Quote from: cindybc on January 04, 2008, 01:34:02 AM
Well I aint got one of them anymore anyway, yuk why would I want to have one again?

Cindy

Some people have all the luck!   

Quote from: kalt on January 03, 2008, 09:57:14 PM
Anyone with me?  Is anyone on this site going to step outside of the box, instead of just running away from one into another one?  Is anyone NOT going to look in the mirror and pass judgment, thinking, "I'm more of a woman than she is, because if I change my external appearance then I'll look more like one."  Hrrm?  Is the path of a MtF's journey to become a true woman really just who can spend the most money on operations, or is it something deeper?

I don't live in a box. There are plenty of others here as well. I believe that there are as many expressions of being transgender as there are trans people. Some need to have SRS to be happy, others don't. Do what feels right for you. I want to create a world in which one can live at any point along the continuum, openly and safely.

y2g

Quote from: kalt on January 03, 2008, 11:57:39 PM

Quote from: cindybc on January 03, 2008, 11:53:40 PM
I quite agree with you Kate.

Cindy

Argumentum Ad Populem.

Catering to the dogma of susans.org doesn't really sway my will.

Females who have a desire to keep their male genitilia have no right to judged by other transwomen.

Awl, I didn't "mean" anything by my post. It's just when you asked, "Anyone with me?" I remembered a similar poll that might answer your question.

Personally, I can't stand seeing it aroused. It's one of the most humiliating things imaginable for me. But I have no right to project that discomfort upon you and insist YOU feel it too.

~Kate~

Why this whole non-op TS thing keeps coming up, I have no idea  .

I'd probably attempt to make some kind of "go with what you got and what you believe, and let everyone else do that as well and stop caring about theirs cause it dont hurt you and yours dont hurt them" plea, but in my experience that never works and someone gets angry at me for not being enough of a true transsexual or some other BS like that.

My genitals are my business, no more, no less. I'd still be a girl no matter what kind of thing I had down there. And I'd be mightily upset if people felt it neccesary to question the validity of my identity or my gender based solely on whatever the hell down there looks like. And therefore, I can understand that, oh my god, other people might actually feel the same way?

Empathy can be a bitch, but I dont think you can mess with it once you got it. The world starts looking like a beter place, you know?

Megan

Quote from: Kiera on January 04, 2008, 08:19:56 AM

QuoteThe real-life experience is not defined by ability to pass as a non-transgender woman or man. Rather, it is defined by actualizing and continuously expressing one's unique gender identity

From: Endocrine Therapy for Transgender Adults in British Columbia: Suggested Guidelines

Wait! What happened to the part about who's more trans than whom? Whydya leave that paragraph out, Kiera! How unfair that is.

MY rule here is simply this: when I am numbered among less than 1% of the population of the world, does it really matter who may or may not be at the 'top' of that 1% of the population? Is it worth the argument? Very large ocean, very small breed and school of fish.

Nichole

This is getting to confusing for this old gal. Packs her bag, throws it over shoulder walks out to the edge of the highway and sticks her thumb out. Transport pulls over and Cindy hops in throwing her back in the back compartment and waves good by at the folks behind her standing on the edge of the road. The transport driver shifts his rig into gear and slowly pulls away then picks up speed again once the rig is back on the ashfalt of the two lane highway.

Cindy

Quote from: Nichole W. on January 03, 2008, 07:58:37 PM

Given that, perhaps the problem might be solved were I to simply embrace the reality of myself without seeing any need in making some rather pointless comparison with anyone else at all.

Nichole

nichole, sorry but i don't think we're discussing anything "pointless" here.  also allow me to remind you that if you consider this topic to be "pointless", all you've got to do is ignore it.

having said that, this thread has nothing to do with being "more trans than thou".  i'm just basing my answers on the distinction between transgender and transsexual. it has been my experience that many self-proclaimed transgenders expect that to mean the same thing as "transsexual", while the reality is, they are gender variant (tv, cd, drag queen, androgyne, she-male, etc) and do not admit it. i'm perfectly ok with gender variant people if they are honest, yet i'm not ok with any orientation or gender who is dishonest.

i think that hiding one's gender variance behind the label and/or pretense of something else can be hurtful to the image and the fight for equal rights by honest lgb & tss. the more i read about this thread, the more the term "she-male" comes to mind.
there's an interesting thread that needs to be read by some of you.  you'll be surprised how many people here like that term:

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,9831.0.html

Quote from: Nichole W. on January 03, 2008, 07:58:37 PM
[some paragraphs about the racial and socio-economic make-up of 'post-op' transsexuals that indicate they are overwhelmingly white, western European culturally and relatively rich in terms of overall world population.]

Now we could actually have that discussion, but wouldn't that make everyone rather uncomfortable? I know it does me. So, maybe we could just realize that when we discuss 'real' this and 'real' that we tend to 'blur' the fact that we may also be thought of as 'unreal.'

Given that, perhaps the problem might be solved were I to simply embrace the reality of myself without seeing any need in making some rather pointless comparison with anyone else at all.

For me that might just mean that I had found some self-acceptance and had no further need to try to find my acceptance through comparing myself to someone else who I 'a priori' classify as 'unreal.'

But, that is just me and my thoughts about myself and the way I view the world. Maybe, though, I have no point at all. Perhaps someone else might decide that?

Nichole

BTW, count me as someone who does not like THAT term at all. In fact, I find it rather offensive.

Just for clarity's sake I thought I would put that quote above into context.

I think this shows that I was talking about statistical averages of demographics among post-op TSes. I said such comparisons tend to make me uncomfortable and I would rather not have a lengthy discussion about that.

Therefore: for me going anywhere past what I know of myself I find pointless.

You may not.

To ignore a hot topic would be sorta not doing my job around here.

Nichole

now we're understanding each other.  differences of opinion as usual.

Natasha, I understand that you can be frustrated by some people's saying all T are the same.
For some, there is clear no GID; its just a run of the mill compulsion.

But, as I said, we know so little of GID and if its a binary or not, that discounting
them as not like us. What if some WHERE LIKE US. We just don't know for sure
what causes GID and what are all its expressions.

There SOME gender variants that seemingly are wannabee GIDer, but I
content that not all are, and who are we to say which is which when
so little is know of the whole thing.

The thing I don't like about people challenging someones definition of their identity using the term "transsexual" is that, to me, it becomes a clear challenge to the identity of that person.

I'll use myself as an example. I don't identify "as" a transsexual, but I will happily use that term to describe myself because of the situation. I was born with the physical body of a genetic male, and I consider myself, my brain, my identity, to be female. Hence I transitioned socially, as well as taking the medical and legal steps, to live my life as female. Not too difficult to understand. The term fits, I'll use it to describe my situation rather than launching into a lengthy monologue in attempting to explain my particular situation. I dont think it matters one bit when I transitioned, what I want to do with whats between my legs, any more than what I had for breakfast yesterday, as to whether I am allowed to use that term to describe myself.

I use the term in the sense that it is a simple term that implies that I ID as the other binary sex to which I was not biologically assigned to at birth, and wish to live my life as a member of that sex. Now, I could really care less these days if anyone feels the need to imply, for whatever ridiculous reaons they want, that I can't call myself transsexual, I'm pretty stable and secure with my identity these days - a few years ago though, when I was still depressed, alone, desperate for acceptance and understanding from people I thought felt the same way as myself, someone challenging my use of the term meant something altogether. To me it felt like a direct attack on my identifiying as female - that I wasn't dysphoric enough, that I wasn't comitted enough, that I wasn't allowed to call myself a woman because here these people are, who call themselves women or men and also call themseleves transsexual, telling me that because of this, or that, I'm not like them so I'm not transsexual. I can call myself a transgenderist if I like - and I should feel perfectly OK with that.

To someone searching for acceptance, the last thing they need is an attack on their identity from those they see as sharing the same identity. It's cruel, it achieves nothing. So stop it. Challenging someones identity when the cold be in a vulnerable state and needing support is only going to either annoy people, or make things a hell of a lot worse. It's not going to help.

Megan

Quote from: Natasha on January 04, 2008, 05:04:55 PM
the more i read about this thread, the more the term "she-male" comes to mind.

Damned right, and it should, because it's exactly what's being discussed.

A "->-bleeped-<-" is just as much of a female as any other transwoman, if she identifies herself as a female and not as a "->-bleeped-<-" except by pure aesthetics only noticeable when exposed.

"->-bleeped-<-s" who live life as a female are in fact, female.  There are plenty of, "->-bleeped-<-s" in this world that live life without anyone ever knowing except intimate partners.  Just because a few get on the web and wave their dicks around doesn't mean others should have to suffer for those perverse labels.

Even some "->-bleeped-<-" models who display their bodies upfront and proud on the web could be females.  If they are displaying themselves to be seen as female, appreciated as female, but just happen to have an attatchment, then how are they any different from a female online displaying herself with a bunch of crazy tattoos or with three boobs?  I mention bizaare things specifically because I recognise it is a bizaare aspect in a select few people's sexuality.  You will find though, that the people who find themselves attracted to that kind of market identify as heterosexual.  Not bisexual, not homosexual.  They see the "->-bleeped-<-s" as purely female and appreciate them as such.  I've got a ton of friends on myspace who are both Non-op women and their admirer's, I know the story pretty well.

She-male is rarely used in a non sexual way and rarely used by the person itself, its mostly a third party thing.; so I understand not wanting to associated with it since the person itself is not using it.
But, the core remains, if someone ID's as female, whatever way others ID her as she-male or non-op is totally irrelevant to me. That's how most people in society will see them anyway and for most, that's all that matters. If she works in the sex industry and markets herself as ->-bleeped-<- to make a buck doesn't change how she ID's herself.

BUT, there are some who have had breast implant and limited hormones (keeping their potency) and ID as male!!! It does exist!!! Often its very screwed up effeminate gays who do that and making a buck in the sex industry is more important than their own self-respect. Here, well, I can only feel pity. But, it's their life so hey...

Quote from: kalt on January 04, 2008, 09:05:11 PM

A "->-bleeped-<-" is just as much of a female as any other transwoman, if she identifies herself as a female and not as a "->-bleeped-<-" except by pure aesthetics only noticeable when exposed.

That would be a pre-op or non-op transsexual (not a she-male).  Or better yet, a woman.  A she-male, as far as I am concerned has a male gender identification and identifies as a she-male (not as female/woman)  The term she-male carries a negative connotation, usually associated with the porn industry.

tink

Quote from: Keira on January 04, 2008, 09:17:54 PM
there are some who have had breast implant and limited hormones (keeping their potency) and ID as male!!! It does exist!!! Often its very screwed up effeminate gays who do that and making a buck in the sex industry is more important than their own self-respect.

Wow. People actually do that?? *shudders* keeping that male potency sounds awful to me. DIE TESTICLES DIE!!!!

Quote from: Laura91 on January 04, 2008, 09:34:42 PM

Quote from: Keira on January 04, 2008, 09:17:54 PM
there are some who have had breast implant and limited hormones (keeping their potency) and ID as male!!! It does exist!!! Often its very screwed up effeminate gays who do that and making a buck in the sex industry is more important than their own self-respect.

Wow. People actually do that?? *shudders* keeping that male potency sounds awful to me. DIE TESTICLES DIE!!!!

Tons of heterosexual erotic crossdressers experiment with hormones too, I guess seeing it as an extreme form of CDing with a female body rather than just clothes.

~Kate~

Quote

Tons of heterosexual erotic crossdressers experiment with hormones too, I guess seeing it as an extreme form of CDing with a female body rather than just clothes.

~Kate~

I will never understand how anyone could find crossdressing to be erotic. Wearing womens clothes is quite boring to me.

Hi, I dress like what ever moves my moods and in accordance with the weather, of course. Whether it be a knee length sun dress with a sun bonnet. In fall and winter,  I will wear ankle length dresses if there is an occasion for it. I will also wear slacks and a camisole and top. I so love it here in BC where you don't need to wear all those heavy clothes. I always dress in sharp looking clothes where ever I go out for whatever the occasion. I can go out shopping for a sack of potatoes in sharp looking clothes just as well as for going out with Wing Walker for the evening with much  pride. I am proud of who I am and I am certainly without shame of who I am.

Cindy

Clothes for me are never boring because they are a means of self-expression.
They reflect who I am in general, and my mood of the moment like Cindy said.
It may make me feel sexy, confident, etc.

I am transsexual and by no means a "->-bleeped-<-."  I find the term as disgusting as the photo captioned at the end of this posting.

Here is an excerpt from the writings of Virginia Prince, one who referred to himself as a cross dresser and then a ->-bleeped-<-, and finally a transgenderist:

"Prince's Philosophy

In the pages of her magazines Transvestia and Femme Mirror and in occasional articles in the professional literature, Prince has forcefully expounded her views on transvestism. The psychiatrist, Hugo Beigel, referring to her as a 'prophet', wrote that "transvestism is her creed and its acceptance by the world her mission" (1969: 118-119). Benjamin (1966: 36), in a discussion of Prince's work, refers to her as "teacher, mentor and spokesman for the ->-bleeped-<- 'sorority'".

Prince (1976: 3) claims to have been the first person to abbreviate the term ->-bleeped-<- to 'TV' in about 1955. She also claims to have 'coined the words "->-bleeped-<-" and "transgenderist" as nouns describing people like myself who have breasts and live full time as a woman, but who have no intention of having genital surgery' (Prince, 1997a: 469).

The distinction of three types of males who may share (in a beautifully dated phrase) "the desire to wear feminine attire" (Prince, 1957: 82) is the main point of her first short piece in the professional literature in 1957. Pointing out that Havelock Ellis and Hirschfeld had distinguished transvestism from homosexuality almost 50 years earlier, she argued that there was still a tendency to confuse the two. The picture, she said, was further complicated by the discovery of transsexualism and the possibility of sex reassignment surgery.

She distinguishes the homosexual and the transsexual from what she calls the "true ->-bleeped-<-" (Prince, 1957: 84). The true ->-bleeped-<-s are "exclusively heterosexual. Frequently they are married and often fathers." She continues, "The ->-bleeped-<- values his male organs, enjoys using them and does not desire them removed"(1957: 85). She later began to call the true ->-bleeped-<- a "femmiphile" (FP), defined as "lover of the feminine" (Prince, 1973: 22)."

This link will take you to the entire article:     http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/2000/king20.htm

Is a picture worth a thousand words?  If you open this link you will see a ->-bleeped-<- indulging in sexual activity with a male partner.  It is pretty raw.  I found it on Google images.  Remember, this is raw nudity and the activity of a ->-bleeped-<- so if you want to avoid it, please don't click on the link.  Caution!!!!!  Really nasty stuff!!!!!   I, for one, would sooner be dead than to look like this. 

Oops!  Sorry!  I forgot the link.  Anyone wanting to see this, please ask on this thread.

Lest I forget, I move that this thread be locked. 

Wing Walker
I know who I am and where I am going, and it ain't as a ->-bleeped-<- or transgendered!