Wow! Thanks Val for putting this straight,

I for one never held that notion, of you "holding personal beliefs that are insulting to some people".

It seems one of life's 'tricks' that some folks do have a need to feeling insulted. Seems to create a sense of inner security? A projection away from our own real fears when we do it?

Then ever so many of us are prepared to put that 'rucksack' on our own back, supporting this sort of neurosis. Because we often are so guilt trained...

EST (LGAT) brought that issue most clearly into perspective for me, and I for one refuse to surrender that learning / knowing.

Thank you again for setting things straight,
Axelle

me honestly, ive been interested in the idea for so long. the only thng holding me back is i dont really have enough info and confidence that it ... works. I mean, ok fine I hate the way i look without it but I can hide it when im outside. i didnt care about men back then til i started HRT now im exclusively into them. only thing i want to wait for is the time when the procedure really can give you something that these guys really cant tell teh difference from those other girls out there. i mean come on, i think its ... best to only take the surgery ONCE right? and im guilty, i love to have an orgasm, i dont want to lose that. if im gonna have a womans thingy, i want it to be fully functional in giving me some pleasure you know. if those two can be met, without a doubt, then ill go for it. hell, ill go for it today if i really can... ok wait, i dont have the money yet so hahahahahaha.

but you know what, thinking about this now. ive feeling so bad lately but, i think ... i may not have the confidence in myself now but i can have the drive to work harder to have enough to get this.

thanks for making this thread. made me... think of things.

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 08, 2011, 07:01:15 AM
Here is Page 18 of the Standards of Care.

Here are pages 4 and 5

There seems to be an impression that I am holding personal beliefs that are insulting to some people. I have only been describing what are long established standards and treatments. There is a difference between transsexualism and transgender. Conflating transsexualism to mean the same thing as the general transgender, which includes transvestism (F64.1 No desire for a permanent change to the opposite sex) and other conditions, erases the particular condition that many thousands of people have gone through and corrected over the past 50 years or so. If there have been say 100,000 SRS (speaking of mtf), saying sex reassignment was not necessary erases them and the trials they went through. It is rolling up Transvestism (F64.1 No desire for a permanent change to the opposite sex) into Transsexual (F64.0).

I dont wish my condition to be erased (treated and cured yes, but what I went through as unreal, unimportant, insignificant, unrecognized no) and I dont think I am alone. I am sorry for coming across offensive.

Seems to be the impression...gee why would anyone think that of you Val? You don't want to be OFFENSIVE, then you don't really mean what you're saying? You are saying these very same things on other posts also, as if you are personally OFFENDED by anyone that identifies as TRANSGENDERED, and does not do everything in their power to CORRECT their bodies.

As to Renate's point that Dysphoria over their Genitals is not the Cornerstone of Transsexualism, your postings from "the manual", did not disprove it. Are you that OFFENDED by those that do not elect to have SRS?

Quote from: gantz on September 08, 2011, 08:40:43 AM
i didnt care about men back then til i started HRT now im exclusively into them.

which has nothing to do with whether one is transsexual.

Quoteonly thing i want to wait for is the time when the procedure really can give you something that these guys really cant tell teh difference from those other girls out there. i mean come on, i think its ... best to only take the surgery ONCE right? and im guilty, i love to have an orgasm, i dont want to lose that. if im gonna have a womans thingy, i want it to be fully functional in giving me some pleasure you know. if those two can be met, without a doubt, then ill go for it. hell, ill go for it today if i really can... ok wait, i dont have the money yet so hahahahahaha.

Most of the surgeons out there in the past few decades have been producing esthetically pleasing works of art that are as comparable to original equipment as can be.  And there is plenty of pleasure to be had...I still don't know who started the myth that post-op transsexuals don't orgasm as a result of the surgical intervention.   

Ann, I  do believe you missed gantz's point, it doesn't matter.

Its funny how you are TWISTING items like the SOC to your OWN definitions, when that is not what they are saying. And yes I have read the SOC more than once, and I do not find anywhere in their words the absoluteness that one is "Trans" or nothing as you espouse.

And now you are changing your line again,  that's not what your post's say and imply.

That's right, SURGERY! An effective treatment for GID/Transsexualism. What do you identify yourself as now?

* To use the title of the topic, SRS is NOT a minor concern for me. If that offends you, or I offend you, I dont know what to say. It is a big deal. We are a big deal, all of us. Our cure is a BIG deal *

Well put and I do completely agree. Amen!

Axelle
PS: Dang nice to be able to agree to some things, if only at times :-)

I won't be able to function properly until SRS. It scares the heck out of me, but I know that I won't do without. I simply can't be that variant. Then it's on with life and normal mundane things, as it should have been.

Can't think straight socially when the probability of being spotted is in the mix.

Good! So do I identify as a Woman also. Val there you go again, putting it off on everyone else and acting as if you did not say in your previous posts the things that you did. So it goes that I must or may be offending you by your insistence that you are offending me!

This is a time that the letter "T" amongst the other THREE ( ), should be strengthening its bonds, not drawing lines of exclusivity.
Granted that there are differences in opinion, and they should be shared, our futures are still connected to each other as a community.

Interestingly enough is gantz's "EPITAPH" for this thread...

Quote from: gantz on September 08, 2011, 08:40:43 AM
me honestly, ive been interested in the idea for so long. the only thng holding me back is i dont really have enough info and confidence that it ... works. I mean, ok fine I hate the way i look without it but I can hide it when im outside. i didnt care about men back then til i started HRT now im exclusively into them. only thing i want to wait for is the time when the procedure really can give you something that these guys really cant tell teh difference from those other girls out there. i mean come on, i think its ... best to only take the surgery ONCE right? and im guilty, i love to have an orgasm, i dont want to lose that. if im gonna have a womans thingy, i want it to be fully functional in giving me some pleasure you know. if those two can be met, without a doubt, then ill go for it. hell, ill go for it today if i really can... ok wait, i dont have the money yet so hahahahahaha.

but you know what, thinking about this now. ive feeling so bad lately but, i think ... i may not have the confidence in myself now but i can have the drive to work harder to have enough to get this.

thanks for making this thread. made me... think of things.

Like all the "haha's"? So I guess the joke is on us

Quote from: Ann Onymous on September 08, 2011, 05:04:18 AM
actually in both cases, the marriages took place prior to surgery but where some documents had been changed pre-operatively.  And THAT is where the Courts in both estate matters had problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littleton_v._Prange

Christie Lee Littleton was born a male in San Antonio, Texas in 1952. She dropped out of school at age 15 and began living as a woman. In 1977 she began taking female hormones and legally changed her name to Christie Lee Cavazos. In 1980, she completed her surgical reassignment and had her state-issued identification changed to female.[2] In the 1990s she met and married Jonathan Mark Littleton in Kentucky, later moving to San Antonio, where she worked at a salon and he worked as a window washer.

From other sources I read she was over 15 years post op..

Irregardless of you being misinformed, none of this has anything to do with proving a negative effect on post op's if metal status was used rather that surgical status. Actually it the standard for status change was made via mental status rather than physical, the whole "male chromosomes do not change with either hormonal treatment or sex reassignment surgery"  argument would no longer affect post-op and would in fact strengthen their rights..

This thread is going to be locked if the personal attacks don't stop.  I've already asked for civility once before.

I'm really trying to figure what is, or has been, said that would be offensive here?

I must be SO thick-skinned, I just don't get it.
I'm posting on this because I start to feel pretty stupid, should I ALSO be offended? Eh?

What on this earth is wrong to identify as a woman, AND have SRS. She said she ALWAYS identified as a woman i.e. also before she had SRS. Hello!

All quite fine now isn't it?

If you can't, won't, shan't, have SRS for what ever reason... $$$, medical condition, being too scared, feeling it is therefore or OTHERWISE a minor concern, you still may, will, wish, can, etc. identify as a woman/female.

The key word here is IDENTIFY -> PRESENT.

Without SRS, also what Emma is eluding to, if you have to let your pants down --- there be some need for an explanation and it would be --- that you are a transwoman? Right?

If letting your pants down post SRS, there be no explanation required --- hopefully!
So why would you need to spread your history about your AMAB, unless specifically asked and not willing to tell a lie.

So we are female, some with, some without SRS for various reasons. Oh, GIDNOS could still be another one. 'Trans-' is part of when some explaining is required, maybe even if you're seriously clocked at an interview?

Seems pretty straight forward --- WHAT am I missing? Anyone?

Axelle

Quote from: Ann Onymous on September 08, 2011, 09:26:45 AM
I still don't know who started the myth that post-op transsexuals don't orgasm as a result of the surgical intervention.   

Unless I'm mistaken Valerie has stated post op she never has had one and she isn't the first I have read saying this. No one said ALL POST OPS LOSE THE ABILITY TO ORGASM, just that it happens and appears to be a risk of this procedure.

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 08, 2011, 07:01:15 AM

I dont wish my condition to be erased (treated and cured yes, but what I went through as unreal, unimportant, insignificant, unrecognized no) and I dont think I am alone. I am sorry for coming across offensive.

But realize when you say that no op people have no need for gender marker change you are saying our suffering over this issue is "unreal, unimportant, insignificant, unrecognized".

I still am trying to grasp how allowing gender marker change to happen based on someone mental condition (GID) is insulting or belittling of you or any other TS. If anything it will strengthen the rights of post-ops which due to the littleton case at least one court has ruled against post-ops on this issue.

Stephe,
that is very correct in deed, and so is that MtFs (many) that are not at all OK with their gear, AND ALSO FOR THAT REASON DO NOT ORGASM.

(Then there are lots natal females that NEVER orgasm... also depending on their partners and chemistry, etc.)

Now, what about that then?

In fact if not for this latter reason you may or may not orgasm either (as practice makes perfect) --- so who can actually tell?

Recall some figure that ~ 80% of sex is in the brain --- no SRS on the brain, no?

There seems just so much anecdotal stuff floating about, eh.

Axelle

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 08, 2011, 01:47:11 PM
I know, it is a difficult issue.

It isnt insulting or belittling to me at all. It gets emotional because of fear. Fear of the right wing conservative and religious elements. I am afraid of them and what they might do. They remind me of my father whom I am terrified of. I only have so much courage.

Look I'm sorry if I seem angry about this but this issue really bothers me. I HATE having the wrong gender marker on my ID but I honestly don't have an overwhelming desire for SRS. I would rather not have what's between my legs but it's not going to ruin my life either. What I would hate is if I end up getting so bothered about this ID thing that -this- became the reason I had SRS.. I think that's the wrong reason to do it and I feel you do too.

I honestly don't believe the right wing conservatives accept SRS=female right now anyway. The littleton case proves some don't believe it. I also feel trying to use physical things as a point of reference allows them to say exactly what was said in the littleton case. The "once a male always a male" argument. I feel using the female brain point of reference, defined by a therapist if needed, is more defensible. Our brain has ALWAYS been female gendered and for people with GID, that isn't changed. There is no "you were born with a male brain" argument.  It would cover pre/non/post-ops, we all share this same condition.

I didn't like being diagnosed as having GID to get hormone therapy, but if this diagnosis allowed for a gender change marker, then I can see the validity.

Quote from: Stephe on September 08, 2011, 09:52:11 PM
Ou

I honestly don't believe the right wing conservatives accept SRS=female right now anyway. The littleton case proves some don't believe it. I also feel trying to use physical things as a point of reference allows them to say exactly what was said in the littleton case. The "once a male always a male" argument.

Interesting that in "Littleton" the issue driving the issue was a "wrongful death" lawsuit against the MD caring for her husband. The invalid marriage issue was to derail the "wrongful death" suit.

It was about $'s! Sex and Gender was secondary. As to the Right Wingers, keep dreaming.

Quote from: SandraJane on September 08, 2011, 10:35:02 PM
Interesting that in "Littleton" the issue driving the issue was a "wrongful death" lawsuit against the MD caring for her husband. The invalid marriage issue was to derail the "wrongful death" suit.

It was about $'s! Sex and Gender was secondary. As to the Right Wingers, keep dreaming.

Oh I don't believe the extreme conservatives will accept the brain sex thing any more than they accept srs changes someones sex, but a judge would have to discount what a trained mental health person testifies to, especially if this became a medically accepted part of DSM or something. Both these cases were about $$$, aren't most of them?