Very well said Tundra.


Linda Ann

Love being female

Quote from: tink
Correct! if you are a woman, you are a woman.  The problem arises when someone who is not a woman tells the world to call them one.  IMO someone who is a woman will label themselves as a woman, will present themselves as a woman, will have the gender roles of a woman.  But most importantly, a woman IMO, is someone who is accepted and respected in society as such.  I just don't support any notion that a man who crossdresses every now and then and calls himself a woman is a woman at all.  I'm sorry I don't.

tinkerbell

lol, i have to agree with tink or like the old saying says "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it must be a duck.  yet, if a [duck looks like] a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, then we can't call it a duck, can we?  regardless of how this duck identifies.  i can call myself cleopatra queen of the nile, but if society does not see me as cleopatra, it is just that, an illusion....or even worse a delusion.
socially, [we] [don't distinguish] male from female[based on genitals or gender identity] [sorry to burst everyone's bubbles] because we[don't have access] to that. instead, [we] take a look at their physical characteristics: do they [look], [act], [show] stereotypically female or male? that's how society accepts us.

and btw when i use the word [we], i'm referring to an impersonal [we]


maybe this link will help because there's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding even in our community.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/shapeshift/20050201.html

Quotelol, i have to agree with tink or like the old saying says "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it must be a duck.  yet, if a [duck looks like] a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, then we can't call it a duck, can we?  regardless of how this duck identifies.  i can call myself cleopatra queen of the nile, but if society does not see me as cleopatra, it is just that, an illusion....or even worse a delusion.

But if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, but all the other ducks do not accept it as such.....then is it a duck? And conversely, if it looks like a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, and the ducks DO indeed accept it as one of their own, then is it a duck?

I have found both of those circumstances to be very true! So, if the one labelled non-duckish by you IS accepted by the woman's community ( any group of women), and the duckly looking one IS NOT....well, then who is being delusional? Personally, I have met way too many people from the TG community that are obsessed with appearances, and are not REAL, and most women can sense that, even if they do not say anything because they want to be polite. Combine that with the fact that most people from a TG background WAY overestimate their ability to "pass," and you end up with a fairly delusional lot.

IMO, people from a TG background ought to spend more time working on "being" their gender, and much less time trying to "appear" as their gender...because women and men are far more diverse than anyone could ever imagine.

Quote from: Katia on February 12, 2007, 11:36:32 PM
lol, i have to agree with tink or like the old saying says "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it must be a duck.  yet, if a [duck looks like] a chicken, barks like a dog, swims like a shark, then we can't call it a duck, can we?

Yes, I sure can... on this forum at least, I don't care what they "appear" to be or act like. If they say they're a woman, then as far as my support here goes, they ARE a woman.

Kate

QuoteYes, I sure can... on this forum at least, I don't care what they "appear" to be or act like. If they say they're a woman, then as far as my support here goes, they ARE a woman.

Kate

Yes indeed. It is simply about respect, especially on a site like this one.

As far as my own opinions go, well, I keep them to myself for the most part. It doesn't really matter what I think about TG, or TS, or post-op or pre-op or whatever. If I stated them, all it would do is cause a bunch of controversy, and I'd be accused of being hateful.

Basically, I believe that everyone ought to be able to label themselves anyway they want.
The only time it would matter to me, is if I was involved with someone -- then it would matter to me a great deal.

I think everyone would do well to remember that most, not all, but most natal females do not view anyone TG, TS, IS, she-male, etc as their equal. Especially since no one in those categories (a.) menses (b.) bears children (c.) has to put up with being a second-class citizen from the time they are born. In the eyes of most natal females, having surgery does not make you different from someone that has not (except of course if they are sleeping with you.)  You can quack all you like, but if other women don't quack back atcha, maybe you ain't a duck.

Tink,

Yeah!!!  We are here to help and support each other, regardless of our feelings about whether or not they fit "our" definition of transgendered...maybe especially if they don't.  People join this forum because they have questions and/or concerns, and our mission is to do our best to help them sort things out and comfort them while they are going through hard times.

I understand your feelings and respect your right to them...whether or not I agree with them.  I appreciate your thoughts and comments, not to mention your support and comfort on more than one occassion.

One question though...if a person who identifies as a ->-bleeped-<- considers themselves to be a woman, do you think your opinion of their womanhood matters any more to them than their opinion of your womanhood matters to you? 

In this place, if someone says they are male, female, both, neither, some or all of the above, part chipmunk or whatever, it's not our place to argue with them.  Some well placed respectful questions may be in order, but if they persist in their belief, who are we to say they are wrong?

Hugs....Laurie

 

Quote from: Thundra on February 13, 2007, 07:08:36 PM
You can quack all you like, but if other women don't quack back atcha, maybe you ain't a duck.

Quote from: TinkThe magical word IF....as long as I am perceived as a duck that quacks, they will always quack back at me!

And yet if passing and who we're accepted or perceived as is the measure of who we ARE, then doesn't that make all pre-trans (or non-passing) F2Ms "women?"

No, *I* don't believe they are, but the logic here gets confusing. Perhaps the problem is we're trying to squeeze too many concepts under one word ("woman"). Agreed, calling someone a woman who has never lived or been accepted as one seems inaccurate. And yet that doesn't mean they don't *identify* as... well, what do we say? Female perhaps?

Which is why I've always had trouble calling myself a woman, my not even being fulltime yet. But heck, even female doesn't quite work for me since the only real physical difference is my hormonal balance. So what's left for me? "Girl" perhaps? Strangely, that's the only term that somehow sounds right to me, for me... at least for now. I'm not physically female, I'm not socialized as a woman, I'm more a *potential* than anything for the moment.

Hmmmm. Labels. Evil things I tell ya, EVIL

Kate

QuoteI don't want to repeat what I have already said previously, but just to answer your question:  I think that we are going overboard with this topic here thinking about "what if's" that IMO, are just "too fantastic" to be accurate.  As I said previously, I think that if someone is a woman will label themselves as such, or they will opt for other terms such as TS, TV, or TG but not she-male considering the connotation that this noun carries.   But going back to your question, no I don't think that my opinion of their "womanhood" will matter at all.

Hmmmm. Well, I can see your POV, but I think we need to be careful when we say something like this:

QuoteI think that if someone is a woman will label themselves as such, or they will opt for other terms such as TS, TV, or TG but not she-male considering the connotation that this noun carries.

Why?  Because in saying "I think that," you are postulating about something you have not necessarily been exposed to directly. In my own experience, I have known women of every stripe, and it is an extremely diverse group. Some have been TG, some TS, some IS, some BI, some dykes, some boi's, some butch, and yes.....some she-male. I would not have previously brought up the examples I noted about she-males in the woman's community, had I not met these women myself, and communicated with them and the women friends they were involved with.

I have not been talking about what if's, but I have mentioned personal experiences, that were not at all fantastic. While I respect your POV, I get the feeling that your experience and the diversity of women you have met and known is much smaller than my own.

In your own experience, you believe, as is your right, that she-male is a derogatory term with negative connotations. I would agree, that in certain quarters, and in some situations, that is true, but not always. What I have been trying to relate, is that there is a group of women, that do in fact label themselves as she-male, and are proud of who they are, what they do to earn a living, as well as the fact that many of them have friends -- woman friends of many stripes.

Just as dyke has carried a negative connotation, as well as queer, for myself, it a badge of honor that I am proud to display. Yes, I am a dyke, and I identify as queer, and I am a womyn, and I am very proud of who I am. It all depends of your POV.

My personal view of "passing" is well known. Simply stated again: the point in passing, is that there is no point. If you are attempting to "pass" AS something, than you are not that thing. You have to BE that thing. Otherwise, you are just "acting as" instead of "being."
Further, if you have to "pass" to be accepted by other women, than you are simply trying to fool them into believing you are one of them. If you cannot simply be yourself, and be accepted by other women as one of them, than you are living a lie.

IMO, of course. You are obviously free to disagree with me, and my opinion in no way affects your own perception of reality.

one question though and i swear i'm done with this topic!
since the label ->-bleeped-<- is a derogatory term, and the definition of the word [derogatory] is;

QuoteLibrary > Words > Dictionary
de·rog·a·to·ry (dĭ-rŏg'ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
   2. Tending to detract or diminish.

derogatorily de·rog'a·to'ri·ly adv.
derogatoriness de·rog'a·to'ri·ness n.

doesn't this mean that people who identify as [->-bleeped-<-] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves

Just a little in house cleaning up...

If you are going to quote something please list who or what the source of your quote is.  It saves readers from reading back through the whole thread to find out who said what.

Thanks a bunch folks

Steph

Quote from: Katia on February 14, 2007, 12:20:51 AM
one question though and i swear i'm done with this topic!
since the label ->-bleeped-<- is a derogatory term, and the definition of the word [derogatory] is;

QuoteLibrary > Words > Dictionary
de·rog·a·to·ry (dĭ-rŏg'ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
   2. Tending to detract or diminish.

derogatorily de·rog'a·to'ri·ly adv.
derogatoriness de·rog'a·to'ri·ness n.

doesn't this mean that people who identify as [->-bleeped-<-] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves

That assumes that ->-bleeped-<-s find the term to be derogatory. You feel it's derogatory, but you're not a ->-bleeped-<-. It's very much like an African American using the N-word. If THEY don't find the word derogatory when referring to THEMSELVES, then how we view the word doesn't really matter, and we can't draw THEIR conclusions based on OUR use of the word.

Oy vey!  Such questions from the little ones!  They are so cute!!  :: sigh ::

First of all, you are making an assumption, and then basing your conclusion on that assumption.  Where did we all agree that the term she-male is "ALWAYS" a derogatory term?
As I previously stated, one person's negative term is another person's badge of honour.  It all depends on your POV.

Quoteone question though and i swear i'm done with this topic!
since the label ->-bleeped-<- is a derogatory term, and the definition of the word [derogatory] is;


Quote
Library > Words > Dictionary
de·rog·a·to·ry (dĭ-rŏg'ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

   1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
   2. Tending to detract or diminish.

derogatorily de·rog'a·to'ri·ly adv.
derogatoriness de·rog'a·to'ri·ness n.


doesn't this mean that people who identify as [->-bleeped-<-] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves

Soooo, what if I again use your statement as a template and substitute myself, for example?

Quotedoesn't this mean that people who identify as [a dyke] see themselves as something [less] than a woman?  so why should i or we call them women if they have already chosen a [derogatory] term to label themselves 

In many quarters, the term dyke is used in a disparaging manner, especially by men that hate us for stealing their women, or taking their jobs. When men use it in that fashion, they are intending to say many things, among them that we are less than real women, ala the she-males. However, in MY community, we call our selves dyke, and say it with pride, because to us it means that we are outside the purvue of men, and we are immensely proud of that distinction.

So, I would ask you in turn, using your reasoning, whether then you would refuse to also call me a woman?  Not that I care either way, but if we continue to substitute other terms for she-male with the same effect, than it seems to me your pool of people that do not deserve your respect seems to grow.

Further, if you feel you have the right to refuse to respect the wishes of someone, and how they care to be addressed, does that also mean that you then accept the right of other people to judge you in a similar fashion?  Opens an ugly can 'o worms, that one does!

IMO, it is much easier to just honour whatever term someone asks you to use in referring to them. How does it hurt YOU to act otherwise, and why?

QuoteCorrect! if you are a woman, you are a woman.  The problem arises when someone who is not a woman tells the world to call them one.  IMO someone who is a woman will label themselves as a woman, will present themselves as a woman, will have the gender roles of a woman.  But most importantly, a woman IMO, is someone who is accepted and respected in society as such.  I just don't support any notion that a man who crossdresses every now and then and calls himself a woman is a woman at all.  I'm sorry I don't.

tinkerbell icon_chick

Here is where it all gets tricky. Who defines what a woman is or isn't? Some people have a very encompassing view and others a narrow view. One problem is the lack of choices recognized by society, it's more or less assumed that if one is not a man, then one must be a woman. Maybe this is true for some, but not always... there's plenty of undefined places on the continuum. I'm not simply speaking rhetorically here, I am one of these people for whom neither label fits. It took lots of soul searching to come to this understanding. But there is no category for me in daily life, and that isn't always an easy path either.

zythyra

Quote from: Thundra on February 13, 2007, 07:08:36 PM
You can quack all you like, but if other women don't quack back atcha, maybe you ain't a duck.

Quote from: thundraOy vey!  Such questions from the little ones

so, are we now challenging each other or the issue?

Quote from: rules15. You may challenge the issue, but never the person.

Quote from: thundraFirst of all, you are making an assumption, and then basing your conclusion on that assumption.  Where did we all agree that the term she-male is "ALWAYS" a derogatory term?
As I previously stated, one person's negative term is another person's badge of honour.  It all depends on your POV

assumption?

Quote from: thesaurus dictionaryOverview of noun assumption

The noun assumption has 4 senses (first 2 from tagged texts)
                                     
1. (341) premise, premiss, assumption -- (a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play")
2. (218) assumption, supposition, supposal -- (a hypothesis that is taken for granted; "any society is built upon certain assumptions")
3. Assumption -- ((Christianity) the taking up of the body and soul of the Virgin Mary when her earthly life had ended)
4. assumption -- (the act of assuming or taking for granted; "your assumption that I would agree was unwarranted")

Quote from: urban dictionary->-bleeped-<-     
       
   

1. A derogatory term used mainly by the porn industry meaning preoperative male to female transsexual.  Also called sheboy; ladyboy; chick with a dick.

2. A rather crude way to describe a transsexual who sells her body for sex, usually one who does NOT want genital reconstructive surgery (GRS). True transsexuals wanting GRS find it offensive. ->-bleeped-<-s are popular in the porn industry.

3. An odd mix of a man and a woman.

4. A "thing" that has both boobs and penis.

5. A gay man who dresses as a woman and who enjoys showing off his penis in pornography. They often lie and call themselves transsexuals. However, ->-bleeped-<-s are men and always will be, while MtF transsexuals are really women in their hearts, minds, and souls.  Because their penis is an essential part of who they are, ->-bleeped-<-s refuse to have it amputated. Their lack of hatred for their genitals demonstrates they are not transsexuals. True-TS's with self-respect don't associate with ->-bleeped-<-s.

6.  A "what'zit" or a person with an ambiguous gender.

7.  A ->-bleeped-<- is a male who has undergone several surgeries to look like a female, it consists of surgery of the face, breasts, butt, and body hair. Some men like to have sex with ->-bleeped-<-s because they are originally males and know the right techniques to please a man.

8.  Sisters with snakes / broads with rods/hoochies with hoses / vixens with vipers/tarts with tools / hotties with hammers / femmes with footlongs / prostitutes with pogosticks/tricks with tripods/goddesses with goliaths/

9.  An offensive term used to describe someone who has characteristics of both a male and female person.

10. A person that is a man and a woman.

11. A dragqueen hooker.

12.  She/Male - A homosexual male parading around, masquerading as the   opposite sex.

and the list goes on and on with [extremely] offensive terms that i don't dare to post here.  so the word ->-bleeped-<- is offensive because it implies that transexual women, weirdos with penises, and hookers are the [same thing], thus derogating us as simple sex objects and depraved freaks.

Quote from: thundraIn many quarters, the term dyke is used in a disparaging manner, especially by men that hate us for stealing their women, or taking their jobs. When men use it in that fashion, they are intending to say many things, among them that we are less than real women, ala the she-males. However, in MY community, we call our selves dyke, and say it with pride, because to us it means that we are outside the purvue of men, and we are immensely proud of that distinction.

hmm, [if i again use your statement as a template], then maybe a natal female who's a feminist and very proud of it should be perfectly fine with being called the [C] word?    this reasoning only causes chaos and confusion.

Quote from: thundraFurther, if you feel you have the right to refuse to respect the wishes of someone, and how they care to be addressed, does that also mean that you then accept the right of other people to judge you in a similar fashion?  Opens an ugly can 'o worms, that one does!

my answer to this question doesn't make any difference to what the term ->-bleeped-<- is associated with.

Quote from: thundraIMO, it is much easier to just honour whatever term someone asks you to use in referring to them. How does it hurt YOU to act otherwise, and why?

not imo.  why? because i firmly believe that if a term is [hateful] to a particular group of people, they should withdraw it, not adopt it.

Quote from: thundraHow does it hurt YOU to act otherwise, and why?

katia = woman
if ->-bleeped-<-s = women, then
katia = ->-bleeped-<-s

not gonna happen..

If somebody describes themselves with a label and says that they are 50% female or any other percentage I respect that

If somebody does not fit a label and says that they are 50% female or any other percentage I respect that

If somebody describes themselves as born female and 100% female then I respect that

If somebody has feminine elements & is confused or not sure of these elements or find it varies......then I respect that

If somebody has increasing feminine feelings and feelings of womanliness.....then I respect that

Each person has a viewpoint on their own femininity....

Nobody wants somebody else dictating to them what their level of femininity is

.........or doubting their integrity.....

Whether a person has a label or not......... if somebody says they feel x% feminine......I respect that

Whether we have a label or not we are free to decide how feminine we feel

We are all free to decide for ourselves.......... & also free to change our mind without constraint

Nobody can shackle or cage us with something that is not true about our own level of femininity ........

Whether we have a label or not .........nobody can take away our freedom to say what level of femininity we feel we are......

misty xxx

Quotekatia = woman
if ->-bleeped-<-s = women, then
katia = ->-bleeped-<-s

not gonna happen..

Well, I must say, this has been an eye-opening bit of discourse for me, personally!

I can honestly say that I have never met amyone before now, that used definitions, from a dictionary no less, to reinforce their opinions. I must admit, that I am completely nonplussed.

I guess I can only reply, that I form my own opinions for myself, and care little for what other people think, let alone what a dictionary defines for me. IMO, the english language is much too rich, fluid, and evolving to depend on what a book will tell you something means.
In fact, I would opin that by the time a dictionary gets around to defining many terms, or phrases, that it could already be outdated.

Next, I would reply, that since I vehemently disagree with you, as would many others, that she-male is a strictly derogatory term, that any person has a right to define themselves anyway they so choose. They DO NOT have a right to define YOU anyway they choose.

For example: I hate the "N-word" as it is used to berate people of colour. But, if a person of colour decides to use that word to describe themself, than it is not my business to tell them they cannot.

I find it difficult to comprehend how a she-male calling herself a woman disparages you, personally?  She is not calling you a she-male. She is not saying anything to you at all. She is speaking for herself only. If you then choose to bend logic to "prove" that something she does disparages you, well.....I have no answer for that.

Again an example: I am a dyke. If a transsexual woman, of any stripe chooses to tell me that she "is also a dyke," what am I to think of that? She may or may not have a vagina.
She was not raised as a woman, nor did she experience the challenges that come from that process. So what am I to think when she calls herself a dyke? How about nothing? How about I could care less what she calls herself? It does not affect me in any way.

So, using logic, I would put forward the thought that you are choosing of your own free will to be offended when a she-male calls herself a woman. IMO, she is doing nothing to hurt you. Nor, do I believe that you would be hurt to honour her request to be addressed as a woman.

But, I am offended that you, who are herself marginalized by the mainstream public, would in turn marginalize someone else in turn. I simply do not understand that action or behaviour. I see it in the queer community all the time, and it does nothing to unify people, but instead works to divide people.

I can offer you my philosophy of life to try. Live and let live. Do whatever you please, because as long as it does not directly affect me, I do not care. Wanna engage in beastiality -- OK. (as long as the beast isn't hurt)  Wanna take drugs -- OK (as long as you don't wreck into my car and kill me, or steal my stuff to buy meth).  Jump off a bridge -- OK (as long as you don't hurt anyone else when you land.) Wanna have homosexual sex with men for $$$ and then call yourself a woman -- OK.  Whatev.

Finally, this is the last of my discourse here. Is this what you want?

natal females  = woman
if transsexuals = women, then
transsexuals = natal females

Well, using your logic, that's not gonna happen either.  I can't see how that can make you feel better.

Quote from: Thundra on February 15, 2007, 08:14:10 PM

Quotekatia = woman
if ->-bleeped-<-s = women, then
katia = ->-bleeped-<-s

not gonna happen..

Well, I must say, this has been an eye-opening bit of discourse for me, personally!

I can honestly say that I have never met amyone before now, that used definitions, from a dictionary no less, to reinforce their opinions. I must admit, that I am completely nonplussed


I guess I can only reply, that I form my own opinions for myself, and care little for what other people think, let alone what a dictionary defines for me. IMO, the english language is much too rich, fluid, and evolving to depend on what a book will tell you something means.
In fact, I would opin that by the time a dictionary gets around to defining many terms, or phrases, that it could already be outdated.


Next, I would reply, that since I vehemently disagree with you, as would many others, that she-male is a strictly derogatory term, that any person has a right to define themselves anyway they so choose. They DO NOT have a right to define YOU anyway they choose.

For example: I hate the "N-word" as it is used to berate people of colour. But, if a person of colour decides to use that word to describe themself, than it is not my business to tell them they cannot.

I find it difficult to comprehend how a she-male calling herself a woman disparages you, personally?  She is not calling you a she-male. She is not saying anything to you at all. She is speaking for herself only. If you then choose to bend logic to "prove" that something she does disparages you, well.....I have no answer for that.

Again an example: I am a dyke. If a transsexual woman, of any stripe chooses to tell me that she "is also a dyke," what am I to think of that? She may or may not have a vagina.
She was not raised as a woman, nor did she experience the challenges that come from that process. So what am I to think when she calls herself a dyke? How about nothing? How about I could care less what she calls herself? It does not affect me in any way.

So, using logic, I would put forward the thought that you are choosing of your own free will to be offended when a she-male calls herself a woman. IMO, she is doing nothing to hurt you. Nor, do I believe that you would be hurt to honour her request to be addressed as a woman.

But, I am offended that you, who are herself marginalized by the mainstream public, would in turn marginalize someone else in turn. I simply do not understand that action or behaviour. I see it in the queer community all the time, and it does nothing to unify people, but instead works to divide people.

I can offer you my philosophy of life to try. Live and let live. Do whatever you please, because as long as it does not directly affect me, I do not care. Wanna engage in beastiality -- OK. (as long as the beast isn't hurt)  Wanna take drugs -- OK (as long as you don't wreck into my car and kill me, or steal my stuff to buy meth).  Jump off a bridge -- OK (as long as you don't hurt anyone else when you land.) Wanna have homosexual sex with men for $$$ and then call yourself a woman -- OK.  Whatev.

true.  language is fluid and rich.  i know that some people have included certain [hateful] terms as part of their normal speech, yet if [everyone] started [uninhibited language] in forums or the streets, it'd degenerate into chaos and even violence; thus, it'd be [unsafe] which is an [infringement] upon people's rights.

i do care what people say about me because what people say/think about me and others is [feedback] and is related to one's reputation.  and how does society define good and bad?  it's very simple; [fruits are deeds], iow it's like hunter and pray.

Quote from: thundraFinally, this is the last of my discourse here. Is this what you want?

natal females  = woman
if transsexuals = women, then
transsexuals = natal females

Well, using your logic, that's not gonna happen either.  I can't see how that can make you feel better.

lol,  i'm perfectly aware that i'm [not] a natal female.  believing otherwise would be a delusion so much so that i'd have to call ->-bleeped-<-s transexuals or women.   

No wonder i drink thors Hamer vodka !   
source: 
J&J Nordic
Blombergs Säteri
533 93 Källby
Sweden
LOL
ricki

In the FTM community I wonder if there is any opposition to "he-fems"

......oh dear what have I gone and started now!!

Quick pass me the vodka Ricki.........

misty xxx

LoL, never heard the term "he-fems". There's only one guy who's doing a lot of porno work, Buck Angel. He calls himself a man with a [insert synonym for cat here]. I've heard gay men refer to FtM's as "guys with pies". I'm not keen on either Buck's term or the latter term applied to me. But I don't object to Buck calling himself that at all. It's just marketing for him.

Maybe because we're less likely to be sexually objectified, there isn't really an analogous situation.

Dennis