In The News
Christine Beatty
============================================================
More Congressmembers Sign Gender Diversity Pledge: Total Now 112
============================================================
[Washington, DC : 15 Dec 01] In the past six months, 19 Congressmembers
have signed, or pledged to sign, diversity statements adding gender
protection to their own office's employment policies. The new
signatories will bring to 112 the number of Congressmembers signing the
GenderPAC statement, including 10 Senators and 12 Republicans.
The statement is part of GenderPAC's Workplace Fairness Program, which
assists Congressional offices and major corporations in adding gender
protection to their EEO policies. The full list of signatories can be
viewed in the CongressNotes section of the GenderPAC website at
www.gpac.org/congressnotes
GenderPAC's goal this year has been 150 signatories, however further
efforts have been slowed by the events of September 11. Commented
Executive Director Riki Wilchins, "These Congressmembers, in both houses
and on both sides of the aisle, send an important message
that discrimination and violence based on gender is incompatible with
equality for all Americans." |G|
NATIONAL NEWS
============================================================
More Low Damages, More Appeals in Brandon Case
============================================================
[Lincoln, NE : 10 Dec 01] A Nebraska Court has awarded such low damages
on two counts of Joann Brandon's wrongful death suit in the murder of
her son, Brandon, that the case is likely to be appealed once again.
The case had already been appealed to the Nebraska State Supreme Court,
after the lower court refused to find Richardson County Sheriff Charles
Laux at fault for failing to protect Brandon from the two men who
eventually killed him. The Gender Public Advocacy Coalition filed in
support of that appeal.
The seven-member State Supreme Court unanimously found Richardson County
authorities had a duty to protect Brandon, and that they had failed to
fulfill it. They ordered the lower court to award Mrs. Brandon $80,000
in damages for negligence, but left unspecified damages for emotional
distress and wrongful death.
The lower court, which had awarded only $17,000 total the first time
around, had already shown a remarkable indifference to the case. The
court took advantage of the opportunity to award Mrs. Brandon only
$7,000 for emotional distress - unheard of in the loss of a child where
the authorities had been unanimously found at fault, and only $5,000 for
wrongful death.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented Mrs. Brandon,
has announced that it will appeal. |G|
============================================================
Murphy's Mother Arrested for Intimidating Witness in Martinez Killing
============================================================
[Cortez, CO : 8 Sep 01] It was not only Shaun Murphy who was handcuffed
and led away after a preliminary hearing into his role in the death of
Fred Martinez, Jr., but also his mother.
Angel Tacoronte, 34, was taken into custody after allegedly threatening
Mary Lobato, a key witness, during the lunch recess. According to
District Attorney Joe Olt, "She seriously intimidated the witness."
Tacoronte is being held without bond in the Montezuma County Jail on
felony charges of intimidation of a witness. Murphy, 18, of Farmington,
is accused of brutally beating 16-year-old Martinez, a gay and
transgender Navajo youth. Martinez's badly decomposed body was found
June 21 south of Cortez in an area called "the Pits." Martinez was known
for
frequently appearing in public as a young girl.
Witnesses have claimed that Murphy returned from the Pits on the night
of the murder covered in blood, breathing heavily, and claiming to have
"bug-smashed a joto" -- derogatory slang for an effeminate male or
homosexual.
Murphy's lawyer has maintained that Martinez was the attacker, and
Murphy struck him with a rock only in an effort to defend himself,
although Murphy reportedly had no injuries himself.
The court refused defense motions for dismissal, and ruled that Murphy
stand trial for first-degree murder. The trial is scheduled to open
February 20, 2002. |G|
REGIONAL NEWS
============================================================
New Protections for Gender Identity
============================================================
* Aetna's Office of Diversity confirms that the company has expanded
its EEO policy to include gender identity, adding, "We are very pleased
to...afford employment protection to our transgender employees."
* Denver Adds Gender Identity to Anti-Discrimination Law. Said Jessie
Shafer of the Gender Identity Center, "This is going to correct a lot of
longstanding injustices in our community. Now we'll have some recourse."
* Following efforts by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the
Massachusetts' Commission Against Discrimination has found that
transsexuality can be considered a disability under the state's
disability laws, and that transsexuals can legally seek protection under
the state's sex discrimination statutes.
Who says the community isn't useful?
Christine Beatty
http://www.glamazon.net
te...@softhome.net
>
> * Following efforts by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the
> Massachusetts' Commission Against Discrimination has found that
> transsexuality can be considered a disability under the state's
> disability laws, and that transsexuals can legally seek protection under
> the state's sex discrimination statutes.
>
>
> Who says the community isn't useful?
>
>
> Christine Beatty
> http://www.glamazon.net
Thanks, Christine, I kinda needed a little perk-up, and that helps a lot!
Theoni
te...@SoftHome.net
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
WEL WXPGEGNA EZNZW
AG VBGFWGD DX P'XWTHEHM
UWELWBPT FGH KHPR
W'YKG LTFACXWUK
QLPOMGHM.
AETI://ATY.GXGWQMTEL.GLO/SBDCKHYVTPIGY/YGIBATLEW/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Susan Robins
>
>
Hugs,
Susan Robins
Deanna
Natasha Thompson
The article is prefaced with the following.
"Philosopher Michael Gilbert discusses the delights
and enlightenment that come with wearing a dress."
That is all well and good. Indeed the cross dressing
of Professor Gilbert' the Philosopher, may give him
some insight, into the more superficial aspects of
gender stereotypes, at least within our culture here.
Yet he can not know at all really, what living within
them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
from cross dressing, are those gathered from the
perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are
only relevant as such.
The present cultural gender paradigm is I agree,
far too fixed in it's unrealistic narrow dichotomy.
It is too rigidly binary, and therefore essentially
oppressive, because human beings are far more
complex, and do not all fit into simplistic binaries,
only some do.
The CGP is also wrongly assumed to be a moral
norm, and is enforced as such even through cruel
violence. All of which is appalling and anti human.
The world would be better off without the CGP. Yet
the extremely simplistic assumption of post
modernism, that gender itself is entirely a fictional
cultural construct, is also ludicrous, and itself a
binary within a locus of, either is, or is not.
Such a construct if accepted as a "new" cultural
paradigm and or a moral norm, as it already is
by some who consider themselves harbingers
of a brave new world without gender, has great
potential as an oppressive tool of social control.
For both the present rigidly narrow binary of Ken,
or, Barbie, and the new binary of post modernism,
of gender either is, or is not. Both alike fail utterly
to accept the diversity of human beings as relates
to gender. The present CGP dictates you should
be either Ken or Barbie, and the proposed new
post modernist one, dictates that Ken and Barbie
should stop "doing gender", by presumptuously
asserting that all who are, only do.
Both philosophies are superimposed upon, and
alike ignore, human gender as it naturally occurs,
and offer a constructed ideal in it's place.
For in the end, some really are naturally Ken or
Barbie, or any conceivable combination of, or the
absence of, either. It takes all kinds. However the
idealism of philosophers as usual, remains to be
an ideal. A ideal both unrealistic and unattainable
by all but the few, who are rewarded for conforming
to it, and the many who are penalized for failing to.
Perhaps it is time to stop doing idealism, and to
begin to accept people for what they are. Should
any culture ever do this. It will stand as a shining
beacon of sanity. Apart from a world gone mad
long ago, for being both fractured and oppressed
by, unrealistic philosophical idealism. It is time
that we recognize the real enemy, idealism itself.
Natasha
Karen
> "Philosopher Michael Gilbert discusses the delights
> and enlightenment that come with wearing a dress."
I've met him BTW. Seemed like a nice guy ... even in a dress.
- karen
Natasha Thompson
I wrote that way too fast. My god, one run on sentence after
another. Was it readable to anyone at all?
<fer shame>
Natasha
<sigh>
te...@softhome.net
> AAAAAARRRRRG! I can't believe how bad my punctuation is!
>
> I wrote that way too fast. My god, one run on sentence after
> another. Was it readable to anyone at all?
Crikey, I hardly noticed.
I'm getting net-velocitized. Scanned perfectly to moi.
Theoni
te...@SoftHome.net
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Co-sysop & WAREZMs. on Baudwaffen BBS, Ominous Procession BBS,
LOs FOrtig Machen BBS, R-Byte's Lager BBS, Elron Xemu BBS,
Gelid Form as Guest BBS, Waterhouse's Wistful Wysteria BBS,
Theme Park Urinal BBS, Compuserve, and America Online.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
caillean mcmahon
Natasha Thompson wrote:
Sis;
Were we perhaps a tad agitated about the subject matter?
hugs;
Caillean
Susan Robins
"Natasha Thompson"
<natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42547273.0201...@posting.google.
com...
thats ok hon the idea is what counts.
Hugs,
Susan Robins
Natasha Thompson
> in the parking structure Natasha Thompson <natasha...@earthlink.net> whispered:
> > AAAAAARRRRRG! I can't believe how bad my punctuation is!
> >
> > I wrote that way too fast. My god, one run on sentence after
> > another. Was it readable to anyone at all?
>
> Crikey, I hardly noticed.
>
> I'm getting net-velocitized. Scanned perfectly to moi.
>
> Theoni
> te...@SoftHome.net
Good. Thank you dear. : ) How about my exegesis of
the philosophical construct itself, does it seem
within the realm of plausibility? My lack of political
correctness aside, does what I have said make
any sense to you?
Personally I am amazed at how people have failed
to notice, that post modernism is just the same old
soap in a different package.
It seems to me that anything can be sold if packaged
right. This same old soap, is being sold as a radical
departure and a viable alternative. Poorly dressed in
the trappings of cultural import, and drenched in the
cheap perfume of rebellion and false radicalism. It is
really just the epitome of bad drag, an affront to every
decent artful female impersonator, and women alike.
Worst of all, it is a transphobic vice squad cop, who is
looking for victims.
I do not understand how anyone can fail to see it for
what it is.
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
Well, maybe a little. : )
You know how you feel when you are forced to
watch helplessly as a loved one is seduced
and brainwashed by religious dogma? I think
you do. That is exactly how I feel as I watch post
modernism mislead people. It is very frustrating,
and heartbreaking, for I can see where it is
leading.
It is like watching your old college friend, the one
with a real brain and so much potential. Who also
had no people skills at all. The isolated and lonely
one who never partied, and was always studying,
being sucked dry of all her time and money by
scientology. You try to reason with her, and show
her what a hollow sham it is, but she has found
the "truth".
Society is desperate for a cure, for the intolerance
of people who are gender and sexually different.
As it is with all ills that cause allot of suffering,
snake oil is selling like hotcakes.
Natasha
te...@softhome.net
Well, you know me, resident paranoiac. I expect people to try to use
anything they can against anybody who moves, since I've seen so much
of that.
I'd like to be wrong more....
Theoni
te...@SoftHome.net
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn."
-- B. Baggins.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Amy
unless I let them archive it
"Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42547273.02010...@posting.google.com...
> Yet he can not know at all really, what living within
> them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
> from cross dressing, are those gathered from the
> perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are
> only relevant as such.
So what you're saying is that a man who crossdresses can't really have any
idea -at all- what anything is like for a woman? Why is that? If you want
to say that it's because men and women are different, I'll buy it. But
later in this post you go on to say that the binary of man and women is
false. That sort of rules out your using it here as an excuse for your
statement, doesn't it? Given the removal of that excuse as valid in your
logic, can you explain to me why you said what you did in the above
paragraph?
>
> The present cultural gender paradigm is I agree,
> far too fixed in it's unrealistic narrow dichotomy.
> It is too rigidly binary, and therefore essentially
> oppressive, because human beings are far more
> complex, and do not all fit into simplistic binaries,
> only some do.
>
Don't you see that by talking about him as a "man in a dress who can't know
anything about being a woman" that you enforcing the cultural gender
paradigm that you just maligned? You're placing him into a narrow
dichotomy, rigidly binary and essentially oppressive.
> The CGP is also wrongly assumed to be a moral
> norm, and is enforced as such even through cruel
> violence. All of which is appalling and anti human.
>
> The world would be better off without the CGP. Yet
> the extremely simplistic assumption of post
> modernism, that gender itself is entirely a fictional
> cultural construct, is also ludicrous, and itself a
> binary within a locus of, either is, or is not.
>
Except that the world is largely happy with the "CGP"? Doesn't that matter?
Can you tell 99% (or more) of the world that how they are is wrong? Can you
make them change for the other 1% (or less)? Is that fair? Is it right?
The overwhelming majority of human being have no problems with the
definitions of man and woman.
It can be easy to forget that when you're immersed in the gender community.
Enshrouded in "difference", it can be hard to remember that -you- are the
different ones.
>
> For both the present rigidly narrow binary of Ken,
> or, Barbie, and the new binary of post modernism,
> of gender either is, or is not. Both alike fail utterly
> to accept the diversity of human beings as relates
> to gender. The present CGP dictates you should
> be either Ken or Barbie, and the proposed new
> post modernist one, dictates that Ken and Barbie
> should stop "doing gender", by presumptuously
> asserting that all who are, only do.
I think this is something T people have forced upon themselves. Look at
Jennifer rant about how women must not want to win. Look at Julie go about
how women must not play sports or call each other bitches. Look at how many
say men must not be caring and gentle.
None of these things are accepted by society at large. The gender community
that you cite as being exempt from the CGP actually enforces said CGP to a
degree that is almost ignorant of human nature. The most rigid gender
stereotypes and roles I've ever heard in my whole life have come out of the
trans community.
Work on changing US before you try to change everyone else.
> For in the end, some really are naturally Ken or
> Barbie,
I'd say it's a hell of a lot more than "some"
> or any conceivable combination of, or the
> absence of, either. It takes all kinds. However the
> idealism of philosophers as usual, remains to be
> an ideal. A ideal both unrealistic and unattainable
> by all but the few, who are rewarded for conforming
> to it, and the many who are penalized for failing to.
>
Again you seem to say that few are able to maintain the cultural gender
paradigm. Think about that. It's not "few" by any stretch of the word
imaginable. The vast majority of human beings have no problem with it
whatsoever. Given that the overwhelming majority of a system agrees with
something, can you really postulate that that something is invalid? Even
worse, can you say with a clear conscience that the majority of a system
should change to suit a microscopic minority?
> Perhaps it is time to stop doing idealism, and to
> begin to accept people for what they are.
Please go back to the beginning of this post and read what you wrote about
the professor. You are stating for him what his experiences must be, and
what they must NOT be. That is not the acceptance you argue for here.
> Should
> any culture ever do this. It will stand as a shining
> beacon of sanity. Apart from a world gone mad
> long ago, for being both fractured and oppressed
> by, unrealistic philosophical idealism. It is time
> that we recognize the real enemy, idealism itself.
>
Start your motion for change inside yourself first, then move on to the
gender community. When the trans community can learn to accept others, ONLY
then can we ask for acceptance from everyone else. Clean the house before
you clean up the neighborhood.
Amy
caillean mcmahon
Natasha Thompson wrote:
Beloved Friend;
You know that I do know so very well know what damage religious dogma can do; myself cast out
essentially from Catholicism, my wife in love but guilted into ending our relationship.
So many quick fixes have been offered to society. Religion can be a balm or the most dangerous of
cures.
hugs;
Caillean
te...@softhome.net
> Beloved Friend;
> You know that I do know so very well know what damage religious dogma can do; myself cast out
> essentially from Catholicism, my wife in love but guilted into ending our relationship.
>
> So many quick fixes have been offered to society. Religion can be a balm or the most dangerous of
> cures.
>
> hugs;
> Caillean
Religion, like that other great and greatly misunderstood comfort
masturbation, is a pursuit best undertaken alone.
Both are salutary: both are doubleplusungood in large groups.
"You must study this." -- Musaashi.
Theoni
te...@SoftHome.net
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Those who labor in the earth are the chosen of God."
- Thos. Jefferson
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Paulinev01
>> them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
>> from cross dressing,
sounds good. my thoughts today after 6 yrs as a woman are quite different than
they were as a man. dressing like one was totally different.
Before I always had the male to turn back too. if there were a problem just
bull it thru. Today, Much more gile is needed.
There were times I could use the man dressed as a woman thing to my advantage.
now it just would not work. In fact the mere posability of it ruining the rest
of my life is terrorfying.
My neighbors Identify me as female, my friends at school and the administrators
identify me as female. The men who like to flirt do so also.
I know too many T's who identify as T. not as woman. Identifying as a cd tell
people you are a man (or reverse) , Identifying as a T says you were a man.
Identifying as a woman is to say you are not a man.
I find more than enough room to identify as a woman and have all the freedom
that I need.
>So what you're saying is that a man who crossdresses can't really have any
>idea -at all- what anything is like for a woman? Why is that?
Micheal Sheen identifys as the president on telivision. does anyone believe he
is one? Does he?
WHEN ITS TIME ITS TIME
the hardest step of any journey is the first, the most satisfying is the last.
PAULINE/Paula
caillean mcmahon
Paulinev01 wrote:
Do you mean President Bartlett? He is the greatest president that we ever have had.
They need to out Joey the pollster as a TS though--that would be a great plot
twist, especially if Josh starts seeing her first.
Caillean
Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<caill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> They need to out Joey the pollster as a TS though--that would be a great plot
> twist, especially if Josh starts seeing her first.
I doubt you're gonna see anymore transfolks on TV dramas for a while,
especually since Erica from Max Bickford is getting axed.
Cheers,
Gwen Smith
. .
/\\//\ Gwendolyn Ann Smith * Member, SF TG CRI Task Force
> () < Board Member, GEA * Columnist, Bay Area Reporter
\/()\/ Webmistress, Gender.org * Comm. Host, Trans Gazebo
"I want this to be a harmony of voices" - Lauren D. Wilson
Gwendolyn Ann Smith
te...@SoftHome.net wrote:
> Religion, like that other great and greatly misunderstood comfort
> masturbation, is a pursuit best undertaken alone.
I've always tended to equate organized religion and organized crime.
They both sound so much alike.
te...@softhome.net
> In article <oRqZ7.28061$NC1.7...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>,
> te...@SoftHome.net wrote:
>
>> Religion, like that other great and greatly misunderstood comfort
>> masturbation, is a pursuit best undertaken alone.
>
> I've always tended to equate organized religion and organized crime.
> They both sound so much alike.
Both want the same things: money and power without working for either.
Theoni
te...@SoftHome.net
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Deb Marsh writes,
> All for choice myself - got me where I am today 8-)
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Natasha Thompson
> Reposting this because I forgot you read through Google and won't see it
> unless I let them archive it
>
>
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:42547273.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > Yet he can not know at all really, what living within
> > them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
> > from cross dressing, are those gathered from the
> > perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are
> > only relevant as such.
>
> So what you're saying is that a man who crossdresses
> can't really have any idea -at all- what anything is like for
a woman?
What I really said is quite different. I said the following.
Indeed the cross dressing of Professor Gilbert' the
Philosopher, may give him some insight, into the more
superficial aspects of gender stereotypes, at least
within our culture here.
Amy you have through extrapolation added a great deal
of meaning to my words, which I did not intend to convey .
Why is *that*?
> Why is that?
Please see above.
> If you want to say that it's because men and women
> are different, I'll buy it.
If you read the rest of what I said, both in this post and
my many previous ones, you could gather from them,
that I do not believe men and women are separate
species. I have said repeatedly that the CGP grossly
exaggerates existing behavioral differences, not that
there are no differences at all.
> But later in this post you go on to say that the binary of
> man and women is false.
No I did not. I said the following.
The present cultural gender paradigm is I agree, far
too fixed in it's unrealistic narrow dichotomy. It is too
rigidly binary, and therefore essentially oppressive,
because human beings are far more complex, and
do not all fit into simplistic binaries, only some do.
> That sort of rules out your using it here as an excuse for your
> statement, doesn't it?
If I said, what you think I have said, yes. I think Professor
Gilbert can by his cross dressing, gain *some* insight,
into the more superficial aspects of cultural gender
stereotypes. However as a man who occasionally cross
dresses, he will not experience many of the cultural
limitations imposed upon women within our culture.
This is a far cry from your interpretation of my words.
> Given the removal of that excuse as valid in your
> logic, can you explain to me why you said what you
> did in the above paragraph?
Can you explain to me why you said that the cultural
gender binary is not exaggerated, and is dead on
accurate and useful? You did say "If you want to say
that it's because men and women are different, I'll
buy it." : )
Are still beating your wife? Yes or no. <g>
Seriously now. Are you twisting my words on purpose
to make a point because I have offended your bias,
have you simply misinterpreted me, or is there
something else going on here? I really do not know.
I am asking.
> > The present cultural gender paradigm is I agree,
> > far too fixed in it's unrealistic narrow dichotomy.
> > It is too rigidly binary, and therefore essentially
> > oppressive, because human beings are far more
> > complex, and do not all fit into simplistic binaries,
> > only some do.
> >
>
> Don't you see that by talking about him as a "man in a
> dress
He said he is a man who just likes to crossdress on
occasion. I did not make that up, nor have I mentioned
that because I am trying to invalidate TG people.
There is a big difference in the way a male who self
identifies as a man, who cross dresses only
occasionally, and a full time non op TG woman,
experiences life isn't there? I think there is.
> who can't know anything about being a woman"
You added that part. I did not say that.
> that you enforcing the cultural gender paradigm that
> you just maligned?
No. Must it be either I accept the CGP and enforce it,
*or* I accept the post modernist extreme assumption
that there is no such thing as gender period?
Certainly not. That is the central point of my post in
fact. Do you get it now?
> You're placing him into a narrow dichotomy, rigidly
> binary and essentially oppressive.
>
No I am not. You just assume that I have, because
you did not read my post with an open mind, and
well, you did not listen to what I really said.
>
> > The CGP is also wrongly assumed to be a moral
> > norm, and is enforced as such even through cruel
> > violence. All of which is appalling and anti human.
> >
> > The world would be better off without the CGP. Yet
> > the extremely simplistic assumption of post
> > modernism, that gender itself is entirely a fictional
> > cultural construct, is also ludicrous, and itself a
> > binary within a locus of, either is, or is not.
> >
>
> Except that the world is largely happy with the "CGP"?
I do not believe that is true. That is an assumption.
Few people fit into the binary extreme of Ken *or*
Barbie. There is a big difference between accepting
something and being happy with it often. Don't you
really think that is so Amy? I mean we all must accept
aging and death, but does that mean we like it and
are happy with that? Society accepts the CGP, many
people fail to question it, but I doubt most people are
really happy with it.
> Doesn't that matter?
Please see above dear.
> Can you tell 99% (or more) of the world that how they
> are is wrong?
Sure you can, but they will not accept that likely as not. : )
> Can you make them change for the other 1% (or less)?
No, and I think expecting them to is unrealistic also.
> Is that fair? Is it right?
I don't think so.
> The overwhelming majority of human being have no
> problems with the definitions of man and woman.
Really? How do you know that Amy? I doubt that is true
myself.
> It can be easy to forget that when you're immersed in
> the gender community.
That may be true.
> Enshrouded in "difference", it can be hard to remember
> that -you- are the different ones.
I agree it could be.
> > For both the present rigidly narrow binary of Ken,
> > or, Barbie, and the new binary of post modernism,
> > of gender either is, or is not. Both alike fail utterly
> > to accept the diversity of human beings as relates
> > to gender. The present CGP dictates you should
> > be either Ken or Barbie, and the proposed new
> > post modernist one, dictates that Ken and Barbie
> > should stop "doing gender", by presumptuously
> > asserting that all who are, only do.
>
> I think this is something T people have forced upon
> themselves.
I do not think you understand what I am saying, since
you can say what you do below, as though JU's silly
crap serves as any sort of illustration, of what you
appear to think I mean, and are therefore responding
to. <g>
> Look at Jennifer rant about how women must not
> want to win. Look at Julie go about how women
> must not play sports or call each other bitches.
LOL! : D Those two are confused IMO, seeking to make
sense of themselves within the shallow assumptions
of the CGP in a quest for status, to compensate for their
lack of self esteem and in lieu of self acceptance.
> Look at how many say men must not be caring and
> gentle.
Well, not me, and certainly even many red necks living
in trailer parks, know better now days. : )
>
> None of these things are accepted by society at large.
Oh Amy. : ) I think you view is a bit pessimistic about
that.
>The gender community that you cite as being exempt
> from the CGP, .....
Hold on now. I have *never* said that. Such a statement
would be ludicrous. <g>
Sweety you got me all wrong I tell ya. : )
> ,..... actually enforces said CGP to a degree that is
> almost ignorant of human nature. The most rigid
> gender stereotypes and roles I've ever heard in my
> whole life have come out of the trans community.
Well that is very true of far too many, but not true of all
certainly. Please do not assume it is true of me, or
even the vast majority of T people.
> Work on changing US before you try to change everyone
> else.
Amy I never thought of that. Good idea. <g>
>
> > For in the end, some really are naturally Ken or
> > Barbie,
>
> I'd say it's a hell of a lot more than "some".
Perhaps I have misunderstood you Amy. However
you seem to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps you
missed the words, " *some* really are *naturally* ".
By that I meant a small percentage naturally are
either Ken or Barbie'oid, but only some. That *is*
what is wrong with the gender *ideals* of the CGP,
the ol' Ken *or* Barbie choose one BS. The CGP
holds up an ideal that *some* naturally fit. The CGP
is an artificial, unnatural, exaggerated *binary*. Get
it?
> > or any conceivable combination of, or the
> > absence of, either. It takes all kinds. However the
> > idealism of philosophers as usual, remains to be
> > an ideal. A ideal both unrealistic and unattainable
> > by all but the few, who are rewarded for conforming
> > to it, and the many who are penalized for failing to.
> >
>
> Again you seem to say that few are able to maintain
> the cultural gender paradigm.
No, what I meant is that the CGP is, oh see above. : )
> Think about that. It's not "few" by any stretch of the
> word imaginable. The vast majority of human beings
> have no problem with it whatsoever.
I disagree. Few men naturally fit the masculine ideal,
and few women fit the feminine ideal, *naturally*. <----*
People are brainwashed to accept, and strive to fit the
ideals, to their own hurt.
> Given that the overwhelming majority of a system
> agrees with something, can you really postulate
> that that something is invalid?
Philosophical idealism is a system, a construct.
Often such are in conflict with the obvious, e.g.,
evolution verses creationism, the CGP *and* post
modernism verses evolutionary psychology,
anthropology and biology, aka the obvious, IMO.
The CGP is philosophical idealism *extrapolated*
from, naturally occurring sex and gender which
*exceeds* the binary, which it also exaggerates
and embellishes. It is based on Greko Roman BS
and religious garbage. Post modernism is also
philosophical idealism, which denies the existence
of gender and sex entirely, doublethink. It is based
on iintellectualistic emotion driven assumptions, in
*reaction to* the CGP. Both are philosophical
systems, both are BS.
The something they both agree with are the ideals
they create, maintain and present as, "the way
things ought to be".
> Even worse, can you say with a clear conscience
> that the majority of a system should change to
> suit a microscopic minority?
No. I never have either. I assert that the CGP and it's
competitor post modernism, hurt everybody. I can
say with a clear conscience they are both very poor
substitutes for reality, mere idealism, and they ought
to be scraped.
Because too many minorities <---- plural, lots of people,
not a small minority, are left out and harmed by both
"systems".
> > Perhaps it is time to stop doing idealism, and to
> > begin to accept people for what they are.
>
> Please go back to the beginning of this post and
> read what you wrote about the professor.
I think if you did so, you would see that what you say
below is untrue.
>You are stating for him what his experiences must
> be, and what they must NOT be.
I *never* said any such thing.
> That is not the acceptance you argue for here.
No, *that* would not be, but *that* is not what I said.
> > Should any culture ever do this. It will stand as a
> > shining beacon of sanity. Apart from a world
> > gone mad long ago, for being both fractured and
> > oppressed by, unrealistic philosophical idealism.
> > It is time that we recognize the real enemy,
> > idealism itself.
> Start your motion for change inside yourself first,
> then move on to the gender community.
: ) Perhaps if you had actually listened to what I said,
you would not have said thar above. : )
> When the trans community can learn to accept others,
> ONLY then can we ask for acceptance from everyone
> else.
When T people accept themselves, they accept others.
Accepting others makes it easier for others to accept
you. Of course you have to have an open mind and also
open ears, to be able to accept others for who and what
they *really* are, and not just who and what you *think*
they are.
You have me all wrong Amy, and you did not understand
my words. Truly. You have me all wrong dear.
> Clean the house before you clean up the neighborhood.
Good advice Amy.
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
Yes my sister I do know. That is why I use that allegory
to explain my sorrow and frustration, as I observe so
many of us go for the quick fix of post modernism. It is
illogical self contradictory dogma, which is invalidating
of any community whose entire existence, is predicated
upon having an identity based in part upon sex and
gender.
If I believed the illogical unscientific assumptions of
PM. I would be forced to conclude that changing sex
was an unnecessary act, my identity is invalid, and
ISNA is right, Trans people only reinforce the binary
CS&GP.
Cheryl's assertion of that to me, in person in 1993,
was her reactionary emotionalism within the bias
of the construct of PM, which she long ago embraced.
It does not have to be *either* accept the CGP *or* PM.
Both are a poor substitute for reality, contrary to all
common sense, science, and the obvious reality of
sex and gender which always has, and always will,
exceed the binary. Because humans are a very diverse
species.
I think it is time that we noticed that both systems, the
CGP *and* PM, are artificial constructs superimposed
upon the obvious reality, which they both distort into
something anti human, because few people can fit
into either extreme system.
<rant over>
Many hugs to you Caillean, kisses too. : *
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
> in the parking structure caillean mcmahon <caill...@yahoo.com> whispered:
> > Beloved Friend;
> > You know that I do know so very well know what damage religious dogma can do; myself cast out
> > essentially from Catholicism, my wife in love but guilted into ending our relationship.
> >
> > So many quick fixes have been offered to society. Religion can be a balm or the most dangerous of
> > cures.
> >
> > hugs;
> > Caillean
>
> Religion, like that other great and greatly misunderstood comfort
> masturbation, is a pursuit best undertaken alone.
>
> Both are salutary: both are doubleplusungood in large groups.
>
> "You must study this." -- Musaashi.
>
: ) You got me giggling here lady. What you said is
very true though. Best as a solitary affair, yet only
because to settle for this en groupe, would be the
missing of a larger opportunity. : )
I have studied the art at some depth since becoming
post op, and I feel I have penetrated to the core of the
mystery.
Surely the personal is personal and unbounded by
biases and assumptions, which by nature appear
when the personally transcendent is misapplied to
a larger group.
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
Professor Gilbert does not claim to be a woman, does
not identify as female, and is part time, so the argument
is moot from the git go.
Whether he, who identifies as a man who cross dresses
is a woman or not, was never on my mind. I could care.
I believe if he lives as a woman full time, and is placed
by society within the limitations women must live within,
then he will have a better idea at the least. But that was
not what intrigued me about the Salon article, and was
indeed never in question, at least in my little mind. : )
Natasha
te...@softhome.net
>> in the parking structure caillean mcmahon <caill...@yahoo.com> whispered:
>> > Beloved Friend;
>> > You know that I do know so very well know what damage religious dogma can do; myself cast out
>> > essentially from Catholicism, my wife in love but guilted into ending our relationship.
>> >
>> > So many quick fixes have been offered to society. Religion can be a balm or the most dangerous of
>> > cures.
>> >
>> > hugs;
>> > Caillean
>>
>> Religion, like that other great and greatly misunderstood comfort
>> masturbation, is a pursuit best undertaken alone.
>>
>> Both are salutary: both are doubleplusungood in large groups.
>>
>> "You must study this." -- Musaashi.
>>
>
> : ) You got me giggling here lady. What you said is
> very true though. Best as a solitary affair, yet only
> because to settle for this en groupe, would be the
> missing of a larger opportunity. : )
True:).
> I have studied the art at some depth since becoming
> post op, and I feel I have penetrated to the core of the
> mystery.
Groan.
> Surely the personal is personal and unbounded by
> biases and assumptions, which by nature appear
> when the personally transcendent is misapplied to
> a larger group.
Huggles.
Theoni
te...@SoftHome.net
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Theoni Srith is one of the Hackers in E Minor from Oh, Yeah.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > I doubt you're gonna see anymore transfolks on TV dramas for a while,
> > especually since Erica from Max Bickford is getting axed.
>
> Huh? Why for? I mean, other than that the actress who played
> Erica was completely unconvincing as a transsexual. Willing
> suspension of disbelief only works so well, and it was pretty
> damned hard to believe that "Uncle Steve" became "Erica".
For the same reason any show has. They are getting lackluster ratings,
and are retooling the show. Word is that it will focus more on
Bickford himself, and spend more time on his homelife than his
workplace. Erica doesn't fit into the plans, so bye-bye to her.
FWIW, I didn't have that much problem with Helen Shaver's protrayal,
though I did feel there were flaws. I did find the show overall to be
whiny and meandering, which has kept me from being a "loyal viewer."
The show having a trans character was not enough to hold my interest.
Natasha Thompson
You and me both. God I hope I am so wrong about this.
Yet sadly I know, nothing is more alluring than a lie in a
pretty package, and snake oil is the balm of ages.
<sigh>
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
<snip>
>
> Micheal Sheen identifys as the president on telivision.
> does anyone believe he is one? Does he?
You mean Bush is the real one?!
Thanks. You just ruined my evening. <g>
Natasha
Christine Beatty
> Identifying as a T says you were a man.
And you weren't a man before? Then why did you take hormones, have
electrolysis and obtain surgery?
Christine
Pauline Brent
"Julie" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:rHtZ7.73509$6m1.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> "Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote in message
> news:040120021747577547%gw...@gwensmith.comatose...
> > In article <3C3643CD...@yahoo.com>, caillean mcmahon
> > <caill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > They need to out Joey the pollster as a TS though--that would be a
great
> plot
> > > twist, especially if Josh starts seeing her first.
> >
> > I doubt you're gonna see anymore transfolks on TV dramas for a while,
> > especually since Erica from Max Bickford is getting axed.
>
> Erica was completely unconvincing as a transsexual. Willing
> suspension of disbelief only works so well, and it was pretty
> damned hard to believe that "Uncle Steve" became "Erica".
>
>
As much as I agree with you about that, I think it a shame that the
charature is being driven out. If She had stayed on longer we maybe could
have gotten a few real T/NW on with some real stories.
It will mean I quit watching. I may keep up to harpoon CBS frome time to
time.
Pauline
Pauline Brent
"Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42547273.02010...@posting.google.com...
Which Bush?
Pauline Brent
"Christine Beatty" <chri...@glamazonrocks.com> wrote in message
news:3C3679C2...@glamazonrocks.com...
>
> Christine
Electrolysis? why would I need that. dont understand the lasar thing either.
Not all of us were xy to begin with. nor xx. some of us were xxy, xo and
such.
My insurance compay also spen 36,000 to by pass my stomach.
Now, you wish to identify as a T after you have surgery go ahead. Nothing
stopping you. Either way you have my support. I can not picture anyone
going thru life saying hi, I'm brenda your local T. or using the mens room
becouse she is not a woman.
My goal was to be a woman, I made it. there seem to be some who had a goal
of being a T. Just not me.
Christine Beatty
Pauline Brent wrote:
>
> "Christine Beatty" <chri...@glamazonrocks.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3679C2...@glamazonrocks.com...
> > Paulinev01 wrote:
> >
> > > Identifying as a T says you were a man.
> >
> > And you weren't a man before? Then why did you take hormones, have
> > electrolysis and obtain surgery?
>
> >
> > Christine
>
> Electrolysis? why would I need that. dont understand the lasar thing either.
If you did not have a beard before transition then you are very blessed.
Thank your lucky stars.
> Not all of us were xy to begin with. nor xx. some of us were xxy, xo and
> such.
True, but most of us were born with unambiguous genitals and were
assigned a sex at birth that we had changed (or are scheduled to change)
with surgery.
> My insurance compay also spen 36,000 to by pass my stomach.
Fascinating, but what does that have to do with SRS and transition and
whatnot?
> Now, you wish to identify as a T after you have surgery go ahead. Nothing
> stopping you. Either way you have my support.
Said nothing of the sort, all I did was ask if you were not a man
(legally/genitally, if you prefer to nitpick) before surgery. You don't
have to answer my question if you don't want to, but don't offer all of
these distractions as some kind of answer.
Christine
Pauline Brent
>
> Pauline Brent wrote:
> >
> > "Christine Beatty" <chri...@glamazonrocks.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C3679C2...@glamazonrocks.com...
> > > Paulinev01 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Identifying as a T says you were a man.
> > >
> > > And you weren't a man before? Then why did you take hormones, have
> > > electrolysis and obtain surgery?
> >
> > >
> > > Christine
> >
> > Electrolysis? why would I need that. dont understand the lasar thing
either.
>
> If you did not have a beard before transition then you are very blessed.
> Thank your lucky stars.
>
>
> > Not all of us were xy to begin with. nor xx. some of us were xxy, xo and
> > such.
>
> True, but most of us were born with unambiguous genitals and were
> assigned a sex at birth that we had changed (or are scheduled to change)
> with surgery.
>
>
> > My insurance compay also spen 36,000 to by pass my stomach.
>
> Fascinating, but what does that have to do with SRS and transition and
> whatnot?
Nothing, red herring. thrown in for fun.. :)
>
>
> > Now, you wish to identify as a T after you have surgery go ahead.
Nothing
> > stopping you. Either way you have my support.
>
> Said nothing of the sort, all I did was ask if you were not a man
> (legally/genitally, if you prefer to nitpick) before surgery. You don't
> have to answer my question if you don't want to, but don't offer all of
> these distractions as some kind of answer.
>
>
> Christine
the
Dr said: not sure, I kind have forgot his exact words. I dont think I was
listening, probably crying, I was good at that.
It was determined I was more boy than girl, later I tried to argue but they
refused to listen. At some point I had a surgery that went from my pubic
area to the side. at 9 I had an apendix surgery that was used to hide most
of the scar. I can still feel it, but it is now invisable unless you know
what to look for.
I heard my father and a friend discusing me shortly after I got home, and
heard the word hermorphidie used for the first time, I spent months trying
to find out what that was.
I love distractions. People have a tendency to get too serious on Newgroups.
In case you havent noticed with out the bickering and jousting here it would
be rather boring.
When I had facial hair it was very thin and ligh. red in color. In 1991 I
was diagnosed with Adrenal Hyperplasia and put on drugs to balance my high
Blood Pressure, which I had all my life even as a child. If it had been
diagnosed at birth, who knows. they probably would have dropped me on my
head and said "opps". in 46 they were not to well versed on how to solve
such problems.
I grew up beliving I should be a girl but having to conform to being a boy.
There are only two sexes. I did not wish to be a man.
some people wish to have a third sex, a transsex.
trans means to move from one point to another, we call it transition in the
comunity. I moved from being identified as a man to becoming a woman. Too
may neve make it, they stay inbetween. As any woman here can tell you, it is
wonderfull to be a woman. and no longer be in transition as we can now move
on with our lives.
I am a woman with a transsexual history. but I do not identify as being
transsexual. I do not identify with being a man.
Its fun to use my old life to help others, after all I have no other need
for it.
Take care.
did that satisfy you?
Pauline.Paula
Christine Beatty
Pauline Brent wrote:
<snipped fascinating but non-answer stuff>
> I am a woman with a transsexual history. but I do not identify as being
> transsexual.
Hey, you can identify with however you want. I also identify as a woman
(even now before surgery) but I did live my first 27 years as a man, at
least to the best of my ability. I will not lie to myself and others by
stating I was always a girl because that flies in the face of
medical/legal fact. Plus it cheapens my own experience.
> I do not identify with being a man.
And why should you, you silly girl?
> Take care.
You, too.
> did that satisfy you?
Yes, and pass the cigarettes, luvey.
;)
Christine
Pauline Brent
now having a sense of humor can be dangerous. and you know I dont smoke. get
warm a little. but then :)
Christine Beatty
> now having a sense of humor can be dangerous. and you know I dont smoke. get
> warm a little. but then :)
Old joke:
"Do you smoke after sex?"
"I don't know -- I never looked."
Christine
Natasha Thompson
I mean the smart one on, "That's My Bush".
<plunging back into the icy waters of denial now>
<glub>
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
>
> "Paulinev01" <pauli...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20020104182819...@mb-cg.news.cs.com...
> Perhaps you misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing either for OR
> against the idea that crossdressers know anything about women. I didn't
> take a stand on that issue.
>
> I asked Natasha how she can make a plea for acceptance of people as they
> seem themselves, and say that the binary gender system is invalid and
> doesn't take into account individuals, and -then- say a "man in a dress
> can't possibly understand anything about life as a woman".
I did NOT say a man in a dress can't possibly understand *anything*
about life as a woman. You have put quotations marks on what is
really in fact, ONLY *your interpretation* of what I did write.
I wrote the following, which is not the same at all.
Indeed the cross dressing of Professor Gilbert' the Philosopher,
may give him some insight, into the more superficial aspects of
gender stereotypes, at least within our culture here. Yet he can
not know at all really, what living within them as a woman is like.
Any insight he gathers from cross dressing, are those gathered
from the perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are only
relevant as such.
According to him, he is a man identified male who *occasionally*
cross dresses. Not the same thing as a full time non op TS at
all. How is he going to know what life as a woman is like?
Sorry if I offend your agenda Amy. But misquoting me, twisting
my words and trying to paint me as a bigot will not advance your
cause, except in the mind of a fool.
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Please go back to the beginning of this post and read what you wrote about
> the professor.
I did, but you only did a partial quote, and that alters the
context and meaning therefore, as you know *full well*. That
is very underhanded of you, and very transparent as well.
What I did write about him I believe still to be balanced and
accurate. Why are you distorting what I have written? What do
you hope to accomplish doing that?
> You are stating for him what his experiences must be, and
> what they must NOT be.
Nonsense. You are extrapolating. You have not even understood
what I have written. Maybe you are not interested in having a
conversation, but rather doing a bit of a hatchet job.
>That is not the acceptance you argue for here.
Is misquoting me, twisting my words and trying to paint me as
a type of person I am not, *your* idea of acceptance, justice
and fairness?
Natasha
Jennifer Usher
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote in message
> I've always tended to equate organized religion and organized crime.
> They both sound so much alike.
And yet, such a view is no more open-minded and tolerant than the dark side
of organized religion. The truth is far more complex.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> >So what you're saying is that a man who crossdresses can't really have
any
> >idea -at all- what anything is like for a woman? Why is that?
>
> Micheal Sheen identifys as the president on telivision. does anyone
believe he
> is one? Does he?
Well, let's take a simple example. A lot of crossdressers have to get
really dolled up before they will even consider doing housework, even using
it as an excuse to get dressed up. A woman, whether a WBW or a WBT will
probably put on her grubbiest jeans and sweatshirt/t-shirt. So, you tell
me, does a crossdresser have ANY idea what being a woman is really about?
Hint: The answer is NO!
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Do you mean President Bartlett? He is the greatest president that we ever
have had.
I agree, though it is kind of sad that he is just a fictional president.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote in message
> I doubt you're gonna see anymore transfolks on TV dramas for a while,
> especually since Erica from Max Bickford is getting axed.
WHAT!?!?!?!?!?
Please, tell me this is just a wild rumor!
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote in message
> FWIW, I didn't have that much problem with Helen Shaver's protrayal,
> though I did feel there were flaws. I did find the show overall to be
> whiny and meandering, which has kept me from being a "loyal viewer."
> The show having a trans character was not enough to hold my interest.
I have to disagree. Granted, I did my time as an American Studies major, so
I knew characters that were a lot like those in the show. And for me, the
parts with Erica have been very worthwhile. The first time I saw the show,
I cringed at the first "he" in reference to the character. But then, I
quickly saw that they were realistically dealing with people adapting to the
change. I felt it to be an excellent, and surprisingly accurate portrayal
of a transsexual....as opposed to silliness like they came up with on
"Chicago Hope" or "Gideon's whatever..." I missed the latter, but I heard
about it. Pure hokum. In both cases, going of hormones was supposed to
turn a post-op "back into a man."
--
Jennifer Usher
Natasha Thompson
<gAXZ7.7415$zw3.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Natasha Thompson <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
That being said the bottom line is, that Professor Gilbert
said he is a man, *does not identify as a woman* and only
dresses occasionally. Now if he did identify as a woman, and
*dresses to express his true gender*, even if only part time,
that would be an *entirely different* matter. I believe that a
pre op or non op, *who identifies a woman* does at least in
some way, experience life as a woman, even if they are stuck
living all or part time in the male role socially. What I said
about Gilbert does not contradict that. These are I believe
two *entirely different* issues.
Natasha
Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<jen...@otelco.net> wrote:
> > I doubt you're gonna see anymore transfolks on TV dramas for a while,
> > especually since Erica from Max Bickford is getting axed.
>
> WHAT!?!?!?!?!?
>
> Please, tell me this is just a wild rumor!
No wild rumour. I have it from perhaps the most reliable source one
could have on this. ;-)
Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<jen...@otelco.net> wrote:
> > FWIW, I didn't have that much problem with Helen Shaver's protrayal,
> > though I did feel there were flaws. I did find the show overall to be
> > whiny and meandering, which has kept me from being a "loyal viewer."
> > The show having a trans character was not enough to hold my interest.
>
> I have to disagree. Granted, I did my time as an American Studies major, so
> I knew characters that were a lot like those in the show. And for me, the
> parts with Erica have been very worthwhile. The first time I saw the show,
> I cringed at the first "he" in reference to the character. But then, I
> quickly saw that they were realistically dealing with people adapting to the
> change. I felt it to be an excellent, and surprisingly accurate portrayal
> of a transsexual....as opposed to silliness like they came up with on
> "Chicago Hope" or "Gideon's whatever..." I missed the latter, but I heard
> about it. Pure hokum. In both cases, going of hormones was supposed to
> turn a post-op "back into a man."
We're not in any particular disagreement there. As I said, I just
didn't like the show. Not that the characters were not "realistic,"
nor that they did not present a fairly accurate portrayal of what so
many of us go through. I just find the show overall not to my liking.
It doesn't help that I don't like Dreyfus (sp.) and am not a fan of
that genre of show.
Cheers,
Gwen Smith
(...Who wrote about the show in a couple Transmissions articles)
Amy
> In article <DbcZ7.12036$2N5.3...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>,
> "Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Please go back to the beginning of this post and read what you wrote
about
> > the professor.
>
> I did, but you only did a partial quote, and that alters the
> context and meaning therefore, as you know *full well*. That
> is very underhanded of you, and very transparent as well.
>
> What I did write about him I believe still to be balanced and
> accurate. Why are you distorting what I have written? What do
> you hope to accomplish doing that?
I didn't misquote you at all. I didn't change anything, and just for the
heck of it I'll include the whole thing again.
------
<<I read the Salon article linked to in the opening post.
The article is prefaced with the following.
"Philosopher Michael Gilbert discusses the delights
and enlightenment that come with wearing a dress."
That is all well and good. Indeed the cross dressing
of Professor Gilbert' the Philosopher, may give him
some insight, into the more superficial aspects of
gender stereotypes, at least within our culture here.
Yet he can not know at all really, what living within
them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
from cross dressing, are those gathered from the
perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are
only relevant as such.>> - Natasha
------
>
What I said about it does not get altered in the face of a full quote. You
are dictating what he must gain and NOT gain from his experiences. I asked
you earlier to justify that, since later in your post you didn't care for
people who do this to you.
> > You are stating for him what his experiences must be, and
> > what they must NOT be.
>
> Nonsense. You are extrapolating. You have not even understood
> what I have written. Maybe you are not interested in having a
> conversation, but rather doing a bit of a hatchet job.
>
What his experiences must be:
"Indeed the cross dressing
of Professor Gilbert' the Philosopher, may give him
some insight, into the more superficial aspects of
gender stereotypes, at least within our culture here." -- Natasha
What his experiences must not be:
"Yet he can not know at all really, what living within
them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
from cross dressing, are those gathered from the
perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are
only relevant as such" - Natasha
How plain does it need to be? You said it. I understood it. I'm asking
you to justify saying it. Did you read the article? If you had, you'd know
he self-identifies as both a crossdresser and transgendered. Who are you to
tell him he can't do so, and that he's "merely a man in a dress"?
I saw you acting like Jennifer Usher and then complaining about people like
Jennifer in the same post. I called you on it and stand by my accusation.
> >That is not the acceptance you argue for here.
>
> Is misquoting me, twisting my words and trying to paint me as
> a type of person I am not, *your* idea of acceptance, justice
> and fairness?
>
I'm painting you as hypocritical. I'm asking why you're making a plea for
acceptance -as you say you are-, without giving it to another. You very,
very, very, very clearly stated that you think the professor's experience is
not what he says it is.
I also want to know how you can say that the cultural gender paradigm is
nonsense, and then say that a "man in a dress" can know nothing of being a
woman. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in that statement?
Why the venom and insults in your reply?
Amy
Amy
>
> That being said the bottom line is, that Professor Gilbert
> said he is a man, *does not identify as a woman* and only
> dresses occasionally. Now if he did identify as a woman, and
> *dresses to express his true gender*, even if only part time,
> that would be an *entirely different* matter. I believe that a
> pre op or non op, *who identifies a woman* does at least in
> some way, experience life as a woman, even if they are stuck
> living all or part time in the male role socially. What I said
> about Gilbert does not contradict that. These are I believe
> two *entirely different* issues.
You're wrong. Go read about him. He says multiple times even in this one
article on Salon that he identifies as a "part-time woman".
"If you are going to declare yourself a part- or full-time woman you have to
go beyond appearances" - Professor Gilbert.
"When he's a woman, he says, power and winning become less important. This
different sensibility, he notes, has seeped into his work. "My argumentation
theory is now a blend of animus/anima, male/female." " - Professor Gilbert
"Gender is just a construct propped up by deeply imbedded conditioning. And
what is constructed can be deconstructed; the fact that you're born one sex
shouldn't limit your freedom to cross over into another." Professor Gilbert
Three quotes from that article describing how he feels about his gender. He
says he dresses to express the woman in him. That pretty much fits the
exceptions you listed above, doesn't it? And given this info, do you
understand why I took issue with what you said about him? I'd assumed you
read the article, since you said you did. Perhaps you didn't.
You are clearly telling him that he's not what he says is, if you'd actually
read it. And since you say you read the article, then I have to assume
you're hypocritical and not giving others the acceptance you're seeking.
Taken from your last post to save space and not spam the group with a second
reply:
"Sorry if I offend your agenda Amy. But misquoting me, twisting
my words and trying to paint me as a bigot will not advance your
cause, except in the mind of a fool." - Natasha
Agenda? Damn right I have one. I didn't misquote or twist anything.
I -did- paint you as a bigot, and I backed it up. I'm waiting for you to
justify it.
Amy
Amy
"Jennifer Usher" <jen...@otelco.net> wrote in message
news:TmZZ7.155$H_3....@eagle.america.net...
My boyfriend puts on his grubbiest clothes to clean, too. Does that mean he
has an idea of what being a woman is?
This is silly. Defining womanhood by grubby jeans...
Amy
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qM3_7.8605$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > That being said the bottom line is, that Professor Gilbert
> > said he is a man, *does not identify as a woman* and only
> > dresses occasionally. Now if he did identify as a woman, and
> > *dresses to express his true gender*, even if only part time,
> > that would be an *entirely different* matter. I believe that a
> > pre op or non op, *who identifies a woman* does at least in
> > some way, experience life as a woman, even if they are stuck
> > living all or part time in the male role socially. What I said
> > about Gilbert does not contradict that. These are I believe
> > two *entirely different* issues.
>
>
> You're wrong. Go read about him. He says multiple times even in this one
> article on Salon that he identifies as a "part-time woman".
Maybe I am Amy, wouldn't be the first time. I did read the
article, and he clearly states the he does not identify as a
woman, but as a man. If he "clarified" that later with the
part time woman thing, I missed it. I do not believe a man who
does not identify as a woman, and who is a self described part
time cross dresser is anything else but. I allow people to
define themselves, and that is his definition of himself.
Just my opinion.
>
> "If you are going to declare yourself a part- or full-time woman you have to
> go beyond appearances" - Professor Gilbert.
Very true. I agree with him on that.
>
> "When he's a woman, he says, power and winning become less important. This
> different sensibility, he notes, has seeped into his work. "My argumentation
> theory is now a blend of animus/anima, male/female." " - Professor Gilbert
Well then, all us *uppity women* are men after all. Andrew
Dice Clay is right it turns out. Who'd a thought? I stand
corrected Amy.
By the way. Professor Gilbert for all his departure from
gender stereotypes and post modernism, sure seems to be
ascribing to them, IMO. <g>
>
> "Gender is just a construct propped up by deeply imbedded conditioning. And
> what is constructed can be deconstructed; the fact that you're born one sex
> shouldn't limit your freedom to cross over into another." Professor Gilbert
I agree with the last part, but not with the first part. He
seems to confuse conceptualizations, I think.
>
> Three quotes from that article describing how he feels about his gender. He
> says he dresses to express the woman in him. That pretty much fits the
> exceptions you listed above, doesn't it? And given this info, do you
> understand why I took issue with what you said about him? I'd assumed you
> read the article, since you said you did. Perhaps you didn't.
I read the article Amy, but I also did so both carefully and
critically. Just my personal opinion, but you seem unclear on
the concepts, to me.
>
> You are clearly telling him that he's not what he says is,
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Your
assumptions about me are very inaccurate though.
> if you'd actually read it. And since you say you read the article,
> then I have to assume you're hypocritical and not giving others
> the acceptance you're seeking.
1. I am not seeking acceptance, because I have accepted myself
I do not need any more from you or anyone.
2. As a human being I am not incapable of being hypocritical,
yet I do not think I am about this.
3. I am, despite my faults, not prone to lying Amy.
>
> Taken from your last post to save space and not spam the group with a second
> reply:
>
> "Sorry if I offend your agenda Amy. But misquoting me, twisting
> my words and trying to paint me as a bigot will not advance your
> cause, except in the mind of a fool." - Natasha
>
> Agenda? Damn right I have one.
I know, we all do, so what is the problem with my saying that?
> I didn't misquote or twist anything.
Yes you did Amy.
> I -did- paint you as a bigot, and I backed it up. I'm waiting for you to
> justify it.
You have really only proven one thing. Either you are Jennifer
Usher using a different name, or you share her sametendencies,
and graduated from the same charm school and writing academy
that she did.
Ok I am going to have to ignore you now, until you get with
it. I hope you do soon.
Until then.
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rMXZ7.7421$zw3.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > In article <DbcZ7.12036$2N5.3...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>,
> > "Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Please go back to the beginning of this post and read what you wrote
> about
> > > the professor.
> >
> > I did, but you only did a partial quote, and that alters the
> > context and meaning therefore, as you know *full well*. That
> > is very underhanded of you, and very transparent as well.
> >
> > What I did write about him I believe still to be balanced and
> > accurate. Why are you distorting what I have written? What do
> > you hope to accomplish doing that?
>
> I didn't misquote you at all. I didn't change anything, and just for the
> heck of it I'll include the whole thing again.
<snip - denial, false alegations, bait and bitch nonsense and
innuendo>
Have a nice day J U. If you are not Jennifer Usher, you are
her clone. <g>
Natasha
Amy
> <snip - denial, false alegations, bait and bitch nonsense and
> innuendo>
>
> Have a nice day J U. If you are not Jennifer Usher, you are
> her clone. <g>
>
>
> Natasha
What I see you doing is crusading for the idea that gender isn't binary. If
you wish to crusade for that, I'm all for it. I also don't care if you wish
to crusade for the idea that gender IS binary. It's no skin off my back,
and it's fun to discuss.
What I DO have an issue with is you saying that the cultural view of gender
is wrong, that there are more options than the binary, insulting people who
uphold the current gender ideas, AND AT THE SAME TIME say things like the
idea that a crossdresser can have no idea what being a woman is like.
If you want to say that, go ahead! I'll even leave you alone about it! But
then you need to stop pretending you're not one of the people upholding the
gender stereotypes and norms you speak out against.
You are not practicing what you preach, and that I have a problem with.
Call me names all you want. It doesn't irritate me or upset me.
What -will- irritate me is if you keep snipping out anything you don't have
an answer for in my posts. You haven't answered a single accusation I've
made, despite that I've backed them up with reposts. You just call me names
and think that's a good debate.
If I've upset you, I'm sorry. After reading your writings on how the
current societal ideas on gender are inaccurate and that the binary gender
model is wrong, I'm utterly appalled at how you can follow that with the
idea that only a biological or T woman can know "anything at all" about
being a woman. Those two ideas are in conflict, and the fact that you can't
see that means that maybe you don't understand the gender camp you claim to
reside in.
You are rigidly upholding the cultural gender paradigm you seek to do away
with. It's the conflict in this statement that I'm taking issue with, not
your actual ideas about gender.
Quote from your post, posted in entirety because otherwise you'll accuse me
of misquoting you:
"The present cultural gender paradigm is I agree,
far too fixed in it's unrealistic narrow dichotomy.
It is too rigidly binary, and therefore essentially
oppressive, because human beings are far more
complex, and do not all fit into simplistic binaries,
only some do." - Natasha
Quote from another of your posts, posted the same way:
"That being said the bottom line is, that Professor Gilbert
said he is a man, *does not identify as a woman* and only
dresses occasionally. Now if he did identify as a woman, and
*dresses to express his true gender*, even if only part time,
that would be an *entirely different* matter. I believe that a
pre op or non op, *who identifies a woman* does at least in
some way, experience life as a woman, even if they are stuck
living all or part time in the male role socially. What I said
about Gilbert does not contradict that. These are I believe
two *entirely different* issues." - Natasha
Don't you see the conflict in these two paragraphs?
In the first, you denounce categorization by binary gender. You claim it is
an unrealistic narrow dichotomy. It's too rigidly binary, and oppressive
because human beings are far more complex and do not fit into simplistic
binaries.
Then in the second, you firmly place the professor inside the binary, and
proclaim to the group what his experiences must be. This in spite of the
fact that the professor himself disagrees with your diagnosis of his gender.
That you are telling him that he must not be what he SAYS HE IS is the most
flagrant violiation of the idea you posted in the first paragraph
imaginable.
The first paragraph is preaching. The second is practicing, and the two are
NOT matching.
Amy
Jennifer Usher
> > > Identifying as a T says you were a man.
> >
> > And you weren't a man before? Then why did you take hormones, have
> > electrolysis and obtain surgery?
>
> Electrolysis? why would I need that. dont understand the lasar thing
either.
>
> Not all of us were xy to begin with. nor xx. some of us were xxy, xo and
> such.
>
> My insurance compay also spen 36,000 to by pass my stomach.
>
> Now, you wish to identify as a T after you have surgery go ahead. Nothing
> stopping you. Either way you have my support. I can not picture anyone
> going thru life saying hi, I'm brenda your local T. or using the mens room
> becouse she is not a woman.
>
> My goal was to be a woman, I made it. there seem to be some who had a goal
> of being a T. Just not me.
Not everyone agrees, but the way I see it is, if you are not a woman before
surgery, surgery is not going to change that. For me, this is all about
dropping a charade, even though some would insist I continue it.
--
Jennifer Usher
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jY7_7.9363$zw3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > <snip - denial, false alegations, bait and bitch nonsense and
> > innuendo>
> >
> > Have a nice day J U. If you are not Jennifer Usher, you are
> > her clone. <g>
> >
> >
> > Natasha
>
> What I see you doing is crusading for the idea that gender isn't binary. If
> you wish to crusade for that, I'm all for it. I also don't care if you wish
> to crusade for the idea that gender IS binary. It's no skin off my back,
> and it's fun to discuss.
You *did* notice that I am saying that gender is not binary!
I'll be darned. You are even *all for that*? Well what a
surprise, to me.
>
> What I DO have an issue with is you saying that the cultural view of gender
> is wrong, that there are more options than the binary,
But even though you are all for my saying, gender is not
binary either or (Ken or Barbie) thing, you "DO" have a
problem about me saying that our culture's insistence that
gender is a rigid binary is wrong, and I am wrong for pointing
out that there are more options than the binary either or?
<blinking> <shaking my head>
> insulting people who uphold the current gender ideas,
I do? You call me a bigot and a liar, but *that* is ok though,
and say that? <again with the blinking>
> AND AT THE SAME TIME say things like the idea that a crossdresser
> can have no idea what being a woman is like.
Your words not mine. I did not say that.
>
> If you want to say that, go ahead!
I would not, because it is too silly even for me, That is
dogma, nothing more.
> I'll even leave you alone about it!
You will? When?
> But then you need to stop pretending you're not one of the
> people upholding the gender stereotypes and norms you speak
> out against.
What? What kind of drugs do you take, or you are not taking
that you should?
>
> You are not practicing what you preach, and that I have a problem with.
Ok. Well thanks for telling me.
>
> Call me names all you want.
Thank you for your permision, I will. You are a confused and
very argumentaive person. So there! : ) Happy? <g>
> It doesn't irritate me or upset me.
No, obviously not. <smirking here a little>
> What -will- irritate me is if you keep snipping out anything you don't have
> an answer for in my posts. You haven't answered a single accusation I've
> made, despite that I've backed them up with reposts. You just call me names
> and think that's a good debate.
I am just terrible, aren't I?
>
> If I've upset you, I'm sorry.
Don't worry, I am ok. I am starting to really get a kick out
of you. It is all very Felini.
<snip>
Natasha
Pauline Brent
being a part time proffessor or a part time pregnat.
Pauline
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1n7_7.12385$2N5.4...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
Natasha Thompson
Claire <cla...@toast.com> wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> Amy writes:
>
> > "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:42547273.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > > Yet he can not know at all really, what living within
> > > them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
> > > from cross dressing, are those gathered from the
> > > perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are
> > > only relevant as such.
> >
> > So what you're saying is that a man who crossdresses can't really
> > have any idea -at all- what anything is like for a woman? Why is
> > that?
>
> I don't see why a man can't have an idea of what things are like for a
> woman (or vice versa). Obviously it's not going to be nearly as
> complete or deep an understanding as what you get from actually living
> your whole life as a member of the opposite sex, but surely any
> reasonably intelligent and inquisitive human being can gain some
> insights about folks on the other side of the Great Divide. I would
> think that a guy who crossdresses extensively, goes out into the world
> as a woman and has an element of his psyche that identifies as such is
> bound to get a taste for what life is like for women. Most gendering is
> probably a social phenomenon anyway, so it would seem you could learn
> that like you learn anything else.
I think there is allot of truth to what you say above Claire.
The paragraph I wrote which Amy snipped out, preceding the one
Amy quoted of me, I think shows that my view is very similar
to yours.
My post was an attempt by me to point out, that I do not
believe it is a matter of *either* the CGP is "right", *or*
post modernism is "right", and that I question both systems.
Gilbert's womanhood, validity as such or not, was not the
subject of my post or of concern to me.
For some odd reason, : ) Amy decided to shift the subject to
her *interpretation*, of *some* of what I wrote about Gilbert,
and her *professed* assumptions about what that implies about
my character. Which is of course just awful. How ISNA.
Funny, how people who are all caught up in the idealism of
their ideology, try to deflect the topic, change the subject
and *target the person*, of those who express a view which
diverges from *theirs*. This is part of what I was trying to
point out.
How inherently biased and agenda driven idealism is. Idealism
itself, is *the* worst threat that we all face. It makes
people do bad things. It is what war and repression is all
about.
The point of my post is that the idealistic biases of both the
CGP and post modernist system alike, superimpose upon human
sexuality a distorted conceptualism for the sake of politics,
for the sake of power, at the expense of all of the many, who
inevitably fail to measure up to the ideals they held forth.
>
> In addition, while I've definitely come to appreciate the old saw about
> there being no substitute for experience, we learn a lot of things by
> observing, reading and talking with others. I'd never shot off a stick
> of dynamite until a couple of years ago, for instance, yet I hard a
> pretty decent idea of how it worked and what would happen. (It was
> actually a good bit more powerful than I'd expected, although not as
> hellacious as what you see in a Sylvester Stallone movie).
Good point, but would you rather your surgeon was someone with
no experience, fresh out medical school, who has a pretty
decent idea of how it works? Is there really a substitute for
experience?
>
> Professor Gilbert doesn't claim to be a woman or know all about the
> experience but you've got to figure he's savvier than the average bear.
Agreed. I think his limited experience has value also, as I
said in my original post. I also think that his conclusions go
too far afield, though many of them are valid IMO.
> Heck, we know that trannies make the switch all the time, and I dare say
> most of them would acknowledge that it is a fairly gradual process of
> learning and experimentation.
Yes and no. Those who change sex for the right reasons do not
"just decide" to do so. It is not like deciding to find out
what it is like to pilot an aircraft. The motivation of those
who change sex, and in doing so are not making a horrible
mistake, imparts to them the subjective experience of life as
the gender they identify as, long before undertaking to change
sex.
Yet certainly some do go as far as to change sex, even
surgically, for other reasons. Yet all to often they discover
later, that they are dissatisfied with having done so, and
come to deeply regret it. Sex and gender is not arbitrary as
behaviorists like John Money assert, IMO.
Natasha
Amy
> > What I see you doing is crusading for the idea that gender isn't binary.
If
> > you wish to crusade for that, I'm all for it. I also don't care if you
wish
> > to crusade for the idea that gender IS binary. It's no skin off my
back,
> > and it's fun to discuss.
>
> You *did* notice that I am saying that gender is not binary!
> I'll be darned. You are even *all for that*? Well what a
> surprise, to me.
Yes I noticed it. Obviously, I don't think gender is binary either.
However, I haven't been agreeing OR disagreeing with your binary/multiple
gender ideas.
>
> >
> > What I DO have an issue with is you saying that the cultural view of
gender
> > is wrong, that there are more options than the binary,
>
> But even though you are all for my saying, gender is not
> binary either or (Ken or Barbie) thing, you "DO" have a
> problem about me saying that our culture's insistence that
> gender is a rigid binary is wrong, and I am wrong for pointing
> out that there are more options than the binary either or?
>
> <blinking> <shaking my head>
>
Let's grab the whole quote, and then I'll explain it.
"What I DO have an issue with is you saying that the cultural view of gender
is wrong, that there are more options than the binary, insulting people who
uphold the current gender ideas, AND AT THE SAME TIME say things like the
idea that a crossdresser can have no idea what being a woman is like." -
Amy
I don't have an issue with you saying that the cultural view of gender is
wrong and that gender is not binary and that people can't fit the binary
molds. I won't have an issue with you saying that a crossdressing man can
have no idea what being a woman is like. I have an issue with you saying
both of them at the same time. I have a problem with you saying gender
isn't binary and then following it up with the idea that a man is a man and
a woman is a woman. A transgender is a woman and a crossdresser is a man.
You're deviating from your "gender is not binary" idea by diametrically
opposing crossdressers and transsexuals.
>
> > AND AT THE SAME TIME say things like the idea that a crossdresser
> > can have no idea what being a woman is like.
>
> Your words not mine. I did not say that.
>
Here are your words:
"Yet he can not know at all really, what living within
them as a woman is like. Any insight he gathers
from cross dressing, are those gathered from the
perspective of a man who cross dresses, and are
only relevant as such." - Natasha
You did say that. "Yet he can not know AT ALL REALLY, what living within
them as a woman is like".
That sounds pretty absolute to me. I have no interest whatsoever in
debating how much he can know what living as a woman is like. I don't care.
I want to know why you deny that you're putting him (against his will, how
he self-identifies is right there on salon.com) inside the binary gender
system you say is so false.
> > But then you need to stop pretending you're not one of the
> > people upholding the gender stereotypes and norms you speak
> > out against.
>
> What? What kind of drugs do you take, or you are not taking
> that you should?
>
You seriously don't see it? You say that a crossdressing man (who
identifies as part-time woman, and you said he can't be such) can't know
anything about being a woman, and then claim you're not upholding the gender
norms and binary system.
Here's where you said so, since I know you'll take issue with it:
"I do not believe a man who
does not identify as a woman, and who is a self described part
time cross dresser is anything else but. I allow people to
define themselves, and that is his definition of himself" - Natasha
That was not his definition of himself and I pointed it out to you. You
tell him what his experiences must be anyway, and what he must not be able
to understand, based on a binary view of gender.
>
> > What -will- irritate me is if you keep snipping out anything you don't
have
> > an answer for in my posts. You haven't answered a single accusation
I've
> > made, despite that I've backed them up with reposts. You just call me
names
> > and think that's a good debate.
>
> I am just terrible, aren't I?
>
> >
> > If I've upset you, I'm sorry.
>
> Don't worry, I am ok. I am starting to really get a kick out
> of you. It is all very Felini.
Instead of getting a kick out of me, try answering more than a third of each
post I write. You know, the part where I ask you to explain the
contradictions in what you say.
Amy
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Pauline Brent" <pauli...@pmbrent.com> wrote in message
> news:T8a_7.18670$yC.20...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> > If he can be a partime woman then he must be a part time man. isnt that
> like
> > being a part time proffessor or a part time pregnat.
> >
> > Pauline
> >
>
> What rationale do you put forth when trying to explain to a cisgendered
> person why you are a woman? Do you say it's because you "feel like one"?
> Do you say it's because you "wanted to be one"? Is it because you "did
> things like one"?
>
> Think about it. Is there a single rationale you can present to prove that
> you are a woman that Professor Gilbert can't use to prove that he's a
> part-time woman? Is it even possible to "prove" that someone is a woman or
> not? I'd say it isn't.
>
> I have no idea if he's a "part-time" woman or not. I have no idea if it's
> possible or not. But if he bases his gender on the same kinds of ideas and
> feelings that you and I do, how can we tell him he can't be that?
>
> Amy
>
>
Sheesh.
This whole circuitous rationale does not even *touch* why I
changed sex. I changed sex because my body as it was, deeply
offended me. I could not adjust to it or accept it. God knows
I tried to do so though.
I thought the very idea of changing sex was ridiculous. I
tried everything else first.
I don't *even* know what "a woman is supposed to feel like",
and I sure as hell do not think that men and women, are
naturally that different behaviorally.
There are some differences in the way men and women view
themselves, others, and the world around them though. How much
of that is conditioning (culture or whatever) and biology, I
do not know, but I believe it is both.
In my case, I was all of my life the same way behaviorally as
I am now. My gender expression did not change much after
transition or surgery, if it did at all. About all I did was
drop my boy act, and start being myself. Like I always did, as
so many people pointed out to me all along, whenever I got
drunk or stoned That was long before I came out of denial and
transitioned
Amy's argument above, is standard post modernist stuff. Do you
all go to seminars or something, or is there a handbook? <g>
The Post Modernists' Guide To Dealing With Transsexuals, by
Suzanne Kessler and Anne Fausto-Sterling, with forward by
Germain Greer, and with a special afterward by Janice Raymond?
LOL! : D
Natasha
Amy
> > I don't see why a man can't have an idea of what things are like for a
> > woman (or vice versa). Obviously it's not going to be nearly as
> > complete or deep an understanding as what you get from actually living
> > your whole life as a member of the opposite sex, but surely any
> > reasonably intelligent and inquisitive human being can gain some
> > insights about folks on the other side of the Great Divide. I would
> > think that a guy who crossdresses extensively, goes out into the world
> > as a woman and has an element of his psyche that identifies as such is
> > bound to get a taste for what life is like for women. Most gendering is
> > probably a social phenomenon anyway, so it would seem you could learn
> > that like you learn anything else.
>
> I think there is allot of truth to what you say above Claire.
> The paragraph I wrote which Amy snipped out, preceding the one
> Amy quoted of me, I think shows that my view is very similar
> to yours.
I have no doubt that you have this view. I doubt that your "view" extends
to practice.
>
> My post was an attempt by me to point out, that I do not
> believe it is a matter of *either* the CGP is "right", *or*
> post modernism is "right", and that I question both systems.
> Gilbert's womanhood, validity as such or not, was not the
> subject of my post or of concern to me.
>
During which you proceeded to uphold the CGP, while arguing against it.
> Funny, how people who are all caught up in the idealism of
> their ideology, try to deflect the topic, change the subject
> and *target the person*, of those who express a view which
> diverges from *theirs*. This is part of what I was trying to
> point out.
>
What is my ideology? Can you list it? I bet you can't, because we haven't
been talking about what I actually believe about gender. I've
said -nothing- about it in our discussion. So if you don't know what my
ideology is, how can you know if your view diverges from mine or not? I
happen to agree with many things you say about gender, and I disagree about
many things. Where I've been faulting you is where you diverge from -your
own- ideology.
> How inherently biased and agenda driven idealism is. Idealism
> itself, is *the* worst threat that we all face. It makes
> people do bad things. It is what war and repression is all
> about.
>
Remember this paragraph above. We'll come back to it in a minute.
>
> > Heck, we know that trannies make the switch all the time, and I dare say
> > most of them would acknowledge that it is a fairly gradual process of
> > learning and experimentation.
>
> Yes and no. Those who change sex for the right reasons do not
> "just decide" to do so.
And here already we have a use for your reserved paragraph above :)
What are the right reasons? Who says you can't "just decide"? Is this
idealism at work? I'd say it is. Is it biased? Hell yeah. Who says you
get to decide what the "right reasons" are?
> It is not like deciding to find out
> what it is like to pilot an aircraft. The motivation of those
> who change sex, and in doing so are not making a horrible
> mistake, imparts to them the subjective experience of life as
> the gender they identify as, long before undertaking to change
> sex.
>
Always? What about those like Jennifer who became trannsexual one day after
identifying as a crossdresser? What about those who only have a nebulous
idea that something is "wrong" until the day they decide they should be
women?
"The motivation of those who change sex" escapes your idealism. There are
as many reasons as there are clouds in the sky. The very idea that you feel
you can predict who should and shouldn't do this defies your entire argument
about the evils of idealism.
> Yet certainly some do go as far as to change sex, even
> surgically, for other reasons. Yet all to often they discover
> later, that they are dissatisfied with having done so, and
> come to deeply regret it. Sex and gender is not arbitrary as
> behaviorists like John Money assert, IMO.
Here you make your prediction. How can you rant about the evils of agendas
and biases and idealism and then turn around and say that people who "just
decide" to change sex will be doomed to regret? How do you know? Worse,
what makes you think you know? Worse yet, how can you not consider that the
very idealism you rant against?
The very idea that you think only the purebred variety of trans person will
be happy with surgery enforces the very CGP you dislike.
Amy
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Z_a_7.9927$zw3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > I don't see why a man can't have an idea of what things are like for a
> > > woman (or vice versa). Obviously it's not going to be nearly as
> > > complete or deep an understanding as what you get from actually living
> > > your whole life as a member of the opposite sex, but surely any
> > > reasonably intelligent and inquisitive human being can gain some
> > > insights about folks on the other side of the Great Divide. I would
> > > think that a guy who crossdresses extensively, goes out into the world
> > > as a woman and has an element of his psyche that identifies as such is
> > > bound to get a taste for what life is like for women. Most gendering is
> > > probably a social phenomenon anyway, so it would seem you could learn
> > > that like you learn anything else.
> >
> > I think there is allot of truth to what you say above Claire.
> > The paragraph I wrote which Amy snipped out, preceding the one
> > Amy quoted of me, I think shows that my view is very similar
> > to yours.
>
>
> I have no doubt that you have this view. I doubt that your "view" extends
> to practice.
I thought you said that you do not think I am a bad person?
I thought you said that one of the things you dispose about me
is my insulting people who disagree with me? I thought you
said I was a hypocrite, a liar etc., etc. Oh wait, that would
be right in line with what you are saying now. Never mind.
<g>
>
> >
> > My post was an attempt by me to point out, that I do not
> > believe it is a matter of *either* the CGP is "right", *or*
> > post modernism is "right", and that I question both systems.
> > Gilbert's womanhood, validity as such or not, was not the
> > subject of my post or of concern to me.
> >
>
> During which you proceeded to uphold the CGP, while arguing against it.
In *your* mind.
>
> > Funny, how people who are all caught up in the idealism of
> > their ideology, try to deflect the topic, change the subject
> > and *target the person*, of those who express a view which
> > diverges from *theirs*. This is part of what I was trying to
> > point out.
> >
>
> What is my ideology? Can you list it?
Certainly a bit post modernist going by what you *have* said
about it.
All I know for certain is that you despise me, for, as you
falsely accuse me, of being a lying hypocrite who calls people
names.
Well gee, with flawless personal attacks like that, you win
any argument. Who could resist such impeccable debating
strategy?
<snip>
Natasha
<waving> Hi Cheryl! : )
Amy
> In article <yjb_7.12409$2N5.5...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>,
> "Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> This whole circuitous rationale does not even *touch* why I
> changed sex. I changed sex because my body as it was, deeply
> offended me. I could not adjust to it or accept it. God knows
> I tried to do so though.
It doesn't touch why I did, either. What's your point? I threw out
purposely inane statements to show how inane it was to doubt someone else's
gender. There are a million reasons to do this. Did you really expect my
three example statements to cover them all? I bet you did. Even worse, I
bet you thought I was talking about me. -My- reasons for changing gender
roles and getting surgery and in fact my ideas about gender have been
discussed in amazing detail, but they're all prevented from being archived
to Google, so you didn't see them.
>
> I don't *even* know what "a woman is supposed to feel like",
> and I sure as hell do not think that men and women, are
> naturally that different behaviorally.
We agree here. Men and women seem to overlap so heavily in the day and age
that many men fall into traditionally female categories and vice versa.
>
> There are some differences in the way men and women view
> themselves, others, and the world around them though. How much
> of that is conditioning (culture or whatever) and biology, I
> do not know, but I believe it is both.
>
I believe it's socialization that acts upon biological foundations.
<snipped some irrelevant stuff about boy acts and dope>
> Amy's argument above, is standard post modernist stuff. Do you
> all go to seminars or something, or is there a handbook? <g>
My argument above isn't about motivation for transition at all. I'm not
arguing that gender doesn't exist. I believe it does exist.
I'm not a post-modernist. I'm also not in its opposing camp. I'm somewhere
in the middle, probably near where you claim to be, but fail to deliver.
What I'm saying is that it's utterly impossible to prove your gender to
another person. No matter what you do, all they have in the end as proof is
your say-so. Keeping this in mind, knowing that you can never, ever prove
the gender of another person, why are you telling someone else what they are
or are not?
Amy
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7ec_7.10064$zw3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > In article <yjb_7.12409$2N5.5...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>,
> > "Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > This whole circuitous rationale does not even *touch* why I
> > changed sex. I changed sex because my body as it was, deeply
> > offended me. I could not adjust to it or accept it. God knows
> > I tried to do so though.
>
> It doesn't touch why I did, either. What's your point? I threw out
> purposely inane statements to show how inane it was to doubt someone else's
> gender.
Uh, Amy. Purposely making provocative posts, just to get a
reaction is called TROLLING. All trolls "have reasons" they
believe justify their doing this, but most people do not
appreciate it, or find it to be appropriate. When such troll
posts are filled with accusations, and personal attacks as
well, they get twit filtered. Like Jennifer Usher, now do you
get it?
Now you don't really want to be a troll do you? Sweety if you
want to talk to me, please talk to me, not at me or about me.
Ok? Then we will be fine dear. : )
> There are a million reasons to do this. Did you really expect my
> three example statements to cover them all?
Heavens *sake* Amy.
> I bet you did.
No checks, please, cash or VISA. : )
>
> Even worse, I bet you thought I was talking about me.
Groan, <lands sake!>
Please lighten up, just a skosh, before your eyes start
bleeding or sumpthin.
> -My- reasons for changing gender roles and getting surgery and
> in fact my ideas about gender have been discussed in amazing detail,
> but they're all prevented from being archived to Google, so you
> didn't see them.
Yes I know. Too bad, for I would have loved to hear your ideas.
I remember seeing one or two, of your posts in Google about
that. I liked them and I told you so. I also defended you from
J U's accusations, of fraud in reference to your PAIS
condition, which I have no reason to doubt is true.
Just so you will know. I finally found a decent newsreader,
and did so, because Google just got slower and slower of late.
It has nothing to do with you at all, so please don't worry.
>
> >
> > I don't *even* know what "a woman is supposed to feel like",
> > and I sure as hell do not think that men and women, are
> > naturally that different behaviorally.
>
> We agree here. Men and women seem to overlap so heavily in the day and age
> that many men fall into traditionally female categories and vice versa.
Very true, but in times past women were much less "media
cultured", far less hyper feme, and much tougher than today in
many instances. Prairie wives, farm and ranch women etc. Yet
women had far less freedom, and were relegated to bearing
children and serving men for the most part. Of course there
were more than a few notable exceptions.
>
> >
> > There are some differences in the way men and women view
> > themselves, others, and the world around them though. How much
> > of that is conditioning (culture or whatever) and biology, I
> > do not know, but I believe it is both.
> >
>
> I believe it's socialization that acts upon biological foundations.
Well put. I think that will prove to be the case.
>
>
> <snipped some irrelevant stuff about boy acts and dope>
>
>
> > Amy's argument above, is standard post modernist stuff. Do you
> > all go to seminars or something, or is there a handbook? <g>
>
> My argument above isn't about motivation for transition at all. I'm not
> arguing that gender doesn't exist. I believe it does exist.
Yet some of your words were right out of the post modernist
handbook. It is a very insidious ideology, which goes
unquestioned for the most part, presently. No offense was
intended. I just find post modernist assumptions hilarious,
and I could not resist poking fun at them, not you, ok?
>
> I'm not a post-modernist. I'm also not in its opposing camp. I'm somewhere
> in the middle, probably near where you claim to be, but fail to deliver.
Now there you go making assumptions about my character again.
<sigh> Is that firing (trolling) for effect again? : )
Cut it out would ya, it detracts from your argument, and
really spoils things.
>
> What I'm saying is that it's utterly impossible to prove your gender to
> another person.
Really why bother too? Hell with em dear, hell with em. : )
> No matter what you do, all they have in the end as proof is
> your say-so. Keeping this in mind, knowing that you can never, ever prove
> the gender of another person, why are you telling someone else what they are
> or are not?
You still have no clue what I meant about Gilbert do you? Amy
you have made a gross assumption, both about my views and my
behavior concerning such things. If you knew me, or anything
true about me, you would not assume these things.
Just ask Christine Beatty, she and I used to live in the same
neighborhood. I bet she will chuckle, if you tell her what
kind of sexist monster you think I am. : ) You two are email
friends right? Ask her.
<wink> g'head, ask her. : )
Natasha
Jennifer Usher
As much as we disagree, I can only say, having experienced a debate with
Amy, I know exactly what you are feeling. This person has a "win at all
costs" mentality backed up by a heaping helping of intellectual dishonesty.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote in message
> We're not in any particular disagreement there. As I said, I just
> didn't like the show. Not that the characters were not "realistic,"
> nor that they did not present a fairly accurate portrayal of what so
> many of us go through. I just find the show overall not to my liking.
> It doesn't help that I don't like Dreyfus (sp.) and am not a fan of
> that genre of show.
I didn't say we were. I happen to like the show, much to my surprise, as I
agree, Deryfuss is not one of my particularly favorites. And I was just
explaining why I do like the show. Last night's was particularly good, for
example. Granted, a bit predictable in the ending, but otherwise quite
good. But not much of Erica.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> That being said the bottom line is, that Professor Gilbert
> said he is a man, *does not identify as a woman* and only
> dresses occasionally. Now if he did identify as a woman, and
> *dresses to express his true gender*, even if only part time,
> that would be an *entirely different* matter. I believe that a
> pre op or non op, *who identifies a woman* does at least in
> some way, experience life as a woman, even if they are stuck
> living all or part time in the male role socially. What I said
> about Gilbert does not contradict that. These are I believe
> two *entirely different* issues.
Sorry, but this is a bit overly simplistic. Part of the game for some
crossdressers is the fantasy that they are somehow experiencing life as a
woman. But, unless one really is a woman (i.e. born with a true female
gender) one can never really say they have really experienced life as a
woman. Because, ultimately, that is what life as a woman is. Life as a
woman is not about putting on certain clothes, sitting a certain way, or
confusing people as to your true gender. It is far deeper than that, and it
is something that you have to experience for yourself. I can no more
delineate what it is like to live life as a woman, than someone else could
delineate what life is like as a male. Likewise I have never really
experienced life as a man. Only as an outsider looking on, and feeling very
much out of place.
--
Jennifer Usher
Pauline Brent
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&
Jen has been around here for 5-7 years almost as long as I. wehn we both
started we identified as we thought we should. She had a happy miarage and
so did I. as time went by things change, Jen did not identify as a T for a
few years. There have been a lot of changes here in the mean time.
Unfortunatley Sex is bianary. gender isnt. There is some thought that
ambigous is a gender. it is actually just undefined gender or sex.
You would have to ask Jen but I do not believe she ID"d as T untill 2000.
****************************************************************
***********************************************************
**************************************************************
Pauline Brent
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Pauline Brent" <pauli...@pmbrent.com> wrote in message
> news:T8a_7.18670$yC.20...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> like
> > being a part time proffessor or a part time pregnat.
> >
> > Pauline
> >
>
> person why you are a woman?
I dont, I am a woman, never believed otherwise.
***********************************************
Do you say it's because you "feel like one"?
*********************************************
no I am one.
**********************************************
> Do you say it's because you "wanted to be one"? Is it because you "did
> things like one"?
*****************************************
no I am one.
***************************************
>
> Think about it. Is there a single rationale you can present to prove that
> you are a woman that Professor Gilbert can't use to prove that he's a
> part-time woman? Is it even possible to "prove" that someone is a woman
or
> not? I'd say it isn't.
******************************************************
try it the other way around why is he a part time man. does he add or remove
his penis/vagina at will?
**********************************************************8
>
> I have no idea if he's a "part-time" woman or not. I have no idea if it's
> possible or not. But if he bases his gender on the same kinds of ideas
and
> feelings that you and I do, how can we tell him he can't be that?
*****************************************************
Tell him anything you wish. If he has no desire in surgery, clams to be a
female part time, then he must be a man part time. It is his choice.
untill he can show he is a woman (i,e, vagina or SRS goal) he is still a
man. Men have penis uranay and sex organs.
at best he may clam a life as a transgenderest if he lives primarily in the
gender other than his birth, and changes back at will.
I believe this group is alt.support..srs, how do you justify any arguement
for a person who is not a member here, that has no intentions to have SRS.
and thinks He is a part time woman. Would this not be more appropriat on
Soc.support.transgendered?
********************************************************888
>
> Amy
>
>
think about it. its not an arguement.
Pauline
Pauline Brent
We didnt, you said he did.
****************************************************
No matter what you do, all they have in the end as proof is
> your say-so. Keeping this in mind, knowing that you can never, ever prove
> the gender of another person, why are you telling someone else what they
are
> or are not?
Again HE said Part time woman. You is or you aint. no part time is
definable. Again if he is a part time woman, then he must be a part time
man. if he has a penis, why does he not discribe thimself as part time man.
**********************************************************
>
> Amy
>
>
Pauline
Pauline Brent
I do not think that the rest of the show can nmake it. racheal and I left
last nite just before the end, there just wasn't enough reason to stay.
Pauline
Christine Beatty
Pauline Brent wrote:
>
> "Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:yjb_7.12409$2N5.5...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > What rationale do you put forth when trying to explain to a cisgendered
> > person why you are a woman?
> *****************************************************
>
> I dont, I am a woman, never believed otherwise.
It seems to me that if you subscribe to such a simple, essentialistic
womanhood, and never saw yourself otherwise, then you must have
transitioned around puberty, right? Better yet, if you *always* believed
you were a woman, then why would you need surgery or hormones?
> > Think about it. Is there a single rationale you can present to prove that
> > you are a woman that Professor Gilbert can't use to prove that he's a
> > part-time woman? Is it even possible to "prove" that someone is a woman
> or
> > not? I'd say it isn't.
> ******************************************************
>
> try it the other way around why is he a part time man. does he add or remove
> his penis/vagina at will?
>
> **********************************************************
Again, simplistic: does not take psychological or social gender into
consideration. Or are you prepared to extrapolate your conclusion to say
that all pre-ops are men? If so then before you had surgery, even though
you state "I am a woman, never believed otherwise", does this mean you
were a man, then? You can't have it both ways. Oh ...*that's* right, it
was *intention* of surgery. How long have you had that intention? Since
before puberty? What about those pre-ops, like Jennifer U for instance,
who didn't intend surgery until recently? Was she a man and *now* she's
a woman?
This is a problem with simplistic, cookie-cutter approaches to gender
identity and labelling; people do not fit neatly into the prefab boxes
on conceptualiaztion.
> I believe this group is alt.support..srs, how do you justify any arguement
> for a person who is not a member here, that has no intentions to have SRS.
> and thinks He is a part time woman. Would this not be more appropriat on
> Soc.support.transgendered?
Are you trying to moderate *this* group? Good luck! :)
Christine
Dana a#344
<chri...@glamazonrocks.com> wrote:
>
>Hey, you can identify with however you want. I also identify as a woman
>(even now before surgery) but I did live my first 27 years as a man, at
>least to the best of my ability. I will not lie to myself and others by
>stating I was always a girl because that flies in the face of
>medical/legal fact. Plus it cheapens my own experience.
You want to go tellng people you were a "former" man, go for it, not
me, most people figure it out anyway. : / "I'm very large"
But this is why I like Pauline, she is willing to get past the gender
circus and not plead "special status" like so many.
Why does it bother you so when we say we are no longer TS but simply
women? It always seems to set you off....
I went through this to be a woman, not a transgendered woman, not a
gender variant woman, not a diffrently sexed woman, simply a woman
like all the rest. No pronouns, no special groups, no no diffrered
status, and that is what I am.
I wont carry around a former status like a CURABLE birth defect when
I had the choice. Thats like that guy we all knew who wanted to show
EVERYONE his surgery scars, ot would take off a false arm or leg to
scare children,
Just anther attempt to use status as a way of saying "DIG ME" These
same people call for us to stand out and DECLARE ourselves
"transgendered" to the world, and to make our "Transgender presence"
known. They only live in the center of the spotlight,. as a
"transgender" they are special, as a woman they actually have to DO
somthing to get attention.
If you can't accept simply being a woman in yourself don't criticise
the ones who can.
Dana
a#344
Well, Roz, what am I supposed to do?!?! Have a cup of TEA at the
end of a hard day of being belittled, humiliated, berated?..
held down, showed aside, mowed over, swept under, stifled,
stunted, stepped on, snowed, hawked, stalked, smashed, bashed,
and even killed...
*Hothead Paisan*
Dana a#344
<pauli...@pmbrent.com> wrote:
>untill he can show he is a woman (i,e, vagina or SRS goal) he is still a
>man. Men have penis uranay and sex organs.
>
>at best he may clam a life as a transgenderest if he lives primarily in the
>gender other than his birth, and changes back at will.
>
>I believe this group is alt.support..srs, how do you justify any arguement
>for a person who is not a member here, that has no intentions to have SRS.
>and thinks He is a part time woman. Would this not be more appropriat on
>Soc.support.transgendered?
Welcome to the wenderful land of political correctness where anything
goes...........
Like I said before, its too much work for them, besides people fell
SORRY for transsexuals and laws allow for them, Crossdressers are not
so lucky, its a cool way to piggyback and steal status. Sad
really...........
Sort of a liscence to crossdress without having to be a "mere woman"
more male sexism, they hang onto it like they hang on to the peinsies
that define thier "otherness"
Pauline Brent
"Christine Beatty" <chri...@glamazonrocks.com> wrote in message
news:3C3A020A...@glamazonrocks.com...
Christine Beatty
Pauline Brent wrote:
>
> where did you say you had surgery?
You know that I haven't yet. What does that have to do with anything?
Hopefully you're not suggesting that surgery confers some special
insight or wisdom, because then you'd be denigrating JU's viewpoint as
well.
Christine
Jennifer Usher
> > You're wrong. Go read about him. He says multiple times even in this
one
> > article on Salon that he identifies as a "part-time woman".
>
> Maybe I am Amy, wouldn't be the first time. I did read the
> article, and he clearly states the he does not identify as a
> woman, but as a man. If he "clarified" that later with the
> part time woman thing, I missed it. I do not believe a man who
> does not identify as a woman, and who is a self described part
> time cross dresser is anything else but. I allow people to
> define themselves, and that is his definition of himself.
A "part-time woman" is as absurd a concept as "more of a woman than you
are." One is either a woman, period, or not. There is no in-between. I
know that just devastates the CD-TG set who like to fantasize, but that is
just the way it is.
> > "If you are going to declare yourself a part- or full-time woman you
have to
> > go beyond appearances" - Professor Gilbert.
>
> Very true. I agree with him on that.
>
> > "When he's a woman, he says, power and winning become less important.
This
> > different sensibility, he notes, has seeped into his work. "My
argumentation
> > theory is now a blend of animus/anima, male/female." " - Professor
Gilbert
>
> Well then, all us *uppity women* are men after all. Andrew
> Dice Clay is right it turns out. Who'd a thought? I stand
> corrected Amy.
Actually, this guy is a classic CD. He likes to pretend to be a woman, but
only part-time.
> By the way. Professor Gilbert for all his departure from
> gender stereotypes and post modernism, sure seems to be
> ascribing to them, IMO. <g>
He is a CD, and that is classic CD logic.
> > "Gender is just a construct propped up by deeply imbedded conditioning.
And
> > what is constructed can be deconstructed; the fact that you're born one
sex
> > shouldn't limit your freedom to cross over into another." Professor
Gilbert
>
> I agree with the last part, but not with the first part. He
> seems to confuse conceptualizations, I think.
I disagree with both. While one can change "sex," unless you are born with
a female gender you will always be a man.
> > Three quotes from that article describing how he feels about his gender.
He
> > says he dresses to express the woman in him. That pretty much fits the
> > exceptions you listed above, doesn't it? And given this info, do you
> > understand why I took issue with what you said about him? I'd assumed
you
> > read the article, since you said you did. Perhaps you didn't.
>
> I read the article Amy, but I also did so both carefully and
> critically. Just my personal opinion, but you seem unclear on
> the concepts, to me.
All Amy's quotes show is that Gilbert is a classic, Tri-Ess variety,
crossdresser. In fact, he is simply repeating the Tri-Ess party line. Why
anyone who claims to be a woman, or a transsexual, would defend this drivel
is beyond me. This is the classic example of playing dress-up. Do these
people believe this stuff? Unfortunately, they do. They really think they
are expressing a woman-within. In reality, it is just an excuse to dress-up
given to them by Virginia Prince.
> > You are clearly telling him that he's not what he says is,
>
> That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Your
> assumptions about me are very inaccurate though.
Well, make no mistake. I am saying he is not a woman, part-time, full-time,
anytime. He is a male crossdresser. There is nothing wrong with that,
though I find the excuses they make to be humorous.
> > if you'd actually read it. And since you say you read the article,
> > then I have to assume you're hypocritical and not giving others
> > the acceptance you're seeking.
>
> 1. I am not seeking acceptance, because I have accepted myself
> I do not need any more from you or anyone.
I respect that.
> 2. As a human being I am not incapable of being hypocritical,
> yet I do not think I am about this.
>
> 3. I am, despite my faults, not prone to lying Amy.
I wish the same could be said for Amy.
> > Taken from your last post to save space and not spam the group with a
second
> > reply:
> >
> > "Sorry if I offend your agenda Amy. But misquoting me, twisting
> > my words and trying to paint me as a bigot will not advance your
> > cause, except in the mind of a fool." - Natasha
> >
> > Agenda? Damn right I have one.
>
> I know, we all do, so what is the problem with my saying that?
>
> > I didn't misquote or twist anything.
>
> Yes you did Amy.
And she did the same with me.
> > I -did- paint you as a bigot, and I backed it up. I'm waiting for you
to
> > justify it.
>
> You have really only proven one thing. Either you are Jennifer
> Usher using a different name, or you share her sametendencies,
> and graduated from the same charm school and writing academy
> that she did.
ROTFL! Funny, when she was doing all this to me, you were cheering her own.
I at least am consistent. Natasha, you are a world class twit. And here I
am agreeing with you, at least to a point.
> Ok I am going to have to ignore you now, until you get with
> it. I hope you do soon.
Don't hold your breath. I suggest kill filing her, but I doubt you will.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Pauline Brent" <pauli...@pmbrent.com> wrote in message
news:T8a_7.18670$yC.20...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
like
> being a part time proffessor or a part time pregnat.
He, like I suspect Amy is also, is a crossdresser. A classic, Tri-Ess party
line crossdresser. The words Amy quotes are not Prof. Gilbert's. They have
been repeated as a mantra by Virginia Prince for years.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> > What rationale do you put forth when trying to explain to a cisgendered
> > person why you are a woman? Do you say it's because you "feel like
one"?
> > Do you say it's because you "wanted to be one"? Is it because you "did
> > things like one"?
ROFTL! On the rare occasion that I have to explain anything, I simply put
out that I AM a woman. Very few people argue with that. But then, I am a
woman, not a crossdressing male, and that is how I am accepted.
> > Think about it. Is there a single rationale you can present to prove
that
> > you are a woman that Professor Gilbert can't use to prove that he's a
> > part-time woman? Is it even possible to "prove" that someone is a woman
or
> > not? I'd say it isn't.
And I would say that this is the words of a classic CD. There is simply no
such thing as a part-time woman. You either are, or you are not. But,
let's consider this for a second. Part-time woman? What, pray tell, makes
the difference. Is it something that comes over him. Sort of like some of
those comic-book super-heroes who, at first, cannot control their super
powers. You know, the guy is walking down the street and boom, he goes
invisible. Or his arm starts stretching and stretching. That sort of
thing. I mean, does Gilbert just suddenly pop over to being a woman without
warning? Uh, no, I don't think so. Is it something he can turn on and off
like a switch? Well, that is closer. Of course, we all know what makes the
difference. We all know exactly what makes him a woman, part of the time.
It is when he goes, gets out his feminine finery, slips into his hose, let's
his dress slide, seductively, over his body. Slips into his demure and
tasteful six-inch heels. Carefullly, and skillfully applies his make up.
And, with a final peek in the mirror, sashays out of the house to go take
that long thrilling walk to the mailbox and back. I'll spare you the
secret, and a bit messy, ritual that brings him back to being a male.
> > I have no idea if he's a "part-time" woman or not. I have no idea if
it's
> > possible or not. But if he bases his gender on the same kinds of ideas
and
> > feelings that you and I do, how can we tell him he can't be that?
Oh, I don't know.......reality, truth, common sense.
> Sheesh.
>
> This whole circuitous rationale does not even *touch* why I
> changed sex. I changed sex because my body as it was, deeply
> offended me. I could not adjust to it or accept it. God knows
> I tried to do so though.
>
> I thought the very idea of changing sex was ridiculous. I
> tried everything else first.
Most of us do.
> I don't *even* know what "a woman is supposed to feel like",
> and I sure as hell do not think that men and women, are
> naturally that different behaviorally.
Oh? Really?
> There are some differences in the way men and women view
> themselves, others, and the world around them though. How much
> of that is conditioning (culture or whatever) and biology, I
> do not know, but I believe it is both.
Of course it is both. But, conditioning is very much secondary to biology.
Contrary to what John Money tried to defraud people into believing.
> In my case, I was all of my life the same way behaviorally as
> I am now. My gender expression did not change much after
> transition or surgery, if it did at all. About all I did was
> drop my boy act, and start being myself. Like I always did, as
> so many people pointed out to me all along, whenever I got
> drunk or stoned That was long before I came out of denial and
> transitioned
I did a pretty lousy job of hiding my true self.
> Amy's argument above, is standard post modernist stuff. Do you
> all go to seminars or something, or is there a handbook? <g>
No, you just read the "Wit and Wisdom of Virginia Prince."
> The Post Modernists' Guide To Dealing With Transsexuals, by
> Suzanne Kessler and Anne Fausto-Sterling, with forward by
> Germain Greer, and with a special afterward by Janice Raymond?
Nope, just the "Wit and Wisdom of Virginia Prince," with a forward by one
who shall rename nameless lest he again claim that he is being attacked in
his absence.
--
Jennifer Usher
Natasha Thompson
"Jennifer Usher" <jen...@otelco.net> wrote:
Jennifer there is a difference between you and Amy. You are
more rigid and fixated in your beliefs. For example you make
no distinction between a part time transgenderist like
Gilbert, and a full time non op, *woman identified* T woman
like Laura Blake. There is little comparison between Blake and
Gilbert. Even Gilbert *does* in my opinion, have some insight
into the female or anima side of his psyche. I wish *you* did!
Laura is *full time*, and lives within the social restrictions
placed upon women, and has for a *long time*. You Jennifer,
seem to think that either having, or wanting to have a pussy,
is all that makes one a woman. I feel that is a very shallow
POV, which excludes many women who can not have SRS for health
reasons, women identified Intersexed women, who were born with
ambiguous genitalia, or IS women born without Vaginas, etc.,
etc.
>
> > Ok I am going to have to ignore you now, until you get with
> > it. I hope you do soon.
>
> Don't hold your breath. I suggest kill filing her, but I doubt you will.
I have killfiled *you* though Jennifer. I just checked to see
what kind of nonsense you were up to. I really hope you think
about all of this. It is a pity to have to write someone off,
and I hate doing it, *but*, you are just too over the top and
so invalidating of other people, like Laura for example.
Natasha
Natasha Thompson
"Jennifer Usher" <jen...@otelco.net> wrote:
Crap like this that is what made me decide to killfile you
Jennifer. Transgender people are not "bad", dirty, or invalid.
Damn it, wake up!
For what it is worth. I do not for one minute believe that you
will ever have SRS Jennifer, and if you do, I believe you will
regret it. It seems obvious to me that you do not have a clue.
I respect Laura, and Amy, though they both get on my nerves
occasionally, but I do not respect you Jennifer, not yet.
Natasha
Jennifer Usher
> > It doesn't touch why I did, either. What's your point? I threw out
> > purposely inane statements to show how inane it was to doubt someone
else's
> > gender.
>
> Uh, Amy. Purposely making provocative posts, just to get a
> reaction is called TROLLING. All trolls "have reasons" they
> believe justify their doing this, but most people do not
> appreciate it, or find it to be appropriate. When such troll
> posts are filled with accusations, and personal attacks as
> well, they get twit filtered. Like Jennifer Usher, now do you
> get it?
My, but you hold a grudge.
> Now you don't really want to be a troll do you? Sweety if you
> want to talk to me, please talk to me, not at me or about me.
> Ok? Then we will be fine dear. : )
Obviously, she does. And I find your hypocrisy amazing. You attack her for
doing what you cheered about when I was the target.
> > -My- reasons for changing gender roles and getting surgery and
> > in fact my ideas about gender have been discussed in amazing detail,
> > but they're all prevented from being archived to Google, so you
> > didn't see them.
>
> Yes I know. Too bad, for I would have loved to hear your ideas.
> I remember seeing one or two, of your posts in Google about
> that. I liked them and I told you so. I also defended you from
> J U's accusations, of fraud in reference to your PAIS
> condition, which I have no reason to doubt is true.
Oh well, other than the conflict between her claims, and know facts about
PAIS, of course not.
> > We agree here. Men and women seem to overlap so heavily in the day and
age
> > that many men fall into traditionally female categories and vice versa.
>
> Very true, but in times past women were much less "media
> cultured", far less hyper feme, and much tougher than today in
> many instances. Prairie wives, farm and ranch women etc. Yet
> women had far less freedom, and were relegated to bearing
> children and serving men for the most part. Of course there
> were more than a few notable exceptions.
And again, with Natasha's approval, Amy makes the assertion that men and
women are alike.
> > I believe it's socialization that acts upon biological foundations.
>
> Well put. I think that will prove to be the case.
Except that has been shown to be pure hokum. Socialization has far less
effect than biology. Little boys play like little boys, even when forced to
play with toys traditionally associated with girls. The reverse is true for
girls.
> > My argument above isn't about motivation for transition at all. I'm not
> > arguing that gender doesn't exist. I believe it does exist.
>
> Yet some of your words were right out of the post modernist
> handbook. It is a very insidious ideology, which goes
> unquestioned for the most part, presently. No offense was
> intended. I just find post modernist assumptions hilarious,
> and I could not resist poking fun at them, not you, ok?
When one argues that gender does not exist, one is either intellectually
dishonest or a fool.
> > I'm not a post-modernist. I'm also not in its opposing camp. I'm
somewhere
> > in the middle, probably near where you claim to be, but fail to deliver.
>
> Now there you go making assumptions about my character again.
> <sigh> Is that firing (trolling) for effect again? : )
> Cut it out would ya, it detracts from your argument, and
> really spoils things.
No, Amy has an irresistable compulsion to come out on top.
> > What I'm saying is that it's utterly impossible to prove your gender to
> > another person.
>
> Really why bother too? Hell with em dear, hell with em. : )
Again, I agree. If you have something to prove, you are probably not what
you are trying to prove yourself to be.
> > No matter what you do, all they have in the end as proof is
> > your say-so. Keeping this in mind, knowing that you can never, ever
prove
> > the gender of another person, why are you telling someone else what they
are
> > or are not?
>
> You still have no clue what I meant about Gilbert do you? Amy
> you have made a gross assumption, both about my views and my
> behavior concerning such things. If you knew me, or anything
> true about me, you would not assume these things.
Amy is very insecure about her gender. She is convinced that she is going
to be perceived as a male if anyone is given half a chance, so she tries to
deny people that chance. The problem is, gender is not proven, it is
obvious. Amy is obviously not a woman, for example. It shows in a lot of
her posts. Nothing one can really put a finger on, but she really comes
across as male. Pauline, for another example is clearly female, as are
several others here.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Jennifer there is a difference between you and Amy. You are
> more rigid and fixated in your beliefs. For example you make
> no distinction between a part time transgenderist like
> Gilbert, and a full time non op, *woman identified* T woman
> like Laura Blake. There is little comparison between Blake and
> Gilbert. Even Gilbert *does* in my opinion, have some insight
> into the female or anima side of his psyche. I wish *you* did!
Hmmm, let's run this through the BS to English translation software:
"You don't agree with me, and I can't stand that!!!!" That is really it, is
it not? Rigid? Fixated? I think a more accurate way of expressing the
same thing would be to say that I am "secure in my beliefs." You see, I
have heard all this before. And yes, in a sense I see no distinction
between Gilbert and Blake. They are both men pretending to be women.
Beyond that, no, they are not alike. Gilbert has worked hard and earned a
position as a college professor. Laura? Well, let's not got there.
Suffice to say, he is not near to being a professor, or holding a job for
that matter. Gilbert is a classic CD. Every word that has been attributed
to him is from Virginia Prince. Female side? No. Just a desire to
crossdress.
> Laura is *full time*, and lives within the social restrictions
> placed upon women, and has for a *long time*. You Jennifer,
> seem to think that either having, or wanting to have a pussy,
> is all that makes one a woman. I feel that is a very shallow
> POV, which excludes many women who can not have SRS for health
> reasons, women identified Intersexed women, who were born with
> ambiguous genitalia, or IS women born without Vaginas, etc.,
> etc.
You have this obsession with "social restrictions." Sounds a bit "S/M" to
me. Sort of smacks of "forced feminization" with all of its attendant
humiliation.
Now, I am going to very gently, as I am in a generous mood, explain again
how you have no clue to what I have said. No, I have NEVER, not once,
remotely said that wanting a vagina makes one a woman. I HAVE said, and
continue to say, that wanting to retain one's penis makes one a man. Big,
very big, incredibly big difference. Unfortunately, that difference is lost
on you. Being a woman makes one a woman. It is not a choice. It is not
something that $20,000 and a trip to <insert name of favorite SRS surgeon
here> can accomplish. It is not about wanting, or having a vagina at all.
But, wanting to remain an intact male is a complete contraindication to
being a woman. I mean really, why would a woman want to have a penis? So
"she" can stand to pee? You know, virtually all transsexual sit to pee long
before SRS. So "she" can penetrate another woman? Well, let's see....if
her partner is a lesbian, then that seems rather strange....since it would
be hard to see the "transsexual" as truly female. I mean, it is not like a
strap on. For example, you can't take turns..... And if "she" has a male
sex partner, well.....let's be serious. A man who is willing to have anal
sex with his partner because he has a penis does not really qualify as
straight. There is an entire genre of prostitute that caters to men who
like to have sex with other men who are dressed as women, It allows them to
be in denial about being gay, while being gay as a goose.
> > Don't hold your breath. I suggest kill filing her, but I doubt you
will.
>
> I have killfiled *you* though Jennifer. I just checked to see
> what kind of nonsense you were up to. I really hope you think
> about all of this. It is a pity to have to write someone off,
> and I hate doing it, *but*, you are just too over the top and
> so invalidating of other people, like Laura for example.
ROTFL! You know, when I kill file someone, I really do. I don't go
checking. IF, as rarely happens, I see something from that person that
indicates I may have misjudged them, I give them a second chance. But, you
can have it your way. You haven't a clue, and you really are worse than Amy
about tolerating disagreement. You seem to think I am wrong because I
just don't have the good sense to see how right you are. Believe me, I long
ago realized that the ideas you present (and no, you are not the first to
present them) are simply not valid.
As to Laura, he has long ago invalidated himself. I just occasionally
remind him of it.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> try it the other way around why is he a part time man. does he add or
remove
> his penis/vagina at will?
I addressed this in another post. He thinks that clothes make the man.
--
Jennifer Usher
Natasha Thompson
"辰漫[Queen Vamp]征馬"
<va...@the.vampires.recreational.reproduction.facillity.com>
wrote:
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Nvs_7.12260$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > Crap like this that is what made me decide to killfile you
> > Jennifer. Transgender people are not "bad", dirty, or invalid.
> > Damn it, wake up!
> >
> > For what it is worth. I do not for one minute believe that you
> > will ever have SRS Jennifer, and if you do, I believe you will
> > regret it. It seems obvious to me that you do not have a clue.
> >
> > I respect Laura, and Amy, though they both get on my nerves
> > occasionally, but I do not respect you Jennifer, not yet.
>
>
> not ever??
>
>
Ok you goose. : ) She probably will, and given the assumptions
she expresses as divine writ, concerning gender, she will I
think be damned surprised after she does, if she does.
I mean really, she is homophobic, TG phobic and religious. I
mean do the math on that. It is "ok if you plan to have SRS
though", so naturally since she is concerned with conservative
religious morality, she wants SRS. Sounds like trouble brewin
to me. I hope she is going to be ok, that's all. I worry for
her.
Oh, now you've done it Vamp. Look out I am going to rant big
time. Stand back! Look out.
I hope for her sake, the post modernist leaning types are
right, that some people can just decide to change sex and be
happy after doing that. But I have known a few extremely
pretty passers, who appeared to be a big TS success, who later
wished to God they never had done it. One of them I know for
certain killed herself, another up and disappeared after
months of depression and saying, she hated being a female,
made a mistake, and should have accepted being gay.
I have known some absolutely unreadable full time TG women,
who were very happy and a joy to be around, and one part
timer, who was just breathtakingly beautiful, but she was a
mess because of heroine. I hope to heaven she is ok now.
I think gender queer, gender warriors and all of that, are
valid, and help to deconstruct the binary softening the CGP.
Some of them are way too rigid about *their* gender politics
though, IMO. Whatever one is, if they accept themselves they
can be happy, *and* will tend to accept others who are
different than they are. Hate sucks period, and politics, well
bleah. : p
I am convinced that surgical sex reassignment is a valid and
necessary path for some, because it was for me, but it is
*not* a hierarchy thing. From any locus or perspective.
I don't know if I am a woman or not. I look like one, I am
told I really "vibe as one", but more important than that
stuff, I am finally happy with my body, except for the little
imperfections most women complain of. I really needed it, and
I am glad I did it, to understate it.
*end rant*
<eeeeeh, sorry about that>
Natasha
Jennifer Usher
> where did you say you had surgery?
This person has not had surgery. And I have to wonder if having it will not
prove to be a tragic mistake.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Nvs_7.12260$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Crap like this that is what made me decide to killfile you
> Jennifer. Transgender people are not "bad", dirty, or invalid.
> Damn it, wake up!
Crap like this is why I don't kill file you. It is just too blasted funny.
I never said they were "bad," "dirty," or invalid. I am saying that I don't
agree with Virginia Prince. I am saying that I find his attacks on
transsexuals to be repugnant (whoops, I guess it's okay to attack
transsexuals....) and silly. More than anything else, they are rooted in a
need to justify what he himself sees as "bad" and "dirty." If a man wants
to put on a dress, that is his right. If a man puts on a dress and says
"La de la de da, now I am a woman while I have this dress on," I am going to
disagree with him, providing I can stop laughing long enough to get the
words out.
> For what it is worth. I do not for one minute believe that you
> will ever have SRS Jennifer, and if you do, I believe you will
> regret it. It seems obvious to me that you do not have a clue.
Now, let's see....you attack me for invalidating people when I point out
that they are simply not women while using logic and reason. You then turn
around and attack me by invalidating me because, well because I don't agree
with you. Still the rehab queen. I bet you really wowed them on the mental
ward.
> I respect Laura, and Amy, though they both get on my nerves
> occasionally, but I do not respect you Jennifer, not yet.
Thank you Natasha, and I honestly, and sincerely hope you never do. Just as
I honestly hope I never gain Laura Blake's respect. You see, I don't think
you are ever likely to change. If, by some miracle, you ever do, we can
reevaluate this, but for now, your respect is the last thing I want.
--
Jennifer Usher
Amy
Where is the post that Jennifer's replying to? It sounds like an
interesting read and I'm not seeing it on USENET.
As for Jennifer, you remind me of a noisy little 2 year old throwing a
tantrum while the adults are trying to talk. You don't understand the
subject material now and you never have. The noises you make are like a
toddler crying for her turn with the tricycle.
Amy
"Jennifer Usher" <jen...@otelco.net> wrote in message
news:V2t_7.390$H_3....@eagle.america.net...
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
>
> "Jennifer Usher" <jen...@otelco.net> wrote in message
> news:jOr_7.375$H_3....@eagle.america.net...
> =
>
> I can't help but notice just how much you seem to know about crossdressers,
> Jennifer. Is there a reason for that?
>
> Amy
: ) I believe there is Amy. I wonder if Jennifer burned her
Tri-Ess membership card, after "discovering" that she better
have a sex change like Pat Robertson said, or Jeee-Zus would
throw her into Hell.
For the conceptually challenged in denial, see below.
TG good - TS good - Gay good - Genderqueer good.
Condemning good people who are any of the above,
because "condemning them is the right thing to
do" is BAD, and just plain ridiculous.
Natasha
te...@softhome.net
(Rolls eyes.)
God, you're getting old.
Join the fucking MASONS, for Christ's sake.
Make it the Rosicrucians.
Or the Illuminati, found your own Klavern, take the Oath of Antichrist,
become a Babe of the Abyss, enter the Adytum of the Temple and forswear
reference, TURN ON TO BUTTERMILK!!!!
But MAKE some FRIENDS and HEAL, before you do something really bad
to yourself.
Theoni
te...@SoftHome.net
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Wheel & Peditate, Attys at Law, Priscilla Asagiri Fashions in Fiberglass
Bitten, Batten, Barton, Burton, and Powell, Luggage Makers
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Where is the post that Jennifer's replying to? It sounds like an
> interesting read and I'm not seeing it on USENET.
Amy I thought you did not archive to usenet? So you can't even
see your own posts? Bummer. Usenet is slooooooow as molasses
in January. I recommend a newsreader.
>
> As for Jennifer, you remind me of a noisy little 2 year old throwing a
> tantrum while the adults are trying to talk. You don't understand the
> subject material now and you never have. The noises you make are like a
> toddler crying for her turn with the tricycle.
>
Sad but true Amy, she is, well, clueless.
Natasha
Christine Beatty
te...@SoftHome.net wrote:
>
> in the parking structure Jennifer Usher <jen...@otelco.net> whispered:
> >
> > "Pauline Brent" <pauli...@pmbrent.com> wrote in message
> > news:fPn_7.19406$yC.20...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> >> where did you say you had surgery?
> >
> > This person has not had surgery. And I have to wonder if having it will not
> > prove to be a tragic mistake.
Damn! I wonder if it's too late to get back my $10,000 surgery deposit?
Christine
Amy
"辰漫[Queen Vamp]征馬"
<va...@the.vampires.recreational.reproduction.facillity.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a...@news.alphalink.com.au...> news:3C3A7368...@glamazonrocks.com...
reassignment.
> FFS!! Where is the anti-delusional militia when you need 'em?
>
I love how Jennifer hasn't even had SRS and she's already the expert about
it. She's in for a rude awakening.
Amy
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> You said you don't read through Google anymore so I should be able to go
> back to not archiving and have you still able to see my posts. *crosses
> fingers*
Hey, that finger crossing trick of your works great! : )
>
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:RSt_7.12619$zw3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > In article <uzt_7.12935$2N5.5...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>,
> > "Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Where is the post that Jennifer's replying to? It sounds like an
> > > interesting read and I'm not seeing it on USENET.
> >
> > Amy I thought you did not archive to usenet? So you can't even
> > see your own posts? Bummer. Usenet is slooooooow as molasses
> > in January. I recommend a newsreader.
>
> I use Outlook Express. I can always see my own posts. They get sent to
> USENET, they just don't get archived anywhere. Sometimes though, a post or
> two seems to get dropped out and I never see it. It's happened with Gwen's
> posts a LOT, and a couple times with yours. I assume it's like Vamp said
> and my ISP bites.
WHAT!!!! ARRRRRRRG!!!!!!!! Is this for real? You mean that
Gwen was sincere? Got some thinking to do now. DAMN IT!
>
> I wish it would drop Jennifer's posts and not people I'd actually like to
> read like you and Gwen.
Thank you Amy.
Oh God. Can anyone confirm this missing post phenomena. If I
was wrong AGAIN damn IT! I will admit it and apologize MY ASS
OFF, but I want to be sure about this.
damn it, to HELL!!!!!!!
Natasha
<cussing at no extra charge>
Natasha Thompson
"辰漫[Queen Vamp]征馬"
<va...@the.vampires.recreational.reproduction.facillity.com>
wrote:
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Upt_7.12561$zw3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > In article <3c3a...@news.alphalink.com.au>,
> > "辰漫[Queen Vamp]征馬"
> > <va...@the.vampires.recreational.reproduction.facillity.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Nvs_7.12260$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Crap like this that is what made me decide to killfile you
> > > > Jennifer. Transgender people are not "bad", dirty, or invalid.
> > > > Damn it, wake up!
> > > >
> > > > For what it is worth. I do not for one minute believe that you
> > > > will ever have SRS Jennifer, and if you do, I believe you will
> > > > regret it. It seems obvious to me that you do not have a clue.
> > > >
> > > > I respect Laura, and Amy, though they both get on my nerves
> > > > occasionally, but I do not respect you Jennifer, not yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > not ever??
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ok you goose. : ) She probably will, and given the assumptions
> > she expresses as divine writ, concerning gender, she will I
> > think be damned surprised after she does, if she does.
>
> Ok.... one: dont ever call me a goose or youre history. Anything short of
> Ma'am is worthy of being struck off my xmas card list.
> (kidding)
Yes ma'am.
> ummm...... you think she will? I should have included my trademark <sarcasm>
> tags there but I thought you might be able to deduct that I was fuckin
> around.
Hey! When I see an opportunity to rant, I take it damn it. : )
> Obviously, my hatred (yep.. strong word I know but this fuck
> deserves it) for this moron far exceeds any acceptable level
> for any human been.
Understandable, but I don't her, I would like to slap her
awake every morning for a while though, You know, use the pass
key awarded by the Judge, wade through the trash to the couch
she passes out on every might and slap her awake. That having
been said. I hate what she says, VERY MUCH, but I don't hate
her, hir, WHATEVER Jennifer.
A-hem. Now now Ms. Vamp, we must be nice to her, *then* LET
THE BLANKET PARTY BEGIN!
(Kidding, J U, heh)
>
>
>
> >
> > I mean really, she is homophobic, TG phobic and religious. I
> > mean do the math on that. It is "ok if you plan to have SRS
> > though", so naturally since she is concerned with conservative
> > religious morality, she wants SRS. Sounds like trouble brewin
> > to me. I hope she is going to be ok, that's all. I worry for
> > her.
>
> You are a fool if you worry about shit like that. Sorry hunny. I understand
> your being the eternal optimist and holding faith in womyn kind etc etc....
> but as I have said before, this loon is a total waste of air and not really
> worthy of your expended energy in "caring".
>
Yeah I *am* a fool that way, can't help it though. That is
just me dear.
>
> >
> > Oh, now you've done it Vamp. Look out I am going to rant big
> > time. Stand back! Look out.
>
> Woooo... me fwightened.
Oh, yeah sure, I believe that. Right.
>
>
> >
> > I hope for her sake, the post modernist leaning types are
> > right, that some people can just decide to change sex and be
> > happy after doing that. But I have known a few extremely
> > pretty passers, who appeared to be a big TS success, who later
> > wished to God they never had done it. One of them I know for
> > certain killed herself, another up and disappeared after
> > months of depression and saying, she hated being a female,
> > made a mistake, and should have accepted being gay.
>
> Yeah, haven't we all. The most important thing is that we are NOT one of
> them. You can't save the world and ultimately this is self endulgant choice
> we make. We only have ourselves to blame if it dont go right. Yes there are
> lots of grrls out there who are kidding themselves into thinking that
> becoming a new person will make things just magically go away. Its the ones
> who stand and face the demons that ultimately win in the end. Usher
> obviously has problems in coming to terms with a few things in its life, but
> at the end of the day, its hir choice. Even if sie knocks hirself off after
> it. Life moves on.
Jeeze Loueze Vamp. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I am sure
you don't either, I get yer drift, but optimism saved my life,
when I could find some. I tend to expect the worst usually,
and I can not trust people, but I cherish what little good
faith I can muster. I take chances for love, to give it or
receive it. So do you, you know you do.
>
> > I have known some absolutely unreadable full time TG women,
> > who were very happy and a joy to be around, and one part
> > timer, who was just breathtakingly beautiful, but she was a
> > mess because of heroine. I hope to heaven she is ok now.
> >
> > I think gender queer, gender warriors and all of that, are
> > valid, and help to deconstruct the binary softening the CGP.
> > Some of them are way too rigid about *their* gender politics
> > though, IMO. Whatever one is, if they accept themselves they
> > can be happy, *and* will tend to accept others who are
> > different than they are. Hate sucks period, and politics, well
> > bleah. : p
> >
>
> Face it.. those who are buried heavily in the political aspect of it all,
> are there for a reason. I cant be stuffed, frankly. I'm not one who whines
> about not having certain priveledges etc., rather I lead by example. It is
> much more effective for me in making the world a better place.
>
Very good points. I do try to counter propaganda, true, but I
believe it may help, in the long run.
>
>
> > I am convinced that surgical sex reassignment is a valid and
> > necessary path for some, because it was for me, but it is
> > *not* a hierarchy thing. From any locus or perspective.
>
> True. But there are those freaks out there who think it is. This is and
> always be the way because they feel they have lost some of their superiority
> having been male.
Yep. It is residual, or full on often, male privilege.
> They are trying to make up for it. Frankly, I think that
> whole scene is total bullshit; from a male or female perspective.
Me three. I have known allot of obnoxious WBW with a pseudo
feminist ax a grinding away too. piffle, pffft, splurrrp,
bleah. : p
>
>
> >
> > I don't know if I am a woman or not. I look like one, I am
> > told I really "vibe as one", but more important than that
> > stuff, I am finally happy with my body, except for the little
> > imperfections most women complain of. I really needed it, and
> > I am glad I did it, to understate it.
>
> Who cares. I think youre a pretty attractive "person" and I find that
> quality far more appealing than what damned gender one is. It just so
> happens that I am attracted to a female persona as opposed to a male one.
> I'm glad you are happy with it. I am too and as a result my life has calmed
> down and I can actually get down to the task of achieving things in my life
> that make a difference for either myself or others. I couldn't do this
> before as I was too honed in on suicide.
>
Very well said. So true.
Thank you for the compliment too luv. Personally I still don't
think I look so good, never have. Self esteem, got some of
that, visual self image, still a bit shaky. My shrink said
it is because of the behavior mod as a young girl*.
> >
> > *end rant*
> >
> > <eeeeeh, sorry about that>
>
> Never be sorry for being honest, darling.
>
Yes my Queen, yer Vamp'ness. ; )
Natasha
* Yes I said girl. Those who have a prob with that, may put it
in their moist dark secret place. The orifice of their choice.
Natasha Thompson
"Amy" <fae...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qbw_7.13169$zw3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > WHAT!!!! ARRRRRRRG!!!!!!!! Is this for real? You mean that
> > Gwen was sincere? Got some thinking to do now. DAMN IT!
> >
> > >
> > > I wish it would drop Jennifer's posts and not people I'd actually like
> to
> > > read like you and Gwen.
> >
> > Thank you Amy.
> >
> > Oh God. Can anyone confirm this missing post phenomena. If I
> > was wrong AGAIN damn IT! I will admit it and apologize MY ASS
> > OFF, but I want to be sure about this.
> >
> > damn it, to HELL!!!!!!!
>
>
> It's probably just me and anyone else using my ISP who doesn't see certain
> posts.
I still have some thinking to do. I spose if it can happen to
you, it could have to Gwen too. tap, tap, ... Hmmmm. I may
have been way wrong about Gwen. damnit..... Then again that is
great, but then again, Gwen is having a hard time, but then
again. Oh mommy. Waaaaaah.
> Jennifer replied to the post I didn't get, so obviously it's working
> just fine for her.
Please accept my sympathy. : )
>
> Wouldn't surprise me if Hawaii Roadrunner was missing posts, I already know
> they miss emails from Yahoo.com all the time.
Well I am glad that you and I can communicate Amy, really. You
have a brain. : )
Natasha
Claudia Wittgenstein
> I posted that information months ago, sheesh.
Awwwwww. Well I guess you didn't score back then, did you?
:-)
-C.
kc
> Sorry, but this is a bit overly simplistic. Part of the game for some
> crossdressers is the fantasy that they are somehow experiencing life as a
> woman. But, unless one really is a woman (i.e. born with a true female
> gender) one can never really say they have really experienced life as a
> woman.
Anymore than one such as yourself, Jennifer, who has lived most of your
adult life as a man, who fathered children, and who up to only very recently
had considered yourself just little more than a crossdresser. I guess you
really would know, at least from your own perspective.
Just a crazy thought, Jenn - why not worry about your own transition, and
not pontificate upon the legitimacy of others? You know, it's that whole
glass houses thing, makes you look like a bit of a loony hypocrite.
kc
*Many* people wonder that about you, Jennifer. But then you won't be
reading this. Twit.