Quote from: peky on August 09, 2014, 09:24:38 PM

are you implying that "medical procedures" are a requirement in order to obtain "full transition" ?

No. I was just explaining why I consider myself transsexual. Jeesh! 

The more I read this thread the more I think "I'm just some woman with issues. Everyone has them"

'Transgender/Transsexual' is more of a label I use for people who arent familiar with my background. Most trans people don't need that explaination, since a few words just about YOU is enough, no labels, just  who you are, not what you are

Quote from: Susan522 on August 09, 2014, 09:30:53 PM
Are you implying that you are "cis"?

Where does the "cis" designator resides ? In other words, which part of the human anatomy defines an individual "cis" ?

That is between your legs ? or what is between you ears ?

Medically and by necessity all of us are gendered by what is between our legs, but sooner or later all human define themselves by what is between their ears.

Based on the premise stated above, I know I was wrongfully gender at birth because the poor doctors have nothing to guide their decision but the nature of my genitals. Yet, I was born with a perfectly fine brain that tells me I am a female, and who am I to disagree with my brain.

We should be talking about cis-genital or trans-genital, the defect is not in our brain but rather in our genitals.

I know this position is rather unorthodox and that may not be considered or accepted but it is "mine" and I live by it. For me it has a very deep and important connotation in the sense that makes me no better, worst, or different that any other human female on earth.

Quote from: Jessica Merriman on August 09, 2014, 09:51:15 PM
No. I was just explaining why I consider myself transsexual. Jeesh! 

Just asking for clarity.... 

Quote from: peky on August 10, 2014, 09:42:27 AMWhere does the "cis" designator resides ? In other words, which part of the human anatomy defines an individual "cis" ?   Where does the "cis" designator resides ? In other words, which part of the human anatomy defines an individual "cis" ?That is between your legs ? or what is between you ears ? ...I know this position is rather unorthodox and that may not be considered or accepted but it is "mine" and I live by it. For me it has a very deep and important connotation in the sense that makes me no better, worst, or different that any other human female on earth.

Gee.  I honestly don't know.  Apparently this is a term invented by the trans* "community", defined "at will" and used to identify someone as different from the rest of society.

IMHO it resides in the minds and hearts of people like yourself and is used in such a way as to appear somewhat confusing and contradictory. 

In this case, it has turned this thread into a total derail from the OP and so I apologize and will simply state that for me. I needed to transform my genitals so that I could live and enjoy and experience my life as a relatively normally bodied woman.  This is what I needed.

I personally prefer the term "transsexual" for what I am, because to me the problem wasn't so much with my social gender, it was always more with my physical sex. It was a problem of not having a female body.

I still have issues with the gender part of transition... sometimes I don't feel like I'm male or female socially, and that both gender roles are just social constructs, and it's picking your poison to try and fit in either. I didn't like being shoehorned in to the male "dudebro" expectations and being treated like a guy, but I don't really like the female beauty-standard expectations either. But in terms of physical sex, there's no doubt in my mind, I identify as female, I'm WAY happier as a girl, and would NEVER want to go back to having a male body.

So yeah... for me, the physical sex part of it is way more important, with gender as a secondary concern, so I self-identify as transsexual.

I think mostly people who don't like the term, it's because they think that the word "sex" in it makes people think it's about the act of having sex, rather than being about secondary sexual characteristics.

Quote from: Carrie Liz on August 10, 2014, 02:15:16 PM
I personally prefer the term "transsexual" for what I am, because to me the problem wasn't so much with my social gender, it was always more with my physical sex. It was a problem of not having a female body.

I still have issues with the gender part of transition... sometimes I don't feel like I'm male or female socially, and that both gender roles are just social constructs, and it's picking your poison to try and fit in either. I didn't like being shoehorned in to the male "dudebro" expectations and being treated like a guy, but I don't really like the female beauty-standard expectations either. But in terms of physical sex, there's no doubt in my mind, I'm WAY happier as a girl, and would NEVER want to go back to having a male body.

So yeah... for me, the physical sex part of it is way more important, with gender as a secondary concern, so I self-identify as transsexual.

I think mostly people who don't like the term, it's because they think that the word "sex" in it makes people think it's about the act of having sex, rather than being about secondary sexual characteristics.

I think this is an excellent analysis and clear demonstrates the difference between the meaning of the two terms, TS vs. TG.

I am pretty sure that your personal issues with your changing gender roles will diminish with time, especially after you are made physically whole.

I think that the difference between the meaning of the terms TS vs. TG,is the difference between the change in gender roles and physical characteristics.

I honestly don't care what I am called, transexual, transgender, trans or ->-bleeped-<-. As long as it's not disrespectful way then Im ok. Let's be real, our gender is Female but we were born with male genetalia. Their are way bigger issues and I've been called worse. If being called a ->-bleeped-<- bothers a girl so much, idk how she got through transition because thats just a prick compared to what we went through.

"If being called a ->-bleeped-<- bothers a girl so much, idk how she got through transition because thats just a prick compared to what we went through."

Well said.

I use transgender, because:
1. Confusion of what the difference between sexuality and gender. I consider it an inherently confusing term, though I fully understand what people mean when they use the term.

2. I don't consider myself, however much I'm transition to be completely one gender or another. I consider myself non-binary, at least in my brain.

OTOH, I feel that people can use whichever terms they want to identify. The only thing I have no use for is people who use terms like "true transsexual". Geeze.


--JaY

Quote from: Susan522 on August 15, 2014, 02:46:14 PM
"If being called a ->-bleeped-<- bothers a girl so much, idk how she got through transition because thats just a prick compared to what we went through."

Well said.

I never understood why that word bothered us so much. Then I heard someone say that "->-bleeped-<-" is the last word you hear right before they knock you to the pavement to kick the $#!+ out of you.

Now I understand.

to be completely honest, i'm not any kind of trans* at all. i'm just me.
but when labels are needed, i use transgender. just to say approximately in which way i differ from most other people.
and i only use transsexual to talk about f64.0. i hate the word, but only because "true" transsexuals are the only ones who are admitted any kind of treatment in norway. unless they find a rare and great doctor, or go outside the country.

I only use transsexual, as it relates to the medical condition; put more simply, a high intensity transsexual medical condition. Alternatively, there is the self-descriptor using Benjamin's scale as Type VI, psychosexually inverted. This condition is curable with SRS. As such, the terms trans*, trans, or transgender, simply do not apply to me; I am changing sex, not gender, because my problem is with sex identity; correcting my genitalia. My gender was always female, given that gender is between the ears; as I knew I was a girl at age three, it hasn't changed. Compared with sex, however, which is between the legs, which, well, next summer it will be all better there.

It's not my place to push my beliefs on anyone else, so my intent here is to only share what I believe about myself. That said, I do love dissent, to further spur conversion, consider others' opinions, and perhaps learn thing or two. Furthermore, and perhaps naturally so, I maintain that a better discussion is had with someone who disagrees with you, and is sagacious with respect to their position, contrasted with a personage who is nescient about their presuppositions.

Quote from: Jessica Merriman on August 09, 2014, 12:28:59 PM
Transgender: an inclusive umbrella term which covers anyone who transcends their birth gender for any reason. This includes but is not limited to Androgynes, Crossdressers, Drag kings, Drag queens, Intersexuals, Transsexuals, and ->-bleeped-<-s.

Transsexual: a person who is mentally one gender, but has the body of the other. They desire to live and be accepted as a member of the mental gender, this is generally accompanied by the strong desire to make their body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatments.

Sexual preference or attraction does not figure into it.

. 
That's a really helpful description, thank you..
I tend to use the word Trans in a group when I don't know all individuals and how they identify, I've not been corrected yet for using that term.?
I wish there were not all of these labels, and people could just be people, but I guess its necessary..

Quote from: GorJess on August 20, 2014, 11:35:28 AM
I only use transsexual, as it relates to the medical condition; put more simply, a high intensity transsexual medical condition. Alternatively, there is the self-descriptor using Benjamin's scale as Type VI, psychosexually inverted. This condition is curable with SRS. As such, the terms trans*, trans, or transgender, simply do not apply to me; I am changing sex, not gender, because my problem is with sex identity; correcting my genitalia. My gender was always female, given that gender is between the ears; as I knew I was a girl at age three, it hasn't changed. Compared with sex, however, which is between the legs, which, well, next summer it will be all better there.

It's not my place to push my beliefs on anyone else, so my intent here is to only share what I believe about myself. That said, I do love dissent, to further spur conversion, consider others' opinions, and perhaps learn thing or two. Furthermore, and perhaps naturally so, I maintain that a better discussion is had with someone who disagrees with you, and is sagacious with respect to their position, contrasted with a personage who is nescient about their presuppositions.

The Benjamin scale is a SEVERELY outdated piece of work, though. It's basically a "->-bleeped-<-r than thou" scale which says that nobody can be a "true" transsexual unless they were exclusively attracted to men pre-transition, SRS is their primary transition goal, and they have had high-intensity dysphoria from a young age.

I appreciate that the scale works for you, but just acknowledge that you're in a minority on that. And those of us who don't live up to Benjamin's standards can feel oppressed by having those standards applied to us, because we're basically being made to feel like lesser trans people because we weren't attracted to men and didn't know that we were girls from our first memories. Again, that scale basically says that we're inauthentic and not "true" transsexuals.

(Also, it makes the claim that nobody who was heterosexual pre-transition should get SRS at all, which, I'm sorry, is really inaccurate.)

I like that word "transophile" but I think it might be a little inaccurate. How about trans gynephile?

It's fascinating, true transsexual (which both sides of this mess up) refers to anyone planning on SRS; if not, you are labeled nonsurgical transsexual, according to Dr. Harry Benjamin's The Transsexual Phenomenon. Furthermore, as I understand it, the word true, in the phrase true transsexual, means 'truly in line with symptoms X, Y, Z', as opposed to true or false transsexual. None of the types are better than the other; in fact, I'd go so far as to say the smaller type number you are is more fortunate, as it just means less worries. After all, if one is not interested in SRS, well, then the concerns about having a vagina, that one who is pre-op would have, as I understand it, is not there. If the previous sentence is incorrect in any way, I would be happy to be corrected.

I will say though, the orientation bit I disagree, in reference to that text, and agree with you there, without question. Dr. Benjamin believed one could have a same-sex orientation, and still have a transsexual medical condition. As I've read, he thought it existed, certainly, but only in numbers and percentages of the natal female population. Now what that number is, is quite likely different from the 1960s, as gay and lesbian acceptance has expanded manyfold, and as such, greater numbers than the "4% exclusively homosexual" are likely the case today, in both natal individuals and those with a transsexual medical condition.

And yeah, I've come to realize it's a minority view, but it fits my narrative, so it makes the most sense to me, if only with respect to myself.

Quote from: Pinkkatie on August 20, 2014, 12:52:47 PM
I like that word "transophile" but I think it might be a little inaccurate. How about trans gynephile?

Can't say I like such terminology, but you should probably use more specific ancient Greek, as opposed to Latin, as trans is, for across, on the far side, beyond, which almost sounds like the individual orientation has changed there from male to female.

Why use ancient Greek? Gynephile does, from gunḗ, meaning "woman", and -phile, φίλος said phílos,  meaning "dear, beloved" (works with andro, too, for man). Ancient Greek is used in medicine because they were the first to do medicinal studies, namely Hippocrates, who you might recall the oath of. This trend continued with the Romans (who used Ancient Greek to get Latin words) and their enormous empire, and you get the picture. Last but not least, you can't mix a Latin root with an Ancient Greek one. If you wanted to use 'trans' as your prefix there, you'd need amāns rather than phile, as your suffix as it's the equal present active participle for the term loving.

As such, there's μετάβασις, said metavasis, meaning 'going from one place to another'; this could easily be synonymous with the definition, with the aforementioned 'places' one is going to is rather obvious (female or male). So maybe metavasiphile as a new, more dictionary-like, name for ->-bleeped-<-s?

Quote from: GorJess on August 20, 2014, 01:29:22 PM
It's fascinating, true transsexual (which both sides of this mess up) refers to anyone planning on SRS; if not, you are labeled nonsurgical transsexual, according to Dr. Harry Benjamin's The Transsexual Phenomenon. Furthermore, as I understand it, the word true, in the phrase true transsexual, means 'truly in line with symptoms X, Y, Z', as opposed to true or false transsexual. None of the types are better than the other; in fact, I'd go so far as to say the smaller type number you are is more fortunate, as it just means less worries. After all, if one is not interested in SRS, well, then the concerns about having a vagina, that one who is pre-op would have, as I understand it, is not there. If the previous sentence is incorrect in any way, I would be happy to be corrected.

I will say though, the orientation bit I disagree, in reference to that text, and agree with you there, without question. Dr. Benjamin believed one could have a same-sex orientation, and still have a transsexual medical condition. As I've read, he thought it existed, certainly, but only in numbers and percentages of the natal female population. Now what that number is, is quite likely different from the 1960s, as gay and lesbian acceptance has expanded manyfold, and as such, greater numbers than the "4% exclusively homosexual" are likely the case today, in both natal individuals and those with a transsexual medical condition.

And yeah, I've come to realize it's a minority view, but it fits my narrative, so it makes the most sense to me, if only with respect to myself.

Okay, guess I haven't read it, then. But again, yeah, we have come a long way socially since then, where now it's acknowledged that women can easily be feminine, masculine, straight, lesbians, femme, butch, and it's no difference to their identity as female.

Guess I'll just say that I think the scale is an oversimplification that doesn't cover the full range of trans experiences then and leave it at that.

(And I kinda have a vested interest in this, because in every single one of his writings, on the difference between heterosexual and homosexual trans people, early versus late transitioners, SRS-wanting versus non-op, I can never figure out where I fit. Because for me it was very much a sex thing, correcting my physical body, going on hormones and getting SRS, and I never really crossdressed, but at the same time I was heterosexual pre-transition and didn't even start having dysphoria until I was 13 or so. And in his scale, there's basically no place for someone like me. I end up in the middle, not quite fitting in to any box, in just about every generalization of trans people. And I also know a LOT of early-transitioning "homosexual" trans women who are non-op, which also bucks Benjamin's classifications. So yeah...)

Funny, isn't it, when some theory of statement doesn't "work for you", it must be wrong.  I would like to thank and acknowledge "GorJess" for making well worded corrections to the inaccuracies about Dr. Benjamin's "outdated" research.

It has always offended me how the majority of transgender activists have demagogued this seminal work, as was done in this total agenda driven mischaracterization, and frankly mis-statement of the simple facts.

"It's basically a "->-bleeped-<-r than thou" scale which says that nobody can be a "true" transsexual unless they were exclusively attracted to men pre-transition, SRS is their primary transition goal, and they have had high-intensity dysphoria from a young age."

This is not even close. to the truth!   You really might want to read  Benjamin's work before drawing so many erroneous conclusions.  It has been years since I read The Transsexual Phenomenon, (1966) .  Perhaps I have forgotten his mention of "homosexual/heterosexual" transsexuals ala Bailey/Blanchard. 

I was going off of the following article on the Benjamin scale:

http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/benjamin_gd.html

If this is not an accurate representation of his scale, then by all means correct me. If it is accurate, then unless I'm reading it wrong, one must be at least a "4" on the Kinsey scale ("predominantly homosexual but more than incidentally heterosexual") in order to fit the classification of a "true transsexual" who seeks SRS.

The rest of my post, I might be wrong about, you're right, I was indeed confusing Benjamin with Blanchard.