respect identities

[Shana A]

This area of the forum was set up for non-op people to talk with each other about our lives and to offer and receive support. To the best of my knowledge, no one is prohibited from posting here, whether or not they identify as non-op. If you don't believe that we exist, that's your right, nothing we say here will change your mind. I do however request that you respect our right to self identify as we choose. Telling someone who is non-op that she is a dual transvestic fetishistic whatever is not supportive. Telling her that she is in denial doesn't constitute support either.

I might not understand everyone's choices but I honor them. If you tell me that post op, you are no longer transwhatever, I won't identify you as such. Please accord us the same respect!

Z

[tekla]

You mean I'm not a figment of my own imagination?  Besides, I love being preached at, it serves as a constant reminder of what I hate about church.

[Wrenaissance]

Amen

[LordKAT]

yeah tekla, youre just a daydream 

Ye but she is my fave daydream. The only one that gives a serious reality check almost everytime she posts. That and talented with words, which sadly, I am not.

[Northern Jane]

I think you are in much the same not-to-be-spoken-of kind of group as "true transsexuals", except maybe the latter term invokes more anger in "the community".

Intolerance arises in the most unexpected places.

Follow your own path no matter what anyone else says!

[Northern Jane]

See what I mean! "True transsexual" or Type VI Transsexual was simply a term used to describe a person who was, from birth, " a complete psycho-sexual inversion". They did not act or think as their birth sex and could not pass as their physiological sex. With surgery they just disappeared into the woodwork and lived normal lives with nobody suspecting anything unusual.

Intolerance is found in the strangest places.

[gennee]

Ugh.

I HATE that term..."true transsexuals". People can try and dress it up all they want but it's just people who are victims of bigotry becoming bigots themselves.

Pathetic.

I find that people with this thinking are trying to legitimize themselves. Maybe a bit of self-loathing?

Gennee

[justmeinoz]

Janebf- I second that motion!

The problem is that "people" won't let us all be whatever and whoever we need to be.  As far as I am concerned it's none of their bloody business.

It's a bit like the question, "What do women want?" I believe the answer is "not to have to ask permission to do what feels right for me."

If gender is what's between our ears, then the rest is just personal preference.  Let's just celebrate the fact that we are a rainbow.

[Dana_W]

See what I mean! "True transsexual" or Type VI Transsexual was simply a term used to describe a person who was, from birth, " a complete psycho-sexual inversion". They did not act or think as their birth sex and could not pass as their physiological sex. With surgery they just disappeared into the woodwork and lived normal lives with nobody suspecting anything unusual.

Intolerance is found in the strangest places.

Northern Jane,

I believe I get your meaning. But we don't call people by the terms that were used in the past without considering how the times have changed. I don't understand why you keep doing it even while you get a pretty consistent response. You surely wouldn't apply the popular terminology applied to the black or gay communities from the 60's and 70's in polite conversation. I'm not sure why you think it's different in this case.

The insistence upon using old terminology is not the equivalent to the non-op community wanting recognition for basic legitimacy, in my opinion. You are very much accepted, but the terminology you use is offensive to most other transsexuals. While the non-op community has basic questions raised about their legitimacy as being transsexual at all, no matter the terminology. Their lives are being questioned, while you're only having your terms questioned.

[Alyssa M.]

Yup, it's just a term. The problem is with the word "true." That's a problem because it insinuates that everyone else is "false." Whether or not it's intended, that's a value judgement. "Type VI" is a little better in that it's a bit less value-laden, though certainly not devoid of judgement.

But the main issue with the Benjamin scale is whether it's a useful categorization method.

[Northern Jane]

Yup. I was diagnosed "Type VI" in 1966 by Dr. Benjamin himself but if I wanted to return to "the community" I would be "transgender". That really misses the point that I was trying to blow my brains out by age 22, narrowly missed self-mutilating, and couldn't pass for a boy. So much for "respecting identities"!

[Dana_W]

Northern Jane, I'm apparently not making my point very well. Let me try again.

Terms have changed since the 1960's, so that the proper terminology to describe your condition back then sounds exclusionary and offensive to many others today. That's not your fault. Language change is like that.

However your own experiences remain what they were, and it's entirely valid and acceptable to ask for support just like anyone else. Transitioning in an earlier era gives you a different perspective on things than those doing it later in life... or early in life but in 2010, rather than 1966. I think we would all benefit from hearing you explain what that was like.

Where we always get stuck is on the words you use, which are words that caused a lot of pain to other people in the past because of the way they excluded people from transitioning on a basis that has been subsequently discredited and discarded by the medical community. I don't think your intent in using those terms is to cause people pain. I think you're just trying explain your own experience and those are the terms you learned to describe it. However with very simple changing of your terminology, I don't think you'd offend anyone in talking about it, and you'd feel all the respect you seem to feel you're not getting at the moment.

That's my two cents anyway.

[Northern Jane]

Everything has changed since I had surgery in 1974 and most people today would NOT like the way things were then.

In the 1960's, prior to Benjamin's book, there was virtually NO medical support or understanding. Anyone that found a doctor willing to 'bend the rules' even for HRT would have to be young and obviously feminine. "RLT" (or whatever term you wish) was something people did on their own because they HAD to to survive and there was ZERO legal protection or recognition. When Biber opened his practice in Colorado the prerequisites for surgery were youth, total passability, time spent living in the target gender and a psyche assessment saying you were 'sane' enough to know what you were doing. Biber required a face-to-face interview before the final approval for surgery and it was more like an audition than an interview - 100% passable and able to integrate into womanhood. The idea then was that you became a woman and ceased being 'trans", that you went on to live a normal life as a normal woman. That's why surgery was almost exclusively limited to "Type VI".

Having gone through that is sort of like being a War Vet. I don't mean to cause anyone to feel bad but those who came through that have a LOT of trouble identifying with the whole transgender community (which is why very few stick around).

[Alyssa M.]

Having gone through that is sort of like being a War Vet.

We all recognize that and thank you for opening those doors. Deeply, sincerely, I thank you for making my path a little more smooth, even if it wasn't what you were concerned with at the time.

Forgive me for fullfilling Godwin's Law here, but you made the war analogy, so I'm just going to extend it: In your analogy, wouldn't the Nazis be the people who imposed all those restrictions? If you fought a war, who was the enemy? Because I don't really see it being anyone but the restrictive medical establishment.

I just don't get how your description of your own experience adds up to an endorsement of the '60's view. Please explain this.

But I think the Nazi analogy is wrong. I'd make an analogy that goes back a few decades earlier: Harry Benhamin is like Neils Bohr. I think Bohr was wrong in his solar-system model of energy levels in hydrogen, as does literally every other physicist on the planet. That doesn't mean we disrespect him. We've just moved on to a more nuanced and fully descriptive model of atomic physics. Similarly, I think Harry Benjamin's views were similarly simplistic and naive -- and again that doesn't mean I don't respect him. His ideas were a first stab, and we've moved on since then, at least, most of us have.

[Northern Jane]

The "war" was not against people (for the most part) but against lack of knowledge and understanding. I think even if "the enlightening" was happening today, it would still be the most "extreme" cases that would be the easiest for the non-afflicted to understand.

Type VI, at that time were those who could integrate easily and seamlessly. I presume they weren't all "pretty" but they were all 'natural' in the role.

[Alyssa M.]

In that case, "the enlightening" continues. You might have fought the war, but the war hasn't ended; we've just advanced the front a little.

Your generation got people to add a bit to the gender binary -- actually, two bits: you can be "physically" male or female, sexually attracted to males or females, and have an internal gender identity as male or female. So three bits, or eight possibilities in total -- except that the Benjamin scale excluded the possibility of trans lesbians and didn't really even consider trans men, so it's more like five -- gay and straight men and women, plus trans women (but only if they're straight). Still, it was a really good first step.

This generation is fighting to legitimize all eight "binary" identities, as well the ones in between, whether bi/pansexual, intersexual, or genderqueer/androgyne -- or some combination. The Benjamin scale is seriously problematic in that regard (even if it pays lip service to the notion of a spectrum), but also in that it seems rather circular. While "Type VI" purports to describe those who are most likely to integrate well, it seems that integrating well is the main criterion for inclusion. So the category is value-laden, defined circularly, and dismissive of lesbians. Why have it at all?

[BunnyBee]

I think Bohr was wrong in his solar-system model of energy levels in hydrogen, as does literally every other physicist on the planet. That doesn't mean we disrespect him. We've just moved on to a more nuanced and fully descriptive model of atomic physics.

Niels Bohr also is essentially responsible for driving Hugh Everett out of physics, which is a damn shame.

Anyway, I don't want to be a thread-jacker again.  Soooooo, we're having an argument of semantics or something here?

[Alyssa M.]

Funny thing -- I disagree with both Bohr and Everett on the subject they disagreed about.

Technically, I wouldn't call it semantics, since it's less about the meanings of words than history and identity in general. At least that's how I see it. But now I'm discussing the semantics of semantics. Which is AWESOME!

[BunnyBee]

Lol oh sorry maybe I didn't read it very closely >.>  I thought you all were arguing about labels and which applies to whom.. or something.  But the semantics of semantics, now that is something worth talking about! haha

I actually love Everett's theory, but I'm not big on the technical, mathy aspects of things so I'm sure you are a far better judge of it than me.   I think string theory kind of took it's place didn't it?  Ohh! btw did you know the lead singer of the Eels is Hugh Everett's son?  That boggles my mind!

[Frannie]

Okay, so no posts for at least 30 days, but it's still a good topic. 

Wouldn't you know it, my first post on this forum, and I find the same ol' intolerance that I (and everyone else here, I guess) has to deal with in the non-trans world.

My approach is to regard terminology and labels as analytical categories only.  Necessary, useful, but just categories until proven otherwise.  Some are probably empty sets.  I know for sure that I personally am a messy unfathomable combination of different things... and one changing over time at that.

I agree that intolerance often springs from a need for self-validation, and the more problematic or contested the thing needing validation the greater the need.

Frannie