Quote from: TracyCakes on May 07, 2015, 03:33:30 PM
Somebody please educate me on why the word "->-bleeped-<-" is bad.  Because I haven't been a member for long, is this a term that members avoid using or offensive to some?   

(3) creepy ->-bleeped-<- guys that just want a quick encounter in the parking lot with a chick with a .....

^->-bleeped-<-.  "->-bleeped-<-s" are those who deliberately seek out non- or pre-op transgender people (especially women) for sex and to fetishize in general.  They "get off" on the idea of having sex with someone of the gender they typically swing for but with the sexual anatomy of the sex less often linked with said gender.  Straight men are most often the culprits when it comes to women, and gay men are often the culprits when it comes to me.  For example, I was in a bookstore, and a (very obviously gay) guy who worked there approached me to recommend books (unsolicited advice...).  Within 10 minutes of speaking with me, he point blank told me to my face that he "has a thing for guys with vaginas."  I was seriously irritated and disgusted.  I'm straight, but I don't care if gay men hit on me.  However, viewing someone as their genitals is never, ever OK.

*Several words of caution, that complicate matters: There are people who legitimately prefer to couple with transgender people for various reasons.  Some transgender people (honestly, myself included) have slight to absolute preferences for other transgender people because of shared experiences, shared vocabulary, etc.  Some people (trans and cis alike) may also prefer to couple with transgender people for reasons such as: 1) being attracted to certain aesthetics that may be more common in transgender people (again, I fall into this category because I don't find really round features, which are more common in cisgender women than in transgender women, attractive - they look childish to me, that's just my aesthetic preference), 2) preferring the often more dynamic experiences with gender and sensitivity to issues of gender (especially common among lesbians), 3) for some people who have been the victims of sexualized violence, they may feel more comfortable with certain sexual anatomy regardless of their gender preference (this definitely affects transgender men who may be seen as less threatening than a male-bodied man), 4) some people, especially younger people who have children and are in low income brackets, may prefer to eliminate the risk of pregnancy by coupling with someone with whom they are reproductively incompatible (most of the cisgender women who express an interest in me fall into this category), and 5) some people are legitimately attracted to a certain gender and a certain sex - that's actually different than being a ->-bleeped-<-, even though the line on this one can be fine and a bit smudgy at times.

Quote from: TracyCakes on May 07, 2015, 03:33:30 PM
Somebody please educate me on why the word "->-bleeped-<-" is bad.  Because I haven't been a member for long, is this a term that members avoid using or offensive to some?   

As you can see from my profile pic, I am pretty easy to clock. Based on my perception, guys that have given me attention can be divided into three groups,

(1) sincere flirters that don't give a hoot about the trans issue;
(2) guys that are not interested in anything other than talking just because i am sitting in the bar stool next to them;   
(3) creepy ->-bleeped-<- guys that just want a quick encounter in the parking lot with a chick with a .....

Just the other night, I was out drinking and I told the guy sitting next to me (who obviously knew I was trans) that I was married with kids, etc. but he still waited for me in the parking lot and asked if I wanted to "hang out" with him.   

I can only speak for myself, of course. I'm a woman with a penis or a man with breasts, depending on how the person wants to look at me. Either way is fine with me. The people who are interested in me have to be interested in that mixture of gender by default. So in essence, anyone who likes me is labeled here as a bad person with "dirty" inclinations. That's why I don't like it.

Also, describing people as "creepy ->-bleeped-<- types"  (not just you by the way) based on their romantic and sexual orientation is bashing, and that is simply against the rules here.

I suggest that people brush up on their knowledge base before making statements as well.  There have been mischaracterizations about DQ's, CD's, ->-bleeped-<-s, and  fetishes lately.

Hugs, Devlyn

Before this blows up any further, there is clearly a distinction between people who want to go to bed with you because of what you are rather than who you are.  If you are cool with being objectified, then that is your prerogative, but I would not exactly feel safe with someone who thought of me as a "thing" rather than a living, breathing human being. 

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on May 07, 2015, 05:20:06 PM
The people who are interested in me have to be interested in that mixture of gender by default. So in essence, anyone who likes me is labeled here as a bad person with "dirty" inclinations. That's why I don't like it.

Also, describing people as "creepy ->-bleeped-<- types"  (not just you by the way) based on their romantic and sexual orientation is bashing, and that is simply against the rules here.

This was addressed in what I just posted regarding being cautious about labeling someone as a "->-bleeped-<-," because there is a distinct difference between a "->-bleeped-<-" and someone with a specific sexual orientation.  No one on this thread was bashing anyone with a legitimate romantic or sexual orientation, but simply differentiating between such people and those who target transgender people for sexual exploitation specifically because they are transgender - which is most certainly against the rules. 

There are plenty of people who prefer to couple with transgender people for a multitude of reasons - that is a preference.  Other people specifically want to use us for our bodies, and to these people, we are nothing but the sum of our sexual anatomy - these are very, very different things that TracyCakes was very politely asking for advice about understanding.  If you find the term offensive, that's completely valid, but it's a common term for a specific type of person by whom many of us have been harassed so, we also are entitled to our opinions.

Again, no one was bashing anyone based on any "protected class status" (i.e., gender identity, expression, sexual or romantic orientation, etc.).  I think that these conversations absolutely can and should happen because of the high rate of discrimination and harassment transgender people face.  But we must also be cautious with how quickly we assign labels to people unless they exhibit some truly shocking behavior (like that the OP was subjected to), because we do not want to accidentally mischaracterize someone's sexual orientation.

Quote from: Jill F on May 07, 2015, 06:08:15 PM
Before this blows up any further, there is clearly a distinction between people who want to go to bed with you because of what you are rather than who you are.  If you are cool with being objectified, then that is your prerogative, but I would not exactly feel safe with someone who thought of me as a "thing" rather than a living, breathing human being.

Exactly!  Thanks, Jill!  It always takes me a page to express ideas, haha.

I'm always suspicious of any guy who decides to insert himself into my personal space when I am out in public. Especially if they happen to be driving a vehicle - had that happen at night once, it was very scary. If they think a woman will be flattered by their creepy attention they clearly have huge tickets on themself.

Also...
Let's steer off the ->-bleeped-<- topic, as far as this thread is concerned the guy was hitting on the OP because he saw an attractive woman who he felt an urge to act creepy towards. There's no indication he was a ->-bleeped-<-, this topic is not about that so please drop it or the thread will be locked.

We should call people who give us unwanted attention "people who give us unwanted attention" rather than derogatory names like "->-bleeped-<-" though.

Demanding that people don't call you a ->-bleeped-<- while you're calling someone a ->-bleeped-<- is just laughably hypocritical.

Hugs, Devlyn

My inclination would be simply state that "my boyfriend would not appreciate me doing so. thank you though"
If he's a genuine creep he will persist and you can gauge the situation. Ignore, or go back inside the store and get some help.

It is pretty clear when someone is being creepy.  It is never in my opinion appropriate to wait for someone in a bar parking lot just so you can proposition them.  If that is ->-bleeped-<- bashing and against the rules, apparently I need to disassociate myself from susans. 

And by the way, I don't demand people call or not call me anything.  I prefer not being called ->-bleeped-<- but I don't demand. 

Moreover, to me ->-bleeped-<- is derogatory for the way someone acts, how they conduct themselves and interact with people.  On the other hand, Trans woman is who I am not how I act, or my conduct.  So I really don't even see the comparison.   

Grace sorry for going off a little based on the comment about being laughably hypocritical.  You don't need  to lock this on my account, I'll be gone from susans. 

Tracey.....Dont leave the site based on this one post. first of all asking a question is not wrong. the ladies are having a difference of opinion about the meaning and definintion of ->-bleeped-<-. People are going to have disagreements If we don't agree with them we just move on to the next post. But Susans is a great site. I have been of and on here for years and find it to be a good source for information and support. So stick with us.
love Kelly