A recent topic found here clearly show the distaste that transsexuals have towards be called she-male or being associated with the word.  But that raises a question - Is there a place for she-males?  Not long ago there was a debate here at Susan's discussing whether andogynes should have their own forum, and what in fact was an andrognyne.

We all harbor thoughts as to what words/phrases that we dislike.  I imagine that a cross-dressers do not like being called ->-bleeped-<-s, just as ->-bleeped-<-s do not like to be called TS.  But there are folks who refer to themselves as she-males.

So, being the devils advocate that I am, I put it too you...  If a person joined Susan's who identified themselves as a she-male would they be welcome, would we give them support and advice, is there a place for them?

Steph

QuoteSo, being the devils advocate that I am, I put it too you...  If a person joined Susan's who identified themselves as a she-male would they be welcome, would we give them support and advice, is there a place for them?

Yes, I would offer her my full support, just as I would to any member of our community. My dislike of the word is because of the baggage and hate that goes along with it, not of any person who might identify as such. Although I do question how many people identified as she-males at porn sites actually self identify as same, or do they merely tolerate the term because of marketing, etc. If people were to use the word as many in the LGBTIQ community have reclaimed the word queer, that could be entirely different.

zythyra

Personally I hate that word, for it is a derogatory, insulting, offensive way to call transsexuals.  To me, it has the same meaning as calling an African-American person the "N" word, or a Hispanic person the "S" word.  Honestly, I don't think that anyone would like to identify themselves as a she-male.


tinkerbell

Well,

By default I never use the term crossdresser or transgendered - these words bother me. But, my rule is that I will call people by whatever they ask to be called by - including the term ->-bleeped-<-.

So, in that vein, I ask all of you to call me "Party Princess" Brianna from now on.

Your illustrious party princess
Brilala

Quote from: Brianna on January 31, 2007, 06:28:10 PM
Well,

I ask all of you to call me "Party Princess" Brianna from now on.

Your illustrious party princess
Brilala

Party Princess?  that is cute!  what about la unica llamada Brilala as it appears somewhere else?  >


tinkerbell

Steph, with no question, a person who does identify as "she-male" is more than welcomed here, as far as I'm concerned. I really don't like the term, to me it is very derogatory. I have placed it in my own mind as with the porn industry, but this in my thinking and that is all. I wouldn't want to be called a ->-bleeped-<- either. Who knows, maybe in 15-20 years the name will be ok and transsexual will be the bad word. We change them so much here lately that who can keep track.
Tink, I know what the "N" word is, but I don't know what the "S" word is. Maybe, sometime you could fill me in. I don't like the N word so I probably won't like the S word either, whatever that might be. In Oregon, we are a little behind the times and pretty slow, at least slower than California.
Sheila

Quote from: Tinkerbell on January 31, 2007, 06:44:10 PM
Party Princess?  that is cute!  what about la unica llamada Brilala as it appears somewhere else?  >

Lol

I like it, tink. You know what else? You can turn it into a limiting and also a descriptive adjective.
La unica Brianna (The only Brianna)
La Brianna unica (The unique Brianna)

Your party princess,
La Unica Brianna Unica

The term itself could be considered "slang", but I find it to be a wee bit insulting (and trashy!) as well.

Quote from: Brianna on January 31, 2007, 06:28:10 PM
So, in that vein, I ask all of you to call me "Party Princess" Brianna from now on.

Be careful what you wish for, Your Snarkiness.

Hmmm Brianna gives another thought provoking statement>?
Party princess?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I do not know what i wanna be called

I feel like one of those muts sometimes?  you know the ones that seem to have 6 different breeds in them?
hmmm Muts are lovebale and loyal... hehe...
I would welcome anyone any degree of issue and not be the judge or jury not my job!
But i said in one post i do not find the term she-male offensive (i guess i just do not) but in a way its a blatent statement that conjures an image in ones head (a man with boobs or a woman with a penis right???) so in that respect i do not like it people are far, far more complicated than that especially the sub-culture here and that term does not do justice to us folks..
did i just contradict what i said in another post?
agggghhhhhhhhh
having a blonde moment.....
kisses
ricki

I guess this begs the question --

Are there people who self-identify as 'she-male'?  And are they really happy with that self-identification?



Karen

OK lets stay on topic folks, enough with the cutesy names.  The question is not if you like the term She-male, but would we support a person who joined Susan's who identified as a She-male.

Like it or not there are people out there who are she-males, who are not trying to save money for SRS by working the porn industry, and who are quite happy with what they are.  So if a person joined Susan's and identified as a She-male, would you provide them the same support as the other members, is there a place for them here?

Zythyra, Sheila, and Riki you make good points

Steph

Quote from: tinkerbellI don't think that anyone would like to identify themselves as a she-male.

But if there were someone who did and joined Susan's, my duty as a staff member would be to support that individual, so yes, there is a place for them here.


tinkerbell

Quote from: Karen on January 31, 2007, 09:08:07 PM
I guess this begs the question --

Are there people who self-identify as 'she-male'?  And are they really happy with that self-identification?



Karen

I imagine there are Karen and there would those who would be happy with the label She-male and there would be those who are not.  I'm not happy being called TS, I am a woman, but it's a label that folks stick me with.

Steph

Quote from: Steph on January 31, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
I imagine there are Karen and there would those who would be happy with the label She-male and there would be those who are not.  I'm not happy being called TS, I am a woman, but it's a label that folks stick me with.
Steph

Yup yup. I mean, this exists more in the porn industry. But I am sure there are some that are comfortable with the term.

And yes, it's my job to support anyone within the TG community as a member of Susans. So sure. But they'd have to understand that sexual proclivity is not the primary modis oparandi here.

Bri, your Party Princess

  Here's the way I see it.  The term "->-bleeped-<-" is applied loosely and often wrongly.  Are "->-bleeped-<-s" simply gay males who enhance thier bodies to appear more feminine for entertainment/business purposes?  Or are "->-bleeped-<-s" transsexual women who choose to maintain thier male genitalia?   

  I personally hate the term when applied to pre-operative or post-operative transsexual women because it is inaccurate to the point of being offensive.  However, I do know a couple people who identify as "->-bleeped-<-".  One is the classically defined "->-bleeped-<-" being a gay male who has altered his body to appear more feminine for entertainment/business purposes and the other is virtually indistinguishable from a GG with the exception of genitalia.  "He" is a performer and does not live as a fulltime woman despite his "enhancements".  "She" was a former adult film actress and now works as an escort. 

  "He" does not claim to be female, transsexual or anything other than a gay male with some very feminine attributes.  "She" is extremely feminine with the exception of her genitalia and identifies as "->-bleeped-<-" and "non op transsexual".
 
  She and I had many conversations about this issue and I admit to being very uptight initially.  She grew up like most of us...hating the body she had and hating the social situations that came along with living in a gender role that felt wrong.  She loved Barbies and Easy Bake ovens and constantly dealt with all of the internal struggles that we as transsexual women deal with.  Here's the kicker though....and the thing that took me so long to  understand.  She didn't dislike her genitalia and was never consumed with a desire to change it.  If you were to see her you would be amazed....she's beautiful to the point of never believing she wasn't GG.  I suppose that made it even more difficult for me to understand.  I tended to project my own feelings onto her because that's what felt right to me and I was wrong.  Her personality is distinctly female and her life is distinctly female except for the obvious exception.  She's happy with her life....as a matter of fact she's extremely happy with her life.  That's more than I can say for many transsexual women so she must be doing something right.  Is she a "->-bleeped-<-"? Well...she identifies herself as such but she also identifies as a "non-op transsexual" woman and I suppose both are true. 

  I also have a friend...well she's more than a friend, she's my sister in every way except blood who has been a "non-op TS" since transitioning in the seventies.  She, by common definition, is a "->-bleeped-<-" because she chose to keep her male genitalia.  This woman is the epitome of feminity and truly a woman in every respect. 

  I'm focusing on the female aspect of "->-bleeped-<-s" because I think we all agree that it differs greatly from the gay male side of the controversy.  The term "->-bleeped-<-" is extensively used in the adult film business and media to describe any genetic male who alters thier body to appear more feminine but, by choice, retains male sex characteristics.  Is that to mean that "non-op" transsexual women aren't real women as those of us who are pre or post op claim to be?  I say absolutely not because sex organs don't identify our gender and the variations in gender are multifold.

  So often we say "having male genitalia doesn't necessarily make you a man" and "genitalia doesn't identify people accurately as male or female" or a dozen other variations.  I've noticed a lot of hostility on this subject when it comes those who identify as "->-bleeped-<-" and I don't think it's right.  We are the last people who should be hating on others......as I said, I despise the term "->-bleeped-<-" when applied to myself or women like me but that doesn't mean that the women who do identify as "->-bleeped-<-" are not true women.  While it's difficult for even me to "wrap my head around" we should remember that being a woman has nothing to do with your genitals....it has to do with who you are on the inside.  Sexual differences aside we all share the same basic internal struggle.

  I have to disagree Tink.  I don't think the female gender is based on whether that person feels they must change their genitalia.  I think gender is much more diverse than that.  Certainly the largest percentage of MtF transsexuals feel that they must have SRS to feel complete but there is also a small percentage who don't fall into that catagory. 

  When you look at the history you see that initially everyone was umbrella termed as gay or a crossdresser if they stepped outside the accepted gender stereotype.  As time went on different groups began to fight for the affimation that thier particular characteristics were indeed unique to them.  Skip forward to today when we now easily accept the fact that a crossdresser is rarely gay, ->-bleeped-<-s are different than crossdressers and transsexuals are also a seperate 'catagory' with thier own characteristics.

  It certainly wasn't so long ago that transsexualism was viewed by society and the medical community as a gross perversion and those genetic male or females were in no way the opposite genders they claimed to be.  While initially I shared your views on this subject, I've come to know these people very well over the years and I realized that projecting what felt right to me (SRS) onto them is just as wrong as the way society projected what felt right to them onto all of us throughout history. 

  Many genetic women will say that a transsexual woman is NOT a woman because she was not born a woman.  That the 'prerequisite' to be female is being born female.  No doubt every TS woman will debate this fact because we know how we feel inside.  We can't take our gender off and put it on a table to be seen and prove it exists so we must constantly fight against ignorance to give ourselves credence.  In my opinion claiming that a woman who keeps her male anatomy intact is not a real woman falls right into that same kind of thinking that has hurt us all for so long.  Is it unusual? Yes.  Is it difficult for us to understand? Most certainly but none of these things make them male.  I refuse to believe that genitals define gender.  Gender simply isn't related to sexual orientation or sexual preferences and practices. 

i'm confused about something. if [->-bleeped-<-s] are women, why doesn't anyone here identify as such?

why do we think the term [->-bleeped-<-] is offensive then?  why do we bother with transition if we could just have breasts and [be women]?  why do we bother with  sex reassignment surgery? why? are you saying that all it takes to be a woman is [to feel] like one? to just have breasts? if that's true, then [transition] is a gag..  sorry but i disagree brandiOK.

->-bleeped-<-s are neither male nor female and [like] it that way.  ->-bleeped-<-s like to be [the best] of both worlds; they [enjoy] [having breasts] and [penises]; they're [hybrids] who [choose] to go only halfway through the sex reassignment process; they may present as female but [don't] have a [female] gender identity; therefore, they can't be called [women].

Quotewhy? are you saying that all it takes to be a woman is [to feel] like one? to just have breasts?

I see your point.  I'd be pretty upset if anybody thought that there wasn't more to me being a woman than the fact that I've got tits.

But I don't think that's quite what Brandi was saying (and that as much as I'm going to speak for you, I don't want to step on your toes, Brandi)

It just seems that the qualifications for being female are different depending on who you're asking. Trying to define exactly what a woman is and is not is nearly an impossible task.  If somebody tells me that they are a woman, I'm apt to believe them, surgery or not because they know their own feelings better than I will ever know their feelings.

Quote->-bleeped-<-s are neither male nor female and [like] it that way.  ->-bleeped-<-s like to be [the best] of both worlds; they [enjoy] [having breasts] and [penises]; they're [hybrids] who [choose] to go only halfway through the sex reassignment process; they may present as female but [don't] have a [female] gender identity; therefore, they can't be called [women].

If that is the accurate definition of a ->-bleeped-<- (not that I doubt you, Katia, it just seems that everybody has their own idea of what exactly this is) than no, I don't think they can be called women, but that's also because someone in this mindset doesn't believe themselves to truly be women either.  If they say they are the best of both worlds, then they are neither male nor female...I'm curious what my androgyne friends here are thinking of this? 

The term is offensive when it is being used to describe transexual women...because it isn't an accurate description of transexual women and it's almost always used as an insult. If somebody identifies as a ->-bleeped-<- then no, I don't suppose it would be offensive to them.

That said, I will say that I wouldn't turn my back on someone that refers to themselves as a ->-bleeped-<-. If they are looking for support due to a gender issue (and I think that qualifies as a gender isssue) than there really is no better place than here.  We have transexuals, cross-dressers, intersexuals, androgynes, and the significan others of people that fit into these categories...why draw the line just because somebody calls themselves a ->-bleeped-<-? Don't they need as much support as anyone else here?  I think they do.

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 01, 2007, 02:13:05 PM
Don't they need as much support as anyone else here?  I think they do.

support? yes

to call them women?  no

Well, we do agree on it, then! Cool!