I Think It's Very Sad
Suzan Cooke
women.
I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
transitioned recently put down transgendered women. Sad because I know
TG women who have been women as long as I have. I was never married to
a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery. Instead I was
part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
lived. Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
prepared to live my life as a queen. Some of my friends from that
period found men and went off to Vegas for a "wedding". They had
implants, took hormones bought a house with the money they saved for
their surgery. The few I still know are still married. Others drifted
off to other parts of the country.
Point is that they are just as much women as I am. Further many
have been women 5-10 times as long as the transsexuals on this list who
are putting TGs down.
When the term Transgender came into general usage in the mid 70s it
wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
gender role of their identity. It was to keep such people from being
lumped in with the CDs and TVs.
I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
There are other things I think are very sad about us.
TranZGrrlla
Suzy
Deb Marsh
Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:386BD625...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> There are so many things I think are very sad about transsexual
> women.
>
> I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
> transitioned recently put down transgendered women. Sad because I know
> TG women who have been women as long as I have.
I agree with this completely - although 'sad' seems rather a charitable term
in these circumstances.
> There are other things I think are very sad about us.
Golly! Now there's a surprise 8-)
Debs
P.S. hope that you are recovered and feeling better.
KarenA1013
> I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
>transitioned recently put down transgendered women.
I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want* SRS are
different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the person as
a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or intentions.
> I was never married to
>a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery.
And the significance of that is...?
I was/am in such a relationship... the dynamic is/was unusual by most people's
standards - and she is the only person I've had a close relationship with in my
life and we met when I was 27.
> Instead I was
>part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
>lived.
I actually never knowingly met a gay person until I was late in my college
days. I was that isolated from the world.
> Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
>prepared to live my life as a queen.
Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
you to that sceen?
I ask because while I never let a typical het lifestyle pre transition, I was
also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply oped out
and was a loner.
> When the term Transgender came into general usage in the mid 70s it
>wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
>from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
>gender role of their identity.
And why was it needed? Even HB recognized a group that was non-op TS in his
book. Did people then object to the term non-op TS?
> I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
>recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
Different situation entirely. In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to the
non-TS spouse. Do you see that? If so why do you think not?
It may be *wisest* not to stay married for the partner having SRS- but that is
a separate discussion.
-Karen A.
Suzan Cooke
Deb Marsh wrote:
> Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:386BD625...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> > There are so many things I think are very sad about transsexual
> > women.
> >
> > I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
> > transitioned recently put down transgendered women. Sad because I know
> > TG women who have been women as long as I have.
>
> I agree with this completely - although 'sad' seems rather a charitable term
> in these circumstances.
>
> > There are other things I think are very sad about us.
>
> Golly! Now there's a surprise 8-)
>
> Debs
>
> P.S. hope that you are recovered and feeling better.
I guess I had the Y2K bug. Seriously this new combination of Tamiflu,
Augmentin and Claratin work wonders. I should post as an off topic.
Suzy
and you're right 'sad' barely touchs how I feel about some of the things I'm
hearing expressed.
Suzan Cooke
KarenA1013 wrote:
> sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> > I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
> >transitioned recently put down transgendered women.
>
> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want* SRS are
> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the person as
> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or intentions.
But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are women.
> > I was never married to
> >a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery.
>
> And the significance of that is...?
None when you separate it forom the following sentence.
> I was/am in such a relationship... the dynamic is/was unusual by most people's
> standards - and she is the only person I've had a close relationship with in my
> life and we met when I was 27.
And?
> > Instead I was
> >part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
> >lived.
>
> I actually never knowingly met a gay person until I was late in my college
> days. I was that isolated from the world.
Poor Baby...
> > Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
> >prepared to live my life as a queen.
>
> Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
> you to that sceen?
What main stream are you blitthering about? Like Doh 'cuz' I liked boys. "Cuz
it was fun, and exciting and meshed with the hippy and rock and roll and glamour.
I ask because while I never let a typical het lifestyle pre transition, I was
> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply oped out
> and was a loner.
Your sad loss.
> > When the term Transgender came into general usage in the mid 70s it
> >wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
> >from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
> >gender role of their identity.
>
> And why was it needed? Even HB recognized a group that was non-op TS in his
> book. Did people then object to the term non-op TS?
Actually post-ops started saying "How can these people be TS and not have
surgery. Yet obviously these were not TVs either. TG changed gender or more exact
changed gender role.
> > I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
> >recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
>
> Different situation entirely.
Oh really my friends have been husband and wife in one case for over 20 years.
> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
> one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
> least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to the
> non-TS spouse. Do you see that?
Considering the wreckage I see strewen about on these groups, it appears that
not many survive surgery anyway. But for what its worth trannies involved with
guys usually f**k up their relationships during the surgery process too.
> If so why do you think not?
That would all be solved by working for same sex marriages, wouldn't it. But
basically you are saying that because both people still have weewees even though
one has been a woman for 25+ years her marriage shouldn't be valid but in your case
two people with pussies should still be allowed to be married because about 4 years
ago one person decided to get her weewee turned into a pussy.
They are both same sex marrages if you condider the organs involved.
> It may be *wisest* not to stay married for the partner having SRS- but that is
> a separate discussion.
>
> -Karen A.
TranZGrrlla
Suzy
Suzan Cooke
KarenA1013 wrote:
> sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> >> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want*
> >SRS are
> >> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the
> >person as
> >> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or
> intentions.
> >
> > But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are women.
>
> I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not identify as female
> even if they are very feminine.
Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as women as
long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
plumbing=sex. You seem to think for some strange reason that you are better
because you had a little bit of skin shifted. It ani't the surgery it's the
living.
> A TS identifies as female (thus the need for
> SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female.
>
Blah Blah.
> > And?
> And it was neither a het relationship or lesbian relationship in dynamic.
I love it Karen you were married to a woman and still arte but it wasn't het.
Whatever.
> Why? I grew up in *really* bad neigborhoods. I survied by not going out much. I
> stayed home and read a lot of library books and watched TV.
I grew up in mill towns and mining towns.
> >> > Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
> >> >prepared to live my life as a queen.
> >>
> >> Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
> >> you to that sceen?
> >
> > What main stream are you blitthering about? Like Doh 'cuz' I liked
> >boys. "Cuz
> >it was fun, and exciting and meshed with the hippy and rock and roll and
> >glamour.
Obviously you know that was a subculture...
Yeah the subculture of every kid who actually had a life as a teenager and 20
something. I danced. Did you ever dance. Go out and orgasmically rock out, dirty
dance gay boogie, disco, slam in a mosh pit.
> It was also dangerous.
Life is dangerous. I also skied the double black diamond trails.
>> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply
> >oped out
> >> and was a loner.
> >
> > Your sad loss.
>
> Well my brother was and he is dead...
Better to have lived and died than to merely have existed.
> > Actually post-ops started saying "How can these people be TS and not
> >have
> >surgery. Yet obviously these were not TVs either. TG changed gender or
> >more exact
> >changed gender role.
> So post-ops felt that way even back then. I guess it's not just those on the
> newsgroups then.
It was a way of separating the non-ops from TVs.
> >> > I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
> >> >recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
> >>
> >> Different situation entirely.
> >
> > Oh really my friends have been husband and wife in one case for over
> >20 years.
>
> But they knew what they were getting into. They knew the ground rules. That was
> not the case for my spouse for sure - and I did nopt expect tp tranition either
> because I thought I could not make it.
This is just so freaking lame.
> >> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
> >> one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
> >> least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to
> >the
> >> non-TS spouse. Do you see that?
> >
> > Considering the wreckage I see strewen about on these groups, it appears
> >that
> >not many survive surgery anyway.
>
> Very true. The percentage has grown over the last 5 years but is still low.
>
> >But for what its worth trannies involved
> >with
> >guys usually f**k up their relationships during the surgery process too.
>
> Understandable.
>
> >> If so why do you think not?
> >
> > That would all be solved by working for same sex marriages, wouldn't
> >it.
>
> My spouse does not consder this a same sex marriage abd does not consider me a
> woman.
>
Ask me if I care Karen you egocentric twit.
> > But
> >basically you are saying that because both people still have weewees even
> >though
> >one has been a woman for 25+ years her marriage shouldn't be valid but in
> >your case
> >two people with pussies should still be allowed to be married because about
> >4 years
> >ago one person decided to get her weewee turned into a pussy.
>
> I'm say it becayse my spouse did not know what she was getting into where in
> they other situation they did. That said. if I had been required to get
> divorced to get SRS I would have.
>
But you didn't.
> > They are both same sex marrages if you consider the organs involved.
>
> Not when the marriage occured for the TS -GG case.
How so are you saying that one of you is a man?
> I believe that same sex marriage sould be legal but it's not my issue. If we
> get divorced I know I will not be able to marry another woman... but since I'm
> het, same sex marriage is not a burning issue for me. I would vote for it on a
> referndum but that's about it.
>
> -Karen A.
TranZGrrlla
Suzy
KarenA1013
>> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want*
>SRS are
>> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the
>person as
>> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or
intentions.
>
> But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are women.
I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not identify as female
even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus the need for
SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female.
>> > I was never married to
>> >a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery.
>>
>> And the significance of that is...?
> None when you separate it forom the following sentence.
Somehow it seems to imply more...
>> I was/am in such a relationship... the dynamic is/was unusual by most
>people's
>> standards - and she is the only person I've had a close relationship with
>in my
>> life and we met when I was 27.
>
> And?
And it was neither a het relationship or lesbian relationship in dynamic.
>> > Instead I was
>> >part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
>> >lived.
>>
>> I actually never knowingly met a gay person until I was late in my college
>> days. I was that isolated from the world.
>
> Poor Baby...
Why? I grew up in *really* bad neigborhoods. I survied by not going out much. I
stayed home and read a lot of library books and watched TV.
>> > Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
>> >prepared to live my life as a queen.
>>
>> Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
>> you to that sceen?
>
> What main stream are you blitthering about? Like Doh 'cuz' I liked
>boys. "Cuz
>it was fun, and exciting and meshed with the hippy and rock and roll and
>glamour.
Obviously you know that was a subculture...
It was also dangerous.
>> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply
>oped out
>> and was a loner.
>
> Your sad loss.
Well my brother was and he is dead...
> Actually post-ops started saying "How can these people be TS and not
>have
>surgery. Yet obviously these were not TVs either. TG changed gender or
>more exact
>changed gender role.
So post-ops felt that way even back then. I guess it's not just those on the
newsgroups then.
>> > I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
>> >recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
>>
>> Different situation entirely.
>
> Oh really my friends have been husband and wife in one case for over
>20 years.
But they knew what they were getting into. They knew the ground rules. That was
not the case for my spouse for sure - and I did nopt expect tp tranition either
because I thought I could not make it.
>> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
>> one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
>> least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to
>the
>> non-TS spouse. Do you see that?
>
> Considering the wreckage I see strewen about on these groups, it appears
>that
>not many survive surgery anyway.
Very true. The percentage has grown over the last 5 years but is still low.
>But for what its worth trannies involved
>with
>guys usually f**k up their relationships during the surgery process too.
Understandable.
>> If so why do you think not?
>
> That would all be solved by working for same sex marriages, wouldn't
>it.
My spouse does not consder this a same sex marriage abd does not consider me a
woman.
> But
>basically you are saying that because both people still have weewees even
>though
>one has been a woman for 25+ years her marriage shouldn't be valid but in
>your case
>two people with pussies should still be allowed to be married because about
>4 years
>ago one person decided to get her weewee turned into a pussy.
I'm say it becayse my spouse did not know what she was getting into where in
they other situation they did. That said. if I had been required to get
divorced to get SRS I would have.
> They are both same sex marrages if you consider the organs involved.
Not when the marriage occured for the TS -GG case.
I believe that same sex marriage sould be legal but it's not my issue. If we
KarenA1013
> Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as
>women as
>long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
>plumbing=sex.
For me this was as much about being female as it was beinf socially a woman. I
simply can not understand how someone can identify as a woman and not want to
be female. It's the wanting that's key not the actualy surgery.
> You seem to think for some strange reason that you are better
>because you had a little bit of skin shifted. It ani't the surgery it's
>the
>living.
You read things between the lines that are not there. I don't consider myself
better in anyway. Not one bit- just different.
In case you have not realized it yet. I don't have a lot of self confidence.
> I love it Karen you were married to a woman and still arte but it wasn't
>het.
>Whatever.
I was not amd am not sexually attracted to her. It was a
friendship/companionship thing for me. That is a hard thing for many to
understand.
> I grew up in mill towns and mining towns.
And I was an inner city kid in the projects.
> Obviously you know that was a subculture...
>
> Yeah the subculture of every kid who actually had a life as a teenager
>and 20
>something. I danced. Did you ever dance. Go out and orgasmically rock
>out, dirty
>dance gay boogie, disco, slam in a mosh pit.
No. I said I've always been an extreme loner.
> Life is dangerous. I also skied the double black diamond trails.
I don't ski. I take it those must be steep trails.
>>> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply
>>> opted out and was a loner.
> Your sad loss.
That's the price I payed for not dealing with my gender issues yound and buring
my feelings. I did not have a life. Never claimed to.
>> Well my brother was and he is dead...
>
> Better to have lived and died than to merely have existed.
That's why I finally transitioned and had SRS. I could not take doing that
anymore.
>That was
>> not the case for my spouse for sure - and I did not expect to tranition
>either
>> because I thought I could not make it.
>
> This is just so freaking lame.
It is the truth.
>> >> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
>> My spouse does not consder this a same sex marriage abd does not consider
>me a
>> woman.
>>
>
> Ask me if I care Karen you egocentric twit.
I have heard that other spouses feel the same eay. It is exatcly that issue
that breakes up most marriages.
Twit? Well I guess if I ever make it to LA I won't bother trying to meet you
for lunch!
>> I'm say it because my spouse did not know what she was getting into where
>in
>> they other situation they did. That said. if I had been required to get
>> divorced to get SRS I would have.
>>
>
> But you didn't.
I was not required to. I played by the rules as I found them.
>> Not when the marriage occured for the TS -GG case.
>
> How so are you saying that one of you is a man?
Physically I was male when we were married.
She did not know I was TS and I had given up on the possibility of transition
(else I would not have married).
Such are the facts.
-Karen A.
Loree Thomas
>sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>> Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as
>>women as
>>long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
>>plumbing=sex.
>
>For me this was as much about being female as it was beinf socially a woman. I
>simply can not understand how someone can identify as a woman and not want to
>be female. It's the wanting that's key not the actualy surgery.
I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
=can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.
You already know of several people who claim that very thing. Unless
you secretly believe thaey are totally delusional (which then calls
your own choices in life into questions), that part should be fairly
easy.
The next step is the hard one... you must try to assume that
particular mindset. Try it on, think about how you would feel, about
what it would mean, how you would respond in various situations.
This is called empathy. Traditionally, it is considered both a
feminine trait, and a virtue.
While in this mental space, read back over your own words on the
subject... What do you see? What do you feel?
As a scientist, you should have a very well developed imagination...
I'm sure that if you really wanted to understand, you could.
Hugs,
Loree
"Immortality: My long life ambition."
a
>transitioned recently put down transgendered women.
Yeah, it is sad. They have made a mental prison just for themselves.
>Instead I was part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called
queens
>lived.
In the lesbigay scene the transwomen are usually virulently hated, but it is
not just us, there are plenty of lesbigays that the scene has thrown out
because they aren't the kind of queers the scene accepts. Those people
usually blend in with the hets and are well balanced.
The lesbigay-movement is like a hard drive full of virii: Install a program
there and it will get infected also. Instead of getting anything good from
the lesbigay scene, we now suffer from the same ailments as they do. In our
case the outcasts are the TG women and probably also the neutrois.
> Point is that they are just as much women as I am.
Yes, they are, which is not much said about your womanhood, though.
> There are other things I think are very sad about us.
1. The psychologization of our condition and how many of us have bought all
that
2. Being divided into our own slum rather than being united by our cause
with all kinds of people having problems with gender.
Joann Prinzivalli
Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:386BD625...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> transitioned recently put down transgendered women.
> Point is that they are just as much women as I am. Further many
> have been women 5-10 times as long as the transsexuals on this list who
> are putting TGs down.
>
> wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
> from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
> lumped in with the CDs and TVs.
>
> recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
>
>
> Suzy
Snipped only for bandwidth (something I forget all too often)
Suzy, you said it.
But the spectrum is _so_ fuzzy, that one can sometimes identify in different
ways, at different times, and in different circumstances, and still be true
to oneself.
Joann
Stephe
KarenA1013 wrote in message
<19991230222844...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>>> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that
don't *want*
>>SRS are
>>> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements
about the
>>person as
>>> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op
status or
>intentions.
>>
>> But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are
women.
>
>I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not
identify as female
>even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
the need for
>SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female.
>
Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?
Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
than ones crotch..
This is exactly what I find truly sad about all of this..
TG's are unaccepted by the people who actually have a chance of
understanding.
Stephe
KarenA1013
>Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
>her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
>else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
>didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?
First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has bee upheld in
court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
As to the first point, that is a basic emotional reaction on my part. I do not
act on those feelings in any way - but he are there. In any case that feeling
does not affect how I treat TG's in 3D.
>Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
>than ones crotch..
Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people on this planet.
That is simply the truth.
-Karen A.
Suzan Cooke
KarenA1013 wrote:
> ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> >Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
> >than ones crotch..
>
> Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people on this planet.
> That is simply the truth.
>
> -Karen A.
Really, out side of lovers, the dressing rooms at health clubs and the like and
when I go to hot springs not all that many people see my crotch. That is a simple
fact.
I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
Suzy
Stephe
KarenA1013 wrote in message
<19991231093226...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
>>her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
>>else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
>>didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?
>
>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has bee
upheld in
>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
Whatever... Looks like it to me.. Does it change WHO you are? Not
IMHO..
>
>As to the first point, that is a basic emotional reaction on my
part. I do not
>act on those feelings in any way - but he are there. In any case
that feeling
>does not affect how I treat TG's in 3D.
Same could be said for your wife if that's the case..
>
>>Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little
more
>>than ones crotch..
>
>Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people
on this planet.
>That is simply the truth.
>
Well I'm glad I'm not most people then.. It just isn't that
important to me..
Stephe
Deb Marsh
> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
> Suzy
Gosh! You mean it be used for that - oh no, all those wasted years 8-)
Debs
Suzan Cooke
Deb Marsh wrote:
That's understandable what with all the propaganda. Pet your pussy
and talk nice to her and she'll probably start purring and forgive you.
That's what the woman teaching the becoming orgasmic class taught me.
Suzy 8-b
KarenA1013
> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
Isn't that typical of first waver's?
And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
because they think that is why I had SRS.
-Karen A.
KarenA1013
>>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has bee
>upheld in
>>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
>
>Whatever... Looks like it to me..
Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing up or having male
sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
There is a significant change in function.
>Does it change WHO you are? Not IMHO..
In some ways no and in some ways yes.
Experience changes who you are - and I'm not just talking for TS's or SRS.
>>As to the first point, that is a basic emotional reaction on my
>part. I do not
>>act on those feelings in any way - but he are there. In any case
>that feeling
>>does not affect how I treat TG's in 3D.
>
>Same could be said for your wife if that's the case..
Yes, which is why i have no anger towards her even though it hurts.
>>Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people
>on this planet.
>>That is simply the truth.
>
>Well I'm glad I'm not most people then.. It just isn't that
>important to me..
Obviously!
-Karen A.
Nicole Hamilton
> Really, out side of lovers, the dressing rooms at health
> clubs and the like and when I go to hot springs not all that
> many people see my crotch.
And perhaps in a related way, SRS was definitely not, for me, the most
important part of transition. Mind you, I'm definitely happy to look in the
mirror and see that it definitely is female down there now. But even I
don't see what's there more than a few times a day. I'm not active yet, so
perhaps my perspective will change in time, but for me, SRS did not really
change my life. It wasn't as important for me as the facial work or breast
augmentation, both of which did, as instantaneously as a thunderclap, change
the way I related to the world and it to me.
Nicki
Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
::Laughing:: You mean there are other reasons to have one? <G>
Cheers,
Gwen Smith
(Who seems to be neither a first or a second waver)
--
. .
/\\//\ Gwendolyn Ann Smith * onQ Community Host, TCF
> () < Board Member, GEA * Webmistress, TransBay
\/()\/ Webmistress, SCCatl * Webmistress,TSMCCenter
"I want this to be a harmony of voices" - Lauren D. Wilson
**Posts may not reflect the views of the above organizations
grrl@petal
<gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:
>In article <386CF9FD...@postoffice.pacbell.net>, Suzan Cooke
><sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
>::Laughing:: You mean there are other reasons to have one? <G>
>
>Cheers,
>Gwen Smith
>(Who seems to be neither a first or a second waver)
I was a Punk/ New Waver...but it was really post-punk. Still am a
posting punk...
As far as ID- I'm a first waver on my mother's side, a third waver on
my fathers. I guess he skipped a genderation ;-)
But when I make my mind up I never waver. Ever.
Wave bye-bye, Cindy
Bye-bye.
Cindy
>
>--
> . .
>/\\//\ Gwendolyn Ann Smith * onQ Community Host, TCF
>> () < Board Member, GEA * Webmistress, TransBay
>\/()\/ Webmistress, SCCatl * Webmistress,TSMCCenter
>"I want this to be a harmony of voices" - Lauren D. Wilson
>**Posts may not reflect the views of the above organizations
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
grrl@petal
>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
>because they think that is why I had SRS.
I got mine because I was playing truth or dare and I'm a patent liar.
I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced lie. And
then they really don't get it, hets that is. Not like I do }8-)
Cindy
Among the Queerest of the Queer
KarenA1013
>I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced lie.
Hmmmm a while back it wasn't ! ;-)
-Karen A.
Rach...@webtv.net
How do you deal with the fact that your wife does not recognize you as a
woman?
Are you planning a divorce unless you
get this affirmation?
I think it is great if it does not bother you, but
identifying as a female but not getting that
from my spouse would be bothersome
to me personally.
rachael renee
Nicole Hamilton
Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it
possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore? I'm thinking I
might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.
Nicki
Stephe
KarenA1013 wrote in message
<19991231144329...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
>ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has
bee
>>upheld in
>>>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
>>
>>Whatever... Looks like it to me..
>
>Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing up
or having male
>sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
>
So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
Having your crotch modified doesn't change who you are as you
already know.
That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
you are seen as one..
Stephe
KarenA1013
>How do you deal with the fact that your wife does not recognize you as a
>woman?
It hurts.
>Are you planning a divorce unless you
>get this affirmation?
I have tld her we can not tsay togther indefineyly without that acceptance -
but no specific divorce plans. The situation is a bit more complex than it
seems as weel.
>I think it is great if it does not bother you, but
>identifying as a female but not getting that
>from my spouse would be bothersome
>to me personally.
It does bother me and makes it very difficult to feel settled as a woman even
post SRS.
We both love each other very much. She does not really want to leave me but is
very unhappy that I'm insisting she truely see me as a woman.
She says she would be happy to saty with me forever as long as I do not insist
on that level of acceptance from her.
For my part I really like being with her but I do feel the relationship is
hurting my development as a woman. My being physically attracted exclusive to
men complicates things futher.
So what keeps me with her (we have been married 15 years) are:
1) Love and compatability
2) Knowng she can not survive by herself either emotionally or economically
because of an illness.
3) Sense of responsibility. She told me about her ilness before we married but
I did not tell I was T
4) My looks. I've got a very big masuline body and a normal life in mainstream
society is not possible for me. I could not face that life alone. If I passed
well and was normal sized for a woman staying togther would be much more
difficult.
-Karen A.
Karen A.
> >Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing up
> or having male
> >sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
> >
>
>
> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
That is rather disengeuous. I was talking about SRS not being cosmetic
surgery not about gender/
> Having your crotch modified doesn't change who you are as you
> already know.
It does - but not in the way you are assumming I mean.
> That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
> you are seen as one..
I never said it did.
-Karen A.
grrl@petal
<hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:
>"grrl@petal" <sli...@bitch.net> wrote:
>> Cindy
>> Among the Queerest of the Queer
>
>Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it
>possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore?
Uhuh. 8-)
> I'm thinking I
>might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.
Careful, then. Deb Marsh is stalking around the area. Has a cam
attatched to my heart. 8-)
Cindy
grrl@petal
Uhuh. But then I found out where my libido went ;-)
I love you, Deborah 8-)
Stephe
Karen A. wrote in message <199912311708061696721@[10.0.2.15]>...
"I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not
identify as female
even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
the need for
SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female."
Or did someone else write this and sign your name?
Stephe
Karen A.
> "I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not
> identify as female
> even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
> the need for
> SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female."
>
> Or did someone else write this and sign your name?
Read what that says and don't embellish. It does not say that
identifying as female is the *only* thing that makes makes one a woman.
-Karen A.
Deb Marsh
Debs
Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote in message
news:or9b4.2835$wG6.2...@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net...
> "grrl@petal" <sli...@bitch.net> wrote:
> > Cindy
> > Among the Queerest of the Queer
>
> Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it
> possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore? I'm thinking
I
> might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.
>
> Nicki
>
>
Deb Marsh
news:386d2acb...@news.newsfeeds.com...
> >> Cindy
> >> Among the Queerest of the Queer
> >
> >Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it
> >possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore?
>
>
> > I'm thinking I
> >might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.
>
>
> Cindy
Hey, pumpkin, don't worry about me - I'm the unpossessive type (NOT)
Deborah
Karen A.
> I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
> =can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.
I can do that thought experiment and logically derive the consequences -
but it has not sense of emotional reality to me.
> You already know of several people who claim that very thing. Unless
> you secretly believe thaey are totally delusional (which then calls
> your own choices in life into questions), that part should be fairly
> easy.
I don't think you or stephe are delusional. I recongnize that personal
realities are just that - personal and unique.
> The next step is the hard one... you must try to assume that
> particular mindset. Try it on, think about how you would feel, about
> what it would mean, how you would respond in various situations.
Teh feeling part is difucult. I personally can not make an emotional
connection to the logical construct.
> This is called empathy. Traditionally, it is considered both a
> feminine trait, and a virtue.
I amconsider by a number of people ti be very empathetic... but I
empathize with people - not ideas, if you understand what I mean.
> While in this mental space, read back over your own words on the
> subject... What do you see? What do you feel?
I know where you are going obviously. Yet discussion of ideas which
impact people;s views if tehir lives are always distressing to some
reguardless of intention. Should we not discuss our options and feelings
on this subject because of it?
> As a scientist, you should have a very well developed imagination...
> I'm sure that if you really wanted to understand, you could.
Heck I don't understand why I know myself to be a woman!
-Karen A.
grrl@petal
NOT is right. You,ve got me where you want me, and it's where I want
to be forever, sweetness. But don't forget: I actually own
you...except not lately....how did you do that anyway? };-)
Nmmmmhhhph
Jennifer Usher
> Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as
women as
> long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
> plumbing=sex. You seem to think for some strange reason that you are
better
> because you had a little bit of skin shifted. It ani't the surgery it's
the
> living.
Since you have chose to drag me into this, I would point out that as far as
*I* am concerned, it would depend on why they did not have surgery. Some
people cannot have surgery for medical reasons. But, when someone says,
"Hey, sure I have a penis, but I am a woman," I have to agree with Karen, it
raises questions.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386c40c6....@news.uswest.net...
> I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
> =can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.
Sorry, but that is simply not a premise I can see as true.
> You already know of several people who claim that very thing. Unless
> you secretly believe thaey are totally delusional (which then calls
> your own choices in life into questions), that part should be fairly
> easy.
They do not have to be "totally delusional."
> The next step is the hard one... you must try to assume that
> particular mindset. Try it on, think about how you would feel, about
> what it would mean, how you would respond in various situations.
I have considered this, and that is why I find it too incredible to accept.
> This is called empathy. Traditionally, it is considered both a
> feminine trait, and a virtue.
It is.
> While in this mental space, read back over your own words on the
> subject... What do you see? What do you feel?
>
> As a scientist, you should have a very well developed imagination...
> I'm sure that if you really wanted to understand, you could.
People can believe a lot of things that others simply cannot accept. I
cannot see someone as a woman, who truly wishes to have a penis.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:84i8lm$qm0$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
> her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
> else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
> didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?
SRS is not cosmetic surgery.
> Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
> than ones crotch..
That is true, but how one sees their crotch is prettty significant.
> This is exactly what I find truly sad about all of this..
>
> TG's are unaccepted by the people who actually have a chance of
> understanding.
One cannot understand something that makes absolutely no sense.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
Nope, that is simply not true.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> And perhaps in a related way, SRS was definitely not, for me, the most
> important part of transition. Mind you, I'm definitely happy to look in
the
> mirror and see that it definitely is female down there now. But even I
> don't see what's there more than a few times a day. I'm not active yet,
so
> perhaps my perspective will change in time, but for me, SRS did not really
> change my life. It wasn't as important for me as the facial work or
breast
> augmentation, both of which did, as instantaneously as a thunderclap,
change
> the way I related to the world and it to me.
That's a lot of it for me. How can one look in the mirror, see a penis
hanging there, *be happy that it is there*, and consider oneself to actually
be a woman? I am not obsessive about it, but I won't miss it when it is
gone.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
That is an old joke. "How can you tell if a crossdresser has used the
bathroom? The toilet seat is up." If you stand to pee, then it really does
raise questions about any claim to be a woman.
> Having your crotch modified doesn't change who you are as you
> already know.
>
> That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
> you are seen as one..
No, it actually doesn't. But, choosing to not have it done, because you
wish to have a penis, does make you a man.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> It doesn't matter... it clearly establishes a one to one
> correspondence between sex and gender.
>
> For the last few posts you have been squirming around and playing word
> games to avoid admiting the harshness of your position.
I tell you what, let me cut through the BS, and make a simple statement. If
you *want* your sex to be male, then you gender is not, repeat not, female.
It is that simple. If you *want* to have a penis, you are a male. You may
be a crossdresser, a transgenderist, a drag queen, or something else, but
you are a man.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> >Sorry, but that is simply not a premise I can see as true.
>
> That's ok.
>
> I didn't for even one minute entertain the idea that you were capable
> of empathizing with TGs.
>
> I've grown to know you too well <G>.
Why do you post claiming you are not interested in a flame war, and then
make remarks like this? I am being honest. I cannot see that premise as
true, and that is based on looking at it from the "TG" point of view. I am
perfectly capable of accepting that you disagree without resorting to
insults and taunts. It is a shame that you are not.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> >> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
> >> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
> >
> >Nope, that is simply not true.
>
> It is truly my opinion.
It is truly some people's opinions that gays have an agenda to recruit
children.
It is truly some people's opinion that the only reason to have SRS is to
have sex with men (or women in the case of FTMs).
Shoot, it is truly some people's opinion that all blacks play basketball,
eat fried chicken, and love watermelon.
I could add any number of false opinions that are truly believed.
The question is, does someone continue believing them when they are told
that they are wrong, or do they seek to learn if they might actually be
mistaken?
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> >> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
> >
> >If you stand to pee, then it really does
> >raise questions about any claim to be a woman.
>
> Thanks for the humor!
It is not entirely a joke. Standing to pee is often identified as a male
virtue.
--
Jennifer Usher
Joann Prinzivalli
> On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:
>
> >sco...@pacbell.net
> >
> >> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
> >
> >
> >And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm
het
> >because they think that is why I had SRS.
>
> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
>
That is overly broad - you probably should have put it as "sexual
intercourse outside of marriage or intended for pleasure and not procreation
(though if intended for pleasure _and_ procreation, it's okay . . . for
married people)"
(Though the Calvinistic types might leave out the pleasure part altogether.)
Joann
[]> Hugs,
> Loree
>
> "Immortality: My long life ambition."
Joann Prinzivalli
> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:39:36 -0600, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> >news:386d4bf3....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> >> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
> >
>
> It is truly my opinion.
>
doesn't even rise to the level of truth of an incomplete statement. (Plus,
I'd blame the Roman Republic.)
Joann
Joann Prinzivalli
Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jYcb4.11364$y11.1...@news4.mia...
>
> Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote in message
> news:JK7b4.2794$wG6.2...@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> hanging there, *be happy that it is there*, and consider oneself to
actually
> be a woman? I am not obsessive about it, but I won't miss it when it is
> gone.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>
That's it! The part between the asterisks! I think a number of people out
there are _not_ happy that "it" is there, but aren't tracking for SRS,
because they are able to ignore it. If one doesn't plan to use it, and
isn't planning to "use" the surgical replacement, either, the question
becomes one of "why bother going through a dangerous, painful and expensive
surgical procedure."
I am not trying to convince you that SRS is wrong for you. But that is a
matter of degree of the intensity of the dysphoria.
Joann
--
****************************************************************************
* Joann Percy
*
* visit my website at:
*
* http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Chelsea/8828/ *
****************************************************************************
*
Joann Prinzivalli
> <19991231144329...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
> >ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> >>>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has
> bee
> >>upheld in
> >>>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
> >>
> >>Whatever... Looks like it to me..
> >
> or having male
> >sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
> >
>
>
>
> already know.
>
> That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
> you are seen as one..
>
>
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187
>
Stephe, I have been following this thread, and I think you ought to consider
not pursuing it any farther. You have made your point, and keeping at it is
only going to be seen as mean.
You and Karen are _both_ right about SRS.
It _is_ cosmetic surgery; and it _is_ functional.
Cosmetic to the extent that it only changes the appearance of the genitals,
but doesn't provide a complete reproductive system, and functional to the
extent that it provides aproximately the same sort of function that is
available to a born-woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.
A post-op M2F TS doesn't have menses, can't get pregnant, but neither can
that post-hysterectomee, either.
Both _are_ women, legally (except in parts of Texas where the judges haven't
evolved from being large ignorant primates yet), and functionally. The
post-hysterectomee might _feel_ like less of a woman. (and hey, if it was a
him having the hysterectomy as part of an F2M procedure, that "feeling less
like a woman" part is a _good_ thing!)
Stephe, your posts on this thread make it seem like all you want to do is
convince other people that the way you see things is the only right way. It
is right for you, as I have pointed out in other threads where people are
criticizing you.
And Karen's way is right for her.
The situation with Karen's wife's acceptance situation? I posted on that,
and after making my points, I stopped. I wish Karen luck on that issue, and
envy her for what she _has_ - especially after going through my recent
divorce. Expecting someone to change the way they feel in their heart is,
in my opinion, asking more than one can reasonably expect. Acceptance, yes,
that is important, but it doesn't have to be so totally complete as to be
Orwellian.
Joann
Joann Prinzivalli
Karen A. <k...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:199912311745331832066@[10.0.2.15]...
Karen,
I just posted at a point earlier on the thread, to take issue with Stephe.
Here is where I will take the opportunity to take issue with _you_.
Sex and gender are separate issues. One can be female gendered without SRS,
and be treated socially as female without SRS.
The surgery is not what defines a transsexual woman. For some it isn't
necessary. For others, it is.
In your case, it was and that is fine. But don't deny others their gender
identity just because they don't track for surgery. There is truly room for
all of us.
Joann
Joann Prinzivalli
Jennifer, you are entitled to your opinion on that, but again. look between
those asterisks. One can fall short of SRS and still not _want_ her sex to
be male, or _want_ to have a penis. Having it and being able to deal with
it by pretty much ignoring it, is not the same as wanting it. So your
formulation is correct, but your application may be seen as incorrect,
because people will be reading into what you wrote.
Joann
Joann Prinzivalli
>
> > >> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
> > >
> > >raise questions about any claim to be a woman.
> >
> > Thanks for the humor!
>
> It is not entirely a joke. Standing to pee is often identified as a male
> virtue.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>
Now, this may seem like the thing about the tree in the forest making a
sound, but I think the issue is really not whether one stands to pee, but
that one who *doesn't put the seat back down* is one for whom claims to be a
woman are suspect. Having the penis, even if one doesn't want it, is one
issue. But leaving the seat up is something *only* men do.
Joann
Joann Prinzivalli
Raising questions is much better than passing judgment.
Joann
>
>
Joann Prinzivalli
> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:32:23 -0600, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote (as a suggetion to Karen A):
> >
> >> I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
> >> =can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.
> >
>
> That's ok.
>
> I didn't for even one minute entertain the idea that you were capable
> of empathizing with TGs.
>
> I've grown to know you too well <G>.
>
> Loree
>
> "Immortality: My long life ambition."
Loree, don't give up yet - Jennifer's "key fact" is "_want_ to have a
penis."
Transgenderists, by and large, would probably prefer to have been
born-women. I don't know of any full-timer who really _wants_ the penis
that she has. It's more of a burden than anything else. If one can deal
with it, it doesn't make one less of a woman than the one who _must_ have it
inverted, just a differen sort of woman.
(Yes, most postops still have their penis - it has just been inverted and
most of the erectile tissue removed (and in a real good surgery, part of the
erectile tissue is retained) - it's just called a neovagina. Some do prefer
the surgery that uses a colon section because of the mucus secretion, which
is a bit different - I have talked to a couple who had it done that way and
they're more than satisfied.)
Joann
Joann Prinzivalli
> >
> > That's ok.
> >
> > I didn't for even one minute entertain the idea that you were capable
> > of empathizing with TGs.
> >
> > I've grown to know you too well <G>.
>
> make remarks like this? I am being honest. I cannot see that premise as
> true, and that is based on looking at it from the "TG" point of view. I
am
> perfectly capable of accepting that you disagree without resorting to
> insults and taunts. It is a shame that you are not.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>
There was a grin there, a *big* one. I saw it.
Karen A.
>It wasn't as important for me as the facial work or breast
> augmentation, both of which did, as instantaneously as a thunderclap, change
> the way I related to the world and it to me.
The reason for that is the only thing about you physically that was
*way* out from the female physical norms was your face.
For me SRS was more important. The feeling of rightnes for that part of
my body was huge. Symbolically it also meant there was no going back (I
would not anyway). The facial work did not have that much internal
impact and without SRS, and would not have made it impossible for me to
live as a man.
So far the facial work has not made a huge difference in my experience.
I get read less but I still get read on the street.
-Karen A.
Loree Thomas
>sco...@pacbell.net
>
>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
>Isn't that typical of first waver's?
>
>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
>because they think that is why I had SRS.
One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
What possible difference can it make to you what motive people assign
for your decisions?
Do you worry that some will think you became a chemist because you
were interested in creating illicit drugs?
Do you worry that some will think you chose to settle (or remain) in
the Boston area because you like baked beans?
In most areas of your personal life, what other people think has
absolutely no significance. Why let it have any in this area?
I hypothesize the only reason possible for your expressed feeling is
that you are completely brainwashed by the Christian concept of "sex
is bad" and are worried that wanting sex with men IS part of the
reason you wanted SRS.
Loree Thomas
>On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:
>
>>sco...@pacbell.net
>>
>>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
>>
>>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
>>because they think that is why I had SRS.
>
>I got mine because I was playing truth or dare and I'm a patent liar.
>
>I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced lie. And
>then they really don't get it, hets that is. Not like I do }8-)
I've looked at this queer vs het thing from all sides... and no matter
how I look at it, or who I'm attracted to, there doesn't seem to be
any escaping the fact that I am indeed queer as a 3 dollar bill... but
much more fun!
Loree Thomas
>Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> "I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not
>> identify as female
>> even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
>> the need for
>> SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female."
>>
>> Or did someone else write this and sign your name?
>
>Read what that says and don't embellish. It does not say that
>identifying as female is the *only* thing that makes makes one a woman.
It doesn't matter... it clearly establishes a one to one
correspondence between sex and gender.
For the last few posts you have been squirming around and playing word
games to avoid admiting the harshness of your position.
Hugs,
Loree Thomas
>Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>Teh feeling part is difucult. I personally can not make an emotional
>connection to the logical construct.
>
>> This is called empathy. Traditionally, it is considered both a
>> feminine trait, and a virtue.
>
>I amconsider by a number of people ti be very empathetic... but I
>empathize with people - not ideas, if you understand what I mean.
So you know of no non-ops or TGs in real life?
You can't see Stephe or I as people rather than abstract ideas?
Much as it sounds tempting, I simply don't see myself as nothing more
than a "logical construct".
You can't be said to be exhibiting empathy if the other is exactly
like you... empathy implies an emotional understanding of that which
is foreign to yourself.
>> While in this mental space, read back over your own words on the
>> subject... What do you see? What do you feel?
>
>I know where you are going obviously. Yet discussion of ideas which
>impact people;s views if tehir lives are always distressing to some
>reguardless of intention. Should we not discuss our options and feelings
>on this subject because of it?
Your opinions are valid. Your expression of them in this venue could
be questionable when they are anti TG... but not completely beyond the
pale.
It's the "I can't understand" assertion (it's not really an opinion at
all) that I take exception to. The implication that the position is
so far from the norm that no rational person could possibly
understand.
>> As a scientist, you should have a very well developed imagination...
>> I'm sure that if you really wanted to understand, you could.
>
>Heck I don't understand why I know myself to be a woman!
You've strayed. No one is asking you to understand causes. We aren't
talking about intellectual understanding when we talk about empathy,
but emotional understanding. You claim empathy as a strong
personality trait.
Use it.
Loree Thomas
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote (as a suggetion to Karen A):
>
>> I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
>> =can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.
>
>Sorry, but that is simply not a premise I can see as true.
That's ok.
I didn't for even one minute entertain the idea that you were capable
of empathizing with TGs.
I've grown to know you too well <G>.
Hugs,
Loree Thomas
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:386d4bf3....@news.uswest.net...
>
>> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
>> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
>
>Nope, that is simply not true.
It is truly my opinion.
Hugs,
Loree Thomas
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:84j8bq$cb9$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
>
>If you stand to pee, then it really does
>raise questions about any claim to be a woman.
!
Thanks for the humor!
Paulinev00
>And got mine for myself
>-Karen A.
Wouldn't sex be loverly. but I have to admit it was secondary to me. First and
formost was to be a woman. With no regrets. No tell tail lies just laying there
waiting for a surprise like a dr. jailer or some other troublem maker to show
up and expose it.
Now every woman should have tits and pussy. not tits and cock. a penis is for
fun, not embarasement. None of this was for sex. but I admit I miss it.
When its time, its time.
the hardest step of any journey is the first, the most fullfilling the last.
Now have a nice day
Pauline
KarenA1013
>>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm
>het
>>because they think that is why I had SRS.
>
>One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
>idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
>
>What possible difference can it make to you what motive people assign
>for your decisions?
Because saying that it was primairly to have sex trivializes it and reinforces
the idea that it's sexually driven and not identity driven.
I did not have SRS to have sex with a man. There is nothing wrong with wanting
to have sex and having sex. As a matter of fact I will be very sorry if I never
get the chance to have that experence.
>Do you worry that some will think you became a chemist because you
>were interested in creating illicit drugs?
It annoyed me when my brother started joking about that (he was into drugs).
>Do you worry that some will think you chose to settle (or remain) in
>the Boston area because you like baked beans?
Yes as a matter of fact because I don't like baked beans... but clam chowder is
another matter! ;-)
>In most areas of your personal life, what other people think has
>absolutely no significance.
Absolutely untrue. Humans are social animals . We do care what others think of
us to some degree and how we are seen by society at large can affect many parts
of our lives in practical ways.
>I hypothesize the only reason possible for your expressed feeling is
>that you are completely brainwashed by the Christian concept of "sex
>is bad" and are worried that wanting sex with men IS part of the
>reason you wanted SRS.
Well no matter what i say, unless I agree with you, you will believe I am brain
washed. So it makes no sense for me to comment on that.
-Karen A.
KarenA1013
>It doesn't matter... it clearly establishes a one to one
>correspondence between sex and gender.
>
>For the last few posts you have been squirming around and playing word
>games to avoid admiting the harshness of your position.
No games. I will state uniquivically that sex is the basis of gender. If there
were no physical sexes the concept of gender would not exist. For the vast
majority of the human race, sex and gender are pretty much in sync.
My gender is and was female, my sex was male and that felt wrong. My problem
was not just with gender role but physical sex.
I can understand intellectually that some people who are male and prefer to
stay male may not be happy in the male gender role and perfer the female one.
The rest gets down to agreeing on the definition of the word woman.
-Karen A.
KarenA1013
>So you know of no non-ops or TGs in real life?
I don't know anyone who transitioned and says they don't want SRS - though I
know several I don't think ever will (I don't think ill of them BTW)
I don't hang out in the TG community. I was not an adult cross dresser and and
never got involved in the TV community either.
>You can't see Stephe or I as people rather than abstract ideas?
I've offended people by saying this before. I hope you take it as it is meant
and not read a non-existant subtext between the lines.
I don't feel I know some one as a person until I've met and spent soem time
with them in 3D. This is too limited a means of communiction to really get a
good feel for a person - at least for me.
>You can't be said to be exhibiting empathy if the other is exactly
>like you... empathy implies an emotional understanding of that which
>is foreign to yourself.
If I see sombody hurting I don't need to understand why they are hurting to
feel bad and want to help. It is nthose basic emotions that I canrealte to and
have empathy for. I percive these emotions in 3D interactions not on-line
discussion on teh nature of gender.
>Your opinions are valid. Your expression of them in this venue could
>be questionable when they are anti TG... but not completely beyond the
>pale.
I don't see them as anti-TG. I'm not anti-TG. I think you know that.
>It's the "I can't understand" assertion (it's not really an opinion at
>all) that I take exception to. The implication that the position is
>so far from the norm that no rational person could possibly
>understand.
This area is not truly ammenable to any sort of purely rational analysis or
understanding. IMO it involves emotional understanding and emotional logic.
Those are highly individual things with very different rules.
I'm not trying to talk around anything. It is how I feel and what i believe.
It is true that it is easier for the general public to come to an emotional
understanding of TS's than TG's - and it's true for me.
I'm not anti-TG nor do I believe thay are irrational. They are simply different
enough from me that I don't understand their emotional reality. Being a Ts I
think makes that harder then it would be for a non-TS because of our own string
feelings on these subjects.
-Karen A.
Stephe
Joann Prinzivalli wrote in message ...>> KarenA1013 wrote in message
>> >
>> >Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing
up
>> or having male
>> >sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> already know.
>>
>> That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
>> you are seen as one..
>>
>> Stephe
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187
>>
>
>Stephe, I have been following this thread, and I think you ought
to consider
>not pursuing it any farther. You have made your point, and
keeping at it is
>only going to be seen as mean.
>
>You and Karen are _both_ right about SRS.
No Joann, we can't both be right as PC as you're trying to be
here..
>
>
>Stephe, your posts on this thread make it seem like all you want
to do is
>convince other people that the way you see things is the only
right way. It
>is right for you, as I have pointed out in other threads where
people are
>criticizing you.
Joann this isn't even about how I live.. It's about post op TS's
claiming "to be a woman one must first have female sex organs"..
I have never claimed I'm a woman, but it does piss me off to see
them bashing people who **are** women (some in a lot of ways more
so than they are) yet don't need surgery to be whole.. Or do you
want to stand with the binary gender people here? That's what
Karen is saying and I don't buy it..
>
>And Karen's way is right for her.
>
So you think it's fine for her to proclaim that one **must** be
physically a female to be a woman? I accept her choice but it's
fine for her to say no one can be a woman until they have HER
surgery? Who's forcing their choices on whom here Joann? SHE is
the one who is denying people their gender identity because their
crotch doesn't look like her's does now.. And she isn't the only
one here who does this on a regular basis.. Or did you miss the
first post in this thread "I think it's very sad"? That's what
this whole thread is about and you want to defend the people
bashing TG's? You can't be on both sides at once here Joann..
Stephe
Stephe
Loree Thomas wrote in message
<386d4f1b....@news.uswest.net>...
>>
>>I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced
lie. And
>>then they really don't get it, hets that is. Not like I
do }8-)
>
>I've looked at this queer vs het thing from all sides... and no
matter
>how I look at it, or who I'm attracted to, there doesn't seem to
be
>any escaping the fact that I am indeed queer as a 3 dollar
bill... but
>much more fun!
>
And what is het if you're TG/TS? Was it pre-op? Or post-op? Seems
at some point it is no longer het or was? I like the post-op TS's
who are married to females and they claim that isn't seen as
gay/queer? And why does anyone care? If my gender is more female
am I still het? It sure doesn't feel like it..
Stephe
Loree Thomas
<pjpr...@e-mail.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:386d4bf3....@news.uswest.net...
>> On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:
>>
>> >sco...@pacbell.net
>> >
>> >> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>> >
>> >Isn't that typical of first waver's?
>> >
>> >And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm
>het
>> >because they think that is why I had SRS.
>>
>> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
>> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
>>
>
>That is overly broad - you probably should have put it as "sexual
>intercourse outside of marriage or intended for pleasure and not procreation
>(though if intended for pleasure _and_ procreation, it's okay . . . for
>married people)"
No, it's not.
Traditionally, it is seen as a necessary evil... something the
righteous man did out of duty and not for pleasure and that a truly
holy man didn't do at all (women, on the other hand, were expected to
enjoy sex.. original sin and all that... it's why women can't be
priests, They are, by nature, carnal creatures and thus impure. The
distaste of women for sex was the Puritan's twist on Catholic
doctrine)... distractions of the flesh don't you know, with roots in
Paulinian doctrine (read Romans and Corinthians.. he was quite the
misogynist) but the Catholic church (Which WAS Christianity for
several centuries) expanded on Paul's distaste for sexual intercourse.
If you'll read what I wrote again, you will notice I made no claim
that any modern church is perpetuating that evil.
>(Though the Calvinistic types might leave out the pleasure part altogether.)
Please don't forget that our own country was founded in a large part
by the Puritans... one of the few areas where they agreed with the
Catholic church was the sinfulness of sex.
Even today, the message that "sex is bad" is still so deeply embedded
in western culture that some women (even though they are married)
never overcome that feeling and men who would otherwise fully enjoy
sex feel vaguely dirty spiritually after every sex act... even with
their own wives. It's better than it has been at any time since the
Roman Christians first enforced their religion by military might on
the western world, but the effect is still there. It's a part of our
culture and a very =real= problem for CDs, TGs and TSs because many
somehow associate their trans desires with sex and "sin" either
explicitly or on a subconcious level.
BTW, Happy New Year!
Loree Thomas
<pjpr...@e-mail.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:386d5fbd....@news.uswest.net...
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:39:36 -0600, "Jennifer Usher"
>> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>> >news:386d4bf3....@news.uswest.net...
>> >
>> >> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
>> >> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
>> >
>> >Nope, that is simply not true.
>>
>> It is truly my opinion.
>>
>But it _really_ isn't true, objectively. The caveats are missing. It
>doesn't even rise to the level of truth of an incomplete statement. (Plus,
>I'd blame the Roman Republic.)
But it really IS true, subjectively, objectively and any other
jectively that you can think of ö¿ö
I expounded elsewhere and did blame the Romans... not the Republic,
but the Roman Catholic Church (which ended up wielding much more power
for much longer over more people than the Republic ever did). They
however didn't invent it out of whole cloth... they simply expanded on
Paul's lead. The Romans themselves, before they were enslaved
mentally by Christianity, were a pretty hedonistic lot.
And no, it doesn't need any caveats. Even if it isn't explicitly
preached today, it is implicitly. The message has become embedded in
our culture by repetition over the past 1500 years so deeply that it's
proven almost impossible to throw off for many people.
I'm not sure that any of us is entirely free of it's insidious
effects. Mostly I can ignore, but I can't deny, vague feelings of
guilt that have always been associated with sex of any type for me and
I by no means accept Christian beliefs.
I understand that you are Christian... and that you feel you must
defend your faith.
That is a good thing, but you can't accomplish that by denial. The
only religion in the entire world that has had as bad an attitude
about sex is the other. earlier cult that splintered off of that harsh
old nomadic desert tribal religion Judaism... Islam.
Look, even if the message "sex is bad" isn't a part of the flavor of
Christianity you believe in personally, the history is there for any
and everyone to see. Surely you can separate your own personally held
beliefs from the beliefs and practices of the Christian Church down
through the ages? You must realize that I am not attacking you, nor
am I trying to say what you believe.
Do you deny that the Church burned "witches" and "heretics" by the
thousands? Do you deny that the Church was the cause of that loss of
technology and scientific stagnation called "The Dark Ages"? Do you
deny that Christians have killed hundreds of thousands of people in
the name of Christ down through the centuries?
My original comment was about =one= of the evils that can be laid at
the feet of Chritianity... there are three more. Do you believe that
they are all there is?
Do any of those things invalidate your own personal faith? Do you
take exception and spring to the defense of Christianity whenever they
are mentioned?
"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not
understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do
understand." -- Mark Twain
Loree Thomas
>ltho...@uswest.net wrote:
>
>>What possible difference can it make to you what motive people assign
>>for your decisions?
>
>Because saying that it was primairly to have sex trivializes it and reinforces
>the idea that it's sexually driven and not identity driven.
So? Why does that matter? It wouldn't change your own knowledge if
some people thought that, would it?
>>Do you worry that some will think you became a chemist because you
>>were interested in creating illicit drugs?
>
>It annoyed me when my brother started joking about that (he was into drugs).
>
>>Do you worry that some will think you chose to settle (or remain) in
>>the Boston area because you like baked beans?
>
>Yes as a matter of fact because I don't like baked beans... but clam chowder is
>another matter! ;-)
>
>>In most areas of your personal life, what other people think has
>>absolutely no significance.
>
>Absolutely untrue. Humans are social animals . We do care what others think of
>us to some degree and how we are seen by society at large can affect many parts
>of our lives in practical ways.
Ouch. I think that it may be exactly this one thing that causes (or
is a symptom of what causes) 99.9% of your unhappiness.
I don't see how you can change... it seems so very deeply ingrained in
your personality.
I now see where that deep and abiding pessimism you express comes
from.
I vaguely remember feeling a pale shadow of that concern for "what
will they think" when I was in high school, but I had a high enough
self esteem to be able to go my own way... even when it was against
the grain of the rest of the herd.
I imagine that the decision to transition was probably the single most
difficult thing you have ever done in your entire life, feeling like
you do. No wonder you desire that stealth capability so strongly!
I truly believe at a gut level that for you, transition was literally
a "do or die" action, because there is no way that you could have
chosen to place yourself in such a position, given your feelings,
unless you truly would have died otherwise.
Trust me on this one Karen, your feelings are NOT universal. Some of
us manage to live quite comfortably without that feeling entirely.
Conformance to herd standards isn't the only way to function socially,
nor is it even the optimal way. I believe current psychological
thought on the matter is that it is one of the major factors in low
self esteem.
This also helps explain your lack of ability to truly empathize with
TGs.
I wouldn't want to be you for anything in the world. Your life must
be damn near as close to hell on earth as can be tolerated by any
human being. I weep for you and hope you find whatever magic you need
to enable you to get through this suffering and come out the other
side whole and complete.
Good luck and best wishes to you and yours in the coming year,
Loree Thomas
have had to re write it several times and have had to snip numerous
statements and arguments that could be construed as personal attacks.
almost 3 times as much has been snipped as remains
I know you don't believe it, but your assertion of sex=gender feels
like a personal attack against my very identity and places you firmly
among people that you despise. I expect that from some people, I
didn't expect that from you and thus the hurt and anger. You caught
me by surprise.
On 01 Jan 2000 06:00:11 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:
>ltho...@uswest.net wrote:
>
>I've offended people by saying this before. I hope you take it as it is meant
>and not read a non-existant subtext between the lines.
>
>I don't feel I know some one as a person until I've met and spent soem time
>with them in 3D. This is too limited a means of communiction to really get a
>good feel for a person - at least for me.
I can't feel offended by your self admited limitations, lack of
empathy and inability to translate from the asbstract (words on a CRT)
to the human.
I would feel very offended if someone were to suggest I had those same
limitations. Heck, I empathize with fictional characters in books...
and they are much less real to me than the people I talk with online.
Words have a tangible force and carry real impact for me... they can
inspire the entire range of emotions from horror and deep sadness all
the way to excitement and joy. I believe this is the common way that
people function, else there would be no fiction industry and authors.
I applauded your honesty in admitting such inability. I take it you
don't read fiction for pleasure then?
>
>>You can't be said to be exhibiting empathy if the other is exactly
>>like you... empathy implies an emotional understanding of that which
>>is foreign to yourself.
>
>If I see sombody hurting I don't need to understand why they are hurting to
>feel bad and want to help. It is nthose basic emotions that I canrealte to and
>have empathy for. I percive these emotions in 3D interactions not on-line
>discussion on teh nature of gender.
The real discussion here isn't an intellectual excersise about the
nature of gender for most of us, it's about feelings. Feelings that
you inadvertantly hurt with dogmatic assertaions that sex=gender. It
makes a trangendered identity nothing more than a lie.
Honestly... this isn't real hard to understand... and even if such
limited understanding is beyond your grasp, you could simply accept it
without understanding it...
>>Your opinions are valid. Your expression of them in this venue could
>>be questionable when they are anti TG... but not completely beyond the
>>pale.
>
>I don't see them as anti-TG. I'm not anti-TG. I think you know that.
I used to think so without question, you've caused me to question
that. I suppose you could be just totally self centered and unable to
look at any viewpoint other than your own, but I never thought that
about you either. It's what is making this so frustrating. You are
slowly working me into coming to the conclusion that you are so
damaged you are not capable of relating with others online at any
level other than as convienient repositories for your own agnst. All
take and no give... not a pretty picture. Please do something to help
me avoid that view.
It doesn't matter whether YOU see them as anti TG, it matters whether
TGs see them as anti TG. Intention is one thing, perception quite
another.
The fact is that TGs DO see the statement sex=gender as THE basic anti
TG statement. There really is no other. It what all other anti TG
statements are based on. That asserstion totally negates the validity
of a TG identity.
The TG identity is =based= on the concept that sex and gender are two
different things.
TGs exist.
Even if they aren't real to you, there is enough peer reviewed
scientific literature to support their existence that you can't deny
it. You are a scientist after all. Act like one.
If empathy won't do it, then look at the scientific body of knowledge.
See what the people who HAVE studied this say... re read good old HB.
Lets go with pure cold logic:
A TG is a human being whose gender is different from their sex. Basic
definition. If you can't accept this, then there is no hope for ever
reaching understanding.
TGs exist. The basic axiom. If you deny this, then there is no
possibility of ever reaching understanding. If you accept it, even
only intellectually, with no emotional understanding at all, then the
rest follows.
IF sex=gender THEN TGs can't exist.
THEREFORE sex<>gender.
This is something that each and every TG experiences every day of
their lives.
Stephe
Loree Thomas wrote in message
>>
>>Absolutely untrue. Humans are social animals . We do care what
others think of
>>us to some degree and how we are seen by society at large can
affect many parts
>>of our lives in practical ways.
>
>Ouch. I think that it may be exactly this one thing that causes
(or
>is a symptom of what causes) 99.9% of your unhappiness.
>
I saw this when she said "Self acceptance is a cop-out".. She is
trying to gain her acceptance/self worth though others and that
is setting yourself up to be abused as they seem fit.. This is
NOT a healthy way to live..
Stephe
Stephe
Loree Thomas wrote in message
>
>The fact is that TGs DO see the statement sex=gender as THE
basic anti
>TG statement. There really is no other. It what all other anti
TG
>statements are based on. That asserstion totally negates the
validity
>of a TG identity.
>
That's the very reason this stuff bothers me.. Yes my sex is
male. My gender on the other hand isn't that of a woman, but it
also isn't that of a man either.. So if sex=gender then where
does that leave me? This is basically saying "You're a man until
you have my surgery". I exist as a human that lives somewhere
between the gender poles yet people claim I must be one or the
other? Or that to be even somewhat gender different I must change
my body to match? Gender is in the mind and if I don't need to
change my body to feel comfortable in my chosen gender roll, why
can't some of the people here accept that? I accept their need to
have surgery/hormones as a appropriate thing for them yet for me
to express my gender as I see fit isn't a viable option (or even
is seen as wrong)? No I don't need their approval to "go on" but
like this thread says "I think it's very sad" that the people who
are the most able to understand, won't..
Stephe
KarenA1013
>I know you don't believe it, but your assertion of sex=gender feels
>like a personal attack against my very identity and places you firmly
>among people that you despise.
No I don't believe sex=gender.
What do I belive is that sex is the basis of gender, that the concept of gender
would notexist with sex. I believe that sex=gender is the typical result of
human development.
I believe that the uncoupling of sex and gender is a developmental error that
likely occured in utero in late pregnancy. The fact that this uncoupling can
occur is why sex doed not always equal gender.
Biological systems are complex things and the developmental process is subject
to the normal distibution. That means one would expect such uncouplings a
certain low percentage of the time - but it does not invalidate the link
between sex and gender.
I don't know if that detailed explanation of my beliefs on the issue makes any
difference to you or not. There is a subtle but very significant difference
between it and sex=gender.
>I would feel very offended if someone were to suggest I had those same
>limitations. Heck, I empathize with fictional characters in books...
>and they are much less real to me than the people I talk with online.
A novel gives a full picture of the emotional workings and much more detail on
their "lives" and situation and interactions with others. In a forum such as
this too much tends to be intellectual discussion with not enough detail to
give a rich enough flavor for the others life.
>Words have a tangible force and carry real impact for me... they can
>inspire the entire range of emotions from horror and deep sadness all
>the way to excitement and joy. I believe this is the common way that
>people function, else there would be no fiction industry and authors.
But the intention of the authoris to produce a work which does exactly those
things. That is the objective.
>I applauded your honesty in admitting such inability. I take it you
>don't read fiction for pleasure then?
I used to when young but don't find the time nor have the concentration levels
anymore.
>The real discussion here isn't an intellectual excersise about the
>nature of gender for most of us, it's about feelings. Feelings that
>you inadvertantly hurt with dogmatic assertaions that sex=gender. It
>makes a trangendered identity nothing more than a lie.
I don't think that at all. But you do touch on something important here. A
Transgender identity. My identity is woman not transgender. That is why I said
it all comes down to definitions in the end.
Those definitions do not invalidate anything but we need to have common
definitions of words for there to be meaningful communication.
>Honestly... this isn't real hard to understand... and even if such
>limited understanding is beyond your grasp, you could simply accept it
>without understanding it...
I do accept that the existance and lifestyle of TG's are valid. If I implied
otherwise I appologize.
>>I don't see them as anti-TG. I'm not anti-TG. I think you know that.
>
>I used to think so without question, you've caused me to question
>that.
>It doesn't matter whether YOU see them as anti TG, it matters whether
>TGs see them as anti TG. Intention is one thing, perception quite
>another.
In the end, I have no control over how someone precieves my words only my
intentions when writing them.
>The fact is that TGs DO see the statement sex=gender as THE basic anti
>TG statement
I was born male. I know that sex does not always equal gender identity from
first hand experience.
For me, a basic part of who I am is that it was not just gender role which felt
wrong but my physical sex. I don't mean that in the sense that my physical sex
detemined my expected gender role but in actual discomfort with being
physically male on it's own.
>The TG identity is =based= on the concept that sex and gender are two
>different things.
>
>TGs exist.
I know that and do not deny your existance.
>Lets go with pure cold logic:
>
>A TG is a human being whose gender is different from their sex. Basic
>definition.
That also appiles to TS's before SRS and is thus an incomplete definition. You
need to add "and have little need for conguence of sex and gender".
>TGs exist. The basic axiom. If you deny this, then there is no
>possibility of ever reaching understanding.
I never did deny it. You misunderstamd my position.
> If you accept it, even
>only intellectually, with no emotional understanding at all, then the
>rest follows.
And the rest is?
>IF sex=gender THEN TGs can't exist.
>THEREFORE sex<>gender.
As I explained IMO it's not nearly so simple and binary.
-Karen A.
KarenA1013
>>Because saying that it was primairly to have sex trivializes it and
reinforces
>>the idea that it's sexually driven and not identity driven.
>
>So? Why does that matter? It wouldn't change your own knowledge if
>some people thought that, would it?
It trivializes what being TS means for all TS's.
On a personal level it gives people an erronius piece of information about me.
I want those close to me to understand who I am.
>>Absolutely untrue. Humans are social animals . We do care what others think
>of
>>us to some degree and how we are seen by society at large can affect many
>parts
>>of our lives in practical ways.
>
>Ouch. I think that it may be exactly this one thing that causes (or
>is a symptom of what causes) 99.9% of your unhappiness.
Being a loner and cutting myself off from the human race for most of my life
wasthe source of that.
>I vaguely remember feeling a pale shadow of that concern for "what
>will they think" when I was in high school, but I had a high enough
>self esteem to be able to go my own way... even when it was against
>the grain of the rest of the herd.
I did not follow the heard either. I simply withdrew.
>I imagine that the decision to transition was probably the single most
>difficult thing you have ever done in your entire life, feeling like
>you do.
Yes it was. I've said I had to get to the edge of a breakdown to do it.
> No wonder you desire that stealth capability so strongly!
It's because I want to be trated and seen as the woman I am and identify as .
Often that dies not happen when people know even if they accept you as a good
and valuble human being. Those that were once out and then went stealth almost
universally say that.
>I truly believe at a gut level that for you, transition was literally
>a "do or die" action, because there is no way that you could have
>chosen to place yourself in such a position, given your feelings,
>unless you truly would have died otherwise.
Yes it was.
>Trust me on this one Karen, your feelings are NOT universal. Some of
>us manage to live quite comfortably without that feeling entirely.
It's a matter of identity. I identify as a female woman and wish to be treaded
as such. Your identity is different.
>Conformance to herd standards isn't the only way to function socially,
>nor is it even the optimal way.
Believe me in many areas I never have and never will.
>This also helps explain your lack of ability to truly empathize with
>TGs.
I can empathize with TG's although not with the lack of desire for SRS - but I
repect it.
-Karen A.
Jennifer Usher
Joann Prinzivalli <pjpr...@e-mail.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#hhwnFAV$GA.169@cpmsnbbsa05...
> That is overly broad - you probably should have put it as "sexual
> intercourse outside of marriage or intended for pleasure and not
procreation
> (though if intended for pleasure _and_ procreation, it's okay . . . for
> married people)"
Excellent points.
> (Though the Calvinistic types might leave out the pleasure part
altogether.)
Actually, the Calvinistic types would be more inclined to argue over whether
or not God predestined them to have sex. <g>
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> But it _really_ isn't true, objectively. The caveats are missing. It
> doesn't even rise to the level of truth of an incomplete statement. (Plus,
> I'd blame the Roman Republic.)
Again, I agree. It is a statement that simply indicates that the author has
no real knowledge of the subject matter.
--
Jennifer Usher
Loree Thomas
>ltho...@uswest.net wrote:
>>I know you don't believe it, but your assertion of sex=gender feels
>>like a personal attack against my very identity and places you firmly
>>among people that you despise.
>
>No I don't believe sex=gender.
Wow! Light! How cool.
>>I would feel very offended if someone were to suggest I had those same
>>limitations. Heck, I empathize with fictional characters in books...
>>and they are much less real to me than the people I talk with online.
>
>A novel gives a full picture of the emotional workings and much more detail on
>their "lives" and situation and interactions with others. In a forum such as
>this too much tends to be intellectual discussion with not enough detail to
>give a rich enough flavor for the others life.
Hmm.. I'd be willing to bet that we've both read more than a novels
worth of words written by each other. Much of it very deeply intimate
stuff... and all of it REAL as opposed to the made up lives and
thoughts of fictional characters. No, there is not enough detail in a
single post, nor in a month of posts (maybe... but when I post over
200 times in one month... that's quite a few words!) but we've been
reading each other online for over 3 years. I certainly know more
about your life than I know about any of my next door neighbors...
Heck, I know more about your life than I know about some of my
relatives.
>I do accept that the existance and lifestyle of TG's are valid. If I implied
>otherwise I appologize.
It's ok. I understand your explanation and see how the
misunderstanding came about.
>>The fact is that TGs DO see the statement sex=gender as THE basic anti
>>TG statement
>
>I was born male. I know that sex does not always equal gender identity from
>first hand experience.
Exactly. That was one of the things that had me puzzled from the
start.
>>IF sex=gender THEN TGs can't exist.
>>THEREFORE sex<>gender.
>As I explained IMO it's not nearly so simple and binary.
Hmm... I doubt there is a single TG in the world who would say sex
never equals gender. I don't believe that was ever implied. If this
whole thread and discussion were because you thought someone did state
that, then it truly would be sad.
I don't see how sex <> gender is either simple or binary. Indeed it
opens the door to multiple gender expressions and multiple sexual
identities. It is complexity it's self and multivalued.
Jennifer Usher
> But it really IS true, subjectively, objectively and any other
> jectively that you can think of ö¿ö
No Loree, it is a false statement, period.
Loree, I am going to be brutally blunt on this one. Your statement contains
as much truth as "Gay people have an agenda to recruit young people into
homosexuality." It is really, ultimately, not different. I know you think
it is, but it isn't. Both a statements that are truly believed by those
making them. Both are rooted in ignorance, and in almost every case, that
ignorance is deliberate. In another words, you want to believe this, and
nothing is going to stop you from believing it. Now, in the truest sense of
the word, that is bigotry. Not your "You disagree with me, so you are a
bigot," silliness. No, this is true, pure bigotry. Granted, it is
something we are all capable of, but it is also something we are able to
avoid, if we just will.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> That's it! The part between the asterisks! I think a number of people
out
> there are _not_ happy that "it" is there, but aren't tracking for SRS,
> because they are able to ignore it. If one doesn't plan to use it, and
> isn't planning to "use" the surgical replacement, either, the question
> becomes one of "why bother going through a dangerous, painful and
expensive
> surgical procedure."
Exactly. Of course, when one is sexual active, does not desire SRS, and
claims to be heterosexual, something is questionable.
> I am not trying to convince you that SRS is wrong for you. But that is a
> matter of degree of the intensity of the dysphoria.
In a sense, my need for SRS should not be that great. I may well not "use
it." But for the purposes of self-image, it is important.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Stephe, I have been following this thread, and I think you ought to
consider
> not pursuing it any farther. You have made your point, and keeping at it
is
> only going to be seen as mean.
>
> You and Karen are _both_ right about SRS.
>
> It _is_ cosmetic surgery; and it _is_ functional.
>
> Cosmetic to the extent that it only changes the appearance of the
genitals,
> but doesn't provide a complete reproductive system, and functional to the
> extent that it provides aproximately the same sort of function that is
> available to a born-woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.
I still, personally, do not see calling it "cosmetic." It actually does
bring about some serious changes in function, it is virtually irreversible,
and it can have a profound if contraindicated.
> A post-op M2F TS doesn't have menses, can't get pregnant, but neither can
> that post-hysterectomee, either.
>
> Both _are_ women, legally (except in parts of Texas where the judges
haven't
> evolved from being large ignorant primates yet), and functionally. The
> post-hysterectomee might _feel_ like less of a woman. (and hey, if it was
a
> him having the hysterectomy as part of an F2M procedure, that "feeling
less
> like a woman" part is a _good_ thing!)
>
> Stephe, your posts on this thread make it seem like all you want to do is
> convince other people that the way you see things is the only right way.
It
> is right for you, as I have pointed out in other threads where people are
> criticizing you.
I agree. I may not agree with what Stephe does, but would not try to stop
her.
> And Karen's way is right for her.
Again, I agree.
> The situation with Karen's wife's acceptance situation? I posted on that,
> and after making my points, I stopped. I wish Karen luck on that issue,
and
> envy her for what she _has_ - especially after going through my recent
> divorce. Expecting someone to change the way they feel in their heart is,
> in my opinion, asking more than one can reasonably expect. Acceptance,
yes,
> that is important, but it doesn't have to be so totally complete as to be
> Orwellian.
I actually understand where Karen is coming from. My situation is the
opposite. My wife sees me as a woman, and that is causing her pain. In a
way, it would be easier if she did not, but it is very affirming that she
does. Quite a Catch 22.
--
Jennifer Usher
Anon
>On 31 Dec 1995 06:38:51 -0500, jenni...@aol.com
(JenniSuzan) wrote:
"If, and only if, it can be PROVEN that sexual orientation
is genetic, or otherwise has a physical cause, would I
support any sort of granting of special rights. But, the
evidence so far, argues more strongly for it being a
choice. For example, many lesbians clearly choose that
orientation, if only for political reasons. Also, in the
past, choice was the accepted view among gays. I remember
quite well, that they argued that they had a right to
CHOOSE that lifestyle. I also remember responses to the
claim that they tried to recruit young boys, being
something like, no, we only recruit adults. Of course,
there was a time when the joke was, "My mother made me a
homosexual.... Really, can she make me one also?"
Jennifer Usher
> No Joann, we can't both be right as PC as you're trying to be
> here..
I disagree, Joan is NOT being PC. Not by a long shot.
> Joann this isn't even about how I live.. It's about post op TS's
> claiming "to be a woman one must first have female sex organs"..
> I have never claimed I'm a woman, but it does piss me off to see
> them bashing people who **are** women (some in a lot of ways more
> so than they are) yet don't need surgery to be whole.. Or do you
> want to stand with the binary gender people here? That's what
> Karen is saying and I don't buy it..
Okay, she hates the binary gender system, and, apparently, she hates anyone
who supports it. At least we are getting to the truth. The simple fact is,
some of us simply do not agree with her. If she cannot accept that fact,
perhaps she really should killfille everyone who has the audacity to not
agree with her.
> So you think it's fine for her to proclaim that one **must** be
> physically a female to be a woman? I accept her choice but it's
> fine for her to say no one can be a woman until they have HER
> surgery? Who's forcing their choices on whom here Joann? SHE is
> the one who is denying people their gender identity because their
> crotch doesn't look like her's does now.. And she isn't the only
> one here who does this on a regular basis.. Or did you miss the
> first post in this thread "I think it's very sad"? That's what
> this whole thread is about and you want to defend the people
> bashing TG's? You can't be on both sides at once here Joann..
First, Karen has never, to my knowledge, made such a statement. Second, she
is not denying anyone their gender identity. She is simply refusing, as I
very probably would in similar cases, to acknowledge such a person as a
woman.
And, the ironic thing is, Joan is also defending Stephe, who generally
bashes transsexuals.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Jennifer, you are entitled to your opinion on that, but again. look
between
> those asterisks. One can fall short of SRS and still not _want_ her sex
to
> be male, or _want_ to have a penis. Having it and being able to deal with
> it by pretty much ignoring it, is not the same as wanting it. So your
> formulation is correct, but your application may be seen as incorrect,
> because people will be reading into what you wrote.
The problem is, you actually understand, and agree with what I was saying,
and the point I was trying to make, but you don't seem to grasp that I was
making it. If someone has a penis, and they don't use it, that is one
thing. If they have a penis, and engage in any sort of sexual relation,
either with a male, claiming to be heterosexual, or with a woman, claiming
to be a lesbian, and they DON'T at least desire SRS, then that is where I
would say that they are not a woman. It is really that simple.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Now, this may seem like the thing about the tree in the forest making a
> sound, but I think the issue is really not whether one stands to pee, but
> that one who *doesn't put the seat back down* is one for whom claims to be
a
> woman are suspect. Having the penis, even if one doesn't want it, is one
> issue. But leaving the seat up is something *only* men do.
Good point. Of course, standing to pee in the ladies room, and I have heard
of it happening, is pretty stupid, even if you put the sear down. <g>
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Raising questions is much better than passing judgment.
Exactly. And even if I came to the conclusion that someone was not a woman,
I have the good sense to recognize that this is MY conclusion. That others
might well differ.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Loree, don't give up yet - Jennifer's "key fact" is "_want_ to have a
> penis."
Exactly.
> Transgenderists, by and large, would probably prefer to have been
> born-women. I don't know of any full-timer who really _wants_ the penis
> that she has. It's more of a burden than anything else. If one can deal
> with it, it doesn't make one less of a woman than the one who _must_ have
it
> inverted, just a differen sort of woman.
Well, it is more than simply being able to live with it. In fact, I would
say, unless you can honestly live without it, one is not a woman.
> (Yes, most postops still have their penis - it has just been inverted and
> most of the erectile tissue removed (and in a real good surgery, part of
the
> erectile tissue is retained) - it's just called a neovagina. Some do
prefer
> the surgery that uses a colon section because of the mucus secretion,
which
> is a bit different - I have talked to a couple who had it done that way
and
> they're more than satisfied.)
Actually, even those who have had the colon section still retain a part of
their penis. But, then again, the clitoris of a genetic female is very
similar to the penis, so that is to be expected. Actually, I lean heavily
towards the colon surgery. But most doctors either do not do it at all, or
they do it only as a secondary procedure when penile inversion fails.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> There was a grin there, a *big* one. I saw it.
Given its placement, I did not see it as relevant.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
KarenA1013 <karen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000101002529...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> >What possible difference can it make to you what motive people assign
> >for your decisions?
>
> Because saying that it was primairly to have sex trivializes it and
reinforces
> the idea that it's sexually driven and not identity driven.
That is such an obvious concept, that I can't understand why anyone would
ask. Then again, some people simply do not grasp that this is about
identity, since they really are not transsexuals, and they really are not
women.
> I did not have SRS to have sex with a man. There is nothing wrong with
wanting
> to have sex and having sex. As a matter of fact I will be very sorry if I
never
> get the chance to have that experence.
I honestly understand where you are coming from.
> >Do you worry that some will think you became a chemist because you
> >were interested in creating illicit drugs?
>
> It annoyed me when my brother started joking about that (he was into
drugs).
Actually, if I were in that position, I would find that very insulting also.
> >Do you worry that some will think you chose to settle (or remain) in
> >the Boston area because you like baked beans?
> Yes as a matter of fact because I don't like baked beans... but clam
chowder is
> another matter! ;-)
One of the reasons I wanted to leave Florida, and return to Alabama was that
I missed certain local foods. <g>
> >In most areas of your personal life, what other people think has
> >absolutely no significance.
> Absolutely untrue. Humans are social animals . We do care what others
think of
> us to some degree and how we are seen by society at large can affect many
parts
> of our lives in practical ways.
This is very true. Loree's remarks sounds like someone who feels largely
rejected, and who is compensating for it.
> >I hypothesize the only reason possible for your expressed feeling is
> >that you are completely brainwashed by the Christian concept of "sex
> >is bad" and are worried that wanting sex with men IS part of the
> >reason you wanted SRS.
>
> Well no matter what i say, unless I agree with you, you will believe I am
brain
> washed. So it makes no sense for me to comment on that.
Funny, that is how I feel about Loree also. And that is the source of much
of the friction between us.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> So? Why does that matter? It wouldn't change your own knowledge if
> some people thought that, would it?
It is not the truth. Why shouldn't we care?
> >Absolutely untrue. Humans are social animals . We do care what others
think of
> >us to some degree and how we are seen by society at large can affect many
parts
> >of our lives in practical ways.
>
> Ouch. I think that it may be exactly this one thing that causes (or
> is a symptom of what causes) 99.9% of your unhappiness.
No, Karen is quite correct. To say otherwise, implies that someone has
reached a point where they feel so rejected, that they reject society in
return. It is a common defense mechanism, as I have been there myself.
But, in my case, I figured out why I felt rejected, and have acted
accordingly. Acceptance is actually much more pleasant than being a
"rebel."
> I don't see how you can change... it seems so very deeply ingrained in
> your personality.
Why should she?
> I now see where that deep and abiding pessimism you express comes
> from.
Why do you feel this need to see yourself as superior, if you are so
"self-accepting?"
> I vaguely remember feeling a pale shadow of that concern for "what
> will they think" when I was in high school, but I had a high enough
> self esteem to be able to go my own way... even when it was against
> the grain of the rest of the herd.
Actually Loree, I have wonder if you really have any self-esteem at all.
> I imagine that the decision to transition was probably the single most
> difficult thing you have ever done in your entire life, feeling like
> you do. No wonder you desire that stealth capability so strongly!
You know, it always amazes me that some cannot seem to grasp the simple fact
that a lot of transsexuals simply wish to be women, nothing more.
> I truly believe at a gut level that for you, transition was literally
> a "do or die" action, because there is no way that you could have
> chosen to place yourself in such a position, given your feelings,
> unless you truly would have died otherwise.
You really just don't get it.
> Trust me on this one Karen, your feelings are NOT universal. Some of
> us manage to live quite comfortably without that feeling entirely.
> Conformance to herd standards isn't the only way to function socially,
> nor is it even the optimal way. I believe current psychological
> thought on the matter is that it is one of the major factors in low
> self esteem.
It must have really hurt when you were rejected by your peers.
> This also helps explain your lack of ability to truly empathize with
> TGs.
Actually, I don't think she lacks that ability. Nor do I. We simply don't
see your position and behavior as correct.
> I wouldn't want to be you for anything in the world. Your life must
> be damn near as close to hell on earth as can be tolerated by any
> human being. I weep for you and hope you find whatever magic you need
> to enable you to get through this suffering and come out the other
> side whole and complete.
Actually Loree, I think both Karen and I would feel the same about your
life. I really think a lot of what I see from you is an attempt to cope
with not fitting in.
Darn, now you've got me playing armchair psychiatrist too. Oh well,
hypocrisy must be considered a virtue in this newsgroup. I mean, it seems
one of the most commonly practiced acts here.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> I saw this when she said "Self acceptance is a cop-out".. She is
> trying to gain her acceptance/self worth though others and that
> is setting yourself up to be abused as they seem fit.. This is
> NOT a healthy way to live..
Actually, I think I understand what Karen means, and I agree. Healthy
people gain acceptance and self worth through others, and that is the basis
for their self acceptance. But, some, who maybe don't fit in, decide to
take a sort of sour grapes approach, and reject society's approval,
literally acting in ways intended to make themselves "outcasts," deriving a
certain twisted satisfaction from the rejection they encounter. This is
actually not unlike some fringe religions who are taught that the fact that
society does not agree with them proves their "holiness."
--
Jennifer Usher
KarenA1013
>Hmm... I doubt there is a single TG in the world who would say sex
>never equals gender. I don't believe that was ever implied.
My point is that there is a *very* strong relatioship between sex and gender,
it's just not absolute. That very much different than saying "sex never equals
gender".
That indeed is what this thread in my view is about.
-Karen A.
Suzan Cooke
Loree Thomas wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:29:17 GMT, sli...@bitch.net (grrl@petal) wrote:
>
> >On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:
> >
> >>sco...@pacbell.net
> >>
> >>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
> >
> >>
> >>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
> >>because they think that is why I had SRS.
> >
> >I got mine because I was playing truth or dare and I'm a patent liar.
> >
> >I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced lie. And
> >then they really don't get it, hets that is. Not like I do }8-)
>
> I've looked at this queer vs het thing from all sides... and no matter
> how I look at it, or who I'm attracted to, there doesn't seem to be
> any escaping the fact that I am indeed queer as a 3 dollar bill... but
> much more fun!
>
> Hugs,
> Loree
>
> "Immortality: My long life ambition."
I hear that. Let's face if no matter what are genital are shaped like some
one is going to think we are queer. The sex of our partner doesn't really matter
either.
It's like the phrase "Down by law.". We're "Queer by law". I sat down one
day and thought about it and realized that the only way I could really be
homosexual would be with an other post-op sister. Further the only way I could
be really considered heterosexual is with apost-op brother and that my dear
sisters and brothers is probably the queerest of all.
21st Century TranZGrrlla
Suzy
Suzan Cooke
KarenA1013 wrote:
> >What possible difference can it make to you what motive people assign
> >for your decisions?
>
> Because saying that it was primairly to have sex trivializes it and reinforces
> the idea that it's sexually driven and not identity driven.
Karen, a major reason for my getting surgery was so I could have vaginal
intercourse. Hell, I'll even say it was the main reason. The surgery didn't make
me a woman, living woman and being woman made me woman.
> I did not have SRS to have sex with a man. There is nothing wrong with wanting
> to have sex and having sex. As a matter of fact I will be very sorry if I never
> get the chance to have that experence.
Well then have sex with a man already as Valerie Solanis put it in "Scum
Manifesto", "Men will wade nostril deep through a mile of puke if they think they
can find a friendly welcoming pussy on the otherside.".
> >In most areas of your personal life, what other people think has
> >absolutely no significance.
> Absolutely untrue. Humans are social animals . We do care what others think of
> us to some degree and how we are seen by society at large can affect many parts
> of our lives in practical ways.
No Karen it is true. You are way too driven by fear of what others think. You
let it torture you. You wife is still with you and hasn't demanded a divorce in
which she could have taken you to the cleaners, especially because of her
difficulties yet you agonize that she doesn't accet you as *truly* a woman. I have
a hell of a time understanding what you mean by the *truly* part when so much of
your writing show such non-acceptance of yourself.
Others acct us as we want to be accepted only after we start accepting our
selves.
> >I hypothesize the only reason possible for your expressed feeling is
> >that you are completely brainwashed by the Christian concept of "sex
> >is bad" and are worried that wanting sex with men IS part of the
> >reason you wanted SRS.
>
> Well no matter what i say, unless I agree with you, you will believe I am brain
> washed. So it makes no sense for me to comment on that.
>
> -Karen A.
Why is it wrong to want SRS to have vaginal sex, be it with a man or a woman?
21st Century TranZGrrlla
Suzy
Jennifer Usher
> No games. I will state uniquivically that sex is the basis of gender. If
there
> were no physical sexes the concept of gender would not exist. For the
vast
> majority of the human race, sex and gender are pretty much in sync.
Quite true.
> My gender is and was female, my sex was male and that felt wrong. My
problem
> was not just with gender role but physical sex.
Well put.
> I can understand intellectually that some people who are male and prefer
to
> stay male may not be happy in the male gender role and perfer the female
one.
Exactly.
> The rest gets down to agreeing on the definition of the word woman.
It is ALL about definitions.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> I know you don't believe it, but your assertion of sex=gender feels
> like a personal attack against my very identity and places you firmly
> among people that you despise. I expect that from some people, I
> didn't expect that from you and thus the hurt and anger. You caught
> me by surprise.
Loree, I know you don't believe it, but disagreeing with you is not the same
as a personal attack on you. You have a problem with this. You are doing
Karen the same way you have done me, and are beginning to do to Joann.
> I can't feel offended by your self admited limitations, lack of
> empathy and inability to translate from the asbstract (words on a CRT)
> to the human.
And yet, you try to be as offensive as possible. Strange.
> I would feel very offended if someone were to suggest I had those same
> limitations. Heck, I empathize with fictional characters in books...
> and they are much less real to me than the people I talk with online.
And yoiu don't think Karen is offended? Actually Loree, you do lack those
qualities. You clearly cannot empathize with transsexuals.
> Words have a tangible force and carry real impact for me... they can
> inspire the entire range of emotions from horror and deep sadness all
> the way to excitement and joy. I believe this is the common way that
> people function, else there would be no fiction industry and authors.
>
>
> I applauded your honesty in admitting such inability. I take it you
> don't read fiction for pleasure then?
Again, why are you so offensive?
> The real discussion here isn't an intellectual excersise about the
> nature of gender for most of us, it's about feelings. Feelings that
> you inadvertantly hurt with dogmatic assertaions that sex=gender. It
> makes a trangendered identity nothing more than a lie.
Feelings can be deceptive. We are talking about objective fact.
> Honestly... this isn't real hard to understand... and even if such
> limited understanding is beyond your grasp, you could simply accept it
> without understanding it...
I don't know about Karen, but I refuse to pander to you.
> I used to think so without question, you've caused me to question
> that. I suppose you could be just totally self centered and unable to
> look at any viewpoint other than your own, but I never thought that
> about you either. It's what is making this so frustrating. You are
> slowly working me into coming to the conclusion that you are so
> damaged you are not capable of relating with others online at any
> level other than as convienient repositories for your own agnst. All
> take and no give... not a pretty picture. Please do something to help
> me avoid that view.
In another words, she disagrees with, and should therefore be attacked.
> It doesn't matter whether YOU see them as anti TG, it matters whether
> TGs see them as anti TG. Intention is one thing, perception quite
> another.
>
> The fact is that TGs DO see the statement sex=gender as THE basic anti
> TG statement. There really is no other. It what all other anti TG
> statements are based on. That asserstion totally negates the validity
> of a TG identity.
I really don't care if you think it is anti-TG or not. It is an opinion
that is held by some. I think YOUR statements are anti-TS, but I don't
start whining about it.
> The TG identity is =based= on the concept that sex and gender are two
> different things.
Actually, I don't think Karen has said otherwise. They are two different
things. But, they are not remotely unrelated. Let's be honest, That is
REALLY what you mean. That sex and gender have no relationship to each
other. And that is, quite simply, a major load of manure.
> TGs exist.
So?
> Even if they aren't real to you, there is enough peer reviewed
> scientific literature to support their existence that you can't deny
> it. You are a scientist after all. Act like one.
The literature, again, does not support your claim. In this case, the word
"transgender" turns up nine hits on Medline. None of which fit what you
claim.
> If empathy won't do it, then look at the scientific body of knowledge.
> See what the people who HAVE studied this say... re read good old HB.
I just did. It did not help your case.
> Lets go with pure cold logic:
>
> A TG is a human being whose gender is different from their sex. Basic
> definition. If you can't accept this, then there is no hope for ever
> reaching understanding.
No Loree, that is a transsexual.
> TGs exist. The basic axiom. If you deny this, then there is no
> possibility of ever reaching understanding. If you accept it, even
> only intellectually, with no emotional understanding at all, then the
> rest follows.
You are coopting the definition of transsexual.
> IF sex=gender THEN TGs can't exist.
>
> THEREFORE sex<>gender.
That is, of course, the worst example of circular reasoning I have EVER
seen.
> This is something that each and every TG experiences every day of
> their lives.
Poppycock. Transgender is a made up term to try to provide a blanket term
for what some call the "Gender Community." It is a term that is supposed to
encompass everyone from drag queens to transsexuals. Are you saying that
drag queens, or CDs, or fetishtic TVs (all covered by the term Trangendered"
have a *gender* that is at odds with their physical sex? Perhaps you are
foolish enough to make that claim. But, if you do, it renders your basis
for you position as totally without merit.
--
Jennifer Usher