alternatives to hrt
bd...@gnofn.org
hi everyone.....a quick question: A friend of mine recently told me that
it was possible to achieve mild feminization from natural herbs. Two
names she threw at me were Dong Quai and Black Cohosh roots. Just
wondering, is this effective? How quickly can results be seen? THanx in
advance, Brittany
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Psychodad
>an informative answer. Instead of the usual answer, which doesn't tell
>you why you shouldn't use cohash and dong quai. I myself tried both
>of these at a point after my original source of hrt dried up. (I was
>getting desparate). The problem with cohash is that in addition to
>some mild phyto-estrogens, it also contains high amounts of natural
>aspirin and inositol (vitamin-b). By the time you've taken enough to
>even be a maintanence dose, you will be suffering. Also, you will be
>getting some alkaloid poisoning. Dong quai, on the other hand, does
>absolutely nothing beside leaving a chinese food aftertaste.
> For a while I made myself a guinea-pig for every estrogen
>substitute listed at confluence. I would say that while none of them
>was awesome, a combination of soybeans and red clover was survivable.
>In addition, there are actual clinical tests that were done on these.
>The brittish ran one on soybeans, and in New Zealand they tested red
>clover (on sheep :)
> Personally, I would still recommend against it. Estrogen
>substitutes make it too easy to be a coward and avoid counseling,
>and this sabotages an eventual surgery.
> With a smile,
>
The nameless one
Well. maybe she doesnt want surgery, get it?
Vlad.
Danielle
Brittany
I find the natural hurbs to be very mild. I think they are a good
preperation for the body to receive stronger hormones though. For me, I
had very slite breast growth with them. Also, I do not eat meat whitch is
loaded with testasterone.
Danielle
tantrum
i take dong quai on a daily basis. it is a natural herb that helps
balance the female hormones (we all have some). it is expensive. about
$5.00 per ounce but i chew on a little bit (bitter) each day and the
daily cost is only a few cents.
also in my herbal tea that i drink every day i have both black and blue
cohash, wild jam root and licorise root (sweet) which all help the body
either absorb the female hormones people take (like me after my srs
surgery) and also many genetic females take licorise root tea as a
menopause reducer. (it was used by the american indians long ago for
this purpose). i have taken the herbal tea including eyebright for my
eyes for over five years now (two since srs). i didn't notice any change
other than to reduce my hot flashes / cold sweats when i started
estrogen therapy four years ago and went through male menopause and
female puberty at the same time.
sabrina
Caitlyn M. Martin
> >
>
> The nameless one
> Well. maybe she doesnt want surgery, get it?
>
> Vlad.
Vlad (the impaler of transsexuals),
If you read her previous post it sure seems like she does. An
anti-transsexual like yourself wouldn't take that into account, though,
would you. After all, who could possibly want "genital mutilation".
Isn't that what you called it?
Some of us want SRS, more than anything. Taking the possible side
effects of phytoestrogens into account is important, even for those not
surgery-tracked. For those of us who want SRS, it is absolutely vital,
and there is *no* substitute for pharmaceutical hormones administered
under proper medical supervision.
-Kate
Amy Lewis
Julie Haugh wrote:
>
> In article <33b03e8...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
> Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > In my own case, I have and will continue to support
> >transsexuals in overcoming the obstacles in their lives,
I think we can do without the "support" of one who describes us in the shockingly
hateful terms that you do, who campaigns against us on here in such ugly and hateful
ways, employing the most vicious lies and venomous rhetoric, and asserts that we are the
"enemy" on here.
Thankyouverymuch!
Amy
> --
=====================================================================
Amy Lewis | Conservative, n. A statesman who is
VAX/Alpha System Manager | enamored of existing evils as
Information Technology Svcs. | distinquished from the Liberal, who
University of San Francisco | wishes to replace them with others
x2304 | Ambrose Bierce
=====================================================================
Caitlyn M. Martin
Laura Blake wrote:
>
>
> Kate,
> Was this really necessary? Vlad may not be a model citizen, and like me, he
> may have expressed a negative opinion of sex-change from time to time, but
> that doesn't mean he is anti-transsexual.
Laura,
I'd be happy to repost (through Deja News) why I feel my
characterization of Vlad is accurate, in his own words.
>
> Does it not occur to you that those of us who question the current disorder
> model are going to use words that tend to defeat it, but may not in fact
> oppose _transsexuals_.
Yes it does. No argument there. My post was directed at a single
indvidual who made a very inappropriate post attacking those who sought
to help Brittany. It seems to me that Andrea Bennet, for example, has
questioned the disorder model, and she *is* transsexual. For that
matter, I've questioned it too. Of coourse, my conclusion is different
that yours. While I agree that transsexuality is not a psychological
disorder, I do believe that it has a biological cause.
> In my own case, I have and will continue to support
> transsexuals in overcoming the obstacles in their lives, but I do not believe
> sex-change is anything but a last resort for people who can't get it together
> without it.
>
Your last statement is not supportive, and is downright offensive. It's
not about getting your life together. I wanted SRS from the time I knew
it was possible, at 16. Back to an old thread/flame, but the point
bears repeating: I really don't believe that anyone who isn't TS can
fully understand what it means to be TS. That, as you have so correctly
pointed out, almost always includes those who are supposed to be helping
us and treating us. I choose not to be angered by your statement
because I believe it to come from a lack of knowledge.
BTW, what about those who don't have functional male genitalia anyway,
even if it looks *somewhat* anatomically correct? Is it wrong to want a
sex life? Is it wrong to want one congruent with one's gender? Laura,
there are such a wide range of people who identify as transsexual that
your generalization is way too broad, not to mention that I feel that
it's wildly inaccurate.
> Calling us anti-transsexual is needlessly inflamitory and grossly incorrect.
I didn't call you anti-transsexual. I called Vlad, and only Vlad
anti-transsexual, but, if the shoe fits...
This was written by *you* last Friday:
> When this kind of acceptance of oppression is allowed to
> overrun the far more important discussions about legal and social equality,
> we are brought to ask "Who are the real enemy here?" and frankly the answer
> is "Transsexuals".
How much more anti- can you get than classifying someone as the enemy?
I did respond to that post in a civil manner, even though I was
mentioned by name as one of the elitist transsexuals who is supposedly
dominating the newsgroup. Tell me, Laura, who is being inflammatory
here?
> If I am anti-anything, I am anti-oppression... and that works in your support
> whether you like it or not.
Actually, when you stated that my ID should not have been changed
because I'm still 11 months pre-op, that works *against* me. With
supporters like you are showing yourself to be here, I don't need
detractors.
> Vlad has made is opposition to psychiatric
> involvement in the lives of transsexuals plain, and I support him in this
> (there is no _disorder_ involved, and thus no justification for any of the
> programs transsexuals must endure). This does not mean he is
> anti-transsexual, it may well in fact mean that he is pro-transsexual and
> sees freeing you from psychiatry as a means of support.
Well, if so, he has a strange way of expressing that.
>
> Please don't engage in these wildly twisted interpretations, without a basis
> in fact. I've endured enough of it to know the kinds of misrepresentations
> and disinformation it causes, and I've seen the kinds of damage this can do
> to perfectly sound equality seeking efforts.
Laura, this sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me. I
didn't twist anything, and can back up what I said with his own words.
Fadreydere dein kup! (Yiddish: "Go knock your own head".)
>
> Would it not make a lot more sense to ask Vlad to clarify his position before
> you start slinging these wild labels around?
No. He's made his position perfectly clear. If a repost is needed,
I'll provide it.
-Kate Martin
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
...
> oppose _transsexuals_. In my own case, I have and will continue to support
> transsexuals in overcoming the obstacles in their lives, but I do not believe
> sex-change is anything but a last resort for people who can't get it together
> without it.
So we have to be non-functinal without it for it to be warrented????
What about simply feeling better about our bodies?
I know you think that is a societally induced need but many feel
otherwise. That attitude can easily be construed to be anti-transsexual
and elitistly so. Why should it NOT be taken that way?
This is an honest question to which I'd like to hear an answer.
-Karen A
m...@dim.com
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:26:02 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
>That attitude can easily be construed to be anti-transsexual
>and elitistly so. Why should it NOT be taken that way?
Because a wall built by one's own self is just as real and harmful as
a wall built by others.
Hugs, Marla
************************************************
* Marla Louise
* EMail: m...@dim.com, marl...@aol.com
* Homepage: http://www.dimensional.com/~mb/
************************************************
Roxie Lynn Greer
Michelle Steiner <ste...@antispamm.best.com> wrote in article
<steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>...
> In article <33b03e8...@news1.sympatico.ca>, lbl...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
> >But do you understand why you feel you have the 'wrong' body? Why you
hate it?
I find this very interesting. I don't hate my body. I am transgender.
People change a hairstyle, they shave, (legs or face, underarms) and they
wear makup.
Others may choose a variety of cosmetic surgeries. Whatever the various
reasons, a person may have for making any changes, it does not mean they
hate their body.
In an effort to put people into nice neat catagories, people assume, all
transgender people or transsexuals don't hate their bodies. In finding a
gender role that fits how they feel about themselves, and adapting to that
for their own feelings and societies benefit (we do it all the time... they
wear suits on wall street and uniforms for police) there is really no big
deal.
If too they wish to have a lower cosmetic surgery also, what's the big
deal, and why is a person's idenity and worth determined by what's between
their legs instead of what's between their ears. Really, we are much more
in life than a penis and a vagina.
Roxie
Amy Lewis
In article <33b08aa0...@news1.sympatico.ca>, lbl...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> On 24 Jun 1997 21:59:44 GMT, j...@austin.ibm.com (Julie Haugh) wrote:
> >And =there= he goes, once again, demonstrating that incredible lack
> >of respect and understanding for transsexuals.
>
> 1) "He"? You bigotry is showing again.
The pot calling the kettle black! I do not agree that there is any valid
reason to use that pronoun on you, and I believe it simple fuels the never
ending tit-for-tat game of "I got you last". Nevertheless, you have no
room whatsoever to call anyone a bigot after the way you galloped in here
hoping to exploit the conflict between Marla and TS women as fuel for your
obsessively hateful anti-transexual agenda.
>
> 2) If, as you claim, I have such an "incredible lack of respect and
> understanding for transsexuals" then please explain how and why I went to all
> the trouble of making an entire nation of 27 million people, the first place
> on earth to support the equal rights of transsexuals?
>
> Well.... c'mon, how do you explain it?
Laura, I've heard a lot about the work you have done, and I have to tell
you that after the hatred for us transexuals that you have posted here I
am not the least inclined to look at anything you have done in that way.
In the context of the anti-transexual hatred you have been posting here I
cannot regard any such work by you as anything but pure hypocrisy!
with great contempt,
Amy
--
=====================================================================
Amy Lewis | Conservative, n. A statesman who is
VAX/Alpha System Manager | enamored of existing evils as
Information Technology Svcs. | distinquished from the Liberal, who
University of San Francisco | wishes to replace them with others
| Ambrose Bierce
=====================================================================
M@s@
> I came here to share the achievements we've made in
>Canada...
hmm... beautiful Canadians ? I am from BC, by the way.
> all the rest is the result of jackasses like you telling me to fuck
>off.
I am a part of it too...
>>Laura, I've heard a lot about the work you have done, and I have to tell
>>you that after the hatred for us transexuals that you have posted here I
>>am not the least inclined to look at anything you have done in that way.
>Good idea, keep yourself ignorant... it gives you permission to continue
>acting the fool.
so you are saying you aren't fool ? hmm.... mmm...mnmmmmmmmmmm....
Masa
Ma...@WriteMe.NOSPAMcom
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1325/ (General Interest)
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1325/main.htm
(Ham Freqs + BC Freqs, 10 codes & Q codes, Morse Codes, R.S. scanners, Cellular Bands Info,
AT-600 Dual Bander, Int'l Freqs Info, Modifications,
CB General Info, Space Station MIR, Propagation Info)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6630/
(Paragraphes, Essay, Shakespeares, Online Resources and more !!)
Spam Security is ON:
Remove "NOSPAM" from noted e-mail address to contact me.
*** I will NOT buy any products or visit web sites from the SPAM. ***
Karen Ann A.
<m...@dim.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:26:02 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
> wrote:
>
> >That attitude can easily be construed to be anti-transsexual
> >and elitistly so. Why should it NOT be taken that way?
>
> Because a wall built by one's own self is just as real and harmful as
> a wall built by others.
I'm not building walls just asking that differences be recognized and
respected. Vlad and Laura have beliefs that do not allow then to
recognize that the experiences, feelings, and motivations for people
doing similat things can actually be very different. Their theories
demand that we all be motivated by the same things in the same way.
Laura considers TS enemies because they don't agree with her on one
point and one point alone. Speaking for myself I agree with much of what
she has to say BUT the fact that she leaves no room for disagreement
about the nature of transsexuals (and the assumption which flow from
that) puts us at odds. I said before that many T* do fit her theories -
BUT NOT ALL. That IMO is truely what has sabotoged TransEqual's efforts.
In other words she is her own worst enemy.
I used to be that way too. It caused me a LOT of grief but I finally
realized I was doing it to myself my being inflexable. In my case it was
from lack of self-confidence. In her case I have no idea what it is.
She has not responded (last time I checked) to my question and probably
will not. For all I know I may be in her Kill Fill or , as she has
implied in the past, she thinks I'm to dense to be worth a reply
<shrug>.
Recognizing differences is not building walls - it's just as important
to do that as recognize the similarites for true understanding and
communication to occur.
Take Care
-Karen A
Dr. McClatchey
When I first read the Re: line, I thought these post were about alts to
Hormone Replacement Therapy, but after reading these post it just as
well could stand for Hurt otheR T*s.
I would be interested to know if anyone has ever transed without hrt
first.
I would also like to know if any TS are current using Triest.
Amy Lewis
Laura Blake wrote:
>
> Amy... I've been here a long time... over 3 years.
Really? We sure didn't see you until you started your anti-ts hate trip of late.
I believe you were lurking, and waiting for the conflict with Marla to ripen to
the point where you felt you could make the best use of it.
> I didn't gallop in here
> to exploit anything.
Yes you did, and you know it.
> I came here to share the achievements we've made in
> Canada...
Oh, well then, you must have gotten distracted by your hatred of us, because the
thrust of your message here has certainly been that we transexuals are
self-hating (clearly your projection) and the real enemy. Do you mean to say
that these gems of nazi-like thought are your achievments?
Keep that day job Laura!
> all the rest is the result of jackasses like you telling me to fuck
> off.
>
Show me where I've ever said that to you. You are losing your cool Laura.
You know Laura, your nasty language and vicious name-calling really do work
against you with people. I'm certain that the mindset and temperament they
represent are lost on no one here, and serveral have confided to me privately
that you have alienated them with this behavior. Your conduct on here does not
serve you at all.
> >Laura, I've heard a lot about the work you have done, and I have to tell
> >you that after the hatred for us transexuals that you have posted here I
> >am not the least inclined to look at anything you have done in that way.
>
> Good idea, keep yourself ignorant... it gives you permission to continue
> acting the fool.
Hehee! You know the more of your nastiness I read the harder it is to take you
at all seriously. It really does seem as though you feel terribly threatened by
transexuals, else you would not so desperately need to attack us on here both
collectively and individually.
>
> >In the context of the anti-transexual hatred you have been posting here I
> >cannot regard any such work by you as anything but pure hypocrisy!
>
> And in the context of what you have written here I have no choice but to view
> you as a demented jerk who would sooner cut herself off from her own equality
> than admit to making a mistake.
More name calling, meaningless psuedo-rhretoric, and nastiness. Of course its to
be expected from such a fearful individual as yourself. No one needs to bare
their teeth like you do on there unless they are very afraid. I think you need
to get yourself into therapy and deal with it instead of taking it out on us
here.
>
> I pity you.
Hehehehehehehe....
No you don't, that's just another of your empty insults and we both know it.
Empty insults and nasty language are all you have going for you. I've seen
nothing of real substance posted by you yet, only acrimonious and embittered
attacks on the transexuals you seem so threatened by.
I expect that since this so dominates your conduct here, that it also makes up
the majority of your so-called "accomplishments in Canada" and so I've little
reason to bother looking there. I've already seen the mentality and temperament
of the person who did that "work" here, and so I've little incentive or
inclination to see more. Your conduct here works against you, *and* your work.
As with Mar* I've little cause waste more time in pursuit of further discussion
with you since you have demonstrated that nothing worthwhile can come of it, and
that all a transexual may expect of you are insults and nastiness.
I'm very sorry that your life is not going well for you, and I hope you have a
better day tomorrow :)
Amy
-
=====================================================================
Amy Lewis | Conservative, n. A statesman who is
VAX/Alpha System Manager | enamored of existing evils as
Information Technology Svcs. | distinquished from the Liberal, who
University of San Francisco | wishes to replace them with others
x2304 | Ambrose Bierce
=====================================================================
Karen Ann A.
<m...@dim.com> wrote:
> Are these things not the act of building a wall? It certainly seems
> so to me.
>
> Isn't even the phrase 'we transsexuals' the act of building a wall?
Marla the point I (and I think Michelle - but she can speak for herself)
are not building the walls - you and Laura are. I may not agree with
either of you on some issues but I totally accept both your decisions
and life styles as right for yourselves. I am open to - AS LONG AS
neither of you try to telll my how I feel and why I'm feeling it.
Recognizing and honoring differences is not building walls - it is the
only way a good relationship can be built -ON REALITY. Common cause can
truely only be made when both the commonalities and differences a
recoginized and accepted because then understanding and mutual respect
becomes much easier.
I (and I guess MOST of the TS's who have voiced objectons - IMO
probably) feel that you, and to a greater extent Laura, are the ones who
are building walls because you either can not or will not see those
their are real differences. And differences are just that - differences
- no value judgements of worth attached.
It seems as soon as someone identifies themselves to be a surgery
tracked TS cries of elitism or delusions brought on by societal pressure
are heard.
In my TS support group there is at least one person who has said that
surgury is not important enough to her to take the physical risks and
make the finacial sacrifices required (she is full time BTW). She way
not drummed out of the group or questioned in anyway about that.
I was in a mixed (TV-TS) therapy group for a while. The TV's were in a
large majority. THEY did not want to discuss MY issues as they were not
relavent to THEM!!!! Needless to say I did not get much out of the
group. Some (but far from all) of their issues were relavent to me but
in general we were comming from very different emotional places - and
not just about T* issues either. In general they were nice people but
they were definetely a bunch of men (nothing wrong with that BTW) and
the few TS's there certainly felt the difference.
My experince is that it's the non-TS's who put up walls and do not
understand.
-Karen A
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:00:44 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.) wrote:
> >Their theories
> >demand that we all be motivated by the same things in the same way.
>
> This is utter crap, Karen.
I could go to Deja New abd find plenty of your posts to jutify that
conclusion. It's the intertnalized transphobia concept no matter how
it's packaged.
> If you knew _anything_ about me, you would know that I've spent years of full
> time work lobbying and negotiating to have those differences understood and
> made moot in the courtroom.
The problem is a few (not many) of those differences ARE important IMO
> Do yourself a favour... go to my website
> (http://www3.sympatico.ca/lblake) and read the file titled "Human Rights
> Strategy". You will discover that it clearly lays out a strategy for human
> rights in Canada that makes no concern about motivations, or labels... Do you
> think I would have made any effort at all to broaden the pallette if I
> thought for one second that we are all motivated by the same thing?
At this time I've only read what you've posted in the newsgroups over
the last 2-3 years. While I did not post for much of that period, I was
here and have a good memory.
>
> >Laura considers TS enemies because they don't agree with her on one
> >point and one point alone.
>
> WRONG! I consider them enemies because they have actively opposed anything
> and everything TransEqual has done... and like you, they appear to be doing
> it without the first twinkle of real information to go on.
The point I was making is that the opposition you face is because of
your belief most TS's want surgury because of internalized transphobia.
It's not true but much of what you say is based on that assumption. TS's
(at least me) find that demeaning. Since that colors your views on
everything, it's not suprising TS's find parts of your agenda
distasteful.
> >Speaking for myself I agree with much of what
> >she has to say BUT the fact that she leaves no room for disagreement
> >about the nature of transsexuals (and the assumption which flow from
> >that) puts us at odds.
>
> I could as easily say that the problem is that transsexuals leave no room for
> disagreement...>>
You have no right to tell me how I feel or why I feel the way I do. Yet
your word oftem seem to be doing that in reference to TS's...
#I'm* the expert on me. You have not even met me. I agree with you on
you and that there are many others's like you. YOU are the one who tries
to tell TS's that the need for sugury does not come from within. All you
can say was that YOU wanted SRS at one time because of societal pressure
and once YOU came to realize that YOU no longer felt the need. It's not
true of all TS's. Why can't you recognize that? It does not undermine
the fact that is true in some cases. You profess to understand that we
are differnet yet in this area you have a long history of being
dogmatic...
<<... or enlightenment for that matter.>>
There you go again!!!! Do you like throwing in digs or do you truely
believe you were handed the one true revalation on the nature of T*'s?
Does all enlightement flow from Laura?
Is somone who disagrees with you unenlighted? Can't you understand that
some may hear and truely understand what you say but, when they examine
their soul, find that your theories simply and truely do not apply in
THEIR case?
You are obviously very bright but are you also that blind to the fact
that you act like you truely believe your opinions (and that's what they
are) are more valid then everyone elses?
Enlightment is in the eye of the beholder. It seems to me you are badly
in need of some.
> TransEquals efforts have hardly been sabotaged... In fact the whole
> TransEqual approach has won the day many times in Canada... We now have the
> Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and
> the B.C. Human Rights Commission, as well as Ombudsman Ontario, The Ontario
> College of Physicians and Surgeons, The Ontario Police Complaints Commission,
> and several public service agencies from coast to coast, working from our
> social model, and I hope to be able to announce, very soon, that other
> provincial human rights commissions have joined in as well.
>
> Sabotaged? We are doing better than ever!
A while back (a year or more?) you were saying whow TransEquals work
was sabotaged by TS's and that it had caused you some major set backs
and were quite angry about it (The details elude me at the moment). You
certainly make it hard for TS's not to oppose you - that's for sure!
BTW sometimes caring too much (in the wrong way) can cause as much (or
more) harm the caring too little. Balance in all things is important.
Take Care
-Karen A.
Don
I just wanted to say this. It seems that the whole world has such a
dislike for us as Trans_____. It really seems terrible that arguements
like this occurr. When I come here I look for solace, NOT abuse towards
this person or that person. SUPPORT.TRANSGENDERED. We have enough
enemies already, lets not start fighting amongst ourselves. Please?
Here I'll start... I just got this great nail polish from Mary Kay
called Bahama Berry. It's kind of a purple with a little bit of sparkly
stuff in it.
The point is lets stick together, if we start falling into this label
idea we're in trouble. Labels only seem to bring stereotypes, hatred,
and the like. That makes me really sad to see that here. Sad enough to
place my first post.
With Love,
Angie
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:26:02 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.) wrote:
> >So we have to be non-functinal without it for it to be warrented????
>
> You are over-reading, as is so utterly typical of the people in this
> newsgroup.
>
> What I said was that it should be a last-resort for those who can't get their
> lives together without it.... Does it not make sense to avoid the time,
> expense and pain of all that therapy, surgery and recovery, if someone can
> deal with their needs at a lower level?
Can you not realise that someone can have theit life togther and simply
be unhapppy with their body??? Therapy is not just for SRS BTW. If
somone can be happy without surgury then I agree they should consider
not having it. IMO TRANSITION should be the last resort as that has more
effects on other parts of your life, Once transitioned surgery is a
deeply personal choice that has nothing to do with getting yout life
togther - by that that time it mostly should be!!!
>
> >What about simply feeling better about our bodies?
>
> What about self-acceptance? It can =and does= achieve the same goals with a
> whole lot less muss and fuss...
That illustrattes your blind spot perfectly! you can not concieve of
someone truely accepting themselves and yet still wanting surgury. That
is the difference between a (sane) TS and other T*'s IMO. I accept that
I am male and will never truley be female physically or socially
(transitioning too late in life) but I also KNOW beyond a shadow of a
doubt that I would be more comfortable with my body after surgury.
Congruence is a term which does have *INTERNAL* meaning to a TS.
<<Is it _always_ necessary to look for hatred in everything people say,
Karen?>>
I'm just telling you how it feels on this end and giving you a chance to
tell me why my reaction is wrong. I don't think you really hate TS's
just that you believe you have "THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH" for all T* about
being T* and TS's inconviently disagree with you and your aims because
we see things differently
I do respect your choices and how you chose to live your life. Can't
you do the same? Just because they are not my choices does not mean that
I don't value them. You do have important things to say and more then a
little bit of wisdom to impart - but - you insist that we all are
basically like you. Many probably are but people are infintely diverse!
(note I did not say perverse!!! <g> )
Take Care
-Karen A.
Desiree
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> =
> In article <19970627111059434151@[10.0.2.15]>, k...@world.std.com (Karen A=
nn
> A.) wrote:
> =
> >Can you not realise that someone can have theit life togther and simply
> >be unhapppy with their body??? Therapy is not just for SRS BTW. If
> >somone can be happy without surgury then I agree they should consider
> >not having it. IMO TRANSITION should be the last resort as that has more=
> >effects on other parts of your life, Once transitioned surgery is a
> >deeply personal choice that has nothing to do with getting yout life
> >togther - by that that time it mostly should be!!!
> =
> Those who have been on these newsgroups might remember that last Spring, =
I
> was having second thoughts about having SRS. In fact, I did not make the=
> final decision until the morning of surgery.
> =
> I never really explained the reasons for those doubts. About six or seve=
n
> months into RLT (late Jan to late Feb), I was at ease with the world as a=
> woman; I was accepted by all who count, and my presentation was accepted =
by
> the general populace. My job performance had risen back to almost the
> level I had before going into the pre-transition funk, and people who had=
> known me for a long time told me what a remarkable improvement there had
> been in my personality and my social graces.
> =
> In short, I could see nothing that surgery had to offer me other than a
> different means of having sex--and since, at the time, I was in a
> monagomous relationship with a woman who didn't seem to have any objectio=
n
> to my being a woman with a penis, that wasn't a pressing issue either.
> =
> So, I was in a quandry. I had no logical or objective reason to have SRS=
,
> yet i wanted it so very much. By all rights, Laura was right on the
> money--no surgery was necessary. Yet, my entire being rebelled at the
> notion of no SRS.
> =
> Why this dichotomy? Because *my body* was telling me that it required a
> vagina--not my mind, not even my heart, but my body. I suspect that Juli=
e,
> Katy, you, Amy, and a whole bunch of other TSs are the same way.
> =
> That is the factor that Laura seems unable to understand. Like me, she
> reached the point somewhere in her path where she realized that there was=
> no reason for SRS, but unlike me, her body didn't contradict that
> conclusion. Therefore, she didn't have SRS, and apparently isn't able to=
> conceive that others of us have differing biological needs and imperative=
s
> than what she has.
> =
> --Michelle
> =
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Michelle Steiner | First say to yourself what you would |
> | ste...@best.com | be; and then do what you have to do. |
> | http://www.best.com/~steiner | --Epictetus (55 - 135 CE) |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiya
I have been lurking here for about a week now, hoping to find a little =
more info as I prepare to head to SRS (enough $ being the only hold up =
now)
Imagine my surprise when I find a ludicrous arguement over who is more =
valid: TG's or TSs. This whole pointless exercise can be reduced to =
this:
Some TGs claim TG is more valid (or even go so far as to invalidate =
TS's) because they are able to transcend the bi-gender system, and not =
having to "mutilate" themselves in order to fit into what society =
accepts as bipolar physical gender.
Some TS' respond that they "need" surgery to put themselves at ease =
physically, be it mtally, physically or emotionally (or some =
combination).
As a "surgury-tracked" TS (a dinstiction I was unaware I needed to =
make until I bagan reading this ng, despite being FT for 1 1/2 years =
and in the comunity for the last 2) I have to say I agree with the TS =
faction on this one.
Although, personally, my libertarian philosophy dictates that if you =
don't want SRS that is no more or less valid than if you do. All =
members of the T* community should be free to live as they choose. A =
philosophy I developed early in life (generated by the childhood =
understanding that I was adopted whereas my friends were born), I =
recognize being different as neither better or worse, just different. =
I actually agree with some of Laura Blake's analysis into why some =
people may think they want SRS, but quite frankly, I am insulted and =
angered by her closed-minded assertion that what was right for her (no =
SRS) is gospel for every one, and that seeking SRS explicitly implies =
that I don't have self-acceptance, which is utter bull-shit.
I often use this analogy to explain to people why I am TS and seeking =
surgery:
Imagine a person born with out a hand. Now imagine that that person =
truly believes that nature has made a mistake and that they *should* =
have a hand. That person can go through life accepting that they lack =
a hand, and given no other option can be happy and completely accept =
themselves as a person. Now imagine that medical science has =
developed a way to give that person a near-perfect artificial hand. =
Even though our hypothetical person has accepted their life as it is, =
why shouldn't they get the artificial hand if they can?
This is usually a fairly effective arguement for those who simply =
don't understand the nature of TSism. But now, some people are =
suggesting (to stick to my metaphor) that the person who accepts the =
artificial hand is somehow invalidating the existance of all the other =
one handed people who choose to remain one handed. That somehow, the =
one-hande people are more noble for continuing life with one-hand in a =
world that expects people to have two. Of course this is a ridiculous =
notion.
Again, I reiterate (not that it will stop small-minded people who =
claim to understand my motivations because I happen to identify as TS =
from flaming me), if you don't feel SRS is right for you than by all =
means don't do it. But for anyone to dictate to me whether *I* should =
is the height of arrogance and a complete affront to me and my =
freedom. If you feel that I am some how undermining your cause by =
"giving in to societal pressure" instead of noblely standing up for my =
right to be a woman despite being physically male, my response to you =
is "tough shit." As I told my parents when they asked me why I had =
discussed my TSism with before telling them I was in thearpy and =
planning surgery, "My life is not a democracy." My choices are not =
yours to make. Have surgery or don't, I really don't care, and I will =
treat you as a valuble human being either way, but don't you *dare* =
tell me I shouldn't. My reason for seeking SRS is because I am a =
woman and the means exist for me to get closer to that in physicality =
than I am now. If an operation existed that could give me a uterus =
and other internal organs, I would do that as well. Whereas you see =
this as "giving into a bi-gendered system" I see no such assertation. =
All my wanting surgery says is that *I* am female. Some people are =
male, and some people are both or neither, or in between. Because the =
answer for me is found on one end of the spectrum, does not mean that =
I don't acknowledge all the variabilty found in between the two ends. =
Claiming the TG middle is the only valid place for T* folk to be, =
denying the bi-polar ends is the height of hypocracy, in that you are =
doing exactly what you think TS's are doing in reverse (i.e. your =
mistaken assumption that choosing SRS invalidates the middle ground).
Ultimately, the problem with this particular TG arguement, is that it =
seeks to make macro-judgements, based on micro-data,(one person making =
the individual, personal choice to have SRS being the micro; SRS =
invalidates multi-genderness being the macro)
My suggestion to all those who have carryed on this ridulous arguement =
to the detriment of the ng in general, is to get off your soapboxes =
and let each of us choose what track is right for us, whithout your =
"assistance" unless it's specifically asked for.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way, just the only one =
willing to put up with the negative responses this will generate.
D=E9sir=E9e- donning her asbestos suit
"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve =
neither freedom nor security" - Benjiman Franklin
lisa...@rocketmail.com
you are such a pathetic dumb shit.
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> If you knew _anything_
about me, you would know that I've spent years of full > >> time work
lobbying and negotiating to have those differences understood and > >>
made moot in the courtroom. > > >The problem is a few (not many) of
more information...
This illustrates your main problem. You truely can not believe that an
opinion different from yours may have any validity on this subject. The
person who holds any such opinions is either ill informed, caveing into
societies expectations or simply deluded according to you.
> Tell me... when we get into this, and the discussions about human rights
> and courtrooms comes up (as it inevitably does), do you assume that I am
> discussing "the right to have a sex-change" or does it occur to you that I
> might be far more interested in the right to have a job, live in a nice
> place, hire professional services or shop wherever you please?
I agree that those rights should be accorded to ANY human being. I
always have and always will. The quality and abilities of the person not
heir race, religion. color or gender presentation ahould be alll that
matters.
I've told you before that I'm not now and will never be very passable. I
will not be one of the TS's who can blend into the gg world and avoid
those issues. Those issues are very relavent to me - whoever they don't
strike at the core of who I am.
> You see, you appear so fixated upon sex-change that I am beginning to
> doubt that there is anything but that in your world, yet when I get
> into these discussions the business of getting the surgery is seldom
> on my mind. I am far more concerned about other aspects of life...
> but always the transsexuals leap on the exact same thing. They assume
> I'm talking about sex-change, when in fact I could care less about it.
You are making a wrong assumption here. I *KNOW* you are not talking
about sex change because in your vision of a perfect world where all
your principles had been implemented few if any would want it (IMO
that's simply not true). As a consequence, what you fight for has
nothing to do with SRS (personally, it seems to me, you tend to think
that most of the time it's a mistake). I suspect that sometimes your
work helps those on the SRS track and sometimes it hurts them.
> So, tell me now... Is there any other topic you are capable of discussing?
Certainly, if you engage in subtantive discussions and not name calling
and can recoginise that people can have different LEGITIMATE takes on
being T*. If you can just agree to disagree and get on to other topics
(like those you keep mentioning but not discussing) I certainly could.
>>The point I was making is that the opposition you face is because of
>>your belief most TS's want surgury because of internalized
>>transphobia.
> And if you would stop letting your fixations get in the way you would
> have discovered by now that there is next to NOTHING about sex-change
> on my website.
You have said a lot about it in the newsgroups...
> AND there is virtually NOTHING about sex-change in any of TransEqual's
> work. The only part of the website that deals directly with sex-change is
> the Extended Informed Consent document, which, by the way, openly
> advocates makeing sex-change far more available than it currently is.
I will read it and comment (may take me a few weeks though - I'm way
behind at work and am a very slow typist)
> Karen, if you would stop listening to the twisted BS from my detractors
> and go get some first hand information --direct from my website-- you
> just might find out that 90% of what people are saying I say, is
> actually the exact opposite of what's going on.
Laura I have listened to *YOU* here for a few years now and your biases
are obvious.
I suspect they are not stated explicity in any of TransEquals papers but
those biases, I'm sure, are reflected in them. I will, however read
them as objectively as I can.
> As I told Andrea a while back... If you didn't have your head stuck so far
> up your cunt, you just might be able to hear what I'm saying.
I'm not post-op so that would be a physical impossibility for me! <g>
Why do you have to descend to crude comments like that? Have I ever used
crude language in a post to you? It only weakens your aruments and turns
more people against you.
Also again you assume that just because I disagree
that I don't hear and/or understand <sigh>
Take Care
-Karen A
m...@dim.com
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:17:36 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
>I could go to Deja New abd find plenty of your posts to jutify that
>conclusion. It's the intertnalized transphobia concept no matter how
>it's packaged.
Asking my same question slightly differently....
What is more important here? That you be proven right, and that Larua
be slapped with a negative label, thus creating resentment and
building another wall (or at least reinforcing an existing one).
Or is bridging the wall between the two of you more important?
If you can't bridge to Larua, who's person and experiences are very
similar to your own, how in gods name are you going to bridge to that
member of society at large for whom you wish acceptance?
Hugs, Marla
************************************************
* Marla Louise
* EMail: m...@dim.com
m...@dim.com
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:07:41 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
>I am open to - AS LONG AS
>neither of you try to telll my how I feel and why I'm feeling it.
Karen, I agree with you on this. I know I am not perfect, but I try
very hard never to say or even imply such. Your feelings about
yourself are yours and I should NEVER invalidate those feelings.
But I ask the same in return. Are you willing to give me and other
non-transseuxals the same respect? Are all here willing to do this,
irrespective of the label they wear?
>Recognizing and honoring differences is not building walls - it is the
>only way a good relationship can be built -ON REALITY.
Again agreed. Recognizing differences is not building walls.
But is that what is going on?
I don't see this as 'recognition of difference.' Instead, I see this
as an active attempt to create difference where none or little exist.
And then using that 'difference' to isolate one's self or group from
others.
In other words, it's tied to purpose. What is the purpose of this
recognition of difference? Such recognition can be used as either as
a bridge or as a wall. So what is the purpose of this recognition?
To communicate or to isolate? More often than not, I see it used to
isolate.
To state "You are not xxxxxxx so you cannot understand." is a
statement of isolation and wall building, it is not a statement of
bridge building.
>I (and I guess MOST of the TS's who have voiced objectons - IMO
>probably) feel that you, and to a greater extent Laura, are the ones who
>are building walls because you either can not or will not see those
>their are real differences. And differences are just that - differences
>- no value judgements of worth attached.
For you to state that there is difference between me and you, you
must judge both of us, not just yourself. It not only requires you
judge yourself to be 'A' but it requires that you judge me to be
'not-A'. This is not wrong in and of itself. We all judge others.
But is wrong when it contradicts my own knowledge of myself. And it
is wrong when you use 'unequal' rules, judging me, but rejecting my
right to judge you.
When I say a difference does not exist, or is minimal I am not
contradicting your judgment of yourself, I hear you and I believe
even understand your view of yourself. Instead, what I am
contradicting your judgement of me and other non-transseuxals.
I am not saying you are wrong about your self, I am saying you are
wrong about me!
>My experince is that it's the non-TS's who put up walls and do not
>understand.
Why is this statement relevant?
WHO CARES who built the wall? Who cares who is to blame?
If the wall is there, is it any less there if built by others instead
of one's self?
If the wall was built by others, does this mean that the need to
bridge it or destroy it is any less?
If the wall was built by others, how does adding to the wall improve
anyone's life?
m...@dim.com
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:10:59 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.)
wrote:
>Can you not realise that someone can have theit life togther and simply
>be unhapppy with their body???
Karen,
This is a difference I recognize absolutely between yourself and me.
But I do question two implied aspects of this difference....
The first thing I question is that this difference is a characteristic
difference between all transsexuals and all non-trassexuals.
Certainly, I have heard non-transseuxals state the same thing about
their bodies. Certainly, I have heard transsexuals reject this
presumption about their bodies (read Martine Rothblatt when she
describes her motivations.)
The second thing is, how important is this difference? With respect
to gender and gender expression, with respect to 'understanding'
ourselves and how we differ from mainstream society, I do not see this
to be a great difference.
m...@dim.com
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:15:18 GMT, lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake)
wrote:
>"If a person's identity and worth are not determined by what's between their
>legs, then why do you need the surgery?"
Maybe for the same reason you needed hormones, or I need to live as
both a woman and a man.
Being human means to have needs and desires that are not always
logical.
And I kind of like it that way :-)
Kristin Rachael Hayward
In article <199706262007417221754@[10.0.2.15]> k...@world.std.com
(Karen Ann A.) writes:
:<m...@dim.com> wrote:
:
:> Are these things not the act of building a wall? It certainly seems
:> so to me.
:>
:> Isn't even the phrase 'we transsexuals' the act of building a wall?
:
:Marla, the point I (and I think Michelle - but she can speak for herself)
:are not building the walls - you and Laura are. I may not agree with
:either of you on some issues but I totally accept both your decisions
:and life styles as right for yourselves. I am open to - AS LONG AS
:neither of you try to telll my how I feel and why I'm feeling it.
:
Karen makes the one of the points I wanted to make when I first saw
Marla's question:
:> Isn't even the phrase 'we transsexuals' the act of building a wall?
I was not in the right mental place to respond to Marla's question; I
think I am now, so I will make the other point I wanted to make.
I didn't interpret Michelle's phrase 'we transsexuals' to be the act
of building a wall.
The wonderful thing about psychotherapy is that it draws you out of
yourself, encourages you to challenge the little world each of us has
built for ourselves. For me, it helped me to learn the difference
between saying "You made me mad" and "I allowed you to make me mad."
It also helped me learn the difference between what someone said and
what I inferred from it. I.e., as the Daughter of the Lake dresses for
work in the morning, I may say the dress she intends to wear doen't
look good on her that day; to me that is simply a factual statement;
she can take it that way, or she infer the statement to be a negative
evaluation of herself.
If I say "we Mainers blah blah blah," I am not creating a wall; I am
saying that given my experience of these strange and wonderful people
I live with, I believe that the blah blah blah is likely to be
true. No wall is built between Mainers and those from, say,
Massachusetts; I am implying a Mainer is/does such and so; now, if
someone from Massachusetts infers that Iam building a wall by saying
that, such was not my intent, and I cannot be responsible for the
inference.
As my psychologist has pointed out repetedly, what other people infer
is on *their* side of the psychological line that naturally exists
between all people. If such lines (not walls) did not exist, we
wouldn't have this wonderful rainbow diversity called human nature.
Kristin Rachael Hayward
Julie Waters
Laura Blake wrote:
>When TransEqual notified the Canadian TS groups about the changes in human
>rights policy we'd negotiated, it was transsexuals who told us to fuck off.
Hi Laura--
I think it's important to remember that while there are a lot of
transsexuals who get into the party-line type nonsense which I hate, it's
not necessarily true that we all agree with this. I think it's important
to realize that just because -some- transsexuals told you to fuck off,
doesn't mean we all would, and that we all agree with them.
I'm not going to explain or try to justify my own desire for surgery, no
more so than I'd expect a non-operative transsexual to feel a need to
justify anything to me. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right to do
whatever the hell we want to our bodies, and we've got the right to stop
modifications where we see fit as well.
--Julie
--
Julie Waters, Armadillo Affectionada
ju...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
http://data.club.cc.cmu.edu/~julie/
to...@aa.net
This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
--------------ms787075642EA375974F32A09A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Laura Blake wrote:
> When I hear a transsexual claim "you just can't understand", I also
> hear them
> say "We are smarter than you".
Hmmmmmmm... And when I hear a transsexual say "you just can't understand" *I*
hear them saying "you just can't understand."
I'm sorry, sometimes the words people use are used to mean exactly what they
say, not something else as interpreted by another.
As an example, a very good friend of mine who is from an ethnic minority can
say to me "you just can't understand" what it is like to be her, and I *must* agree.
I can intellectually grasp some (or a lot) of what she means, but not having
grown up and lived as an ethnic minority female I cannot truly understand what
that means to a person the way she can. It doesn' mean she's smarter. It
doesn't mean I'm dumb or insensitive. It doesn't mean she's invalidating me or
putting me down. It simply means that I can't understand at the true emotional
gut level what it is like to be her because I am *not* her and have had a
different set of experiences that formed my world view.
This is true in so many things.
If I were to say "you just can't understand" what it feels like emotionally to
take another human life would you believe me?
Whether you do or not it is true.
It is an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone else, but that is the only way
to 'get inside' the experience and to understand what it means on the deepest level.
Yes, one can *intellectually* get some understanding, but that totally
irrational emotional 'feel' of it is not something you can say "yeah, I
understand that."
It is not something that I would take a whole lot of argument on from anyone
who hasn't been there, either.
Things like that in one's soul are only talked about on a really deep level
with others who really do understand: they've been there too.
This isn't a put down, invalidation, elitest stance, whatever. It is simply
the truth.
Ok, I'll shut the f*** up and go away again.
Tomia
(Yeah, it's been a bad day.)
http://www.aa.net/~tomia/phupic.htm
--------------ms787075642EA375974F32A09A
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
<encoded_portion_removed>
oHLO/bWrDMviHCaIxd/B
--------------ms787075642EA375974F32A09A--
Julie Waters
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>Laura, we have listened to your arguments, evaluated them, and decided that
>they are not valid.
Michelle, you have no business speaking in "we" terms with respect to this.
-You- may have listened to her arguments and evaluated them, but you have
no right to speak for anyone else.
m...@dim.com
>I think it's important to remember that while there are a lot of
>transsexuals who get into the party-line type nonsense which I hate, it's
>not necessarily true that we all agree with this. I think it's important
>to realize that just because -some- transsexuals told you to fuck off,
>doesn't mean we all would, and that we all agree with them.
This is something I would concur with as well. I have found most
transsexuals to be very tolerant and open minded individuals. One
should not judge all transsexuals based on a small minority. Even
when the minority claims they represent all transsexuals.
m@s@
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:35:12 GMT, lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake)
wrote:
>> I'm not going to explain or try to justify my own desire for surgery
then what he is saying is that he doesn't know what he is doing in
exact. he is doing for something he doesn't know... but from his
desire. It's like killing the people from no-justice.
>Good for you!
and you support this.
Masa
Ma...@WriteMe.NOSPAMcom
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1325/ (General Interest)
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1325/main.htm
(Ham Freqs + BC Freqs, 10 codes & Q codes, Morse Codes, R.S. scanners, Cellular Bands Info,
AT-600 Dual Bander, Int'l Freqs Info, Modifications,
CB General Info, Space Station MIR, Propagation Info)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6630/
(Paragraphes, Essay, Shakespeares, Online Resources and more !!)
Spam Security is ON:
Remove "NOSPAM" from noted e-mail address to contact me.
*** I will NOT buy any products or visit web sites from the SPAM. ***
m@s@
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:19:57 -0700, lisa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>you are such a pathetic dumb shit.
who is you ?
me ? you ?
Julie Waters
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>Until you realize that our need for SRS is biological, not
>socially-imposed...
Yikes! Michelle, put down that brush. It's just a -little- too broad.
A need for sex reassignment surgery -may- be biological. However, it may
not be. It may be affected to some degree by the environment. I'm sure as
hell not going to -base- my expectation of it on an assumption which may or
may not be true, and I think it's dangerous to -insist- something to be
factually true as the basis for wanting something. We don't -need- a
reason. If we -want- surgery it should be available to us.
>When I was in the army, I had a number of commanding officers try to refuse
>time off for me for the high holy days, because there was another Jew in
>the unit who would go to services, and then return to work. "He's Jewish
>and he doesn't take the whole day off, so why should you?"
There are lots of different secs of Judiasm.
Your commanding officers failure to recognize that yours may be more
stringent than someone else's is -their- failing.
>Your proposals
>will have the same effect on us regarding surgery: "Laura Blake didn't
>have SRS and says it isn't necessary. Why should you have it?"
That's irrelevant. Laura Blake is one person who speaks for herself. The
fact that it's not necessary for -her- has nothing to do whatsoever with
whether or not it's necessary for anyone else. If people refuse to
understand this or concern themselves with it, -they- have to take the
responsibility for it, not Laura.
Julie Waters
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>>That's irrelevant. Laura Blake is one person who speaks for herself. The
>>fact that it's not necessary for -her- has nothing to do whatsoever with
>
>It is their fault for listening to and accepting Laura's propoganda
>campaign; she is not just saying that she doesn't need it, she is saying
>that no one needs it; that it is a completely elective procedure.
And what I'm saying is that if she claims this, and people listen to her,
and merely take her word for it, than it is their responsibility, not hers.
It is of -no- use whatsoever to make unprovable claims about transsexualism
in order to support an argument.
You have no basis for claiming that transsexualism is universally
biological in its nature, no more so than you have a basis for claiming
that it's a completely voluntary state.
Lisanne A
Hi Everyone
-On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:10:59 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.) wrote
> >Can you not realise that someone can have theit life togther and
simply
>be unhapppy with their body???
lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake) responded
>Yes Karen, I do understand that... I've tried to tell people her over and
>over and over and over that the best reason to have a sex-change is
"because
>I have my life together and I still want it."
>If you would please READ WHAT I SAY instead of looking for ways to rebutt
my
>every word, you would have known this.
This is true, and part of the core of Laura's philosophy. With so
many words being said, sometimes the core of the message gets lost.
Despite the exasperation that Laura displays towards people that don't get
her point, I've always been able to find that message in her writings. The
basic points are, (and again clarify it if I screw it up, Laura.) don't go
blindly into SRS.
1) Be sure of what you are doing, and why you are doing it.
2) SRS is not a cure for all our problems.
3) Make sure this is what you absolutely want, there is no turning back.
4) This may feel like a need, but it is a choice, and must be dealt with
as one.
5) Not undergoing SRS is also an option.
Personally, I don't think that this criteria would prevent anyone who
really had a strong desire, and was able to cope with the results from
undergoing SRS. In fact, understanding that it is a choice can make one
think more calmly about it. A choice is a responsibility, but one that the
individual is personally involved with. No natural or supernatural forces
are at work here. It is really up to you, and your own understanding of
yourself.
I understand that some of you may disagree with me. That is
understandable. But the purpose of communication is to spread ideas, and
hopefully each side can learn something from the other.
Lots of Love
Lisanne
"There are two groups of people in this world, those who put people into two groups, and those who don't.- MARK TWAIN
Amy Lewis
In article <33b6f02c...@news.bctel.ca>, ma...@writemeNOSPAM.com wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:35:12 GMT, lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake)
> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not going to explain or try to justify my own desire for surgery
Nor should you.
>
> then what he is saying is that he doesn't know what he is doing in
> exact. he is doing for something he doesn't know... but from his
> desire.
get your pronouns right bozo!
>It's like killing the people from no-justice. (whatever THAT means!)
No, its like living HER life as SHE pleases, and just how is it any of
your business? Why do you care? Is she asking you to pay for it? If you
don't want SRS, don't have it, but its none of your business if someone
else wants it!
She's not saying that she doesn't know what she's doing, that's your
stuff, and what she's saying its none of your business, so she has no
obligation to justify it to you, which I TOTALLY agree with! Its a very
personal choice, and you have nothing to say about it.
As always, people will mind their own business, =while= it is worth
minding. When it is not, they will mind that of their nieghbor. This
minding of their nieghbor's business most often takes the form of
moralistic concern about their life choices and personal affairs, as this
is by far the most efficient way of avoiding confronting the moral content
of their own lives.
Get a life Masa, then you won't have to try to supervise the lives of others.
BTW, I'll bet you are also a right-to-lifer. You certainly display the
same controlling moralistic mentality that they do.
Amy
--
=====================================================================
Amy Lewis | Conservative, n. A statesman who is
VAX/Alpha System Manager | enamored of existing evils as
Information Technology Svcs. | distinquished from the Liberal, who
University of San Francisco | wishes to replace them with others
| Ambrose Bierce
=====================================================================
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Is it so terribly wrong to recognize a problem, and recommend it's
> correction?
The problem is that some eho yopu ythink have taht problem don't!!!!
-Karen a
Cindi Knox
Um, if you're going to take a request for alternative to HRT and turn it
into the same the same tired flame war, might I suggest you change the
headers? Someone might come upon this thread and actually think there
was some useful information regarding alternatives to HRT.
Just a thought.
--
cin...@imaxx.net http://www.imaxx.net/~cindik/
cin...@suba.com http://www.suba.com/~cindik/
"Blink your eyelids periodically to lubricate your eyes."
Julie Waters
arb...@mindspring.com wrote:
>...Laura concludes that although all
>sorts of other feminizing surgeries, treatments and measures are
>appropriate, there is no legitimate basis for others to consider SRS.
Really? She seems quite clear in thinking that "because it's what I want"
is a perfectly legitimate reason to desire SRS.
Julie Waters
k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.) wrote:
>Laura considers TS enemies because they don't agree with her on one
>point and one point alone.
I am transsexual and Laura does not seem to consider me an enemy. She and
I disagree on some things, but she has never treated me with disrespect. I
do not know if this is unique or not, but apparently it does happen.
Kristin Rachael Hayward
Because of where my head has been at these last few weeks, I have just
skimmed the surface of the groups, using the "n" key more often than
the space bar. But Michelle has (yet again) written something that I
think bears repeating and upon which I want to offer my comments.
I am taking Michell's comment out of content; my opinion of the
ongoing discussion into which it falls would add little. However,
Michelle's comment jumped out at me...
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) writes:
:
:The pattern of an abuser is abuse, apologize, be loving, then abuse again,
:starting the cycle over.
:
Whether we are (in alphabetical order) CD, TC, TS, TV, primary or
secondary, bigendered, bisexual, whatever, abuse is a very real part
of the experience that many, many of us have had.
My experience with abuse is at the extreme, thank goodness, but abuse
is serious and devastating.
Why do I write "that abuse is a very real part of the experience" that
we have suffered?
Because I believe that, no matter *when* we realize our rainbow-like
diffference of being CD, TC, TS, or TV, the next step we *often but
not always* take is to feel out of step with society, and after that,
to feel some guilt, some responsiblity that it is *our* fault that we
are like this.
Of course it is not our faiult, it is no more our fault than it is the
"fault" that a lesbian is lesbian or a gay man is gay. But since we
feel out of step, and, more importantly, society makes us feel
marginalized, that feeling of being different can lead to our accepting
abusive situations.
"I am different" therefore "society/he/she has a *right* to tell me I
am wrong" but "I want to be accepted" so therefore "I will put up with
these words, actions, situations in life" that I know are abusive
"because I want to be accepted."
And the abuser thrives on an adequate supply of those to abuse.
Michelle has perfectly described the pattern.
:
:The pattern of an abuser is abuse, apologize, be loving, then abuse again,
:starting the cycle over.
:
And the abused, living for the apology, the accepance/loving, puts up
with this and the self esteem of the abused sinks lower and lower.
Abuse mentally destroys; abuse not only harms but can kill.
Yet so often the abused fails to see the abuse, believing that she/he
deserves it because she/he is different and therefore "wrong."
As I wrote, I believe the acceptance of abuse is widespear amongs CD,
TG, TS and TVs, yet it need not be.
Me, I don't know if I will ever break out of my own little mental
hell, but I am trying, and with the medicine, the therapy, and the
support I receive, maybe at least I will come to an accomodation with
it.
But the first step is to recognize abusive situations; read again
Michelle's words. Ask yourself if you are allowing yourself to be
abused.
Amongst the many avenues I have gone down in my attempt to break free,
I have discovered many valuable resources. Perhaps the most accessible
is a book of wonderful daily readings titled "The Language of Letting
Go."
The next time you are in a bookstore, spend a few minutes with this
book; it may or may not help, but I find I turn to it again and again
as a part of my own path to health, to recovering my self esteem, to
the absence of non-abusive situations.
However, in the end, no single book, no single action can break the
cycle of the abuser and the abused. Only the act of regaining one's
own self esteem can do that.
Good luck, my friends.
Kristin Rachael Hayward
http://www.khayward.com/krh.html
Julie Waters
In article <33b36b8c...@news.dimensional.com>, m...@dim.com wrote:
>But if what you desire is acceptance by the rest of society, if what
>you desire is respect from society for who you are as a human being,
>such a 'proof' may be necessary.
Not for me. I earn respect from people each and every day, and I do it by
being very good at what I do. Most of my employees respect me, even though
they are -really- confused about my tsism. But that's ok, because that's
their issue not mine. I don't -need- to prove anything to them, or anybody
else, and I've found that friends who go around expecting proof of
everything you do don't stick around for very long.
>"Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't
>bet, you can't win." - R.A, Heinlein
If you know the bet is stacked so you'll surely lose, sometimes it's a
victory to simply know that the best thing to do is walk away from someone
else's games.
Julie Waters
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>>I am transsexual and Laura does not seem to consider me an enemy. She and
>>I disagree on some things, but she has never treated me with disrespect. I
>>do not know if this is unique or not, but apparently it does happen.
>
>three years, but in the past few weeks, she attacked me without reason or
>provocation.
All I was saying was that Laura obviously does not consider transsexuals
per se to be her enemy. She may only consider transsexuals who behave
towards her in a specific fashion to be her enemy. I honestly don't care
that much. I'm just tired of reading people use specific individuals as
the official newsgroup scapegoat. The whole "open season on people we
hate" mentality (which is what I've perceived here) absurd, from all angles
It seems clear that quite a few people have no problem whatsoever with
simply -claiming- things as though they are fact, without regard for the
reality behind them, as a means by which to slam people.
Amy Lewis
In article <33bce1e7...@news.dimensional.com>, m...@dim.com wrote:
> I would suggest that you speak for yourself, and allow others to speak
> for themselves. It works better that way.
>
> Marla
>
I would suggest that you practice what you preach Mar*.
Julie Waters
lbl...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>>Laura considers TS enemies because they don't agree with her on one
>>point and one point alone.
>
>and everything TransEqual has done... and like you, they appear to be doing
>it without the first twinkle of real information to go on.
You're talking about those transsexuals who have done such things as you
describe, not transsexuals in general, right?
Amy Lewis
m...@dim.com wrote:
>
> I would suggest that you speak for yourself, and allow others to speak
> for themselves. It works better that way.
>
> Marla
A sound idea Marla, perhaps you would care to apply it the next time you are
tempted to presume to speak for transexuals.
Amy
--
=====================================================================
Amy Lewis | Conservative, n. A statesman who is
VAX/Alpha System Manager | enamored of existing evils as
Information Technology Svcs. | distinquished from the Liberal, who
University of San Francisco | wishes to replace them with others
x2304 | Ambrose Bierce
=====================================================================
Amy Lewis
Laura Blake wrote:
> People do not get sick and die without sex-changes... 99.99% of the world
> live completely healthy and happy lives without them.
That's because most of the world is not transexual. I've heard of people
committing suicide because they couldn't get SRS, and they don't seem happy, or
healthy.
For my part I'm quite healthy, though I'll never really be happy until I'm
post-op. I think its more a quality of life issue than whether its medically
necessary, which, in the narrow view of the medical authorities who determine
such things, it is not.
From a psychological, and mental health perspective however, it most certainly
is, for some of us.
Amy
> -----
Julie Simpson
In article <33B34B...@alpha.usfca.edu>, Amy Lewis
<a...@alpha.usfca.edu> wrote:
> Laura Blake wrote:
> >
> > Amy... I've been here a long time... over 3 years.
>
> Really? We sure didn't see you until you started your anti-ts hate trip
of late.
> I believe you were lurking, and waiting for the conflict with Marla to
ripen to
> the point where you felt you could make the best use of it.
>
Amy, I've been looking in from time to time on this newsgroup almost since
it started, and Laura's right, she has been here posting unpleasant nasty
stuff for around three years. I believe her peak of activity was when
Christina Norman was posting to the group, which would have been late 1994
or early 1995. Her message has not changed in all that time. You'd think
she'd get sick of having the same arguments again and again and again, but
you've got to give her points for consistency.
Cheers
Julie
m...@dim.com
>In article <33b36b8c...@news.dimensional.com>, m...@dim.com wrote:
>>But if what you desire is acceptance by the rest of society, if what
>>you desire is respect from society for who you are as a human being,
>>such a 'proof' may be necessary.
>
>Not for me. I earn respect from people each and every day, and I do it by
>being very good at what I do.
That's what I'm talking about <BG>.
Hugs, Marla
************************************************
* Marla Louise
* EMail: m...@dim.com
* Homepage: http://www.dimensional.com/~mb/
************************************************
Julie Waters
Both of these are from Michelle:
>>>>>Laura, we have listened to your arguments, evaluated them, and decided that
>>>>>they are not valid.
[...]
>>>I used "we" to mean those of us who have already said that her arguments
>>>are not valid.
Michelle, I'm confused. Why would you need to say that her arguments are
not valid, speaking for those who have already said it? Just to reiterate?
Marla noted:
>>This sentence as you now describe it makes absolutely no sense.
>
>It makes perfect sense to those who do not have an agenda.
Michelle, it doesn't make sense to me.
Do I have an agenda here? If so, what is it? I lost my minutes from the
last meeting and have been searching for my agenda for ages.
(I think somewhere on it is "buy new pumps," right after "clean kitchen"
and before "fight the patriarchy")
Julia
Laura Blake wrote:
> How the hell does the disorder model help you in employment?
It doesn't. It's a hinderance. We need legal protection AGAINST
discrimination, not another justification for it.
> How the hell does the real life test help you in housing? Most transies
> suffer horrific harrasment from neighbours because they have to go through
> this at a time when they are least able to pull it off.
This is from the perception that we're crazy. Again the mental illness
or disorder model that also has allowed Hollywood to portray us in such
a negative way.
> How the hell does the notion of mental illness help you when shopping? Most
> transies are kicked out of stores because they are believed to be crazy.
I haven't been kicked out of a store yet, but then I'm not living in
Lincoln NB.
> Can't you see that this whole biology/disorder business is the very thing that
> holds us back?
Yes. However, the ultimate causes may be genetic. I'm not saying it
is. Just that it may be. We already know that nervous systems in
people with a particularly mild form of heart murmer (Mitral Valve
Prolapse) are wired differently from the rest of the population. The
problem is hereditary. They haven't studied transgenderism as much in
that manner. So right now we don't know what causes it, just that it
exists. As with some other genetic conditions, environmental factors
can contribute to the expression. I've seen this enough in raising
dogs. Different sets of experiences do not determine, but influence.
The main difference in genetic temperament and environmental temperament
is that when you try to correct an environmentally caused problem, it
eventually improves. Genetically caused behavoral problems get worse
when you try to correct them.
I think the same is true here. How many of us have tried to change
ourselves to conform with what is perceived as the "normal" world? How
many of us have noticed that with greater repression comes greater
desire to express? Just a thought.
> Why are you so fixated upon justifying your sex-change that
> you are willing to trash the whole rest of your life to do it?
IMHO, SRS should be available as an option. I don't know of many
doctors who will perform it without some kind of assurance that the
person is NOT mentally ill. The current system is doing nothing but
costing me money. I've got to do electrolysis ($3000), therapy (@ $90
per hour) to go over ad nausem a bunch of stuff I already know -- this
will probably total $1600 just to get the HRT plus another $4000 for SRS
approval; RLT I don't know -- the costs are in dignity (or in
employment); then finally the actual surgery (about $15,000). Total
that up to about $25,000 (and add annual income if job lost). Add the
HRT on top of that, but that's expected. With all these expenses, I'm
supposed to be able to afford a decent wardrobe for work. $15,000 for
SRS and $3000 for electrolysis is expected. With the therapy costs
alone I could get a wardrobe by Gautier!
> I don't care if you have your sex-change or not. That is a personal decision,
> that is up to you alone. I DO care that the current methodology of obtaining
> it so stigmatizes others in our community that they find themselves utterly
> without legal or community support... unless they jump on the surgery track.
The legal support should be there without the necessity of the surgery
track. Whether a person considers it elective surgery is going to
depend upon the degree they feel driven toward it. The general public
in my area is a mix. It depends upon in which community pocket you
live. Out here it is so different than most parts of the country things
are pretty much a blend. I feel no external pressure to SRS. I just
want to do it for my own personal reasons that I'd rather not discuss in
public. MY choice. I am quite out in my neighborhood, to all friends,
most family, and getting there at work.
One would have to be blind not to know something was going on.
Julia (donning her fireproof jumpsuit)
Joshua Lurie-Turrell
Laura, only non-Jews have acted in an antisemitic fashion toward me. By
your reasoning, this means that all non-Jews are antisemites.
Get real.
J
: Amy
: --
: =====================================================================
: Amy Lewis | Conservative, n. A statesman who is
: VAX/Alpha System Manager | enamored of existing evils as
: Information Technology Svcs. | distinquished from the Liberal, who
: University of San Francisco | wishes to replace them with others
: | Ambrose Bierce
: =====================================================================
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes
acceptance of these terms.
Joshua Lurie-Turrell
the minute someone invokes the old "calling your opponent a Nazi" trick
it's time to end the conversation, go home, have a drink, take a nap, and
realize that for god's sake, it's just the internet, we're all true
believers in something and stop wastin your time trying to change someone
else's mind because it's not worth it. we could be using our time in
other, constructive ways...
j
: Laura Blake wrote:
: >
: > Amy... I've been here a long time... over 3 years.
: Really? We sure didn't see you until you started your anti-ts hate trip of late.
: I believe you were lurking, and waiting for the conflict with Marla to ripen to
: the point where you felt you could make the best use of it.
: > I didn't gallop in here
: > to exploit anything.
: Yes you did, and you know it.
: > I came here to share the achievements we've made in
: > Canada...
: Oh, well then, you must have gotten distracted by your hatred of us, because the
: thrust of your message here has certainly been that we transexuals are
: self-hating (clearly your projection) and the real enemy. Do you mean to say
: that these gems of nazi-like thought are your achievments?
: Keep that day job Laura!
: > all the rest is the result of jackasses like you telling me to fuck
: > off.
: >
: Show me where I've ever said that to you. You are losing your cool Laura.
: You know Laura, your nasty language and vicious name-calling really do work
: against you with people. I'm certain that the mindset and temperament they
: represent are lost on no one here, and serveral have confided to me privately
: that you have alienated them with this behavior. Your conduct on here does not
: serve you at all.
: > >Laura, I've heard a lot about the work you have done, and I have to tell
: > >you that after the hatred for us transexuals that you have posted here I
: > >am not the least inclined to look at anything you have done in that way.
: >
: > Good idea, keep yourself ignorant... it gives you permission to continue
: > acting the fool.
: Hehee! You know the more of your nastiness I read the harder it is to take you
: at all seriously. It really does seem as though you feel terribly threatened by
: transexuals, else you would not so desperately need to attack us on here both
: collectively and individually.
: >
: > >In the context of the anti-transexual hatred you have been posting here I
: > >cannot regard any such work by you as anything but pure hypocrisy!
: >
: > And in the context of what you have written here I have no choice but to view
: > you as a demented jerk who would sooner cut herself off from her own equality
: > than admit to making a mistake.
: More name calling, meaningless psuedo-rhretoric, and nastiness. Of course its to
: be expected from such a fearful individual as yourself. No one needs to bare
: their teeth like you do on there unless they are very afraid. I think you need
: to get yourself into therapy and deal with it instead of taking it out on us
: here.
: >
: > I pity you.
: Hehehehehehehe....
: No you don't, that's just another of your empty insults and we both know it.
: Empty insults and nasty language are all you have going for you. I've seen
: nothing of real substance posted by you yet, only acrimonious and embittered
: attacks on the transexuals you seem so threatened by.
: I expect that since this so dominates your conduct here, that it also makes up
: the majority of your so-called "accomplishments in Canada" and so I've little
: reason to bother looking there. I've already seen the mentality and temperament
: of the person who did that "work" here, and so I've little incentive or
: inclination to see more. Your conduct here works against you, *and* your work.
: As with Mar* I've little cause waste more time in pursuit of further discussion
: with you since you have demonstrated that nothing worthwhile can come of it, and
: that all a transexual may expect of you are insults and nastiness.
: I'm very sorry that your life is not going well for you, and I hope you have a
: better day tomorrow :)
: Amy
: -
: =====================================================================
: Amy Lewis | Conservative, n. A statesman who is
: VAX/Alpha System Manager | enamored of existing evils as
: Information Technology Svcs. | distinquished from the Liberal, who
: University of San Francisco | wishes to replace them with others
: x2304 | Ambrose Bierce
Desiree
Laura Blake wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:13:25 GMT, arb...@mindspring.com (Andrea Bennett)
> wrote:
> >>Really? She seems quite clear in thinking that "because it's what I want"
> >>is a perfectly legitimate reason to desire SRS.
> >
> >backing off some of her more combative and demeaning rhetoric.
>
> I'm not backing off on anything.
>
> My feelings are still very much as I state them on the various essays on the
> TransEqual website, and in my Usenet postings:
>
> Sex-change is unnatural... it is an act of technological intervention not a
> part of normal human developement.
Pace makers are "unnatural," repairing congenital heart defects is
"unnantural" in fact all of medicine is "unnatural" This is hardly a
valid arguement.
>
> Sex-change is delusional... it enables denial of biology by mutiliating the
> body.
I do not deny that my chromosomes will always be XY, so I'm hardly
"deluding" myself
>
> Sex-change is unnecessary... there is no biologically sound reason to have it.
By your own relience on "BrainSex" which would seem to indicate that
there *is* a biological reason: people with female brains want female
bodies to match. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
>
> Sex-change is counterproductive... it is obtained mostly for reasons of
> self-rejection, but utterly fails to deal with the underlying problems.
I do not reject myself. Again, you are aplying micro-data to
macro-conclusions, a tact you do quite well. The underlying problem is
that my brain is "wired" differently than my body.
>
> Sex-change is barbaric... it amounts to mutilation of the body because society
> does not accept transgendered people.
Again you hopelessly cling to the notion that transsexual surgery is a
result of society (a whole unfounded opinion) instead of a resul of a
person who *wants* their mind and body to be congruous.
>
> Sex-change is oppressive... it builds upon the notion that "everyone either is
> or wants to be cisgendered" and it disempowers those of us who choose to live
> outside the cisgender ideal.
For the less intelligent among you, I will clearly spell out the
inherant logical fallacy of this arguement (anyone who took Logic 101
should be able to see the error here)-
An individual is transgendered. This individual understands herself to
have a female brain in a male body. Not wanting to "accept" this
incongruity, she has surgury to bring her body into line with her mind.
From this, Laura gets that this individual is reinforcing the idea that
"everyone either is or wants to be cisgendered," a thoroughly incorrect
conclusion. All it means is that *this individual* wants to be
cisgendered. If you *like* being transgendered, than fine! (Although,
by your own reasoning, I would then question why you take hormones,
dress female, etc. when all you really have to do is remain exactly as
you were (male) and in your mind acknowledge that you are
female-brained)
>
> Sex-change is debilitating... it carries a high risk of post-op complications,
> some of which may be life threatening.
>
All surgery, regardless of what it is for, carries some risk. This is
not unknown to those undergoing SRS or any any other procedured that an
individual wants/needs.
> Yes... I do indeed think sex-change is a wholly unwise thing to do. Just as I
> think most plastic surgery is wholly unwise. It is far better to accept
> ourselves just as we are.
>
I accept who I am. I will once again refer you back to my "man without
a hand" analogy. A mn without hand can fully accept himself as a
one-handed indiviual. If a surgery was available that would give him an
artificial hand, why shouldn't he do it? Your arguement seems to be
"because it makes it harder for all of us who have one hand to gain
acceptance as one-handed people. If he gets it, people will wonder why
we don't." So, instead of limiting your fight to your true cause:
rights & acceptance of transgendered people, you absurdly feel the need
to insult surgery tracked transsexuals. Your predjudice is clearly
stated in TransEqual documents (as I pointed out in my "Transgendered
vs. Cisgendered" post of days ago.
Yes, if SRS did not exist, I would not die, but since the procedure
does why should *I* not do it? My choice has no consequences on those
who don't choose to have SRS, and it's false logic to claim otherwise.
> This, however, does not alter your freedom to make wholly unwise choices about
> your own life. As I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, one of
> the most difficult aspects of human rights is that along with supporting human
> freedom comes the need to broadly accept a person's right to make stupid
Couldn't resist making yet another insult, huh? I could say that it's
stupid to set yourself for societal rejection by not having SRS when
it's easily available to you, but I won't.
> decisions... that, too, is part of their freedom.
>
> In a free and just society, "Because I want it" is the only reason that should
> need to be given. All the rest is a useless exercise in justification. As
> you saw, I applauded Julie when she refused to justify her decisions... In an
> open market, people have the right and freedom to make their own purchases and
> they do not owe anyone --especially me-- an explaination for any of it.
> Sex-change is an offered service; if you want a cunt, go out and buy a cunt.
>
> I constantly hear transsexuals here bleating off about their right to express
> their opinions and have them accepted as valid... yet, you and many others,
> have done nothing but reject everything and anything that does not explicitly
> agree with your own dogmatic mindsets. This is chauvenism of a very high
> order. It says: "Say what I want you to say, or I will hate you -- believe
> what I say or I will hate you -- do this my way or I will hate you". Fine
> hate me all you want... my track record here in Canada speaks for itself.
>
> In all truth, I do not oppose sex-change... I simply believe there is a much
> better way of dealing with transgender identity issues than the one currently
Another value judgement- your way is "better" You refuse to even
ackowledge that it is just a different approach, not a better one. Your
approach may be "better" for some, but your dogmatic insistance that it
is "better" for all (primarily, I presume, because it helps your cause)
it what gets people up in arms. Get off the high horse, and simply
offer your thoughts as an "alternitive" and not the "better alternitive"
and people won't be so quick to jump done your throat.
> favoured. The little matter that you will not listen, or try to understand,
> speaks volumes about where you got your head stuck, girlfriend.
>
> >That, Julie, is why I made the statement to which you responded.
>
> No, it isn't Andrea. You're actions, like those of Steiner and Haugh, are
> very clear examples of objectionsim. Like the most dogmatic preacher, you
> rail against anything that challenges your pseudo-science and decry that which
> does not buy your words on faith. Like many others you have adopted the
> cisgender ideal as a religion, a higher state to which _all_ must aspire. But
> you are without eyes or ears, you are impervious to new information, and you
> fail to understand that your beloved dogma, like that of any religious
> fundimentalist is as blinding as it is corrupt.
>
> -----
> Laura Blake
>
> Visit the TransEqual website at:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/lblake
> -----
Unfortunately, both sides have been backed into corners and are kicking
and clawing at the others, refusing to even acknowledge any legitimacy
in the opposing side, because at this point, it would be a sign of
weekness. I will be interested to see Laura's response and I'm still
waiting for her explanation of the contridictions pointed out in my "TG
vs. CG" post.
Desiree
Desiree
Laura Blake wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 11:04:18 -0600, Desiree
> <HBeac...@SpamSpamBaconSpam.aol.com> wrote:
> >I will be interested to see Laura's response and I'm still
> >waiting for her explanation of the contridictions pointed out in my "TG
> >vs. CG" post.
>
>
> Seems that's about it, doesn't it?
I guess this is about as close to a concession to the truth & validity
of my points as I'm likely to get. Silly of me to follow Ms. Blake's
advice to read her essays and then expect intelligent debate in the
middle of a pointless flame war. Oh well.
Desiree
Amy Lewis
m...@dim.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 18:18:51 -0700, ste...@antispamm.best.com
> (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>
> >Why do you bring up the straw man of censorship?
>
> It was my impression that you (and others) desired to censor
> discussions that were contrary to your values and beliefs. Especially
> if those discussions and ideas were presented by 'non-transsexuals'.
>
Marla, how is it that we are to enforce such "censorship" upon you? I believe that were
it possible someone would have censored you long ago, and yet, you have continued to
post with total impunity. I do not believe that you have ever failed to speak your mind
here, or been impeded in this by anyone.
How then is it that you are worried about being censored by transexuals?
I'm quite certain that Ms. Blake, given the opportunity, would censor most, if not all,
of the transexuals on this group, yet we do not worry about this happening as she does
not have the means, no one does so its not worth going on about, and thus your issue is,
as Michelle pointed out, a straw man.
Amy
--
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Sex-change is unnatural... it is an act of technological intervention not a
> part of normal human developement.
So is correcting any birth defect medically.
> Sex-change is delusional... it enables denial of biology by mutiliating the
> body.
That depends on what the person on the recieving end believes about it
IMO.
As to "mutilating" - so does Mastectomy (breast cancer) or an amputation
(gangreen) . In a sense even a nose job is "mutiliating" the natural
nose!!!
> Sex-change is unnecessary... there is no biologically sound reason to have it.
Unproven assertion on your part.
> Sex-change is counterproductive... it is obtained mostly for reasons of
> self-rejection, but utterly fails to deal with the underlying problems.
Totally wrong - AND simply your opinion
> Sex-change is barbaric... it amounts to mutilation of the body because society
> does not accept transgendered people.
Bull
> Sex-change is oppressive... it builds upon the notion that "everyone either is
> or wants to be cisgendered" and it disempowers those of us who choose to live
> outside the cisgender ideal.
The vast majority are "cisgendered" and will aways be. Acceptance (or
non-acceptance of transgenderists has much more to do with that the TS's
having SRS. I've been trying to tell you that they are two different
issues...
> Sex-change is debilitating... it carries a high risk of post-op complications,
> some of which may be life threatening.
At one time but not any longer when done by the best surgeons.
>
> Yes... I do indeed think sex-change is a wholly unwise thing to do. Just as I
> think most plastic surgery is wholly unwise. It is far better to accept
> ourselves just as we are.
Because you are NOT TS...
> No, it isn't Andrea. You're actions, like those of Steiner and Haugh, are
> very clear examples of objectionsim. Like the most dogmatic preacher, you
> rail against anything that challenges your pseudo-science and decry that which
> does not buy your words on faith. Like many others you have adopted the
> cisgender ideal as a religion, a higher state to which _all_ must aspire. But
> you are without eyes or ears, you are impervious to new information, and you
> fail to understand that your beloved dogma, like that of any religious
> fundimentalist is as blinding as it is corrupt.
>
Sounds like you are describing yourself to me!!!
-Karen A.
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, by any measure I've been able to conceive to date, the
> only reason we treat transgender identity as a disorder is because we refuse
> to accept it as a normal (although infrequent) variant in human reality.
A technical point here - normal IS defined by frequency of occurance for
anything. In a population of 99.9% blue eyed people the others would be
abnormal.
Karen A.
Rob Wagner
I'll just take on one key statement out of the numerous assertions in
Laura's post. I'm just now learning about people who are transgendered
so may not be qualified to respond to most of these; however in Logic,
History, Philosophy and economics I have long practice and sharp claws.
Laura GPFed:
> It is far better to accept ourselves just as we are.
The entire upward wave of Western civilization proves otherwise. We are
always dissatisfied with what is, and there is no end to our desire to
improve our condition. To imagine that a thing is possible, is
sufficient to (by hook or by crook) achieve it.
There ARE societies and religions made to order for those who prefer to
be content with whatever they are given. This is not one of them. Try
the Buddhists, or the Socialists. Or try spending your entire life on
one farm in China, where the government or local warlord will confiscate
Western musical instruments, so afraid they are of the effects of the
quantum differences between our respective philosophies...
So where do you draw the line on changing one's condition? My ex-wife,
an incense-burning Buddhist and goddess-worshipper, thought I was
'unstable' because I changed jobs frequently--- refusing to have my
children on the grounds that I would be an 'unfit father', but I did
manage to double my salary every two years, in spite of her meager
expectations.
Cheers
Rob Wagner
http://www.pswtech.com/~rwagner
Julie Waters
Laura writes:
>Hi Julie... haven't seen you here in a while...
This is the first time I've ever involved myself in a prolonged discussion
on one of the newsgroups.
>... I'd say the problems I've had come from less than 10% of
>the transsexual population. Sadly this does not change the observation: only
>transsexuals have given me any grief at all.
Right-- I can understand this. But it's not -transsexuals- who are your
enemies-- it's that 10% or less of the transsexual population which has
given you serious grief.
>The problem of course is that one tends to get a little gun shy after a
>while, since you just can't tell the players apart without a program.
I try my best to take people one on one. I'm not making judgements about
individuals in the discussions I've seen based on what "side" they are on
or with what factions they choose to align themselves, because I know that
whatever I see on the surface, there is always a much deeper story.
>>I'm not going to explain or try to justify my own desire for surgery
>
>Good for you!
Thanks. Of course, I don't need anyone to tell me that, either :)
>Nobody should have to justify their personal choices to anyone. So long as
>nobody is being harmed, and so long as no laws are being broken... I say go
>for it.
I don't even know how I feel about the law part-- if I were in love with
someone and wanted to show that love in a fashion which was mutually
consentual and private, and yet still illegal in my state, I'd say screw
the law (so to speak :-)).
>You most certainly don't owe me any explainations.
I know, which is good, because some people seem to feel that I -do- owe
them explanations for just about everything.
Julie Waters
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>And that is just plain wrong. We don't just *want* it; we *need* it.
I do think that this varies on a case by case basis. Here's the problem as
I see it-- when we base our desires for surgery on the fact that we -all-
need it, it only takes one case of someone saying "No, I didn't -have- to
have this surgery, but I did want it" to make us look like idiots. When we
base it on the notion that it's our -right- to have it if we so desire, no
matter the reasons behind it, then it's not really refutable.
>Your
>proposal completely ignores the implications on insurace coverage for SRS.
There is -such- a low instance of insurance coverage in the us even -when-
people believe that it's our -need-, that I consider this trivial.
>So long as you continue with your jidhad at our expense, you are going to
>receive hostility from us.
This is the sort of personal attack which makes the discussion fall apart.
Julie Waters
m...@dim.com wrote:
>This is something I would concur with as well. I have found most
>transsexuals to be very tolerant and open minded individuals.
I don't know if I'd even go that far-- I don't think most of any group I've
ever encountered was particularly open-minded. And I don't see
transsexuals or transgendered individuals as any exception to that.
However:
>One
>should not judge all transsexuals based on a small minority. Even
>when the minority claims they represent all transsexuals.
This I agree with completely. Even if 98% of all the transsexuals I
encountered were bigoted idiots, I wouldn't assume anything about specific
individuals I met, no more than I assume that just because someone is
Christian means they're homophobic or sexist, something I assocate with
-many- Christians, but not all.
Roxie Lynn Greer
Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote in article <33BD9A2A...@tab.com>...
> Laura Blake wrote:
> > My feelings are still very much as I state them on the various essays
on the
> > TransEqual website, and in my Usenet postings:
> >
> > Sex-change is unnatural...
At one time, FLYING was considered completely un-natural. Churches
considered it ungodly. Today people don't give it a second thought. In
this great world of choice and change, someone choose to do the unnatural
and FLY.
> > Sex-change is delusional...
So too is FLYING. We don't fly like birds do. We are dependant on fuel,
and such. Sometimes due to the unnatural act of flying (ie Flight 800)
people even die. Nevertheless people choose still to fly. HOWEVER, there
are some who choose to NEVER fly. It's all choice, and we all make our own
individual choice.
> > Sex-change is unnecessary...
Gosh, so are anti-biotics that most doctors perscribe when one gets sick.
Nevertheless we continue to take them. We continue to do unnecessary
surgeries as well, (society in general we are talking) - face lifts, tummy
tucks, and even breast replacement after cancer (yes, even that is
unnecessary, but it sure makes wearing clothes easier if one two breasts
instead of only one because one was removed)
> > Sex-change is counterproductive...
Well, so too is much of life. A 4th of July BBQ is pretty much
counterproductive, Christmas is really counterproductive, causing great
debt even for many. Nevertheless people do continue to do it.
> > Sex-change is barbaric...
So too is professional boxing - add now ear biting. And so too is
football, auto racing and hockey ---- nevertheless many do these things,
even more watch, and much money is made from such barbaric events.
> > Sex-change is oppressive...
Would that is, as in, is always, or here again is it just a part of cereal
bowl of life?
> > Sex-change is debilitating...
Oh really, in all individuals? Permenantly, or temporarily? Getting one's
hair done is very debilitating for a short time, so too are many other
things.
Let me conclude with this: The above is but a top of head play on the
lines listed. I'm sure the poster can go back and reformat a position of
great strength. One can argue at least two sides of transsexuality issues.
I can do the same with the bible. In the end, it's all each persons life
and what they choose to do about their life. In the end it's a choice. It
always has been and always will. Before anyone goes to start the flames of
choice burning - remember we did that on the newsgroup some time ago. My
position on choice is: Until you don't have the legal authority over your
life (ie you are declared incompatant and a ward is apporinted for you) you
are making life's choices, from what you eat each morning to what you wear
to bed.
Roxie
Julie Simpson
In article <33BD94E1...@tab.com>, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
>
> When I started looking at SRS in earnest (which was about 2 months into
> RLT) it waa just about all I could think of -- how to get my letters,
> how
> to pick a surgeon, how to manage the time, etc. This was very
> disturbing
> to me because my ground rule for having SRS was that it was based on a
> =choice=, not a "need" or "compulsion" or whatever. My advice for
> anyone
> considering SRS is to force yourself to that same mental space -- get to
> where you know what you want and why. And then force yourself to
> imagine
> how life would be if you went the non-op route. I would suggest that if
> you cannot imagine a reasonable life as a non-op you haven't thought
> hard
> enough. The five months or so since I started to pick a surgeon have
> proven to me that I =can= have a reasonable live without having SRS.
Yup. But, as with every damned aspect of the whole transgendered
experience - and for that matter life in general - everyone's ability to
cope/be satisfied/develop a holistic view of their life varies. What
drives you to distraction may be perfectly endurable by me. This is
simultaneously one of the most frustrating and wonderful things about
human existence, that the threshold for _everything_ is different from one
person to another.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons people fall in love, because of the
complementary nature of those thresholds from one person to another.
For my part I _did_ find the non-op life unbearable for various reasons,
and eventually found an unsatisfactory surgical result difficult to deal
with too. I didn't have to imagine it, I was living it. Some people can
have a reasonable life without SRS. Some can have a wonderful life
without it. There may be a few, like me, who feel SRS _is_ important for
one reason or another. The likes of Laura etc can call me emotionally
crippled for that, but what the heck, it's my life, she can live her own.
Who knows if I'd still be alive if I hadn't had surgery? For that matter,
who in hell cares? If my life works, so be it. If yours does too, that's
great.
Whatever gets people through the night...
> Laura is probably a two-bit player compared to the likes of Janice
> Raymond. Very few outside of USENET have ever heard of Laura, but
> everyone I know who is TS =has= heard of Janice Raymond. She has
> been a pretty effective lobbyist against transsexuals and with the
> recent republication of her book "The Transsexual Empire" isn't
> showing any signs of letting up.
Raymond (and, like her, Bernice Hausman) has some good points about
transsexualism being dependent on medical intervention to "make" the
transsexual, but her resultant arguments are valid only if you accept the
notion that the biology and socialisation of a person before such
intervention makes gender immutable. Neither Raymond nor Hausman
addresses the possibility that this may not be true. Nor, for that
matter, does Greer. I guess it depends on the starting point one takes.
I often think it's ironic that theorists like Raymond and Greer start from
such biologically determinist viewpoints.
> However, I feel that Janice Raymond is just playing off of the
> "she-male" crowd and the best way to defeat her is to =loudly=
> distance ourselves from portion of our little "community". I
> believe the "gender unity at all costs" attitude (the one which
> says it is bad for me to refer to Mar* as a man because that is
> how sie lives hir life) is very much responsible for our inability
> to do precisely that.
Uh, no, the way to "defeat" Raymond is not to allow a "community" (if such
exists, which I doubt) to be divided, it is to publish (in a more reliable
forum than this) a reasoned and well-researched critique of her work. Of
course I'm wrong on that - realpolitik being what it is, the way to defeat
Raymond is with bricks and baseball bats ;) (apologies to Woody Allen).
The fact that Raymond takes one segment of the transgendered spectrum and
uses it to attack all transsexuals is simply an example of her being able
to play politics very well. But to defeat her honestly you have to engage
the ideas she has and present a valid response. Volunteers?
That does not mean one needs to disparage other people who want to call
themselves transgendered, it means that one needs to identify the
"community" as being like very other human community, ie diversified and
difficult to categorise. This means having to ditch the idea of "true"
transsexualism (by all means keep it if it helps people with insurance,
but for the purposes of intellectual argument it's a handicap). My chief
problem with Raymond is that, having described a class of people called
transsexuals, she assumes that all members of that class are subject to
the same forces upon them, ie that we are pawns of the patriarchal
medical system. Given some of the doctors I had, I don't think you can
abuse her for that mistake, but I do think you can object to the
generalisation about human motive or will on the part of the transsexual
themselves. Staistically you can assemble groups for the purposes of
sociology and psychology, but the statistics thus assembled do not
describe the individuals, they describe a group - and if the group is
sufficently diverse they don't decribe anything.
Part of any response to Raymond et al lies in presenting the notion of
diversity in every human group. If you let Raymond win at the first step,
a tight definition of transgender, then you may as well think of naming as
nerve gas and give the game away.
Sorry to ramble on but your post contained a few different ideas...
Cheers
Karen Ann A.
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 01:27:59 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen Ann A.) wrote:
> >A technical point here - normal IS defined by frequency of occurance for
> >anything. In a population of 99.9% blue eyed people the others would be
> >abnormal.
>
> Or... it would be completely normal that .1% of the populace was not blue
> eyed.
>
> You do the math...
Dear Laura,
Yes it is normal for a certain percentage of the populace to be not
normal (otherwise why would the word normal exist!!!). BUT that does
not put those in the catagory in the norm for that parameter. Remember
normal is not value judgement about the worth of the trait. The
definition of the word is statistical - and the cutoffs subjective.
Left handedness is natural but not normal. Does that make a left handed
person's somewhat life more difficult because of societies assumption
that all are right handed? You bet. Is someone looked down on because
they are left handed? Not any more - but they once were...
Transgenderism is something that reguarly occurs at low percentage in
the population (always has and always will). So while it is expected and
natural that some individuals will be transgendered, a transgendered
individual will never be "normal". That does not mean T* can't be
accepted (even though it is human nature to distrust the unusual). T*ism
is a natural phenomenon but is not and will never be normal.
Understanding this seems to me to be important.
Celeste
Well I certainly would not volunteer. I would rather like
to think that living my life as an example is a better way
to defeat people like Raymond. You don't see me around
these parts much for just that reason. I see no reason to
argue over something I have already won! I had a great
surgeon. My criteria for a great surgeon is feeling horny a
lot and feeling even better when the itch gets stratched.
From all who know me and know about my SRS eons ago, I am
simply a female. I am not and have not been a transsexual
is a very long time. I would like then to think that my
very existence defeats of the Raymonds of the world. I
would prefer to pity them for having so little imagination
as to think that such a topic is what they needed to write
about in order to publish or perish, or heaven forbid make
a buck.
Instead of arguing around here, I created
alt.support.sexreassign and mothered alt.support.srs, which
Rosalind Hengeveld birthed for me while I was too busy with
my professional pursuits to finish the job.
I think that living well and beautifully are the best
arguments for what I have been through. The result has been
a family that came around and is very close, friends who
have lasted for decades and a relieved life I can't imagine
living without my female body and soul. By that measure,
existence is the best argument for the way in which I
solved that "little" problem I had so long ago.
Pursue Happiness Always ...
Roxie Lynn Greer
Julie Simpson <gho...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<ghostv-0607...@slsyd52p13.ozemail.com.au>...
> In article <33BD94E1...@tab.com>, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
> >
> Yup. But, as with every damned aspect of the whole transgendered
> experience - and for that matter life in general - everyone's ability to
> cope/be satisfied/develop a holistic view of their life varies. What
> drives you to distraction may be perfectly endurable by me. This is
> simultaneously one of the most frustrating and wonderful things about
> human existence, that the threshold for _everything_ is different from
one
> person to another.
>
I'm transsexual, so I'm told - and I can't disagree with the facts
presented concerning my being transsexual. I can think of great reasons to
have surgery. I can think of great reason not to have surgery. Most
important, I can remember my closest friend, who always felt she needed
surgery, always wanted surgery, and couldn't afford surgery. She was
absolutely sure she had to have surgery, not a doubt anywhere in her head.
She died just over a year ago. She shot herself in the heart.
In desperation to reach her great goal, she crashed and burned. Some post
ops have suicided after surgery. There is no magic wand for being
transsexual, transgender, or whatever you choose to label it. I must
agree, as in all of life it's as varried as each individual, and as varried
as their resources. Sometimes these resources are just as simple as a good
therapist. The first experience I explained my gender feeling to didn't
have a clue what I was talking about, used his best frame of reference, and
said, you are obviously gay, you should just admit it and live life that
way. I knew he was wrong then, know it still to this day. However, it was
20 years later before I felt the confidence to tell someone about my gender
feelings. I'd have loved to have had a competitant doctor at age
seventeen, but I didn't. Life is just like that sometimes.
There are no magic wands, no fairy tales, and no great social solution to
being transgender, transsexual, or however you wish to refer to it.
Medical solutions are not alway successfull either, and it matters not if
they are psychological or surgical or a combination of both. Sometimes
things fall in place in a wonderfull way, sometimes they don't.
What does surgery offer. It offers an ability to -prove- you are the
gender you live, and it entitles you to the benefits and liabilities of
living in that gender. It will very likely create a lessor problem for the
nursing home staff. It will simplify things in some ways. So too it will
complicate things as well - when WAS your last pap? Life isn't just a
simple essay. It's as complex as each individual.
Roxie