I call people whatever they wish to be called. Though I am called a crossdresser or ->-bleeped-<-, I consider myself the latter. I know it has negative connotations attached to it, but I'm strange like that. I guess it's the quirkiness that I possess in me.

Gennee    

Personally I agree with Tink in that I don't support any notion that implies that a she-male is transsexual or a woman.  However the point of the post was to simply ask if there is a place for a she-male here at Susan's.  I can imagine that there would be hot debate as to the legitimacy of she-males and how they define themselves and who and what they are.

At the moment, to my knowledge, there are no she-male members of Susan's so this is speculation on my part.   

Now here is an interesting notion...  that bears some thought...  >  Suppose a new member joins Susan's who identifies as a she-male (whatever definition they use).  I wouldn't consider them to be TS, or a woman but what if they went into therapy etc. and through that they were diagnosed with GID, so despite what the member previously identified as, they would now be considered TS.  We often see the same with CD's who later realize through therapy that they are in fact TS not CD.

Which brings me to my point - the word "She-male when used by an outsider to describe TS I see as derogatory beyond belief.  However if a person wishes to identify themselves as a she-male I would see as being legitimate in every respect and deserving of our support.

An interesting commentary on the "T" community me thinks

Steph

Quote from: Steph on February 01, 2007, 04:30:09 PM
However if a person wishes to identify themselves as a she-male I would see as being legitimate in every respect and deserving of our support.

Exactly!

It's always been my impression that ->-bleeped-<-s refer to *themselves* as such specifically to advertise the fact that they DO have and enjoy their male sexuality and identity, yet have an otherwise feminine body. THEY don't find the term offensive, as far as I know. I could be wrong though, as I'll admit I'm not very familiar with porn culture

But in that spirit, I believe we should support them - should the opportunity arise.

Kate

I guess just a personal opinion, but in returning to the original question, would a person identifying as She-male be welcome at Susan's?  If wanting and/or developing body parts and image reflecting parts of both genders-sexes-whatever, doesn't fit in some kind of definition of Gender Identity Disorder, regardless of the reasons, I don't know what does.  As such, of course they should be welcomed.  We of all people should be tolerant. 

Do I understand it?  No.  As a M2F, I really don't understand F2M either.  So what?  Since coming here, I have learned much about me as well as others.  One thing I do know, just don't try to get me in your movie!

Susan Kay

Personally, I believe that ->-bleeped-<-s should have a place but not be identified as transsexual or as women.

Tiff

Edit - Kate

The first place I ever saw the term was many years ago on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.  The ->-bleeped-<-s were in bars to gawk at.  They were these strangely fascinating freaks.  In a sense, they were sexual, but they were first freaks of nature, almost like an old fashioned circus side show.

Much time has passed since then and I suppose meanings can change.  And I know what the porn industry has done with the term.  But I have never once seen it used in a positive light.  I know there must be a few, else Steph would not have asked.  But if I call myself transgender or a cross-dresser, these are at least neutral terms.  "->-bleeped-<-", in my mind is only used as a degrading term.  Is there anyone on here who really wants to be called ->-bleeped-<-?

Kristi

Funny thing is, lots of genetic women express an interest in what it would be like to have male plumbing. So while I strongly relate to the desire to have surgical correction, logically it seems unexpected that *all* women would feel such a strong need to have the correct anatomy.

I do think it highly likely though the idea that someone who identifies with *the term* might really be TS but not knowing the proper terminology and the differences in what kinds of people the terms convey.

Regarding the "S" word (no I am NOT going to type it) - combined with "span" it makes part of a term for cleanliness. I only say anything because it is helpful to know what words not to use (one time I uttered it - twice - not knowing it meant anything!).

 

Quote from: Kristi on February 01, 2007, 10:24:28 PM
The first place I ever saw the term was many years ago on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.  The ->-bleeped-<-s were in bars to gawk at.  They were these strangely fascinating freaks.  In a sense, they were sexual, but they were first freaks of nature, almost like an old fashioned circus side show.

  I understand that there is a lot emotion involved in this topic but to refer to another group of people as "freaks" for expressing themselves? That seems a bit harsh to me considering we as ->-bleeped-<-s, androgens, crossdressers or transsexuals are often referred to as freaks by people who refuse to even try to understand us. 

  I think we've already confirmed that some people aren't bothered by the term "->-bleeped-<-" when identifying themselves.  I'm beginning to see that the majority of problems that transsexual women have with these people isn't because of the terminology but because the women who have chosen this path aren't the same as they are.  Wow...that's eerily reminiscent of discrimination on a very personal level.   I think it's sad that we as a community so used to being attacked and belittled would be so quick to do the same to another group of people who are simply being who they are. 

  My problem isn't with the gay males who alter thier bodies and take on the persona of classic "->-bleeped-<-s".  These guys don't claim to be transsexual or women. They are perfectly happy being men, unique men but men none the less so it's a moot point.  My problem is with the denial of legitimacy to those people who are not gay males and identify as the female gender, yet choose to maintain male genitalia.   I understand that as transsexual women we want to define barriers of what qualifies as what.  That's not a TG trait it's human nature...unfortunately that same human nature is what denied our legitimacy as transsexuals for so long. 

  If genitals define gender then simply changing genitals to another 'physical' sex would also automatically change that persons gender.  If you were to forcibly give a male, who identified as male gender, SRS then that would change his gender by what I have read here.  I think we can all agree that is absolutely ridiculous.  It's interesting to me that so often transsexual authors, advocates and supporters are quoted in the media as saying things like "Genitals don't define gender" and "Gender, sexual preference and physical sex are completely independant of each other and are in no way linked".  Why do we say things like this? Obviously it's because it works for us.  It helps us try to legitamize our claims of being a different gender than our physical sex at birth.  Now....when that same thought process is applied to a group that we don't want accept for whatever reason we change the rules?  Suddenly we want to claim that genitalia IS linked to gender.  Seems a bit hypocritical to me.  It was mentioned that any person who claims to be transsexual and is not driven to SRS couldn't possibly be transsexual.  That, in itself, says that genitals define gender and if genitals define gender what is to say that only birth genitals define gender? Theoretically that is the most logical choice.....and yet we know that not to be true.  So if that statement is untrue then it proves that genitals don't define gender and that......proves that 'individuals' who have male genitalia or female genetalia or no genitalia can be the gender they identify as.

 

 

I don't suppose there is a term for "she-males" that doesn't carry all of this baggage, is there?

Quote from: BrandiOK on February 02, 2007, 01:02:41 AM
 

Quote from: Kristi on February 01, 2007, 10:24:28 PM
The first place I ever saw the term was many years ago on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.  The ->-bleeped-<-s were in bars to gawk at.  They were these strangely fascinating freaks.  In a sense, they were sexual, but they were first freaks of nature, almost like an old fashioned circus side show.

  I understand that there is a lot emotion involved in this topic but to refer to another group of people as "freaks" for expressing themselves? That seems a bit harsh to me considering we as ->-bleeped-<-s, androgens, crossdressers or transsexuals are often referred to as freaks by people who refuse to even try to understand us. 

Brandi,
I understand what you are saying, and agree.  I'm not saying that I saw them as freaks.  I'm saying that is how they were marketed to draw in the almighty dollar.  I thought it was pathetic then and still do.  It had nothing to do with anyone trying to express thermselves.  It had everything to do with sick commercialism.

Peace,
Kristi

  I think I've finally exhausted my will to debate...obviously this is going to be a topic that is best chalked up to "agree to disagree" and abandoned for now while the mood is still amiable 

  This entire conversation is one of the reasons why Susan's site is a jewel.  We are able to debate topics almost to the point of becoming overly heated and still be as tight a group as we were to begin with.   

Well,

I doagree that often things done for the "almighty dollar" are terrible. I mean, the oil industry rapes the earth for the almighty dollar, and we celebrate it with a closing bell. THAT is bad. So were the Doctor Doolitle movies - they were a total hate crime against my eyeballs.

She-male pornography is not inately bad though.

I am a proponent of disadvantaged groups being able to fight for economic parity. This is why I think sex workers (known to non-liberals as prostitutes) have a legitimate profession. I also think if she-males choose to get economic partity by participating in pornography, more power to them.

La unica se llama brianna

QuoteShe-male pornography is not inately bad though.

I am a proponent of disadvantaged groups being able to fight for economic parity. This is why I think sex workers (known to non-liberals as prostitutes) have a legitimate profession. I also think if she-males choose to get economic partity by participating in pornography, more power to them.

                If you believe that women and she-males are reaching economic parity through porn, you need to think again. They are exploited, receive little more than a working wage and they risk their lives with aids, drugs and violence. They support fat cats in mansions in Bel Air and Manhatten who use them like toilet paper. The romantic male fantasy of the hooker that is secure, happy and prosperous is blatently false, restricted to film and literature and does not exist in the real world.


beth

Quote from: beth on February 02, 2007, 06:26:10 PM
The romantic male fantasy of the hooker that is secure, happy and prosperous is blatently false, restricted to film and literature and does not exist in the real world.

That's a darn good point, though full of generalizations.

Bri

Ps- Maybe if our culture legalized sex workers this would not be the case?

QuotePs- Maybe if our culture legalized sex workers this would not be the case?

              You obviously speak from a position of never knowing or being closely related to a sex worker. Even those who are highly intelligent, immune from police actions and in control of their lives end up deeply wounded for life. This isn't something to be romanticised and trivialized by anyone, especially by those who have no clue.



beth

Geez, beth. Apparently, I don't from your description.

Katia said :-

Quotethey may present as female but [don't] have a [female] gender identity

how do you know that??

misty xxx

Quote from: Brianna on February 02, 2007, 06:36:04 PM
Ps- Maybe if our culture legalized sex workers this would not be the case?

I don't begrudge anyone a chance to make a good living.  But if you had ever visited with "working girls" from Nevada, with its legal brothels, which is the BEST case scenario, and heard the stories I have firsthand, you would likely not think that it is a good thing for society.

Kristi

Although I don't personally like the term she-males, they are part of life and a similarly to lady-boys in Thailand, they have found a role in society.

As individuals, we know what it is like to at times, to be excluded from society for what we are (or what people perceive we are). As a community we should not judge others lifestyles or choices.

Many Transsexuals end up as prostitutes (or in porn movies) as they cannot find regular employment and It appears hypocritical to exclude one group at the expense of another. It is not our role to judge what is right or wrong, just provide a safe haven for people who have Gender issues.

I don't really have a problem with she-males.

Buffy

why stereo type gender?  What is gender identity?  Regardless of what people wish to be called, we still need to realize that they are still people, with real feelings.  We (society) need to accept people for who they are.  We need to support them and as long as this site is here we will.  I hope that we can learn that there is always a place for people.