Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals. 

It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am.  Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills."  For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other.  As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism.  Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality.  How can one claim otherwise?

Whether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate.  The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view.  Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?

Someone also mentioned restroom usage.  People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's.  Why is restroom assignment so important?  The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family.  Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.

You're really jumping to conclusions saying that. Just because someone doesn't want to be associated with someone else doesn't mean they're really just self-loathing. It's a pretty wild accusation, actually.

Where are all those who would claim that EDNA tossed them under the bus, as they so gleefully do the same?  Odd, no voices raised?  Funny how those that would be offended by being left off, are so quick to leave others off.

Equal rights are equal for all, or else they are not equal.

And I've always thought that what we most dislike in others is that which we really hate in ourselves.  If you didn't see yourself in those people, then who else would?

And gee, the nightclubs I go to discourage prostitution, but then again, I've never set out to be an 'escort' either.

But of course you aware of the old joke?  "What the difference between a CD and TS?"  "Ten years."

I would never go to some TS meeting.  Matter of fact, I eschew meetings all together preferring to 'do' while they 'meet' that way its done the way I want, and its much easier to ask forgiveness than permission.  And Fait accompli, is the best way to accompli anything in the end.  At least it gets done, which is rarely the outcome of meetings.  Be that as it may, I'm sure many TS persons start off as CDs.  Are they to be excluded?  Are they not in 'your universe' also?



And the law in SF regarding bathroom reads as per 'presentation' so that people may use the bathroom they present to using.  To date, some 8 years now, there has not been a problem with that, but perhaps we are more tolerant, or just care less.  Its not a big deal here, and has not become one.

Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:02 AM

Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals. 

It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am.  Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills."  For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other.  As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism.  Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality.  How can one claim otherwise?

Whether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate.  The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view.  Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?

Someone also mentioned restroom usage.  People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's.  Why is restroom assignment so important?  The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family.  Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.

You're really jumping to conclusions saying that. Just because someone doesn't want to be associated with someone else doesn't mean they're really just self-loathing. It's a pretty wild accusation, actually.

I gather you don't agree with me but you're a bit thin on the why.  I didn't say anything about self-loathing or make any accusations.  Clarify, please.

Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals. 

It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am.  Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills."  For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other.  As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism.  Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality.  How can one claim otherwise?

<snip>

Someone also mentioned restroom usage.  People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's.  Why is restroom assignment so important?  The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family.  Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.

See this is what happens when someone simply says "we are different".  What's the harm in saying that?  By saying it's wrong to say that you are inferring we are the same.

Why is restroom assignment so important?  Do I really have to explain that?  Try asking a couple dozen women that question.  I did last year when I had this discussion on another board and the result was overwhelming.  The women responded that it should be a women's only space.  In other words NO men, not even crossdressed men.  It has to do with we live in a man's world and the ladies room is seen as the one place that's ours, that is for women only.

QuoteWhether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate.  The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view.  Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?

WTF?  Sex and gender are two totally separate concepts.  You're starting to sound like a fan of Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence.


I think I've had enough of this.


This thread 

Quote from: Beyond on August 04, 2008, 06:51:50 AM
See this is what happens when someone simply says "we are different".  What's the harm in saying that?  By saying it's wrong to say that you are inferring we are the same.

Why is restroom assignment so important?  Do I really have to explain that?  Try asking a couple dozen women that question.  I did last year when I had this discussion on another board and the result was overwhelming.  The women responded that it should be a women's only space.  In other words NO men, not even crossdressed men.  It has to do with we live in a man's world and the ladies room is seen as the one place that's ours, that is for women only.

I think that restroom assignment is also an important issue because it is the existence of women only and men only spaces that is sick and wrong.  We can have private places for individuals and small groups, but it is wrong to label them men only, women only, white only, black only, etc.  There is no separate but equal, especially in public accomodations and the workplace.  If you want women only spaces everywhere, then you are an anti-feminist.  There are a ton of "feminists" out there who do not want equality, and they are fooling themselves.  And the number of women who are consciously not feminists is mind boggling.  It is just plain irrational.

Feeling that TS is different from CD is one thing.  Wanting others to acknowledge the difference is natural, I suppose.  But not wanting to be called transgendered becasue it does not distinguish you from CDs is kind of like saying you don't like being called a human being because you are white and it lumps you together with blacks.  Of course, it is different becasue there are other levels in the ontology of gender and sexual orientation.  But it still looks suspicious.  So others feeling slighted by it also seems natural.

I just think that some people are complaining about how the ontology perpetuates public misunderstanding, and others perceive those statements as separatist.  Then those others defend the ontology as anti-separatist, and the ones concerened about public perception feel like they've been unfairly and inacurately portrayed as CD haters.  I don't think there is a way to make everyone happy here.

I think the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class, and because educating the public on the fact that MTF TSs really are women is the lost cause of all lost causes.

I'm convinced that educating the public on the fact that MTF TSs really are women is a lost cause by my experience dating stealth.  Like many of us, I had the unrealistic fantasy that I would date a straight man stealthily until he fell in love, and then tell him, and he would accept that I am really a woman.  It just doesn't work that way.  It is instant rejection, or death threat, or murder attempt, or tearful struggle to accept that ultimately fails when the stress serves as a wedge that breaks apart the relationship.  It just does not happen.  I am convinced that those who claim it worked for them were not as stealth as they thought.

So I am fully onboard with defending the transgender category, while acknowledging that it is a less than perfect solution.  But I think it is the best option.  And for those of you who are slightly upset at the imperfection of the descriptor applied to you, I hereby officially validate your feelings.  For any of you who hate CDs and want women only spaces that include us and exclude them, talk to the hand.  Please PM me so I can put you on ignore.

Quote from: Beyond on August 04, 2008, 06:51:50 AM

Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals. 

It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am.  Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills."  For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other.  As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism.  Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality.  How can one claim otherwise?

<snip>

Someone also mentioned restroom usage.  People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's.  Why is restroom assignment so important?  The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family.  Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.

See this is what happens when someone simply says "we are different".  What's the harm in saying that?  By saying it's wrong to say that you are inferring we are the same.

Why is restroom assignment so important?  Do I really have to explain that?  Try asking a couple dozen women that question.  I did last year when I had this discussion on another board and the result was overwhelming.  The women responded that it should be a women's only space.  In other words NO men, not even crossdressed men.  It has to do with we live in a man's world and the ladies room is seen as the one place that's ours, that is for women only.

There is nothing wrong with saying you're different.  It's the value judgement that goes with it I have problems withs.

As tekla mentioned, in San Francisco the restroom one uses is determined by gender presentation at the time one uses it.  That system seems to work quite well for us.  Maybe your local should give it a try, or is that entirely too tolerant or should we have a little Mich Fest in every public space in the USA.

Quote from: Beyond

QuoteWhether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate.  The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view.  Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?

WTF?  Sex and gender are two totally separate concepts.  You're starting to sound like a fan of Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence.

My statement is unwieldy and I can see how it could be misinterpreted.  I was trying to avoid the bluntness of saying outright that homophobia is at the heart of the notion that "we can't help it that we want to sleep with men".  Blanchard, et al, speak of homosexual autogynaphila as the source of transsexuality.  Being homophobic and autogynaphilic are too different ideas.

Sexual orientation and gender orientation are two different things.  That there is a relationship between sex and gender in our culture is undeniable.  Ask any feminist.

Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 04, 2008, 09:10:07 AM


Feeling that TS is different from CD is one thing.  Wanting others to acknowledge the difference is natural, I suppose.  But not wanting to be called transgendered becasue it does not distinguish you from CDs is kind of like saying you don't like being called a human being because you are white........

........the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class
........educating the public on the fact that MTF TSs really are women is the lost cause of all lost causes.

There have been times in the past when my mind went in the direction of, "I'm a more genuine gender variant individual than a common cd'er is.  But then my mind does its' self-policing, and reminds me that once, long, long, and long ago, I thought maybe.....I was just a cd'er.  WRONG.  But......if I HAD been correct, I would be on the other side of this fence. 
In being ts, you are really a smaller part of a larger group of people who are considered QUEER by most of the global population.  ....and.....NOBODY wants to be tagged as "queer", the most derogatory descriptor ever. 
I keep seeing this "I'm different/I'm better" mindset here and other places, and I find it disturbing that people were honest enough with themselves to transition.  Now that they have, they need to be honest with themselves again, and admit they are.................queer. 

Hide from yourself if you like, but you can also be honest with yourself.  You don't even have to tell anybody you're being honest with yourself .  Just your own little secret. 

Then, put on your skirt, grab your purse, and go to work.  Another normal day in the life of a ts.



Queer Bev

Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2008, 03:05:46 AM
Odd, no voices raised?

uh, i've raised my voice for you many times, you.

and so have others.

-Ell

Oh there are a few, but voices crying out in the wilderness, but I do find it funny that so many of those who would argue with others excluding them, would be so quick to exclude others.

As John (so sadly missed he is) plaintively sang....

No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
That is you can't, you know, tune in but it's all right.
That is I think it's not too bad.

And there is a whole lot of that no one is in my tree on this thread. 

Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 04, 2008, 03:26:06 AM

Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 02:05:02 AM

Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 03, 2008, 11:31:49 PM
I think this whole discussion about TS v. every other group of gender variant peoples is disturbing because of the intolerance it shows on the part of some TS individuals. 

It displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am.  Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills."  For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other.  As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism.  Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality.  How can one claim otherwise?

Whether or not transsexuality is a condition caused by genetics or in utero hormone washes is open to debate.  The claim that it's a result of those things is really a way to deny that one is of gay sexuality in my view.  Otherwise why would it be so necessary to exculpate oneself from suspicion?

Someone also mentioned restroom usage.  People who identify CD or TV are not entitled to use the women's ignoring the fact that a person dressed en femme places themselves at risk if they use the men's.  Why is restroom assignment so important?  The argument sound like what you'd expect from Focus on the Family.  Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the things we have in common rather than those that devide us.

You're really jumping to conclusions saying that. Just because someone doesn't want to be associated with someone else doesn't mean they're really just self-loathing. It's a pretty wild accusation, actually.

I gather you don't agree with me but you're a bit thin on the why.  I didn't say anything about self-loathing or make any accusations.  Clarify, please.

QuoteIt displays a sex negative perspective that says "if you're about sexual pleasure, you're not quite as good as I am.  Where's I, the TS want to sit at home and knit doilies, like a real woman, you just want sexual thrills."  For some reason, (repressed sexuality perhaps?) that makes one group superior to the other.  As much as some may wish it, sexuality cannot be divorced from ->-bleeped-<-/transsexualism.  Despising one's genitals is an attitude towards sexuality.  How can one claim otherwise?

This chunk of your post. Basically you're saying "if you're TS and you want to dissociate from CDs, then you are self-hating, sexually suppressed, and you're not really upset with CDs you just need to get laid."

I find this a wild accusation. You're belittling ones opinions and passing it off as "you just need to get your winky wet"

I think it is time to slow down, state your positions "clearly" without emotion.

Differences of opinions are normal, that is human nature.  Personal digs are not necessary here.


Sarah L.

That was a dead-on post, Tasha. I agree with you 100%

Though, just out of curiosity, I want to prod your shower statement. What if the person has been on hormones for a long time? What if the person looks flawlessly like a natal female except that she is pre-op? What shower then? (in the hypothetical case that there isn't a "no shower" option)

Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:47:15 PM

Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 01:40:10 PM
That was a dead-on post, Tasha. I agree with you 100%

Though, just out of curiosity, I want to prod your shower statement. What if the person has been on hormones for a long time? What if the person looks flawlessly like a natal female except that she is pre-op? What shower then? (in the hypothetical case that there isn't a "no shower" option)

thanks, gracie.

i guess i'd have to say shower at home then; or sponge bath at the sink lol.  i mean, after i go to the gym (which is quite infrequent), thats what i have to do.  i mean, my top and bottom dont match.  and until they do, i will have to make some sacrifices; and while that is a bit inconvenient at times, thats ALL it is -- inconvenience. 

also, logically, if i looked flawlessly like a gg (god, i WISH!) then why would i want to out myself in that manner?  to me, keeping my past in the past is going to be a big deal.  transition is a place i passed through on the way to my final destination, and while it may sometimes be a nice place to visit, i dont want to live there.

Hmm, figured you'd say that, lol. Well, cool beans. Great post.

Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2008, 03:05:46 AM
Where are all those who would claim that EDNA tossed them under the bus, as they so gleefully do the same?  Odd, no voices raised?  Funny how those that would be offended by being left off, are so quick to leave others off.

Given that I was one of the people working behind the scenes pushing UnitedENDA forward, I think you should know where my voice is raised.  My position is for the inclusion of all gender identities.

Lisbeth

Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:21:08 PM
the way a lot of non-transgendered see it is that there is no rational limitation in their eyes.  that is why they will fight facility inclusivity every step of the way; expecially when laws are crafted that specifically state "facility usuage" with no other restrictions.

the fear that any old guy can just throw on a dress and waltz into a women's bathroom or locker room may not be well justified, but it is there....and, realistically, if a law is so written, what is to stop someone from doing so?  and i will guarantee you that the other side will do so in order to show that it can be done -- and they already have.

i do not find it unrealistic to expect limitations on freedoms.  and, personally, while i do not consider myself better than anyone else (quite the opposite actually) i firmly believe that who uses what facilities should be limited.  i dont find it unreasonable for those under the treatment of a therapist following the SOC (which means, WITH a carry letter) to use the appropriate bathroom, but under no circumstances should a pre-operative use a shower facility (its only logical, isnt it....when you're naked, you no longer have a choice as to your "presentation").

and whether it is a lost cause to attempt to educate the general public that mtf/ftm really are the gender that they say they are is immaterial.   it is what separates ts people from the rest of the tg population.  like it or not, there it is. 

finally, there is no other recognized medical condition found in the dsm-iv which REQUIRES, as a part of treatment, that someone EMBRACE the source of their discomfort -- ie; the rle/rlt.  and, like it or not, it is on this basis where legally we have a leg to stand on, and more and more courts are recognizing it.

i am NOT saying, "well, who cares about the cd or tv or gender nonconformist, they dont have any needs that matter."  they DO have needs and they DO matter.  HOWEVER, my needs are a ts are DIFFERENT.  that doesnt make me better or worse, just DIFFERENT.  and acknowledging that difference is not throwing anyone under the bus; anymore than it is acknowledging that there are different needs under the lgbt umbrella as a whole.

here's the big difference to me, what glenda said, and what the general public just doesnt get:

"........the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class"

being ts isn't a "behavior"

why do we get so upset when some newbie comes in and talks about the transsexual "lifestyle"? 

transition or die, we say, and we mean it because its true, at least for many of us.  so how can it be a behavior?  you dont hear "cd or die" or "gender nonconformance" or die.  other than our basic humanity, which is not a small thing, the only thing we have in common with a cd/tv IS THE CLOTHES.

transition is life and death to us.  to me.   and i dont find it unreasonable to separate that need from others under the tg umbrella.  we are NOT the same.  and i dont think its intolerant to say so.

Pathology bestows gender recognition.  What an odd idea. 

So, dressing and acting in cross gender roles, going to considerable trouble to procure hormones legally or illegally and finally having your genitals turned inside out by a surgeon is not behavior?  Just what is it then?

Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 04, 2008, 01:52:28 PM

Pathology bestows gender recognition.  What an odd idea. 

So, dressing and acting in cross gender roles, going to considerable trouble to procure hormones legally or illegally and finally having your genitals turned inside by a surgeon is not behavior?  Just what is it then?

It's a correction.

Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:21:08 PM
the way a lot of non-transgendered see it is that there is no rational limitation in their eyes.  that is why they will fight facility inclusivity every step of the way; expecially when laws are crafted that specifically state "facility usuage" with no other restrictions.

the fear that any old guy can just throw on a dress and waltz into a women's bathroom or locker room may not be well justified, but it is there....and, realistically, if a law is so written, what is to stop someone from doing so?  and i will guarantee you that the other side will do so in order to show that it can be done -- and they already have.

i do not find it unrealistic to expect limitations on freedoms.  and, personally, while i do not consider myself better than anyone else (quite the opposite actually) i firmly believe that who uses what facilities should be limited.  i dont find it unreasonable for those under the treatment of a therapist following the SOC (which means, WITH a carry letter) to use the appropriate bathroom, but under no circumstances should a pre-operative use a shower facility (its only logical, isnt it....when you're naked, you no longer have a choice as to your "presentation").

and whether it is a lost cause to attempt to educate the general public that mtf/ftm really are the gender that they say they are is immaterial.   it is what separates ts people from the rest of the tg population.  like it or not, there it is. 

finally, there is no other recognized medical condition found in the dsm-iv which REQUIRES, as a part of treatment, that someone EMBRACE the source of their discomfort -- ie; the rle/rlt.  and, like it or not, it is on this basis where legally we have a leg to stand on, and more and more courts are recognizing it.

i am NOT saying, "well, who cares about the cd or tv or gender nonconformist, they dont have any needs that matter."  they DO have needs and they DO matter.  HOWEVER, my needs are a ts are DIFFERENT.  that doesnt make me better or worse, just DIFFERENT.  and acknowledging that difference is not throwing anyone under the bus; anymore than it is acknowledging that there are different needs under the lgbt umbrella as a whole.

here's the big difference to me, what glenda said, and what the general public just doesnt get:

"........the transgender umbrella is necessary because it is an accurate descriptor for all who engage in gender-non-conforming behavior and have common needs for freedom of gender expression and freedom from discrimination as a class"

being ts isn't a "behavior"

why do we get so upset when some newbie comes in and talks about the transsexual "lifestyle"? 

transition or die, we say, and we mean it because its true, at least for many of us.  so how can it be a behavior?  you dont hear "cd or die" or "gender nonconformance" or die.  other than our basic humanity, which is not a small thing, the only thing we have in common with a cd/tv IS THE CLOTHES.

transition is life and death to us.  to me.   and i dont find it unreasonable to separate that need from others under the tg umbrella.  we are NOT the same.  and i dont think its intolerant to say so.

ok, assuming that's true, that we are not the same. then what?

there's still an unmistakable sense of hostility towards CD's by some TS's, primarily the ones who say, "they don't belong in our group, they're not like us, they don't understand our needs"

news flash: people are like books. for every 10 you meet, only one or two are gonna make sense to you, or seem worth reading.

i value the wit and wisdom of Tekla and Autumn very much, and if they lived near me, i'd make a real effort to try and hang out with them. so what if they're not TS? they're terribly unique and special human beings.

on the other hand, there are some TS's whose advice doesn't make much sense to me.

people, like books and records, have to be evaluated individually, on your particular subjective basis. dismissing people because of a particular group affinity is your loss, not mine.

but i will not stand by idly and do nothing while my friends are being trashed for simply being who they are.

-Ell

Quote from: Lisbeff's Elf on August 04, 2008, 01:57:27 PM

ok, assuming that's true, that we are not the same. then what?

there's still an unmistakable sense of hostility towards CD's by some TS's, primarily the ones who say, "they don't belong in our group, they're not like us, they don't understand our needs"

news flash: people are like books. for every 10 you meet, only one or two are gonna make sense to you, or seem worth reading.

i value the wit and wisdom of Tekla and Autumn very much, and if they lived near me, i'd make a real effort to try and hang out with them. so what if they're not TS? they're terribly unique and special human beings.

on the other hand, there are some TS's whose advice doesn't make much sense to me.

people, like books and records, have to be evaluated individually, on your particular subjective basis. dismissing people because of a particular group affinity is your loss, not mine.

but i will not stand by idly and do nothing while my friends are being trashed for simply being who they are.

-Ell

Where in this thread has anyone "trashed" or displayed hate towards CDs? I see lots of posts explaining why TSs don't want to be associated with CDs, I see posts explaining why TSs feel there is a large difference between them and CDs. But I have yet to see anyone dissing, ripping, trashing, dismissing, hating on, etc CDs . CDs are fine. A person is a person, and if they're a nice person, then I'm not going to hate them just because they're a CD. But just because I may like some CDs as people doesn't mean I feel it correct to be associated with them. Perhaps I'd associate with them on some other grounds of interest, like film genres or music taste. But associate on the grounds of me being TS and them CD? I don't think so.

Quote from: Gracie FAISE on August 04, 2008, 01:55:55 PM

Quote from: Claire de Lune on August 04, 2008, 01:52:28 PM

Pathology bestows gender recognition.  What an odd idea. 

So, dressing and acting in cross gender roles, going to considerable trouble to procure hormones legally or illegally and finally having your genitals turned inside by a surgeon is not behavior?  Just what is it then?

It's a correction.

Quote from: Mirriam-Webster Online DictionaryMain Entry:
    be·hav·ior
Pronunciation:
    \bi-ˈhā-vyər, bē-\
Function:
    noun
Etymology:
    alteration of Middle English behavour, from behaven
Date:
    15th century

1 a: the manner of conducting oneself b: anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c: the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment2: the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior.

I never said that it wasn't a correction.  You have a way of reading things in my statements that aren't there.  Clue; there's lots of sarcasm and hyperbole in my metaphors.

no other recognized medical condition found in the dsm-iv ...

No other condition is self-diagnosed either.  So its all just what you say you are.  So all the cdgqqi and all the rest could just say......

Not every pathology has the same course of treatment.  What works for one is not the same for everyone.  Could not GID, like say cancer, range from mild skin conditions that require only a minor amount of work and care, to lung conditions that require major efforts?