womyn born womyn
julie cox
relation to TS women? TS women are born women but in male bodies. So
for those who want to exclude TS women that phrase becomes useless.
There is a type of intersexuality where the person is genotypically
male but phenotypically female --- genetically male, physically female
(rough translation from the biologic ;) ). How do I know, having been
born with ovaries, etc., that I'm not intersexed? Chromosomally I
could be male. Like most people, I've not had my chromosomes checked.
So I've got the right parts (so to speak) but I may not have the
right pedigree (genes)...
Is every apparent man a man? And every apparent woman a woman?
These questions leave out many TG people, many intersexed people.
julie in Nebraska
jc...@unlinfo.unl.edu
JillGoddes
>Has anyone else really thought about this "womyn born womyn" phrase in
>relation to TS women? TS women are born women but in male bodies. >So
for those who want to exclude TS women that phrase becomes >useless.
It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men. As
such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
never know. Men are socialized much differently than women. I believe
that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
Jillian
NetNorth
>priveledge of being treated as men by society for at least some period of
>time. This is why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
What does one have to do with the other? Why is that a reason to shut out
a women? Are we setting up a fallacious hierarchy of victimage here? Who
gets the boot next? What good does all this do? What result does it
produce other than fracturing the community...and perhaps leveling some
misdirected petty revenge?
To Walk Among The Piglets
>On 23 Apr 1996, jc...@unlinfo.unl.edu (julie cox) wrote:
>>Has anyone else really thought about this "womyn born womyn" phrase in
>>relation to TS women? TS women are born women but in male bodies. >So
>for those who want to exclude TS women that phrase becomes >useless.
>It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men. As
>such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
>never know.
Yeah, and I grew up enjoying white privilege and middle class privilege
and effete eastern intellectual privilege, etc. Emphasis on "enjoyed".
TS's don't "enjoy" male privilege, otherwise they'd still be men, eh.
Piglet
P.S. "Still be men" isn't quite what I mean. I think "be men" is
closer. But I'm not sure. Language is hard. Let's go shopping.
Rochelle Mazar
I believe
> that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
> being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
> why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
> Jillian
i have a friend called francie...she has short hair, and a thin, athletic
body. i met her when i was in high school. we used to hold hands around my
high school, just for kicks...to see what would happen. well, she came to
see me play at a school concert once, and she was sitting with me and the
girl i was performing with before we went on. we were chatting, you know,
whatever, and after a while, the girl i was performing with turned to
francie and said, "you know, before i met you i thought you were a girl."
well, she is a girl. no wonder no one said anything about us holding
hands...she is often mistaken for a guy. so, in this instance, francie was
"for some period of time" treated as a man. can she go to the festival?
rochelle, shaking her head at this argument
Jeannette Wilson
>
>It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men. As
>such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
>that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
>being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
>why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
I'm glad I had the "privilidge" of getting the shit beat out of me,
being called a fag, having my supervisor tell me about the affair he's
having (he'd been married only 6 months at the time!), not finding a
good job because I dressed weird, losing ALL my girlfriends when I
told them just HOW weird I dressed, yes indeed tell me ALL about that
privilidge that I enjoyed.
Jeannette, getting so damned *sick* of lesbians she has now found a
boyfriend, just to see if THAT's any better.
--
Oh I wake in the morning and I step outside, Jeannette Wilson
take a deep breath and I get real high, Out & Proud
then I scream from the top of my lungs Lesbian, Polyamorous, Pagan
"WHAT'S GOING ON?" j...@eagle.ais.net
Sammie L. Foss
jillg...@aol.com (JillGoddes) writes:
>It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men. As
>such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
>never know. Men are socialized much differently than women. I believe
>that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
>being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
>why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
that comes with being in 'women's space'. Why do you want to
keep them from experiencing this portion of womanhood?
I was born on a farm in rural South Georgia. I am the youngest
of 4 children and was raised pretty much as my father's '2nd son'.
I have never allowed societies expectations of what a woman
should be enter in my definition of what I am, as a woman.
I wasn't really socialized as a 'girl' and did 'boy things'
all of my life. I have never done 'women's work' and wasn't expected
to growing up. I was too busy plowing the fields and tending to the
animals. I have never suffered any blatant or suttle discrimination
because I am a woman. I suppose you would try to keep me out of
the MWMF too, eh?
With all due respect, *ahem* Fuck off!
Sammie
Tara Marchand
jc...@unlinfo.unl.edu (julie cox) wrote:
: There is a type of intersexuality where the person is genotypically
: (rough translation from the biologic ;) ).
This is called androgen insensitivity, or testicular feminization,
syndrome. Basically, the person has an X and a Y chromosome, which would
make the person genetically male. A gene on the Y chromosome (the testis
determining factor) causes the development of testes instead of ovaries.
The testes produce and secrete testosterone. However, people with this
condition either lack or have dysfunctional androgen (including
testosterone) receptors, so these people end up with female-appearing
internal and external genitalia.
: How do I know, having been
: born with ovaries, etc., that I'm not intersexed? Chromosomally I
: could be male. Like most people, I've not had my chromosomes checked.
If you have ovaries, then you can't be XY. ;)
Tara
--
Tara R. Marchand
t_ma...@psych.ucsb.edu http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/~t_marcha/
Tara Marchand
jillg...@aol.com (JillGoddes) wrote:
: It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men.
No trait's due completely to environmental influences. Likewise,
nothing's caused entirely by biological factors, either. Every quality is
affected by both. Re transsexuals, there's been some interesting research
that's found differences in brain structure between transsexuals and
non-transssexuals. (I can provide details if anyone's interested.)
Sammie L. Foss
In article <1.e7i#k2$7...@one.net>
j...@ais.net (Jeannette Wilson) writes:
>Jeannette, getting so damned *sick* of lesbians she has now found a
>boyfriend, just to see if THAT's any better.
I understand your frustration, considering the lesbians
you have had the 'pleasure' of meeting recently, but the above is
just as ridiculous as the post that prompted it.
>then I scream from the top of my lungs Lesbian, Polyamorous, Pagan
your new sexuality.
Sammie, disappointed.
Sammie L. Foss
In article <1.7?3#k2j{4...@one.net>
pig...@panix.com (To Walk Among The Piglets) writes:
>Yeah, and I grew up enjoying white privilege and middle class privilege
>and effete eastern intellectual privilege, etc. Emphasis on "enjoyed".
>TS's don't "enjoy" male privilege, otherwise they'd still be men, eh.
>
>closer. But I'm not sure. Language is hard. Let's go shopping.
men, instead of proclaiming their womanhood, eh?
Shopping is hard. Let's go water skiing.
Sammie
D. L. Scott
JillGoddes wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 1996, jc...@unlinfo.unl.edu (julie cox) wrote:
>
> >Has anyone else really thought about this "womyn born womyn" phrase in
> >relation to TS women? TS women are born women but in male bodies. >So
> for those who want to exclude TS women that phrase becomes >useless.
>
> such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
> never know. Men are socialized much differently than women. I believe
> that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
> being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
> why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
>
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
As a post-op male-to-female transexual (and lesbian), I know all too well
that for me and other TS's being born with the wrong gentitalia was sure
no privilege. Being treated as male by society was like having salt rubbed
into a gaping wound. Society's treatment of us is the primary reason why the
suicide rate of TS's is so astronomical. Like many other TS's, I made two
serious attempts at suicide and came dangerously close to succeeding.
The so-called "womyn born womyn" policy is simple and blatant discrimination.
My birth certificate, passport and driver's license all correctly list my
gender as "female". No one, including the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival,
has the right to discriminate against me. The "womyn born womyn" policy is
wrong, ludicrous and impossible to accurately enforce. To enforce this
discriminatory policy, someone has to look at another woman and make a
judgement soley upon the woman's appearance about whether or not she is TS.
I know genetic women who could easily fail such a test and TS women who
could easily pass such an idiotic test.
If the Michigan festival, reverts to their discriminatory policy of the
past, you will find me and other women (including both genetic and TS
women) at Camp Trans, located across the road from the festival entrance.
Whether the organizers of the Michigan festival will admit it or not, I AM a
womyn and I was BORN a womyn. It's time they wake up and join the rest of us
in the real world.
See ya,
Deni Scott - The Western Pennsylvania Transexual Menace
Kate
> >Has anyone else really thought about this "womyn born womyn" phrase in
> >relation to TS women? TS women are born women but in male bodies. >So
> for those who want to exclude TS women that phrase becomes >useless.
>
> It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men. As
> such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
> never know. Men are socialized much differently than women. I believe
> that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
> being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
> why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
>
> Jillian
I wish you would cut this male priveledge crap. In relationship to a TS
I'm sure it didn't feel like such a priveledge. All you have
accomplished is putting someone down so you can go to a festival and
feel "good" about it. And I for one take offense to the slight.
Haven't we all faced enough of these discriminitory excuses. I mean
really...what is the point? We damn discrimination against us for being
lesbians, women, minorities and then many of us turn around and do the
same thing to another lesser group. What is the point? What is the
purpose?
Simply to discriminate...that's what it is. It seems that people always
have to have some group lower on the list then the one they belong to.
How is it you function in society every day, with all those other
people around you. One can only wonder.
I also wonder how people can learn from mistakes if they are so willing
to turn around and repeat the same bad ones over, and over, and over.
Well I certainly wouldn't want anybody (lesbians born lesbians that is)
here to feel uncomfortable, at a womens music festival. If you feel
strongly about discrimination - don't go. If you feel - Oh well what
the hell...they got to draw the line somewhere...I hope you have a good
time.
ju...@yetter.com
julie cox wrote:
>
> There is a type of intersexuality where the person is genotypically
> male but phenotypically female --- genetically male, physically female
> born with ovaries, etc., that I'm not intersexed? Chromosomally I
> could be male. Like most people, I've not had my chromosomes checked.
> right pedigree (genes)...
There is a genetic condition where a person can be XY chromosomally, but
phenotypically female. I can't recall the name of the condition (it
changes periodically), but basically it's a mutation in the gene on the
Y chromosome that allows the body to recognize the androgens that key
male development (testosterone, etc.)
It has been eight years or so since I had this in class, so I'm not
remembering all the key points of this. I can't recall if it was this
syndrome, or another, where the vagina is blind (just sort of ends,
without a uterus) and the gonads are just lumps of tissue (that really,
really need to come out before they go malignant)...I'm pretty sure it's
another syndrome. Logically, without the ability to recognize
testosterone, the body should be a perfectly functional female. Now I'm
gonna have to go out to my storage shed and hunt down my textbooks! :P
Anyway, aside from having your chromosomes checked, I can't think of a
way to identify this. (I used to keep a copy of my karyotype on my door
-- I took a picture of a bunch of my chromosomes and cut them out and
pasted them in the little slots identifying chromosome 1, 2, etc. -- it
was for the doofuses who used to make fun of me by telling me I looked
like a boy....I'd just point to it and say, "Look! Two X chromosomes!
Go look it up!")
Hope I shed a little light...
Jude
Adrienne J. Davis
On 25 Apr 1996, Jeannette Wilson wrote:
> Date: 25 APR 1996 10:27:32 -0400
> From: Jeannette Wilson <j...@ais.net>
> Newgroups: usenet.soc.women.lesbian-and-bi
> Subject: Re: womyn born womyn
>
> In article <1.?zv_k...@one.net>, JillGoddes <jillg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> I'm glad I had the "privilidge" of getting the shit beat out of me,
> being called a fag, having my supervisor tell me about the affair he's
> having (he'd been married only 6 months at the time!), not finding a
> good job because I dressed weird, losing ALL my girlfriends when I
> told them just HOW weird I dressed, yes indeed tell me ALL about that
> privilidge that I enjoyed.
Jeanette,
Calm down! Firstly, *everyone* has a hard time of it, it's not some
special punishment being visited by you. I understand that it's tough
and I, for one, have some fundamental disagreements with the MMWF policy
<one of which being lack of honesty>. But your message doesn't begin to
address the issues. Any woman could say the same kinds of things. Some
of us have been called worse than 'fag', some of us have been raped, lost
children, famly, jobs, etc. Saying 'Hey! I've had a hard time too!' may
or may not hold up well. I'm sorry that these things happened to you and
other people, but exactly who lied to you and told you life was sweet and
easy? It ain't, understand that, suga. This is a *hard* life and the
best you can hope for is that you'll have lived well and be surrounded by
people when you die. Get that into your head, suga.
Secondly, this game of 'comparative oppression' is just tired. Look, I
could, if I chose to, claim some form of ultimate victimization 'cuz I've
had a *real* hard life! But I try real hard not to. The things that
I've survived have made me stronger, not weaker. My pain doesn't
diminish one whit the pain of another who is oppressed. Those things
that we who are survivors have triumphed over make us more deserving of
respect than pity.
Argue the right or wrong of a thing, not that it hurts your feelings.
AJ
IGC Networks-- PeaceNet/EcoNet/ConflictNet/LaborNet/WomensNet
Presidio Building 1012, 1st Floor
P.O. Box 29904, San Francisco, CA 94129-0904 415-561-6100
Adrienne J. Davis--Help Desk Technician ajda...@igc.apc.org
http://www.igc.apc.org/ajdavis PGP Public Key Available
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
We are not just ourselves floating in space and time. We are the
collective works of our ancestors---physical, mental, and spiritual.
Ayana Craven
In article <1./xw#k2...@one.net>,
Tara Marchand <t_ma...@psych.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>jillg...@aol.com (JillGoddes) wrote:
>: It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men.
>
>No trait's due completely to environmental influences. Likewise,
>nothing's caused entirely by biological factors, either. Every quality is
>affected by both. Re transsexuals, there's been some interesting research
>that's found differences in brain structure between transsexuals and
>non-transssexuals. (I can provide details if anyone's interested.)
I'd appreciate some citations, actually. I can look up the sources
myself, if you would be so kind as to provide the citations.
Thanks,
Ayana, not-a-mod
--
ay...@panix.com Ayana Craven work: crav...@pid.com
"Acquaintances only take up the space,
my friends are the ones who'll say it to my face" Ann Reed
Robin Shannon Brookstone
Right on Sis! I agree with you 100%! I had my srs on March
26th with Dr. Schrang. I think this issue is pure BS! Lisa, a
beautiful genetically born woman psychologist ( no one would
ever mistake her for a TS ) , who's been leading groups at
our local gender center here for a couple of years, went to
the festival and purposely told them she was a TS! They
kicked her out & she helped out at camp trans!
Later, I understand they finally canned this stupid policy!
Thanks for sticking up for what's right!
Robin Shannon Brookstone
>Perhaps another criticism of the phrase as a way to exclude
>TS women is to
>look at the self-contradiction in the way it's used. The
>usual argument for
>it seems to be that nobody who's been socialized as a man
>can ever be
>considered to be a woman. But if socialization is what
>makes a woman, and if
>nobody is born socialized, then how can *anybody* be born
>"womyn"?
This is the best argument I've heard yet on this issue!
Thanks!
Tara Marchand
ay...@panix.com (Ayana Craven) wrote:
: I'd appreciate some citations, actually. I can look up the sources
: myself, if you would be so kind as to provide the citations.
Here you go...
Zhou, J., Hofman, M. A., Gooren, L. J. G., & Swaab, D. F. (1995). A
sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality.
_Nature_, 378, 68-70.
And there's a discussion of this study in the same issue of _Nature_.
Breedlove, S. M. (1995). Another important organ. _Nature_, 378, 15-16.
Jeannette Wilson
Gee, Sammie, one of the things hurled at me as to *how* my life was
different from other ***lesbians*** was that I had never gone to bed
with men, nor had to question my own ideas of what I really want.
Once more, I do something to correct the situation, and I get
lambasted by another lesbian for not doing things *her* way. Can YOU
say, damned if I do and damned if I don't? Gee, it's like deja vu all
over again.
Jeannette>
--
Oh I wake in the morning and I step outside, Jeannette Wilson
take a deep breath and I get real high, Out & Proud
then I scream from the top of my lungs Lesbian, Polyamorous, Pagan
Anne Marie Atencio
Jeannette Wilson (j...@ais.net) wrote:
: Gee, Sammie, one of the things hurled at me as to *how* my life was
: different from other ***lesbians*** was that I had never gone to bed
: with men, nor had to question my own ideas of what I really want.
: Once more, I do something to correct the situation, and I get
: lambasted by another lesbian for not doing things *her* way. Can YOU
: say, damned if I do and damned if I don't? Gee, it's like deja vu all
: over again.
I do recollect the remark you're citing. I believe what Andrea(?) was
saying at the time was that we are all socialized heterosexually. As
such, most (I'd say all, but it never pays to speak in absolutes)
lesbians have felt pressure to sleep with men. This is not to say that
all have. However, were they doing so in response to said pressure, I
doubt they would be self-identifying as lesbian.
This is not to say that there are not lesbians who sleep with men. I
know women who consider themselves woman-centered and, therefore,
lesbians despite the fact that they occasionally like to get their itch
scratched elsewhere.
Anne Marie
ju...@yetter.com
julie cox wrote:
> There is a type of intersexuality where the person is genotypically
> male but phenotypically female --- genetically male, physically female
> (rough translation from the biologic ;) ). How do I know, having been
> born with ovaries, etc., that I'm not intersexed? Chromosomally I
> could be male. Like most people, I've not had my chromosomes checked.
> So I've got the right parts (so to speak) but I may not have the
> right pedigree (genes)...
AH-HA! I found the info I needed to answer this correctly:
*313700 TESTICULAR FEMINIZATION SYNDROME; TFM
CLINICAL SYNOPSIS
GU :
Testicular feminization
Males with female external genitalia
Perineal hypospadias
Blind vagina
Absent uterus and female adnexa
Abdominal or inguinal testes
Thorax :
Female breast development
Abdomen :
Inguinal hernia
Hair :
Absent pubic and axillary hair
No temporal balding
No beard
Voice :
Prepubertal voice
Misc :
Breast asymmetry in carrier females
Lab :
Normal male (46,XY) karyotype
End-organ unresponsiveness to androgen
DHT receptor deficient or receptor-DHT complex ineffective
Inheritance :
X-linked (Xq11-Xq12)
I pulled this out of Victor McKusick's Online Mendelian Inheritance in
Man (grrr, ol' Vic needs to change the name of his book).
This entry has an *EXTENSIVE* literary review, so I couldn't wade
through it in my limited time. However, one of the quotes in the
mini-MIM is: "The phenotype is often voluptuously feminine." In fact, I
vaguely recall one of my professors saying that a study done several
years ago found that quite a few models turned out to have TFM! Wish I
could remember that reference!
Just thought I'd throw hardcore genetics into the middle of this. :))
Jude
Gabe
To Julie (the first poster)...Thanks for bringing
up something that needs, desparately, to be discussed.
And for being so succinct.
To Jill: Socialization *is* a big deal, but
where does it place all those TG dykes who act
more masculine than a lot of men? You judge them
on their (assumable) history and (assumable)
anatomy. Isn't that sort of banal?
Jeanette: Point taken, but there is
a very legitimate reality "out there" that gives
women the message that men are comparatively priveleged
over women in this culture. They are often paid better,
and validated and receive more positive reinforcement
over all.
Personally, I see the "womyn-born-womyn" thing
as arbitrary, exclusionary and contributing to
further reinforcement of victim mentality and
anti-male bias. I understand the need for
space "for one's own" but "one's own" can be broader
and more inclusive than perhaps has been thought
about until recently.
Does one's gender have to match one's anatomy?
Are we permanently stuck in a two gendered society?
Gabe
(whose genotype and phenotype don't match)
JillGoddes
Piglet wrote:
>Yeah, and I grew up enjoying white privilege and middle class privilege
>and effete eastern intellectual privilege, etc. Emphasis on "enjoyed".
>TS's don't "enjoy" male privilege, otherwise they'd still be men, eh.
>Piglet
And as such you really wouldn't have a place in a "women of colour"
festival.
Jillian
JillGoddes
Robin wrote:
>The usual argument for
>it seems to be that nobody who's been socialized as a man can ever be
>considered to be a woman. But if socialization is what makes a woman,
>and if
>nobody is born socialized, then how can *anybody* be born "womyn"?
Actually that's not the argument. I believe that TS's are women. And are
welcome at every other festival for women in the country. AND there is no
one doing a panty check at the gate so I actually have known a few TS
women who have been at the festival. BUT my point is, part of this
festival is celebrating womanhood by those who have NEVER know male
priviledge apart from anyone (man or woman) who has. Female to male TS's
are not welcome at the fest either.
Jillian
PS I also want to say that I do NOT know the politics or problem which
this decision were made around for the MWMF. But I think it had something
to do with a man putting on a dress and demanding entry claiming he was a
TS. The point is what could stop this? (all of this being hearsay and
most likely NOT true) But how could you stop any man from claiming he is
a TS and demanding entry?
JillGoddes
S...@UGA.cc.uga.edu (Sammie L. Foss) wrote:
>Another thing that m2f's probably haven't experienced is the feeling
>that comes with being in 'women's space'. Why do you want to
>keep them from experiencing this portion of womanhood?
Hmmmm as far as I know MWMF is the ONLY festival for women with this
policy.
>With all due respect, *ahem* Fuck off!
Well now that's not really cool. I am just tired of people bashin MWMF
for this policy. I and many, many women find their lifespring at this
festival. I personally don't want to have to share my space with a guy
who puts on a dress, claims to be TS and demands entry. And if what I
have been told is true( I doubt it is but it may have some fact base in
it) this HAS happened! Sammie, as a female in this society you cannot
help but be socialized differently than men. I am sure you didn't stand
out in the field with the boys and write your name in the snow. (and if
you did I am severely impressed) . Just as you cannot escape racism,
sexism and homophobia in this society, you can't escape gender
socialization.
If I wasn't here presenting another point of view, ya'll would be using
this thread to trash the festival and that is NOT ok with me. SORRY!
Jillian
Marina Wolf
> On 23 Apr 1996, jc...@unlinfo.unl.edu (julie cox) wrote:
>
>
> >Has anyone else really thought about this "womyn born womyn" phrase in
> >relation to TS women? TS women are born women but in male bodies. >So
> for those who want to exclude TS women that phrase becomes >useless.
>
> It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men. As
> such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
> never know. Men are socialized much differently than women. I believe
> that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
> being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
> why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
I don't agree with the policy of the festival, and it's only recently that
I've come to this point.
I was born a girl in a girl's body, socialized as female, and I think of
myself as a women. Pretty clear, no?
No. I am tall, stocky, I prefer to cut my hair short, _and_ over the last
five years I have begun to grow facial hair in excess of what women in
American society are supposed to have; that is to say, more than one hair.
(I don't want to get into a shaving/waxing routine, and I did go to the
doctor just today to find if there is a hormonal problem.)
But that bit doesn't matter. I now have a flourishing beard or goatee or
something, and what's true is that strangers usually perceive me as a male.
Unless I correct them or make a point of sticking out my already-prominent
bazooms, which I usually, but not always, am willing to do, they do not
realize their mistake during the course of a brief transaction.
You might say that I have the "privilege" of being treated as a man by
society for the last five years. I understand that it is a privilege to be
able to walk on the street at night without the fear I remember from 10
years ago, when I was still being treated as a woman. In this society, it
is a privilege to be treated by store clerks and auto mechanics as a male,
at least until they figure out I'm a girl and get all weird. I'm
definitely getting socialized differently than other womyn-born-womyn.
Should I be able to get in to the MWMF?
Marina
P.S. I would love to hear from other gender-blending dykes, particularly
those who have "masculine" amounts of facial hair and are choosing not to
remove it.
Allison Parent
ju...@yetter.com wrote:
>julie cox wrote:
>>
>> There is a type of intersexuality where the person is genotypically
>> male but phenotypically female --- genetically male, physically female
>There is a genetic condition where a person can be XY chromosomally, but
>phenotypically female. I can't recall the name of the condition (it
It 's androgen insensitivity testicular feeminizing syndrome.
>changes periodically), but basically it's a mutation in the gene on the
>Y chromosome that allows the body to recognize the androgens that key
>male development (testosterone, etc.)
There is also Turners syndrome where the body is female but cannout
metbolize estrogens so as an adult the person is very masculine
appearing and may even be quite hirsuit to the poit of a full beard.
The same thing can occur if the adrenal cortex messes up due to
disease, the womens voice will deepen and male secondary sex
characteristics will appear.
>syndrome, or another, where the vagina is blind (just sort of ends,
>without a uterus) and the gonads are just lumps of tissue (that really,
>really need to come out before they go malignant)...I'm pretty sure it's
>another syndrome. Logically, without the ability to recognize
Another condition where the uptake of sex hormones is desturbed.
Generally as a fetus. Turners syndrome, fetal absence of gonadal
hormones.
>testosterone, the body should be a perfectly functional female. Now I'm
>gonna have to go out to my storage shed and hunt down my textbooks! :P
The default condition if a fetus is not masculineized by mullerain
duct hormones in conjunction estrogens. Same can occur if wolfian
duct hormones are not functional for the XY fetus.
A treatise on all this is long and tiresome to many but, sex
chromosomes, sexual preferences, gender are not as simple as XX or
XY.
Allison
SARAH M. PARSONS
ju...@yetter.com wrote:
: There is a genetic condition where a person can be XY chromosomally, but
: phenotypically female. I can't recall the name of the condition (it
: changes periodically), but basically it's a mutation in the gene on the
: Y chromosome that allows the body to recognize the androgens that key
: male development (testosterone, etc.)
Judy, I think you may be confusing 2 separate syndromes. One is androgen
insensitivity, described wonderfully by Tara (I think) in an earlier post.
What I believe you're describing is the situation where an XY person is
missing the so-called "testis determining factor" on the Y chromosome.
It's very rare, & usually only a part of the gene is missing.
Incidentally, those cases I've heard of develop physically male, but are
often sterile. I think. It's been a while since I've read the literature.
: It has been eight years or so since I had this in class, so I'm not
: remembering all the key points of this. I can't recall if it was this
: syndrome, or another, where the vagina is blind (just sort of ends,
: without a uterus) and the gonads are just lumps of tissue (that really,
: really need to come out before they go malignant)...I'm pretty sure it's
: another syndrome. Logically, without the ability to recognize
: testosterone, the body should be a perfectly functional female. Now I'm
: gonna have to go out to my storage shed and hunt down my textbooks! :P
Um, androgen insensitive women are outwardly indistinguishable from
XX females. The vagina does end blindly; but instead of ovaries there are
very underdeveloped, cryptic testes.
See, in a fetus there are 2 ducts of gonadal tissue, & they are specific
for male or female gonads. Once the fetus starts developing & "knows"
which gender it is, one duct proliferates at the expense of the other. In
AI women, the signal is given to develop the "male" progenitor tissue.
However, without the ability to recognize & respond to angrogen, aka
testosterone, things like the testes, the prostate, & the penis don't
develop. In the absence of androgen, female secondary sex characteristics
develop. Okay, the point: AI women are, as you said, perfectly functional
females, except reproductively. They have neither ovaries nor a uterus.
Hence, they never get periods, & hence, the circumstances which generally
lead to their diagnosis. End of science lecture. =)
: Hope I shed a little light...
...as do I
: Jude
--sammy, admittedly one of the biggest science geeks on the planet
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death."
-Mame Dennis
_Auntie Mame_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephanie M. Belser
Jillian,
Would you therfore support the exclusion of foreign born nationals
in a gathering for American-born Americans? After all, such persons
weren't socialized as Americans.
I get tired sometimes about having to justify my gender identity. One
of the reasons I had surgery was because the state of my birth issues
new birth certificates. But still this comes up from time to time. I
am pretty weary of this.
But if TS/TGs, both men and women, can't gain acceptance from the
queer community, how can we ever hope tobe accepted by society in
general?
And if the MWMF can exclude TS women, why can't the straight women
have a festival and exclude dykes?
In the end, if the organizers wish to set themselves up as bigots,
which to my mind they are, all I will do is publically point this
out. Bigotry needs to be exposed to the light of day. Beyond that,
all I ask is that they keep their bigoted attitudes to themselves.
Stephanie
--
Riker to Enterprise: Emergency transport! This ship's about to
^$~!#@*%()~ NO CARRIER
Amorretta
In article <1.j7o#k2...@one.net>, S...@UGA.cc.uga.edu (Sammie L. Foss)
writes:
>With all due respect, *ahem* Fuck off!
BRAVO! WELL SAID
Ola
KatieRC
There have already been several male-to-female TSs contributing to this
topic, so I suspect that what I have to say is probably redundant. But I
will say it anyway, in case a different set of words may shed a new light.
Okay, so I am an MTF ("post-op", for those who care), and I am also
exclusively lesbian. I always have been, in my mind and heart. I have
never had sex with a man, and if I ever do, it will have to be at
gunpoint. I am totally woman-oriented. I live in the lesbian community
(as much as possible -- there is the rest of the world to deal with, too),
and I am in a very happy, committed relationship with a terrific woman who
I love more than I have ever loved anyone. She sees me totally as a
woman, and has from day one. By the way, she calls herself a
male-identified bulldyke, so if we're talking who is a woman and who
isn't, things could get really confusing here.
I have been responsible, or partially, for the opening up of a number of
lesbian venues, organisations, and institutions to TS women, and now that
is pretty run of the mill here in San Fran. I certainly don't run into
any opposition any more, or even "bad vibes", at any lesbian event. I
have never been so happy in my life. Finally being allowed to live my
real life, as a woman, in women's spaces, is absolutely like "coming
home". I was at loose ends all my life -- not even a full, real person,
and certainly unable to function as a male, socially, sexually,
romantically, or any other way. I just don't understand men, and never
did, even when forced to grow up amongst them.
As others have indicated, being a woman who is perceived as a man because
of morphology is no picnic. It is insulting to the soul. It seems to me
a fair argument that judging whether a person is male or female strictly
by their genitals is a very primitive methodology. Of course, in the most
radical circles of "gender theory", people do not even accept the rough
division of all of us into male or female; they say that such crude
concepts of gender are totally inaccurate.
But in any case, I always felt female (from the moment I could
conceptualise), and I know that this is what I am. Obviously, the point I
am beating around is that there certainly is no decent grounds by which to
ban TS women from Michigan, or anywhere else. It is a form of bigotry,
and worse, extreme cruelty, to people who have suffered a great deal
already, just to get to be recognised as whom they really are. Those who
are "against" TS women are victimising themselves, because they are
cutting themselves off from some of the finest, bravest, gentlest, most
morally upright people I have ever known. One must become strong and
brave to survive gender dysphoria and transsexualism.
I think the main point that TS-haters miss is that the transformation of
the body is really the smallest part of the TS process. Yes, we TSs are
"raised male", and therefore have some aspects of "male privilege"
(spelled without a "d", by the way), but as was pointed out before, that
is not really a privilege at all, because the tyranny of expectations that
are on a male is immense, and in fact, overpowering. I did not get any
real benefit from this so-called privilege, because I was unable to play
the game, and the "real" males could tell by some instinct, and shunned
me. But I was taught to pretend to be male, for survival; and so, for me
the very best part of the TS transition was the "un-learning" of all the
ways I had forced myself to act. The result was the lifting of an
immeasurable burden from me, and I felt like a real, whole person for the
first time. I could be spontaneous, and I could be me. One does not,
conversely, "learn" to be female -- one simply lets go, and is female by
nature.
As I heard one TS woman say just today (in broken English, as she is from
Laos), the growth toward womanhood by a TS is not in the body and the
clothes and the changed appearance and name -- it is "here and here", she
said, pointing to her mind and her heart. It was for me a hugely
spiritual process, in which I was in touch with the female nature spirits
very often, and had dreams and voices and visions, all of which were there
to lead me (or occasionally, boot me) in the right direction when I was
afraid or confused. The enormous spirituality of the experience has been
the most spirit-cleansing thing I have ever been through -- and I have
always had very strong spiritual visions, all my life. The unleashing of
one's spirit to be able to lead it's own truly fulfilled life while on
this earth and in this body is true spiritual growth, and I could not be
more attuned to the female side of nature. The experience continues to
deepen, the longer I live as a woman, and the more I make love as a woman.
Never underestimate the spiritual power of sex.
So of course I believe I should be allowed into Michigan. The fact that I
don't especially want to go anyway is a different subject. We all need
all the woman-energy we can get, and by barring TS women, the community is
losing a strong contribution, and a unique one, of women who have had to
fight to express their femaleness, and have persevered through
unimaginable difficulty.
Not every TS woman is a great person -- some are jerks, just like some
"born" women, and even (gasp!) some lesbians. But as a category, I
recommend them highly -- I realise I am prejudiced, but I have a great
deal of love in my heart for my TS sisters, as well as for all the
beautiful dykes out there. We are all sisters. Let's love one another.
Who needs bitterness and division?
Sappy but sincere --
-- Katherine Collins
Katherine Collins / San Francisco
Kat...@aol.com
JillGoddes
Ok Ok to all those who have been flaming me I would like you to read the
following carefully!
I read all of what you people have to say. I do that, then I apply it to
my beliefs and examine. What I came up with is that you all have valid
points, and so do I. Then I decided to go directly to the source and ask
"why?". So I called the women at WWTMC (the organizers of the MWMF) and
asked them the logic and history behind the policy. I explained to them
what was going on here and that the other side (ie support of the policy
and the festival) was highly under-represented which was my main point in
entering the thread. Their answer was "don't engage". Basically they had
no response and didn't want to talk about it. My feeling that the message
they are giving is 'if you don't like the policy don't come'. I was
pretty offended for myself and for TS women. I pretty much think if you
have a contraversial policy like that you should at LEAST have the ovaries
to stand behind it. At least explain why you have the policy. I mean had
I called to ask why they allow free entrance to girls under 15 (who come
on their own) and women over 65 they surely would have given me a lecture
in socio-economics. Had I called to ask why my dog Chelsea couldn't come
to the fest. they surely would have given me a talking to on
over-population of pets, liability, and waste management. So what is the
problem with this policy? Could it be that it is an economic based
policy? (ie someone who contributes lots of $$ to the fest. doesn't want
TS's there???) Or could it be that Lisa has spoken and that's that? Who
knows. What I know is that while I may agree with the idea of keeping
MWMF a woman born woman space, I don't agree with the policy. I and my
partner have decided that at the fest this year we will attend the TS
workshops and do what we can to have the policy changed. We are also
planning a visit to the TS camp outside the fest to show our support.
They clearly aren't willing to give an explaination beyond "well it made
some of the other women uncomfortable" (which made my head almost pop off
with anger). I mean what if some white woman decided that asian women
made her uncomfortable???? So I am changing my stance and plan to work
on changing the policy.
To this newsgroup I do have a few strong suggestions:
1. The terms "How dare you?" and "Fuck off!" are certainly not conducive
to having another person come around to your point of view.
2. Think about your starting point...(a)if you are starting with the
position of reading my post, deciding you don't like what I say, and then
deeming me a sexist, mysogonistic (sp?), demon then fine. But you really
don't know me well enough to know that. or (b) if you want me to see
your point of view it may be better to explain your position to me so that
I might better understand where my thought process is taking a wrong turn.
I think this newsgroup could seem a little harsh in this respect to those
who are new.
Jillian
PS thanks for reading this far.
Jeannette Wilson
To Jillian, for pushing the promoters of the MWMF on their stance: a
very public Thank You, to go along with my private one sent moments
ago. That took gumption, and had a twist I might not have considered
doing. We need more women like you around. Thanks for being there.
Jeannette Wilson
In article <1.eay^k2...@one.net>, JillGoddes <jillg...@aol.com> wrote:
>Jillian
>PS I also want to say that I do NOT know the politics or problem which
>this decision were made around for the MWMF. But I think it had something
>to do with a man putting on a dress and demanding entry claiming he was a
>TS. The point is what could stop this? (all of this being hearsay and
>most likely NOT true) But how could you stop any man from claiming he is
>a TS and demanding entry?
Easy enough. Ask for the name of his pshrynk, and / or electrologist,
and call them. Ask him some questions about the process, details of
which I won't get into here in case there ARE men who would try this
reading it. Easiest is, ask to see a driver's license in "her" name.
If the person has had a legal name change, I'd say that's at least a
fast way to show either they are a public idiot, or a real TS.
Jeannette, glad to get on to some helpgul comments for a change.
Jeannette Wilson
In article <1.3by^k2...@one.net>, JillGoddes <jillg...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>Well now that's not really cool. I am just tired of people bashin MWMF
>for this policy. I and many, many women find their lifespring at this
>festival. I personally don't want to have to share my space with a guy
>who puts on a dress, claims to be TS and demands entry. And if what I
>have been told is true( I doubt it is but it may have some fact base in
>it) this HAS happened!
Jillian, if you would *learn*, just a bit, about the *process* of
being a transsexual, you'd realize that it's a *whole* lot more
involved than just putting on a dress and claiming to be a woman.
So Howard Stern does that, it does *not* make him a transsexual.
There is a text used as a guideline, called the SOC (for Harry
Benjamin Standards Of Care), by most professionals in the field (and,
far as I know, *all* surgeons). First off, one is supposed to spend
several months with a pshrynk (Master's Degree or above) defending
themselves as really *being* women. Next step, the prospective MtF TS
gets on hormones, slowly ramping them up over a period of 1-2 years.
During this time, therapy continues, breasts form, and electrolysis
is done (very painful, very time consuming, and very expensive).
Eventually, the prospective MtF TS feels about as ready as possible.
She should have a fair amount of cash in the bank, be prepared to lose
her job, her family, her friends, and still survive. She gets her
name legally changed, gets her credit all switched over, and
transitions to living fulltime as a woman.
After a minimum of one full year living as a woman (in some places, it
is 2 or more years), with therapy continuing, if the person still
thinks she needs to spend some $13000 cash money on it, she then gets
to spend some time convincing a second therapist she's serious. Both
of these must have at least a Master's degree in Psychology or
Psychiatry, at least one of them must hold a PhD.
Then, and only then, can this person have *any* surgery.
We're hardly just men wearing dresses.
I personally made it all the way to the last step, that of plunking
down $13000 cash money, and hit a wall. Having spent my surgery fund
in helping several other women (both genetic and trans) in my life, I
find I no longer HAVE that kind of cash. I *did*, however, have the $
needed to do a simpler operation. I got castrated.
So, here I am, effectively a lesbian who's "packing" full-time. I've
been Jeannette fulltime now for over 18 months. I've had all the joys
of PMS damned near every one of those months, except the months I got
castrated (that one the doctor did not change my hormone dose, and I
had a full, glorious *month* of PMS. Whee, what fun. I didn't kill
anybody. Barely). I've faced almost the same fears of rape, with a
tad of difference - I may not get *pregnant*, but it's a better than
even chance any rapist will kill me once my jeans are removed. I've
faced the same job discrimination too - guess who went from the
hottest of hotshot programmers to being relegated to maintenance
coding on obsolete products, as well as getting a raise about half
that of the men I work with? I've been hassled by cops, just because
they *like* fucking women over. I've been belittled by mechanics who
think no woman could *possibly* know what a dropped valve sounds like.
I'm trying to say I've had plenty of incentive to give this up, and
return to life masquerading as a man. I'm still here, and I'm still
Jeannette.
I'm not a man in a dress. I'm a woman, trying her damndest to cope
with the most horribly gruesome birth defect a lesbian could ever
have. Because I'm trying to correct that birth defect, I find that
*in general*, a vocal minority of bigots manage to edd up my life
because they not only don't understand, they don't WANT to *learn*
about it.
Hell, even the psychiatric profession has learned that a person's core
gender identity is NOT a) determined by their genitals b) a
"social construct" c) subject to change at a whim. They've known
these facts for oh I'd say the last decade or so, perhaps longer.
When will the lesbian *community* learn them?
Jeannette
Adrienne J. Davis
On 26 Apr 1996, Kate wrote:
> Date: 26 APR 1996 14:18:20 -0400
> From: Kate <sn...@orca.alaska.edu>
> Newgroups: usenet.soc.women.lesbian-and-bi
> Subject: Re: womyn born womyn
>
> In article <1.?zv_k...@one.net>
> jillg...@aol.com (JillGoddes) writes:
>
> > >Has anyone else really thought about this "womyn born womyn" phrase in
> > >relation to TS women? TS women are born women but in male bodies. >So
> > for those who want to exclude TS women that phrase becomes >useless.
> >
> > It's a question of socialization. Male to female TS's were born men. As
> > such they enjoyed male priveledge which a woman born physically woman will
> > never know. Men are socialized much differently than women. I believe
> > that TS's are women but they are women who have had the priveledge of
> > being treated as men by society for at least some period of time. This is
> > why I agree with the policy of the MWMF.
> >
> > Jillian
>
> Haven't we all faced enough of these discriminitory excuses. I mean
> really...what is the point? We damn discrimination against us for being
> lesbians, women, minorities and then many of us turn around and do the
> same thing to another lesser group. What is the point? What is the
> purpose?
>
> Simply to discriminate...that's what it is. It seems that people always
> have to have some group lower on the list then the one they belong to.
> How is it you function in society every day, with all those other
> people around you. One can only wonder.
>
True!! One of my oppositions to the stated policy is the cowardice of
the way it is stated. womyn born womyn? What is that supposed to mean?
I would still be opposed to the policy, but I could at least respect
those who institute it if they just came out and said--no transsexuals
allowed. We don't like them and don't want to be around 'their kind'.
It would still be repugnant and ethically indefensible but at least they
could be said to have the courage of their convictions. Right now they
are hiding behind vague language and using the excuse of 'safety' to
disguise bigotry.
Aj
> I also wonder how people can learn from mistakes if they are so willing
> to turn around and repeat the same bad ones over, and over, and over.
> Well I certainly wouldn't want anybody (lesbians born lesbians that is)
> here to feel uncomfortable, at a womens music festival. If you feel
> strongly about discrimination - don't go. If you feel - Oh well what
> the hell...they got to draw the line somewhere...I hope you have a good
> time.
>
>
>
>
IGC Networks-- PeaceNet/EcoNet/ConflictNet/LaborNet/WomensNet
Presidio Building 1012, 1st Floor
P.O. Box 29904, San Francisco, CA 94129-0904 415-561-6100
Adrienne J. Davis--Help Desk Technician ajda...@igc.apc.org
http://www.igc.apc.org/ajdavis PGP Public Key Available
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Any attempt to shape the world and modify human personality in
order to create a self-chosen pattern of life involves many
unknown consequences. Rene Dubos---Mirage of Health
Ayana Craven
>
>>The usual argument for
>>it seems to be that nobody who's been socialized as a man can ever be
>>considered to be a woman. But if socialization is what makes a woman,
>>and if
>>nobody is born socialized, then how can *anybody* be born "womyn"?
>
>Actually that's not the argument. I believe that TS's are women. And are
>welcome at every other festival for women in the country. AND there is no
>one doing a panty check at the gate so I actually have known a few TS
>women who have been at the festival. BUT my point is, part of this
>festival is celebrating womanhood by those who have NEVER know male
>priviledge apart from anyone (man or woman) who has. Female to male TS's
>are not welcome at the fest either.
Oh, this opens up a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Are you saying
that *none* of the women who attend the fest have ever passed as male ?
Because I know for a fact that that's not been true in the past.
And I was unaware that there was any such statement anywhere in the
fest literature -- for sure, saying that women who have passed as
men can't come would raise a brouhaha that would split the fest
right down the middle.
Hell, by that criteria *I* couldn't go to the fest, nor could a good
number of people I know. How much "passing" is enough to taint
someone ? Dealing with the bank on the phone ? Happens a lot.
Dealing with the car salesman ? Yeah. I sent out college
applications without gender information -- most of the letters came
addressed to Mr. Craven -- so how much male priv was involved in
where I got accepted ?
>PS I also want to say that I do NOT know the politics or problem which
>this decision were made around for the MWMF. But I think it had something
>to do with a man putting on a dress and demanding entry claiming he was a
>TS. The point is what could stop this? (all of this being hearsay and
>most likely NOT true) But how could you stop any man from claiming he is
>a TS and demanding entry?
What would you do to stop a man putting on a dress and claiming to
be a woman ? (Forget the TS part, there are plenty of guys who
could pass as female. For that matter, forget the dress, just put
him in loose dyke clothes.) The fest has the right to eject someone
who is causing a problem, and they've ejected people before,
occasionally raising a ruckus about *who* should have been ejected.
I have yet to hear a coherent rationale for the fest's policy, from
them or anyone else. But the notion that they could seperate out
those who'e enjoyed some version of male priv from those who've
never enjoyed any version of it is pretty far-fetched.
Sammie L. Foss
In article <1.rjt^k2...@one.net>
j...@ais.net (Jeannette Wilson) writes:
>Gee, Sammie, one of the things hurled at me as to *how* my life was
>different from other ***lesbians*** was that I had never gone to bed
>with men, nor had to question my own ideas of what I really want.
context than the 'I am so sick of lesbians, I am going to get a bf'.
I honestly hope that you aren't 'trying men' because of some stupid
'how do you know you don't like being with men if you haven't tried
it' bullshit.
>Once more, I do something to correct the situation, and I get
>lambasted by another lesbian for not doing things *her* way. Can YOU
>say, damned if I do and damned if I don't? Gee, it's like deja vu all
>over again.
fit other peoples definition of 'the way things are'?
Sammie
Sammie L. Foss
In article <1.3by^k2...@one.net>
jillg...@AOL.COM (JillGoddes) writes:
>Hmmmm as far as I know MWMF is the ONLY festival for women with this
>policy.
>it) this HAS happened! Sammie, as a female in this society you cannot
>help but be socialized differently than men.
I did, to a certain and very real extent, experience the 'male priv.'
you speak of. So, by your definition, I should not be allowed.
>I am sure you didn't stand
>out in the field with the boys and write your name in the snow. (and if
>you did I am severely impressed) .
> Just as you cannot escape racism,
>sexism and homophobia in this society, you can't escape gender
>socialization.
an unclear term like 'male priv' doesn't make any sense. If you
want to keep out the average guy in a dress then say so, don't
try to rationalize your position by saying you don't want people
who have had male priv.
>If I wasn't here presenting another point of view, ya'll would be using
>this thread to trash the festival and that is NOT ok with me. SORRY!
not ok with me, sorry.
Sammie
Sammie L. Foss
In article <1.eay^k2...@one.net>
jillg...@aol.com (JillGoddes) writes:
>women who have been at the festival. BUT my point is, part of this
>festival is celebrating womanhood by those who have NEVER know male
>priviledge apart from anyone (man or woman) who has. Female to male TS's
>are not welcome at the fest either.
Maybe you should define exactly what 'male privelege' is.
Sammie
Gabe
ju...@yetter.com wrote:
>
> julie cox wrote:
> >
> > There is a type of intersexuality where the person is genotypically
> > male but phenotypically female --- genetically male, physically female
> > born with ovaries, etc., that I'm not intersexed?
>
> phenotypically female. I can't recall the name of the condition (it
> changes periodically),
Could you be talking about AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)?
Karyotype 46 XY, chromosomally male? The chromosomally XY
fetus is incapable of accepting and/or processing androgens.
> Anyway, aside from having your chromosomes checked, I can't think of a
> way to identify this.
> Hope I shed a little light...
>
> Jude
There are several such anomalies, and they are more common
than most of us realize, Klienfelter's for one, occurs on average
in one in every 500 men. Other types of phenotypic discordance
isn't so unusal... anecdotally, it doesn't always seem to have
any obvious effects.
Gt
Allison Parent
jillg...@AOL.COM (JillGoddes) wrote:
>Well now that's not really cool. I am just tired of people bashin MWMF
>for this policy. I and many, many women find their lifespring at this
>festival. I personally don't want to have to share my space with a guy
I'm inclined to agree in part with this. I object to the policy, the
festi however is important to far to many women as support and
networking.
>who puts on a dress, claims to be TS and demands entry. And if what I
>have been told is true( I doubt it is but it may have some fact base in
>it) this HAS happened! Sammie, as a female in this society you cannot
A man in a dress is exactly that. It is possible but I've maintained
that any TS that has done the minima meaing legal name change,
hormones for more than a few weeks and SRS is not a man as men value
their thing and TSs clearly do not. A no penis rule would sort that
out anyway.
>If I wasn't here presenting another point of view, ya'll would be using
>this thread to trash the festival and that is NOT ok with me. SORRY!
Like I said the policy is ambigious and untestable. It could just as
easily be used to toss you or any other women on accusation and
there is no proof you could submit to the contrary. That is
dangerous.
Allison
Amelia A Lewis
I'm sorry if sending this via mail creates *yet* *another* thread with this
topic, but I haven't quite got the moderated part of news working right yet.
In article <1.eay^k2...@one.net> Jillian writes:
>
>Actually that's not the argument. I believe that TS's are women. And are
>welcome at every other festival for women in the country. AND there is no
>one doing a panty check at the gate so I actually have known a few TS
>women who have been at the festival. BUT my point is, part of this
>festival is celebrating womanhood by those who have NEVER know male
>priviledge apart from anyone (man or woman) who has. Female to male TS's
>are not welcome at the fest either.
Hokay. No, there's no panty check. Someone among the festival organizers
decides that you're a TS, and you're out. No arguments; no defense. For a
year or two, born-women allies wandered through the camp in Menace T-shirts,
attempting to provoke that response.
This is the answer to the other woman who asked the "silly question," how do
they know? They decide. You don't get to.
>PS I also want to say that I do NOT know the politics or problem which
>this decision were made around for the MWMF. But I think it had something
>to do with a man putting on a dress and demanding entry claiming he was a
>TS. The point is what could stop this? (all of this being hearsay and
>most likely NOT true) But how could you stop any man from claiming he is
>a TS and demanding entry?
Jill, Jill. After going to all the trouble to find out about the current
policy, you're willing to repeat rumors about how the policy started rather
than checking the facts? It's actually documented in a number of places
(so, naturally, I haven't the references at hand *sigh*), mostly lesbian and
TS journals and newsletters.
To summarize, a woman whose name I forget, who was a lesbian activist, went
with her activist friends to MWMF, in advance, to spend the day before the
festival setting things up. At the end of the day, after some rumors had
apparently started travelling, one of the festival guards approached and
asked her if she was TS. Surprised to be asked, she answered, "Yes." She
was told she wasn't welcome. I don't know if the term "womyn born womyn"
had been invented, or if they used the more brutal and revealing "real
womyn," but the policy was essentially invented on the spot, to eject a
lesbian activist who happened to be TS, and the organizers have their noses
in a kink and refuse to back down, as far as I can tell.
I wish I could remember the woman's *name*. She's from either Mass. or the
midwest (clever of me to be so precise, eh?) and the story is documented.
It isn't pretty. But pointing out that it isn't pretty isn't "bashing" the
festival, it's simply attempting to force festival organizers to find some
reason for exclusion that doesn't amount to "You aren't real womyn. Go
away." In fact, even that argument can be made (what do you think the
general attitude of society is toward TSs?), if provided with some sort of
philosophical or at least rationalizing framework. The festival has not, to
my knowledge, adopted Janice Raymond's views (she's one of the most literate
and interesting of the feminist opponents of transsexuality, although I find
the unquestioned assumptions embedded in her work to be truly alarming and
unpalatable--which shouldn't be surprising, *I* certainly have something
invested in believing, against the weight of the world, that I am a woman),
nor has it, as you yourself noted, offered any other arguments.
I'm sorry, this is a painful issue, and as Johannah notes, it's partly a
painful issues because it raises some questions about what it means to be X,
where X is any concept in wide use but in practice with poorly defined or
poorly understood boundaries. It's a painful issue for me, personally, of
course, and I imagine that it's a painful issue for anyone wanting to share
the joys of attending the MWMF who finds herself embroiled, against all
logic, in an argument about transsexuals that seems entirely tangential.
For TSs, it isn't tangential at all. And I think it raises some issues that
those otherwise unimpacted by transgender concerns find sufficiently
troubling that they, too, question the MWMF experience when it denies,
without any attempt at justification, the womanhood of some women.
Amy!
Joanne Stato
JillGoddes (jillg...@aol.com) wrote:
: I read all of what you people have to say. I do that, then I apply it to
: my beliefs and examine. What I came up with is that you all have valid
: points, and so do I. Then I decided to go directly to the source and ask
: "why?". So I called the women at WWTMC (the organizers of the MWMF) and
: asked them the logic and history behind the policy. I explained to them
dear jillian--
everything you said was well said!
Until this series of threads on the TS subject, I thought I was pretty
clear that I did not think Transsexuals belonged at the michigan
festival. but the last time I was there was 3 years ago, and times have
really moved on quite a bit in the gay/lesbian/bi/trans communities and
the political situation.
I have done a lot of thinking since listening to many people's points of
view on this discussion, and I can no longer say I feel exactly as I did
originally. I am planning to go this year...I want to thank everyone for
helping me open my mind a bit more. that's a really important thing to
do, or else I might as well have stayed where my head was 30 years
ago...sure glad i didn't do that!
--Joanne.
--
****************************No Comment********************************
Ayana Craven
In article <1.o9y^k2$o...@one.net>, JillGoddes <jillg...@aol.com> wrote:
>Piglet wrote:
>
>>Yeah, and I grew up enjoying white privilege and middle class privilege
>>and effete eastern intellectual privilege, etc. Emphasis on "enjoyed".
>>TS's don't "enjoy" male privilege, otherwise they'd still be men, eh.
>
>festival.
But what about a non-white woman who gets presumed to be white ?
Would she have a place in a "woman-of-color" festival ? (This is
not an uncontroversial question.)
Ayana
JillGoddes
Amelia A Lewis <ali...@nando.net> wrote:
<the real MWMF TS story>
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
Jillian
PS But for my own sake and feeling of safety if the fest. drops the TS
policy, I still want to know how they are gonna stop any MAN from claiming
to be a TS (not someone who is actually TS) and demanding entry BEFORE he
starts trouble and ruins some WOMEN'S festival experience. Also if pre-op
TS's are allowed what arrangements shall be made for the showers?????
(Sorry to sound petty but these ARE things that might make me choose to
stay home in August)
@--->---@--->---@--->---@--->---@--->---@--->---@--->---@--
###Every Tool is a Weapon if You Hold it Right!- A.D.###
We all die Alone.
The Goddess Jillian
Puppie to the Universe
can be reached at jilg...@necronomi.com
***********************************************************
Jeannette Wilson
In article <1.c5e&k2...@one.net>,
Allison Parent <alli...@world.std.com> wrote:
>A man in a dress is exactly that. It is possible but I've maintained
>that any TS that has done the minima meaing legal name change,
>hormones for more than a few weeks and SRS is not a man as men value
>their thing and TSs clearly do not. A no penis rule would sort that
>out anyway.
Alas, that would leave myself, Kymmer, and not a few others who don't
*quite* fit the mold out, and allow FtM TGs in, beards and all. I can
see *what* they are trying to accomplish, but I cannot see *how* it
can be done and allow all *women* in while kicking out men-in-dresses.
Jeannette, ?pre-op? (grrl with a p*nis, but no b*lls anymore).
Atara Stein
In article <1.i8y^k2=n...@one.net>, Gabe <gt...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Personally, I see the "womyn-born-womyn" thing
> as arbitrary, exclusionary and contributing to
> further reinforcement of victim mentality and
> anti-male bias. I understand the need for
> space "for one's own" but "one's own" can be broader
> and more inclusive than perhaps has been thought
> about until recently.
>
> Does one's gender have to match one's anatomy?
> Are we permanently stuck in a two gendered society?
>
> Gabe
> (whose genotype and phenotype don't match)
Ah, thank you! You said what I was trying to say in a very long and
muddled post to the "Collapsing Categories" thread, but you said it much
more forcefully and concisely. My gender and anatomy happen to match, but
why should it be that way for everyone?
Atara
--
Atara Stein ____
\ /
\/
"Everything is true. . . . Everything anybody has ever thought."
--Philip K. Dick, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
Bill: "Socrates: 'The only true wisdom consists in knowing
that you know nothing.'"
Ted: "That's us, Dude!"
Bill: "Oh yeah."--"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"
Atara Stein
In article <1.u}y^k2}e...@one.net>, kat...@aol.com (KatieRC) wrote:
[megansnip]
> As others have indicated, being a woman who is perceived as a man because
> of morphology is no picnic. It is insulting to the soul. It seems to me
> a fair argument that judging whether a person is male or female strictly
> by their genitals is a very primitive methodology. Of course, in the most
> radical circles of "gender theory", people do not even accept the rough
> division of all of us into male or female; they say that such crude
> concepts of gender are totally inaccurate.
>
Yes, I agree.
> But in any case, I always felt female (from the moment I could
> conceptualise), and I know that this is what I am. Obviously, the point I
> am beating around is that there certainly is no decent grounds by which to
> ban TS women from Michigan, or anywhere else. It is a form of bigotry,
> and worse, extreme cruelty, to people who have suffered a great deal
> already, just to get to be recognised as whom they really are. Those who
> are "against" TS women are victimising themselves, because they are
> cutting themselves off from some of the finest, bravest, gentlest, most
> morally upright people I have ever known. One must become strong and
> brave to survive gender dysphoria and transsexualism.
[another megasnip]
Exactly. And who am I to tell you that you're not female or not born
female just because your experience differs from mine?
>
> So of course I believe I should be allowed into Michigan. The fact that I
> don't especially want to go anyway is a different subject. We all need
> all the woman-energy we can get, and by barring TS women, the community is
> losing a strong contribution, and a unique one, of women who have had to
> fight to express their femaleness, and have persevered through
> unimaginable difficulty.
>
[another snip]
Again, I have to commend this post. I can't understand why women and
lesbians would practice a politics of exclusion, when so much of the rest
of society wishes to exclude us.
Adrienne J. Davis
On 30 Apr 1996, JillGoddes wrote:
> Date: 30 APR 1996 09:53:22 -0400
> From: JillGoddes <jillg...@aol.com>
> Newgroups: usenet.soc.women.lesbian-and-bi
> Subject: Re: womyn born womyn
>
> Amelia A Lewis <ali...@nando.net> wrote:
> <the real MWMF TS story>
>
>
> THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
>
>
> Jillian
>
> PS But for my own sake and feeling of safety if the fest. drops the TS
> policy, I still want to know how they are gonna stop any MAN from claiming
> to be a TS (not someone who is actually TS) and demanding entry BEFORE he
> starts trouble and ruins some WOMEN'S festival experience. Also if pre-op
> TS's are allowed what arrangements shall be made for the showers?????
> (Sorry to sound petty but these ARE things that might make me choose to
> stay home in August)
Couple of ideas. Firstly, the organizers could compromise <there's that
dreaded word> and say 'okay, no pre-ops'. Solves the penis issue <which
*is* understandable given the shower situation>.
Secondly, as to a m-a-n getting in, simple. Require i.d. to get in--not
just TS womyn, but *all* womyn. Since a TS has to have certification
from her doctor before the powers-that-is will change things like d/l's
<and there are specific requirements for that to happen> you solve that
problem. This sound workable?
Aj
Allison Parent
Amelia A Lewis <ali...@nando.net> wrote:
>To summarize, a woman whose name I forget, who was a lesbian activist, went
>with her activist friends to MWMF, in advance, to spend the day before the
Laura and Nancy Burkholder, both very good friends of mine and helped
me immensely during transistion and after.
>festival setting things up. At the end of the day, after some rumors had
>apparently started travelling, one of the festival guards approached and
>asked her if she was TS. Surprised to be asked, she answered, "Yes." She
Honesty is something she prizes. But after many years post-op to be
rejected like that and the story sickens as it was the middle of the
night. She was not permitted to collect her stuff, he friends had to
and her payment was not refunded at all or in part. Considering she
was one of the people who volenterred that year and in prior years
to assist in festi duties it's odd there was no trust at all.
The Women born women thing was implied but never explained even before
that event. This was as memory serves either in '90 or '91.
If one is not safe, how can anyone be?
Allison
Allison Parent
st...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Joanne Stato) wrote:
Joanne,
>I have done a lot of thinking since listening to many people's points of
>view on this discussion, and I can no longer say I feel exactly as I did
>originally. I am planning to go this year...I want to thank everyone for
>helping me open my mind a bit more. that's a really important thing to
>do, or else I might as well have stayed where my head was 30 years
>ago...sure glad i didn't do that!
Go, have a good time and think about it. Regardless of what your
answers may be, you have credibility with me for looking at the issue.
To ask more is rude.
Huggs,
Allison
>--
>****************************No Comment********************************
Amelia A Lewis
[Again, I hope I haven't broken the headers/references, and am trying to fix
my software asap. Please bear with me if this shows up somewhere on its
lonesome]
In article <1.vmu&k2...@one.net> Jillian <jillg...@aol.com writes:
>Amelia A Lewis <ali...@nando.net> wrote:
><the real MWMF TS story>
>
>THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
<blush> And thank *you* very much. The 'zine I got the story from, as I
now remember, was TransSisters, from a couple or so years back. I'm sorry,
but I still can't remember the protagonist's name, nor was the journal one
of my own. It might be findable, somewhere, though. Perhaps we could ask
Dallas, or something.
>
>PS But for my own sake and feeling of safety if the fest. drops the TS
>policy, I still want to know how they are gonna stop any MAN from claiming
>to be a TS (not someone who is actually TS) and demanding entry BEFORE he
>starts trouble and ruins some WOMEN'S festival experience.
An interesting question. What protection exists now, for truly passable
FIs? That is to say, it's a *different* question than the question of
whether TSs should be admitted, is it not? It is if you accept that TSs are
women. The question of men harassing the thing, in disguise, out of
disguise, in camouflage and carrying rifles or carried by an odd friend in a
suitcase with a periscope and breathing holes really doesn't apply to *this*
discussion. Does it?
> Also if pre-op
>TS's are allowed what arrangements shall be made for the showers?????
>(Sorry to sound petty but these ARE things that might make me choose to
>stay home in August)
To be perhaps as exclusionary as anyone else, with some justification as
it's myself, among others, that I will exclude ... don't permit them.
There's a festival (the New Women festival? I think not, but it's the only
one I can think of. Anyway, it allows all sorts of women, with one
restriction) in San Francisco, I believe, with a much simpler policy: if you
can't put your dick in a drawer and leave it at home, you're not welcome. I
don't have problems with that sort of policy. Then again, I have real
problems with the whole concept of intimacy, at this point, because after
getting honest with myself, I find it increasingly difficult to cope with
the factory-installed equipment. Time for an upgrade, but the upgrade
prices are really rather prohibitive, on a woman's salary. Still, something
will get worked out, and until then ... well, by all the gods above and
below, tiny and great, malicious and benevolent, I won't tell you the *name*
they put on my birth certificate, much less show you *why* they did so.
However, I can't speak for all pre-ops, by any stretch of the most flexible
imagination, so perhaps there are some people who need to be excluded, in
order that they not cause problems which would not cease to have been simply
because they can be quickly resolved.
Amy!
JillGoddes
To Jeannette<
Thank YOU too. I believe it was yours and another woman's story that
pushed me to make the call. I am still dumbfounded at their response to
me (an initial SUPPORTER of the policy). I can't even IMAGINE what the
response would be to someone calling in opposition. I think they would
ignore or hang up on the person which is even worse than argueing a point.
Jillian
who NO LONGER supports the woman-born-woman policy and will go to the
festival to work to CHANGE it.
Robin McLaughlin
In a previous article, j...@ais.net (Jeannette Wilson) says:
>In article <1.c5e&k2...@one.net>,
>Allison Parent <alli...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>A man in a dress is exactly that. It is possible but I've maintained
>>that any TS that has done the minima meaing legal name change,
>>hormones for more than a few weeks and SRS is not a man as men value
>>their thing and TSs clearly do not. A no penis rule would sort that
>>out anyway.
>
>Alas, that would leave myself, Kymmer, and not a few others who don't
>*quite* fit the mold out, and allow FtM TGs in, beards and all. I can
>see *what* they are trying to accomplish, but I cannot see *how* it
>can be done and allow all *women* in while kicking out men-in-dresses.
>
>Jeannette, ?pre-op? (grrl with a p*nis, but no b*lls anymore).
>--
Hi Jeannette,
If you don't mind I would like you to fill in some details for me. For a
TG woman who either cannot or won't have SRS, can she have legal
documents changed to show her as a female? Maybe the laws vary by state,
but since the issue was raised in the above quoted post I am curious as
to what the usual criteria are. It does seem to me that a DL showing the
person to be female would be acceptable "proof", but I don't have enough
details to know if that would lead to "over exclusion" or not.
Robin
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Robin L. McLaughlin rob...@scn.org or gr...@28bbl.wa.com |
| My life didn't come with easy to follow instructions. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kym...@xconn.com
>Later, I understand they finally canned this stupid policy!
Ummmmm ... I thought this thread started because MWMF had included the
"womyn born womyn" statement in this year's brochure?
That doesn't sound to me as if they "canned" the policy.
| Kymberleigh Richards [KR260] | For "Cross-Talk" Information |
| System Administrator, Cross Connection | E-mail: arc...@xconn.com |
| Publisher/Managing Editor, "Cross-Talk" | Subject: request xtsubnfo.txt |
S.A.More
I can ashure you that almost no ftm would try to sneak in into a festival like
that. To be vieved as a female is extremly painful, not because of
the "male privalege", no because of identity.
Even a wendo workshop can drive you half nuts, if you are TG.
You are safe,
Sam, whose friends all regret the loss of his female privelege for
attaining easy rides when hitchhiking, cheap camping grounds and donations
by pityful farmers to the poor hikers. Not mentioning the female promoting
policies by the govenment which will double discriminate him.
Jeannette Wilson
In article <1.-li*k2$e...@one.net>, Robin McLaughlin <rob...@scn.org> wrote:
>
>Hi Jeannette,
>
>If you don't mind I would like you to fill in some details for me. For a
>TG woman who either cannot or won't have SRS, can she have legal
>documents changed to show her as a female? Maybe the laws vary by state,
>but since the issue was raised in the above quoted post I am curious as
>to what the usual criteria are. It does seem to me that a DL showing the
>person to be female would be acceptable "proof", but I don't have enough
>details to know if that would lead to "over exclusion" or not.
>
>Robin
Robin, it does vary from state to state. Here in Illinois, upon
showing the driver's license place my legal name change, and a note
from my pshrynk, they changed it immediately. The social security
place refused to change me to F until I have the surgery.
In Texas, a friend of mine is still listed as Male on her driver's
license, till either she has the surgery, or has been living as
Michelle for 2 years. After 2 years she is legally female whatever
her surgical status is, and she claims the soc sec office WILL change
her at that point.
YMMV about this. My d/l change came after 6 months of living
fulltime, so I'd say a d/l check *should* be a Good Way to show a
person IS serious about it.
Jeannette
Jeannette Wilson
In article <1.6j#&k2...@one.net>, Atara Stein <ast...@cyberg8t.com> wrote:
>Again, I have to commend this post. I can't understand why women and
>lesbians would practice a politics of exclusion, when so much of the rest
>of society wishes to exclude us.
>
>Atara
I *think* I'm getting a clue as to *why*, Atara. I've signed up for a
new mailing list, for partners of "survivors", people who were abused
mentally, emotionally, physically and/or sexually. What's come across
there is more horrifying than anything Steven King or Clive Barker
have written *yet. What makes it worse is that I know this is *true*.
My "survivor", Vikki, has pointed this out to me. Not all, but
certainly a high number of lesbians WERE abused, either as children,
or have been raped, assaulted, and in general degraded by men. I've
*known* that, intellectually, for some time now, but this really has
hammered it home to me.
They don't know us, what they've seen on TV paints us all in a very
bad light. Given possible feelings of sheer, abject terror of males,
and the idea of a safe haven being *invaded* by us, hounding them,
chasing them, well, hell, I'd freak too!
As to how best to deal with this issue, all I can think of is to
*show* them we are not to be feared, and let them come around at their
own pace. Rather akin to gaining the trust of an abused pet, this
takes time, patience, and may not even work in all cases. I for one
will start *my* helping this by not pushing to be included, but
offering to talk should any of them wish to learn. I'm not harmful, I
never raped anybody, I've been spending my SRS money helping other
women survive, women who WERE badly abused in many, many ways. If you
(speaking to the whole readership) would like to *learn*, I'll talk.
If not, well, hey, I'll quit pushing. There ARE those who already
feel comfortable around me, I can't say that I need more really badly
enough to rub salt in some already painful wounds just for my gain.
Jeannette Wilson
In article <1.{#n|k2j^@one.net>, johannah bradley <jbra...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>Actually there is no evidence that a causal relationship between abuse
>and lesbianism exists or that more lesbians are abused. There is evidence
>to suggest lesbians are more willing to go public and to explore abuse as
>a political issue.. And FWIW, you have just replicated the "failed
>heterosexuality theory," that is, women fail as hets and so become
>lesbian. Notice that this theory continues to normalize and place at the
>center of the lesbian's life, heterosexuality. It is a homophobic argument.
Johanna, please, *read my *words*, not YOUR intentions*. I never
IMPLIED a causal relationship re lesbianism and abuse. I merely NOTED
that many WERE abused. Period. This abuse could be ONE reason that
they might not want *men* at MWMF. Period.
>There seems to be very little "sheer, abject [interesting choice of word]
>terror of men, especially after the initial healing has begun (see
>Herman; Kennedy).
Well, I know that I felt very uncomfortable around men for a long
time, and still CAN be. My abuse was trivial by comparison to the
stories I've heard. Perhaps the terror DOES go away fast, the feeling
uncomfortabe may last a LONG time, *especially* if no therapy is
given.
>There *is* a difference between a survivor and an abused pet. Unlike
>dogs and cats, survivors can avail themselves of such healing tools as
>therapy, while pets are dependent on their owner's actions. Again you
>have replicated the powerlessness survivors *felt*.
Yes, survivors CAN, but from what I have seen, many *partners* have
shared that their survivors *don't*. I won't go into their reason,
but the hurts reach deep, and have far-ranging consequences.
>You made a move in this post which I disagree with: first you erase any
>notion of essentialism from lesbianism (I would wonder how a TS would feel
>were that to happen to her/him, since essentialism is at the core of the
>TS experience), then you've made lesbianism into a negative reaction to
>men (that is, a choice based solely on environment), while at the same
>time according some essentialist characteristics to survivors, when it is
>clear that abuse is an issue of environment, not one of essence.
I did? Utterly amazing! I *thought* I was finding A reason that
SOME lesbians MIGHT feel uncomfortable having men around. Johanna, I
*implore* you to *READ WHAT I WROTE, and to *HEAR* the *words**.
>I don't think your abuse theory works very well.
And I do think so. I still stand behind *what * wrote*, not how
Johanna chose to hear it.
>Johannah Bradley, wondering why anyone is surprised about the MWMF's
>decisions -- they have a long and glorious history of being on the wrong
>side of almost any issue
Now, *finally*, something you've said that I can agree with!
To Walk Among The Piglets
j...@ais.net (Jeannette Wilson), while prying the lemmings from hir ankles, exclaimed:[short paragraph of Johannah's snipped]
>Johanna, please, *read my *words*, not YOUR intentions*.
Jeannette, that advice might come across a little better if you hadn't
misspelled Johannah's name twice in the same post in which you quote
her own spelling of it multiple times.
Piglet
Anukki
I've been reading this thread for a while now, and the same thoughts keep
ringing through my head. Why do we humans have this compulsion to be so
exclusionary?
-You can't come in here, 'cause you're not like me.
And: remember when technology was supposed to usher in a utopian age where
we would at last all get along? Life would be easier, people nicer, etc.
Instead, we use it to fight. To examine each others chromosomes for gosh
sakes to find the differences to fuel the fires of discrimination.
For years the battle cry in the alternative communities was "Celebrate
Diversity." Some of us still have the bumper stickers. The rainbow flag
was designed to symbolize the diversity. And yet we continue to divide up
and fight with each other.
Soon the ideal festival will be one where all the participants have no
differences. There will be only one participant per festival.
Anukki
Dawn S Friedman
In article <1.a_5$k2^s...@one.net>,
Adrienne J. Davis <ajda...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>This is a *hard* life and the
>best you can hope for is that you'll have lived well and be surrounded by
>people when you die.
Well, I also hope that they'll be friendly people. (Sorry,
just watched "Blake" again last night.)
>Secondly, this game of 'comparative oppression' is just tired. Look, I
>could, if I chose to, claim some form of ultimate victimization 'cuz I've
>had a *real* hard life!
I didn't see competition for the prize of ultimate victimization in
Jeanette's post. I thought she was responding to the argument that
TG women have experienced male privilege in the past as a reason not
to permit them at Michigan.
>But I try real hard not to.
So we are to applaud your courage rather than sympathizing with your
past misfortune. I don't mind doing either, but I'm not sure why
it's nobler to solicit the former response than the latter.
>The things that I've survived have made me stronger, not weaker.
Then you have been, in one sense, fortunate. Sometimes suffering
makes people stronger. Sometimes it damages them for a long time,
or permanently. Sometimes it destroys them. Not even courage
guarantees survival, much less benefit.
>My pain doesn't
>diminish one whit the pain of another who is oppressed.
No, it doesn't. But for some reason human beings spend a lot
of time comparing their experiences, including past trials.
>Those things that we who are survivors have triumphed over make us
>more deserving of respect than pity.
Fine. I don't pity you, I respect you. And if Jeanette is
allowed to attend a "womyn-only" event out of respect for the way
she established her womanhood, I doubt she'll complain that she
wanted to be pitied instead.
>Argue the right or wrong of a thing, not that it hurts your feelings.
Thank you, I'll argue both. Feelings are difficult to define
and measure, but leaving them out of the equation makes no sense
to me. So much of what people fight and work for is made important
to them by emotion.
--
Dawn Friedman d...@world.std.com
Dawn S Friedman
In article <1.55y^k2...@one.net>, <ju...@yetter.com> wrote:
>
>*313700 TESTICULAR FEMINIZATION SYNDROME; TFM
>CLINICAL SYNOPSIS
> Males with female external genitalia
> Prepubertal voice
It isn't clear from this, at least to me, how well the
external genitalia work. Is there a normal clitoris, and
does it, at least, behave postpubertally? (If the authors
think a woman's voice doesn't change at puberty, they're
not paying attention.)
Not that it's any of my business, but it always annoys me
when medical information includes reproductive effects
but not sexual ones.
--
Dawn Friedman d...@world.std.com
peg boucher murphy
In article <1.pa6{k22{2...@one.net>, Jeannette Wilson <j...@ais.net> wrote:
>In article <1.{#n|k2j^@one.net>, johannah bradley <jbra...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>>and lesbianism exists or that more lesbians are abused. There is evidence
>>to suggest lesbians are more willing to go public and to explore abuse as
>>a political issue.. And FWIW, you have just replicated the "failed
>>heterosexuality theory," that is, women fail as hets and so become
>>lesbian. Notice that this theory continues to normalize and place at the
>>center of the lesbian's life, heterosexuality. It is a homophobic argument.
>
>Johanna, please, *read my *words*, not YOUR intentions*. I never
>IMPLIED a causal relationship re lesbianism and abuse. I merely NOTED
>that many WERE abused.
jeannette? communication is a two-way street. you may not have
*meant* to imply what johannah, myself, at least one other poster,
and three lurkers i know here read into it, but apparently you did.
this is what more than one of us read. <shrug>
i believe you when you say that you did not mean what it sounded
like you meant. but perhaps you are not being clear enough on
your end when you are communicating. i found your descriptions of
lesbianism in the abuse survivor community quite disconcerting.
you certainly echoed quite nicely something far too many of us
have heard or had implied (even more subtly) as a cause for our
sexual orientation.
you are awfully quick to toss out some blame, and not actually look
at how you might have been unclear, or at the history (personal and
community) of what you said.
>>You made a move in this post which I disagree with: first you erase any
>>notion of essentialism from lesbianism (I would wonder how a TS would feel
>>were that to happen to her/him, since essentialism is at the core of the
>>TS experience), then you've made lesbianism into a negative reaction to
>>men (that is, a choice based solely on environment), while at the same
>>time according some essentialist characteristics to survivors, when it is
>>clear that abuse is an issue of environment, not one of essence.
>
>I did? Utterly amazing! I *thought* I was finding A reason that
>SOME lesbians MIGHT feel uncomfortable having men around. Johanna, I
>*implore* you to *READ WHAT I WROTE, and to *HEAR* the *words**.
see what i mean? blame. no sense of responsibility for your words.
what you said has a history, a long ugly one. whether or not you
meant to beat that dead horse or not, you did.
peg
-who understands that when posting, i am responsible for communicating
as clearly as possible, and if i fail to do so, i might be misunderstood.
the more people misunderstand me, the more likely it is something i
said or failed to say...