Don't forget the shoes, Nichole!  The thought of wearing al those ugly wing-tips, Oxfords and loafers the rest of my life is what drove me to transition! I tried to make do for years with some lovely Italian cap-toes, but finally I admitted that I needed some pumps, and mules and boots.  Don't forget the strappy sandals.  Oh hell, nothing less than Carrie Bradshaw's closet would do! 

Imelda Marcos was a goddess!  >

Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 04, 2008, 01:21:08 PM
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.

But a TS person, from my point of view, is someone who is actually in the process of changing their physical sex.  It is not an identity.  Someone who is going to change their sex thirty years from now but has no plans to do so at present is not TS.  Some one who has completed transition is not TS.  But they are both transgendered due to past, present, and/or future gender non-conforming thoughts, appearances, behaviors, and/or activities.  So, to me, TS is a behavior.  What you are talking about is motivation for the behavior.

Saying that different categories of transgendered persons tend to have different needs is just stating a fact.  Saying that two transgendered persons in the same category have different needs is also stating a fact.  But a problem arises when we seek legislation separately for each sub-category or each individual.  A right is not enjoyed by one person having one motivation that is not enjoyed by another person having another motivation.  That's called "special rights."  Any rights we obtain must be obtained for all and enjoyed by all.

For an example of the problems related to seeking rights for different classes of people separately, just look at ENDA.  It was originally written with sexual orientation and gender identity offered as a la carte options.  That was a mistake.  It should have been offered to protect against discrimination for gender non-conformity, with sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, intersex, etc. all given as sub-categories of gender non-conformity in the definitions.  Sexual orientation is a type of gender non-conformity because the choice of sex partner is gender non-conforming.  Seeking separate protection on a sub-class by sub-class basis is a mistake.  If you advocate for seeking separate legislation for TS and CD, then you must not have a problem with HRC and the non-inclusive ENDA.

Posted on: August 06, 2008, 11:14:37 AM

---

Quote from: Nichole on August 06, 2008, 11:03:35 AM
Women, regardless their etiology, do get aroused by their own clothing. Ya wanna look sexy? be inviting? you see yourself as arousing?Frl just a bit aroused when your dressed to the nines? That never seems to arise in these discussions.

So what if you're trans and get "aroused" when you dress-up, like the texture of a fabric against your nipples or your clit or such? Do we truly think other women don't? How laughable! You'd think the point of trans is simply a journey into abstinence and asceticism! Get real, folks!

The main problem with all this theorizing, from Ray Blanchard to Pogo, is that we tend to ignore certain natural qualities of sexuality and the ways in which people see themselves; that, and we never make those clear distinctions between "gender" and "sexuality."

Sorry, silk and satin feel good against a body, why do ya think we dress and use them for bed clothes so much?

Nichole

P.S. O, come to think it, so do cotton, linen, rayon, even wool on occasions!

Yes indeed!  Sexual arousal from clothing and non-conforming gender identity can exist in the same person!  They are not exclusive!  And that is why evidence of sexual arousal is not an indicator that one is not TS.  The DSM even notes that fetishistic ->-bleeped-<- is often an early stage of TS.  A psychiatrist I know who evaluated literally hundreds (maybe thoudsands) of TS persons for surgery over the course of several decades told me that every single one with which he had a post surgical interview told him that they had a fetish phase.  So when a TS person protests very loudly about the fetish thing, what do you think crosses my mind?

Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 06, 2008, 11:14:37 AM
If you advocate for seeking separate legislation for TS and CD, then you must not have a problem with HRC and the non-inclusive ENDA.

That's actually a very good point. Anytime someone excludes another person or group form protection and inclusion just because they aren't doing what you're doing is wrong. This goes for the ENDA not being inclusive of gender identity, as well a someone not being inclusive of another genre under the TG umbrella because "they're not the same as me." Why don't we all fight together for the common good of everyone? I think excluding others goes back to a certain level of selfishness in that you want your needs taken care of before the needs of others.

Quote from: glendagladwitch on August 06, 2008, 11:20:52 AM
Yes indeed!  Sexual arousal from clothing and non-conforming gender identity can exist in the same person!  They are not exclusive!  And that is why evidence of sexual arousal is not an indicator that one is not TS.  The DSM even notes that fetishistic ->-bleeped-<- is often an early stage of TS.  A psychiatrist I know who evaluated literally hundreds (maybe thoudsands) of TS persons for surgery over the course of several decades told me that every single one with which he had a post surgical interview told him that they had a fetish phase.  So when a TS person protests very loudly about the fetish thing, what do you think crosses my mind?

For some reason, Glenda, all I could read of your response was the first sentence. Perhaps this will help flesh out what you are saying.

This entire "sexual arousal" thang is a result 1) of the way historically the stories of trans women have been related through Benjamin and other early researchers who never asked about it and then wrote their books. The trans women read the books and decided that they needed to follow a script to get surgeries and hormones from the "gatekeepers." Everyone told the same story and no one mentioned sexuality.

2) A reaction to the much bally-hoed BBL stuff that wants to focus transsexuality ONLY on the half of the word, "sexuality." So now we react to that and HAVE to deny any sexual feelings at all yet again! Baloney!

Come now, even monks & nuns of all religions have sexual feelings. ALL people have sexual feelings and ranges of "sexualized" objects are endless!!

Why are trans women supposed to be, very literally, Barbies?

Wow, what a deal that would be. We could all just have "smoothing" done instead of SRS!! Totally sexless.

That would also take care of unfortunate events like the murder of Angie Zapata. If she had had "nothing at all" down there, been totally "sexless," there would have been no murder! What a solution!

3) We automatically default to a position where to have a desire for, an ability for, sex and to enjoy it are simply anathema! To have sexual feelings is to be ->-bleeped-<- or a CD or TV.

To have sexual feelings and desires is human. That is the core of it all. The rest of this is simply after-the-fact lying, disingenuity (as distinct from lying,) silence or, in the very real cases of some, perhaps many, the result of horrid sexual abuse from one or another age. (One should also note that in the case of sexual abuse, promiscuity is more frequently a result than is total asexuality.) 

Why is it so difficult for us to "be real" when we talk about sex and the ways we are moved by it? None of that I just listed denies anyone's validity for "being a woman." Why let the jerks run the show for us?

Thank you, Glenda. I have no idea what you think. But I can imagine after having a twinge or two of my own about the matter.  >

Nichole

P.S. AND, imo, the whole shower/bathroom thingy is a red-herring anyhow, no matter its use. It's an exercise in fantasy that is used to demand difference where none need be. How many CDs are actually gonna try or have? The only instance I have yet heard of is the one that was obviously "cooked" in Maryland to support the contentions of the people who want to change that law in Montgomery County.

In women's bathrooms and generally in women's showers there are walled divisions. They are NOT set-up like the boys' locker-rooms and bathrooms we experienced in middle and high school. Ya takes your shower in private and don't ogle everyone else while you do so under the disguise of water.

If someone "passes" then actually being able to tell would be a miraculous occurrence or require someone to "police" the entry-way demanding strip-searches or, in more restrictive states, gender-marker on IDs checks.

Tasha - I think the point is being missed. I understand the differences you outlined and do agree with them. There is definitely a difference between a CD not being to use the women's bathroom because they are CD and a TS being fired because they are TS. The point I was making, however, was that just because we do or do not agree with what someone else is doing doesn't mean should abolish them from the list of people who should be entitled protections. We should not distance ourselves from them just because they are different than us. We all have different outlooks on everything, but the one thing we all know for a fact is that we need inclusion and protection from discrimination.

I personally do not think that CDs should be able to use women's showers or bathrooms since most of them would probably tell you they do not identify as women, rather they are just expressing their feminine side. To be able to stroll into a place of intimate exposure (showers and the like, not necessarily bathrooms) just because you are out at the time expressing your femininity is not something I agree with. I also do not think that pre-op TSs should be able to use the women's showers (bathrooms are ok) just out of respect for the other women. There are, however, other rights that CDs should be entitled to like the very fact that they CD shouldn't be discriminated against. The main point is that we should all try and come together to fight for everyone's rights and not try and separate ourselves and just focus on our rights.

I think instead of distancing ourselves or not including others we should try and come to an agreement on exactly what rights we all need and are entitled to. Then we can go to the legal system, unified and organized, and fight for those rights. Until then, we are all going to just keep on focusing on our own rights and progression will be much slower. Like I said in my first post in this discussion, if we started out in the beginning as LGBT (or LGBTCDQ...whatever) instead of just LGB, and we fought for the rights of ALL, we would probably ALL be in a better situation now and not have one group with these rights and another group with these rights but not those.

Very well said SarahR.  I tend to agree.


Sarah L.

Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 06, 2008, 11:35:27 AM
there is a huge difference in advocating that someone in the real life experience portion of transition -- which is, like it or not, a medicallly supervised procedure -- should not be fired simply for complying with that portion of their soc treatment and advocating that anyone who "wants to express their femininity" today can throw on a dress and have the right to shower in a female locker room.

it does not make a cd less of a person to not be allowed in a female restroom or locker room.  it does not make a pre-op less of a person to shower at home until their plumbing is corrected. 

going home to shower is an inconvenience.  losing your job because youre in transition is discrimination.  if you cant see that difference, i'm sorry.

a crossdresser does NOT have the "right" to be in a woman's locker room or bathroom.  period.

edit:  you have the right to believe what you want.  you DO NOT have the right to belittle what i believe, or to subtly make baseless accusations.  i knew it was a mistake to post in this thread.  "tolerance" lol  yeah, there's a concept that applies to OTHER PEOPLE. 

Hi 'chelle.

i think i'm starting to understand what you're saying.

personally, i don't feel like RLE is much of a "medically supervised procedure," because i have reached a point where i just accept it as how i do things.

if i were somehow prevented from doing that, though, it would be a problem. big problem.

i keep trying to tell you to start going full time as soon as soon as possible, 'cause i know how much it means to you. but see, i am not a therapist, and my advice could actually do you some harm if it pushes to do something too soon.

you seem to think you are more stressed out with the extremeness of your GID than a CD, closer to the edge, etc., etc. well, just look at how stressed Kate was, 'bout a year ago (and before). But now, look at her go! she's no more stressed out than a "regular" person...

so, please get your stress levels under control by dressing as soon and as much as you can (heh, advice any CD could have given you, too). um, but also, please note that i'm only advising you as a friend, not as a therapist.

Love,

-Ell

I really don't like this thing about always linking bathrooms and shower rooms together.  There is no exposure with going to the bathroom.  And going to the bathroom is not something most people have much choice over.  Unless you have a colostomy bag, when you've got to go, you've got to go.  And if you're not allowed to go...

Lisbeth

Quote from: Nichole on August 06, 2008, 11:03:35 AM
Women, regardless their etiology, do get aroused by their own clothing. Ya wanna look sexy? be inviting? you see yourself as arousing? Feel just a bit aroused when you're dressed to the nines? That never seems to arise in these discussions.

So what if you're trans and get "aroused" when you dress-up? Like the texture of a fabric against your nipples or your clit or such? Do we truly think other women don't? How laughable!

You'd think the point of trans is simply a journey into abstinence and asceticism! Get real, folks!

The main problem with all this theorizing, from Ray Blanchard to Pogo, is that we tend to ignore certain natural qualities of sexuality and the ways in which people see themselves; that, and we never make those clear distinctions between "gender" and "sexuality."

Sorry, silk and satin feel good against a body, why do ya think we dress and use them for bed clothes so much?

Nichole

P.S. O, come to think it, so do cotton, linen, rayon, even wool on occasions!

Very good point, Nikki. A lot of these attitudes stem from the de-sexualization of women. A 'good' girl is not supposed to get aroused by anything other than a man's touch. There's a denial that women have their own sexuality and hot buttons.

Quote from: Ellie's Miss Lisbeff on August 05, 2008, 04:21:07 AM

Quote from: barbie on August 04, 2008, 11:38:32 PM
I think it has been a subject for philosophical debates during the past 2,000 years: Nominalism vs. Realism.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/nominalism_realism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm

Cleaver, Barbie.  I salute you.

I have always viewed it as preposterous to imagine an "ideal model" existing in some nebulous other dimension.  That makes me solidly a Nominalist.  And that is consistent with my inductive rather than deductive reasoning style.  There are no "ideal" TSs or TGs, only individuals who label themselves "TS" or "TG."  And so there is no real dividing line; it is all reification, acting like an imaginary thing really exists.

Lisbeth

Thanks, Lisbeth,

You understand what I want to say. I sometimes face naive 'extreme realists'. I explain to them that even the 'ideal model' itself has been changning and will change.

I sometimes use women's restroom. This is not related with gender identity, but just to avoid fusses in my daily life. My enterance to men's room could be embarassing to both myself and others. I will happy if I could use 'unisex' room, "just for convenience". I think restrooms exist for convenience, not for gender identity. Even the gender signs in the door exisit for convenience. As long as others and I are OK (implicitly), I enter women's room.

Barbie~~

Quote from: Nero on August 06, 2008, 04:49:18 PM
Very good point, Nikki. A lot of these attitudes stem from the de-sexualization of women. A 'good' girl is not supposed to get aroused by anything other than a man's touch. There's a denial that women have their own sexuality and hot buttons.

Thank you, Nero. I thought so as well!

Face it, all too often we, trans women, are scared-to-death to admit we have any sexual feelings at all. O, the hormones made me lose that. Huh? Did the hormones makes you re-grow hair you'd lost from male pattern-baldness? Did the hormones spread your hips? Did the hormones grow you ovaries, a ueterus and a vagina?

I rather doubt that. And to say the hormones removed anyone's sexual desires and thoughts is also, imo, a disingenuous notion as well. But it's one we think we HAVE to use in order to show we are valid, ready for surgery, "real."

Look, E has defintely changed my body, but it didn't make my hips wider or grow me internal organs I didn't have before. But it apparently has made some changes in things that do continue to grow -- like neuronal pathways. One's textural feelings do change.

I'm just not sure why we don't start telling the truth. Not every woman, gg or trans, is going to have an orgasm. There are good reasons for that, some physiological, others psychological. Those reasons do not invalidate anyone's "womanhood." Nor do they validate it either. They simply are an aspect of being human. Period.

Are sexual responses and feelings different sometimes on E than on T? Yes, definitely. Are orgasms different? Yes, definitely.

Ya know how we often say that "passing" is 90% between the ears and 10% in the rest of the body and mannerisms? Well, imo, so is sexual response. It's a brain thang in all of us and the physical responses are less of a factor than how I think of them, consciously and unconsciously.

Are we really so addled as to think that the day before my SRS I am unable to be sexual at all and six months afterwards I can be totally sexual due to a simple operation? O, come on. Where that holds true is in the mind, imo. Not in the body. I mean just think about it. Same tissue after surgery as before, just configured differently. Does anyone really think that Brassard, Bowers, Suporn and Meltzer all manage to connect some "plug" that had been left unplugged before surgery?

Or do we become able to connect that "plug" after surgery?

What was it Sherlock Holmes said? "When you eliminate the impossible; what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

Yep.


Nichole

Quote from: barbie on August 06, 2008, 06:21:54 PM
I sometimes use women's restroom. This is not related with gender identity, but just to avoid fusses in my daily life. My enterance to men's room could be embarassing to both myself and others.

I stopped using the men's room when my presence would scare all the men into leaving.  That sort of thing has never happened when I use the women's room.  The choice for me is obvious.

Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on August 06, 2008, 11:35:27 AM
it does not make a cd less of a person to not be allowed in a female restroom or locker room.  it does not make a pre-op less of a person to shower at home until their plumbing is corrected. 

going home to shower is an inconvenience.  losing your job because youre in transition is discrimination.  if you cant see that difference, i'm sorry.

So isn't it discrimination in the case of Sandra Goins who was not allowed, while at work, to use either the men's room or the women's room?  In her case, she was permitted to use a restroom in a building across the highway or the toilet in the janitor's closet.

Lisbeth

And that's the rule, not the exception, if I am not mistaken.  The TS is told to use a private bathroom in another building or several floors down in the basement, etc.  It's better than being fired, I guess.  But, in truth, employers should provide single use family or unisex restrooms wherever they provide mens' and womens' rooms.  And then the transgendered person should not be forced to use only that one.  Everyone should be free to use any of them.  And anyone who has a problem with it can wait in line for the single use restroom.  Personally, I'd like to see them do away with group restrooms anyway.  In my view, they just enforce the binary gender concept.

Posted on: August 06, 2008, 10:34:30 PM

---

Dear Female Employees,

One of your coworkers, much to our annoyance, has informed us that he will be becoming a "she."  Normally, we would require "her" to use the hole in the floor in the janitor's closet in place of any of the mens' or ladies' restrooms.  However, for some inexplicable reason, we have decided to be fair this time.  Therefore, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, your freaky co-worker will be using the hole in the floor in the janitor's closet.  However, on Tuesdays and Thurdays, "she" will be using the ladies' room, while the rest of you must use the hole in the floor of the janitor's closet.  Anyone mysteriously not freaked out and willing to use the ladies' room with the FREAK on Tuesdays and Thursdays will not be permitted to do so.  However, if all of you vote that the FREAK will be permitted to use the ladies' room at all times, then no one will be forced to use the hole in the floor of the janitor's closet.  However, the vote must be unanimous.  Please cast your vote in the space provided below and return it to the gender police representative on your floor by 5pm today.

Thank-you,
The Management