you felt hurt by my posts on the thread and what was said that upset you?


People can pretend that primary/secondary don't carry loaded judgments or are somehow equal but that's very unbelievable. This is an old time way of 'ranking' trans people. Moreover, many researchers used it to even define the reasons for transitioning. Primary were 'real' transsexuals (whatever that means) while secondaries were transvestic fetishists. Just bringing up those categories implies people fit into a slot and there is strong judgment about the secondary slot. That's what bothers me... you dredged up a topic that is sure to hurt people's feelings and get them having to defend their transitions. For whatever reasons, you felt the need to bring it up, you could see the range of emotions, defensiveness and hurt it brought up. I know you don't feel you were doing it to hurt anyone and were trying to help people understand who you are (and, honestly, to strike back at people you thought were tormenting you) but I don't put much stock in people's 'innocent intentions' if someone can't fess up to all the ramifications their actions produce.

My issue with the behavior of a number of people on this site is they make statements they think are discussing issues, but the way it's presented and the subject itself are put downs of anyone who can easily read themselves into the broad generalizations presented. (eg. anyone bothering to discuss this topic is wasting their time, people who are concerned about this issue are childish, people who worry about this aren't the 'real thing') Somehow they think this isn't a personal attack and that's so wrong. It's a generalized attack on a very personal issue, but it hurts every bit as much. People think that because they aren't addressing someone directly that they're having an honest debate of thoughtful issues. And in these situations, I often see defensiveness, put downs, passive aggressiveness and thinly disguised innuendo. Sorry, but I don't respect that behavior... .

Gina M.

Posted on: July 29, 2007, 10:19:52 PM
Quote from: zythyra on July 29, 2007, 08:14:07 PM
QuoteLike I said, I really believe the TS community as a whole puts way too much stock on HRT. I mean does non-passable equal Secondary?

Now, everyone knows that non-passable is considerably lower on the food chain than secondary TS  >:D  :D

zythyra

If you've ever read about what constitutes 'secondary', and discussions of this overgeneralization, there is a persistent undercurrent that these people are not passable, will never really be accepted as women (or men), are behaviorally incapable of ever assimilating to their 'psychological gender' and often appear out and out foolish trying to pretend they're women. For many, many writers on this subject, primary = passable, while secondary = never passable. One can try and smooth it out, but that's one of the 'primary' assumptions of this entire theory and how clinicians should deal with them.

ciao,
Gina M.
Quote from: regina on July 30, 2007, 12:33:00 AM
Quote from: Wendy on July 29, 2007, 11:37:56 PM
Quote from: regina on July 29, 2007, 10:25:28 PM
If you've ever read about what constitutes 'secondary', and discussions of this overgeneralization, there is a persistent undercurrent that these people are not passable, will never really be accepted as women (or men), are behaviorally incapable of ever assimilating to their 'psychological gender' and often look out and out foolish trying to pretend they're women (or men). For many, many writers on this subject, primary = passable, while secondary = never passable. One can try and smooth it out, but that's one of the 'primary' assumptions of this entire theory and how clinicians should deal with them.

My interpretation of the above paragraph is that if a person will never be passable and is very self-conscious then their perception to "never fit into society" is very real.


"Secondary" is a very sweeping categorization of people who don't fall into a proscribed group... "primaries." Either you're a member of the primary group or you're thrown into the secondary pile. There is an assumption embedded into descriptions of 'secondary transitioners" that they don't pass and are much less likely to every become socialized as women, be 'convincing' as their target gender or live as women. Moreover, the description of secondary transitioners almost always hinges around how 'successfully" these people were able to live in their assigned gender (until their late-blooming gender dysphoria appeared). I find this description completely false for the majority of people who transitioned after the age of 30 (for a wide variety of reasons).

Another interesting reality about this system of categorizing and clinical attitudes towards transwomen is that 'secondary' has, historically, rarely been used to describe ftms— it's almost always applied to mtfs and I feel one of the reasons why this loaded, very judgmental term is ever used is exactly as a warning to those who would transverse gender boundaries away from being male. The resulting action will be ridicule... look at the men in dresses and how foolish they are. I don't believe ftms generally encounter this b.s. because their transitions don't carry as much societal baggage.

Wendy, I'm not getting what you're saying here (I'm tired)? Do you basically agree with the traditional description of secondary transitioners? That's what I was trying to describe in that paragraph.
ciao,
Gina M.

Hmmm So now you want to talk about all this. But you never posted in the thread I created especially for you.
Which specifically addresses the stereotypes and the misconceptions of Primary vs Secondary.
And it's feelings, experiences, and emotions only. No theories, no DSM quotes, no terms or definitions were permitted.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,16434.0.html
Nero was the Forum Admin here at Susan's Place for several years up to the time of his death.
  •  

mavieenrose

Wow, don't know how I missed this thread!  just spent some time getting up to speed and just want to say:

Nero : you can call me 'doll' anytime! 
Regina : secondary, schmeckendry, you're a great woman!

As regards primary and secondary, maybe it was just a clever invention by psychiatrists to get us to fight amongst ourselves rather than against their out-dated, half-baked, over-simplistic theories about what it is to be differently gendered !  (Just a thought...)

MVER XXX
  •  

Rachael

isnt primary and secondery about bloody age? not ->-bleeped-<-ability?
  •  

Nero

Quote from: Rachael on July 30, 2007, 03:17:18 PM
isnt primary and secondery about bloody age? not ->-bleeped-<-ability?
Well now, that's the accepted definition. I think back in the day when it was first created, it was more about a primary being someone who has felt this their whole life, and did have the TS condition and a secondary being just a middle aged man with  ->-bleeped-<-. But that could also be a 20 year old guy with  ->-bleeped-<-.

If literally all the labels denoted was age of onset or transition or whatever, that would be fine.
But the Secondary label does carry the 'not really a woman, a man with a sick fetish' implication.
I started caring about these labels when I would encounter Primaries who transitioned in their 20s who for all intents and purposes no matter how they looked were their birth sex.
And later transitioners who were exactly like their target gender.

So to me there has to be a distinction there. And no matter the childhood behaviour or whatever - the real difference to me is that there are TS who actually are their target gender and TS who are like actors on stage portraying the opposite gender. It doesn't come natural.
And that is regardless of transitional age. I've met transwomen who transitioned in their 20s who simply were not women - I don't know what they were. Perhaps androgyne in confusion or a feminine man.

But Primary and Secondary are always going to be correlated with age which is fine. it's a valid distinction.
But we need a distinction between TS who were literally born into the opposite gender body and TS who for whatever reason woke up one day and decided thye'd rather be the opposite sex.
Because to me that is a far bigger distinction than age.
Nero was the Forum Admin here at Susan's Place for several years up to the time of his death.
  •  

Rachael

but to society, arnt ALL transexuals men who have a sick desire to be women?
  •  

Shana A

QuoteBut we need a distinction between TS who were literally born into the opposite gender body and TS who for whatever reason woke up one day and decided thye'd rather be the opposite sex.

Do we really need a distinction between early or late onset, or primary and secondary? Obviously, if a person's feelings of dysphoria are intense, the treatment is the same... So the question arises as to whether this classification is even necessary at all.

zythyra
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

Rachael

i find it funny, i mean,these people know so little, educating them might kill thier tiny brains...
  •  

Keira


Nero, I totally disagree with the "need" for that distinction. Why?
I don't know why that's so incredibly important for anyone?
What about those that had increasing GID all their lives, they wouldn't fit either definition.
I think this issue is only about validation and is incredibly divisive and hurtfull considering
that the whole theoretical basis for the binary distinction is flimsy (there may exist a classification, but its almost certainly way more complicated than that).
  •  

Rachael

its all about validation, people want to be better, less ->-bleeped-<-. more justified, to back up thier decisions. make them sure they gave things up for something...
  •  

Shana A

Quotei find it funny, i mean,these people know so little, educating them might kill thier tiny brains...

Which people Rachael?

As a teacher, I try not to judge or impose my biases on students. If one thinks their brains are tiny, one is likely to have a hard time teaching them anything. :) Most people have open minds and are willing to listen and learn if we give them half a chance and don't belittle them.

Zythyra
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

Nero

Quote from: Keira on July 30, 2007, 04:39:08 PM

Nero, I totally disagree with the "need" for that distinction. Why?
I don't know why that's so incredibly important for anyone?
What about those that had increasing GID all their lives, they wouldn't fit either definition.
I think this issue is only about validation and is incredibly divisive and hurtfull considering
that the whole theoretical basis for the binary distinction is flimsy (there may exist a classification, but its almost certainly way more complicated than that).
Quote from: Rachael on July 30, 2007, 04:59:51 PM
its all about validation, people want to be better, less ->-bleeped-<-. more justified, to back up thier decisions. make them sure they gave things up for something...

You guys will get the need for a distinction when you're in a room full of supposed transwomen like this:
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,16893.msg131314.html#msg131314

It ain't about validation or elitism for me - it's about being lumped with those certain type of trans'men' who are a disgrace to my gender.
Nero was the Forum Admin here at Susan's Place for several years up to the time of his death.
  •  

Seshatneferw

Quote from: Nero on July 30, 2007, 06:42:09 PM
It ain't about validation or elitism for me - it's about being lumped with those certain type of trans'men' who are a disgrace to my gender.

I'm afraid you just have to get accustomed to it. In current society, GID is stigmatised enough that the public gets a very biased view of what a transsexual is like, even from transsexuals themselves. Consider: those who have a mild enough GID that they can live in the closet do that, however unhappy that will keep them -- they don't want to be labelled as a 'pervert, sick bastard, dude in a dress, homo, ->-bleeped-<-, sick f**k, etc...' (thanks, Morticia). Then again, those who transition successfully tend to be as much in stealth as possible -- in general, they want to be accepted as their real gender, not advertise their history (or be labelled as 'pervert, etc.'). So, the people who are visibly TS have a much greater proportion of those who have a severe enough case of GID that they need to do something about it, but won't -- for one reason or another -- pass completely in their target gender. The people you are griping about are one subset.

  Nfr
Whoopee! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but it's a long one for me.
-- Pete Conrad, Apollo XII
  •  

Nero

Quote from: Seshatneferw on July 31, 2007, 02:36:39 AM
Quote from: Nero on July 30, 2007, 06:42:09 PM
It ain't about validation or elitism for me - it's about being lumped with those certain type of trans'men' who are a disgrace to my gender.

I'm afraid you just have to get accustomed to it. In current society, GID is stigmatised enough that the public gets a very biased view of what a transsexual is like, even from transsexuals themselves. Consider: those who have a mild enough GID that they can live in the closet do that, however unhappy that will keep them -- they don't want to be labelled as a 'pervert, sick bastard, dude in a dress, homo, ->-bleeped-<-, sick f**k, etc...' (thanks, Morticia). Then again, those who transition successfully tend to be as much in stealth as possible -- in general, they want to be accepted as their real gender, not advertise their history (or be labelled as 'pervert, etc.'). So, the people who are visibly TS have a much greater proportion of those who have a severe enough case of GID that they need to do something about it, but won't -- for one reason or another -- pass completely in their target gender. The people you are griping about are one subset.

  Nfr


Yeah. It's hard though. All of a sudden I am a minority and minorities are so stereotyped. I think it's natural for a marginalized minority to feel embarassed of members of their group, afraid people will assume we're all alike. And ftm really is not that well known yet and I resent that the certain group is louder and more obvious will give rise to a bad stereotype for us.
I guess this just the life of a minority. It is weird to go from the majority where you are never judged or stereotyped based on others to now even caring how others act.
Nero was the Forum Admin here at Susan's Place for several years up to the time of his death.
  •  

Rachael

I agree, although allowing false steriotypes to prevail has certainly helped me....
nobody would think the slightly tomboyish girl with the eyebrow piercing, hoodie and baggy jeans and skate shoes was a ->-bleeped-<-. why, ->-bleeped-<-s are freaks, and wear ballgowns to tescos! and mince about in high heals, and makeup!
sometimes letting people belive the wrong is safer...

R :police:
  •