but regardless of location sex means one thing and gender means another, by definition. And that seems to be pretty universally know. At least in my experience. It's sad when a bunch of people want to try and change the meaning of a word and then for other people to say "that's just the way it is", or something etc. Blah.... why am I in this thread anyway? My bad mood/need to vent has passed? :S

Quote from: Muffin on June 30, 2011, 05:01:44 AM
but regardless of location sex means one thing and gender means another, by definition.

Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you? But part of the problem is exactly the changes in language over time. Looking at dictionary definitions of Transsexual, for example, you get:

A person born with the physical characteristics of one sex who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex.

or

Having the physical characteristics of one sex but a strong and persistent desire to belong to the other.

Now to me, the word "sex" there should be updated to be "gender", since it seems very old-fashioned to me to talk about "the sexes" when referring to men and women (as in "battle of the" and so on). But a look on the net at all these blazing blogs and discussions show that there are thousands of slightly-to-extremely differing views on what these terms mean (or "should" mean). Go figure.

In a way, I can understand how people get so passionate about all this. For one thing, no-one likes being pre-emptively labelled by someone else. But conversely, no-one likes being told "you can't call yourself this, we have dibs on this label and its definition."

Not sure it's considered dibs but just respect for a language, like I said it seems like there are people that want to confuse the meaning of words once they are hyphenated. If you respect the meaning of these words.. trans, sex and gender then there should be no mix up at all. It's when people decide to put their own twist on them and for me personally I refuse to dignify a response to their existence when they do so. People are going to use these words incorrectly it only becomes a problem when people pay attention to them. Just like a lot of issues/news articles that get posted here. So many I feel are posted to bait people into discussion that is really unnecessary. Doesn't get anyone anywhere and just gives the abusers-of-language the attention they want, so why post it? Ditch the bad news and bring on the good news already!!!! xP

Quote from: Muffin on June 30, 2011, 05:33:06 AM
Just like a lot of issues/news articles that get posted here. So many I feel are posted to bait people into discussion that is really unnecessary. Doesn't get anyone anywhere and just gives the abusers-of-language the attention they want, so why post it?

I don't post articles such as this to bait anyone, that would be both unproductive and counter to the rules of this forum. I post them simply because the opinions expressed in them exist, and people might want to be aware of these and/or discuss.

QuoteDitch the bad news and bring on the good news already!!!! xP

We do post good news (when we find it). Interestingly, those stories seem to get less views and less comments.

Z

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 30, 2011, 06:04:44 AM
The transgender community defines everyone as transgender, whether post-op or not. That is how I and some other post-ops were initially drawn into the conversation. They attach your status to their definition and believe they have a right to represent and lobby for you whether you agree with it or not. They believe they have a right to define and label you in the media, whether you like it or not.

Even if you are not trans-ing anything any longer. When describing 'you' publicly, they believe they have the right to prefix your gender with the word transgender, instead of just woman.

Sorry... unfortunately, that is where we stand. It is not just an argument of whether to use transsexual or transgender. It's deeper than that.

To them, you are a transgender woman, and always will be. This is why there are so many trans blog articles denouncing transgender.

and to carry Val's comment one step further, it would be to add that when those of us who object, we get told we are making much ado about nothing (as we have now seen time and again).  Talk about a group marginalizing OUR experiences...

Ditch the bad news and bring on the good news already!!!! xP

As veteran left-wing reporter Scoop Nisker used to end his broadcasts:

And if you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own.

In today's breaking news... Tekla is a twat!


now there's some good news I can get my chops around!!

</making of own news>

So what is the lobiest too say..."Senator I stand before you today to give voice to this group of people.....But definatly not those people over there."

!!??

?

That's not breaking news, it's established historical fact.  It's also a fact that Scoop was right.  Bad news only gets changed to good news because people work to make it happen.

C'mon folks, no more personal attacks please.

Good girl Padma, thank you.
now a question to the experts, plenty with this thread there are, um.

1) When I firstly learned about my condition I thought it was called being transgender(ed).

2) Learning some more going to the gate-keeper shrink, going on RLE and HRT I then understood I was a transsexual, mainly because I insisted to have GRS? I guess that was it.

3) Now........ it may turn out I can not have GRS ($$$ blown on brain-ops) and also I just turned 65 with the earliest GRS date after I will have turned 66. One year moratorium after brain-ops.

4) Just for more of same ->-bleeped-<-e, I have high blood-pressure issues and I THINK is due to E!

So, that makes me now transgender(ed) once more? Really?

If so, then this whole discussion seems pretty dang silly to me in the first place. Yet I have been wrong before and am very willing to learn.
Pondering,
Axelle

I would think that post-transition would be valuable information to have on one's medical records (in a suitably confidential way) solely in case of medical complications later in life - but I can't see any other reason why anyone should be considered or labelled trans once they've trans-ed, unless they choose to be called that.

"So, that makes me now transgender(ed) once more? Really?"

changing only your genitalia does not decide whether you're transsexual or not. Sex is determined by more than just what is between your legs! Changing your secondary sex characteristics and physiological make up with HRT holds as much if not more weight than that in the bigger picture. Though most law systems require some form of surgery unfortunately.

Quote from: Padma on June 30, 2011, 10:13:49 AM
I would think that post-transition would be valuable information to have on one's medical records (in a suitably confidential way) solely in case of medical complications later in life - but I can't see any other reason why anyone should be considered or labelled trans once they've trans-ed, unless they choose to be called that.

sounds good to me

Just keep in mind that unless you transitioned before digital records or pre-puberty the prosepct for true stealth is basicaly non existant.
The children that transition before they make a digital foot print and people like Ann, who transsex'd back in the day need not worry about being outed. But for the majority, even the ones who pass flawlessly the potential to be outed exists.

(forgot where I was going with this one, I will post it anyways....maybe it will come back to me)

It's only a personal attack^* if I take it personally.  And I don't.  Ever.  I was called worse things than that all day at work, and that was by people who like me, usually.^**

Years ago, someone at work who didn't much care for me (shocking I know) said some bad words, actually rather creatively.  The steward who had running problems with this guy (and face it, he had to be a jerk if he didn't like me) gets all hot to trot that he's going to write him up (and the fines are heavy) for 'personally insulting' me.  But I stepped up, and with blazing solipsism firmly applied with keen Jesuitical logic and said: "It's only personal if I take it personally, and I didn't and don't.  And its only an insult if I feel insulted by it, and I don't.  And I want you to make that the first line of your report - that I do not feel personally insulted."  So much for the report.  And while I don't know about 'twit' I'm pretty much sure that from some angles that was a total prick move on my part.  But, years later now, that guy is great with me.  When he works for me, he works.  I've even heard that he's been caught defending me, or at least saying nice things about me.  He hasn't dashed out to get girls sox with pink stripes to wear to work as a salute to my sartorial splendor, but oh well.  Whatever small temporary satisfaction I might have gained from his 'punishment' (and the fine goes to the Union, not to me) was far outweighed by the long term gain of changing my status and relationship with this guy.

In the end, my sense of self-actualization trumps whatever vocabulary he would choose to employ anyway.  Once you know that the opinions of others does not, and can not, change who you really are, then it's pretty easy to get over the hump.

And, I'm also pretty sure that what Scoop was saying was a prick type statement too.  A zen trickster prick perhaps, but a prick none the less.   That's why I love it, use it and have had it follow me around for 30 years now.  It's not that the news is bad, the news is bad because your not doing anything to change it and make it better.  It's not the fault of people doing 'bad things' it's really mostly the fault of good people doing nothing.  And good people hate hearing that because they know it's true.



* - It's not even an attack, 'attack' is a very strong verb, very deliberate and with physical manifestations.  That was only an insult, and only a grazing one as I find the use of the word 'twit' to be very British and Monty Pythonesque, and outside of Monty Python I never hear it used.  It's kind of quaint and archaic to my ears and not something that anyone on the West Coast would ever say.

** - I always thought I should be in the Guinness Book of World Records because I bet the word 'bitch' has been used toward me more than toward any other male-bodied person on this planet.  They think it's an insult, I think they're just pissed that I got my way, and they didn't. 

Tekla is right.
Calling a douche a douche loses it's effect when the douche happily confirms their douchebag status.

plus I don't expect anyone to take my words too seriously! especially when I'm obviously having a ->-bleeped-<-house day and posting ->-bleeped-<- in a ->-bleeped-<- thread. etc.

Quote from: tekla on June 30, 2011, 10:21:58 AM
* - It's not even an attack, 'attack' is a very strong verb, very deliberate and with physical manifestations.  That was only an insult, and only a grazing one as I find the use of the word 'twit' to be very British and Monty Pythonesque, and outside of Monty Python I never hear it used.  It's kind of quaint and archaic to my ears and not something that anyone on the West Coast would ever say.

Just meant as a gentle reminder - I'm exercising my duty to remind us that use of strong language to have a go at each other here is against the TOS. Perhaps 'attack' was an overstrong word, but I don't want to encourage the use of strong language to batter each other with (no matter whether the battee has mysterious personal immunity ). For the record, the word used was not "twit" and in some cultures would be considered harsh as an insult - I'm protecting the "ears" of the general public here, nothing to hear, move along .

Would there be Transgederqueers? Or Transandrogyn's?

Words and phrases that fly on their own, work.
If you have to keep throwing it up to make it look like it's flying, it's just not flying.
It's just being flung. There's one...it's transflunging.

Quote from: Elise on June 30, 2011, 11:05:21 AM
Transsexual havealwaybeen postop periodit is amedical term .

I respectfully disagree with that... in my opinion, transsexual is not a term exclusive to post-ops.  Transsexual is any person who seeks to alter their bodies through irreversible surgical means, including those who have a burning desire to do so but can't for whatever reason (such as poor general health or medical history).  I consider myself transsexual because the second I have enough money cobbled together--which will be in about 25 years at my going rate--I fully intend to have surgery to correct what I strongly dislike about my body.

Also, I'd like to add my gentle reminder to Padma's: can we please tone down the attacks, both overt and passive aggressive?  It won't lead to anything but thread closure.  Muchas gracias, my friends!