It's about acceptance [was: It's about the e-mail I'm getting...]
Karen Ross
K. D. Cowan <kco...@gte.net> wrote in article
<5sra14$cs2$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
... Anyone who thinks they are never read by
> people that know them well are likely deluding themselves- for there are
> those that can read us no matter how well we present, and it's about
> time we recognized just who we are and stood up for our accomplishments.
I've read others make this assertion before. However, in my experience
it's not basically correct. The fact that some people may be suspicious
and a very few may actually be certain of our past, doesn't necessarily
mean anything. Although I transitioned reasonably young and have some
physical advantages I'm not the most passible I've ever met. Yet, there is
no evidence that my history was known where I've worked. Perhaps, in part,
because my full work history since college is female.
Each time I've had occasion to check, I have had strong evidence that my
history was *not* known. At one company I worked four years before coming
out to a friend. She was floored. She was also in a position to know, if
anyone had said anything. They hadn't. In addition, a year before I came
out to her, there had been a rumor that I was pregnant that circulated once
when I was out of town. It was widely believed and actually difficult to
quash. It only went away when it became obvious that I wasn't swelling!
Five years later I came out to another co-worker who had known me on two
subsequent jobs. She had no idea. She did say that someone I had taked to
on the phone once had suggested it but she laughed it off as being quite
impossible. She also was certain that no one else in the company knew,
because that would have been to juicy a rumor to limit.
I've done it and I've had friends who did it. It can be done, of course
not by everyone. It also carries an unknown set of risks. It can collapse
quickly. Nevertheless, it can be done. Assertions that it cannot are
simply incorrect assertions.
> Laura Blake, if I understand her correctly, calls into question that we
> will ever achieve equality while we are underground - that we must
> present ourselves as whatever gender we are, but to fully recognize our
> biological background and to stop hiding behind the "deformity" model.
> While many transsexuals on the net have taken similar, albeit
> short-lived, positions on this, they are generally shouted down and have
> left or simply given up trying to educate the world.
And some of us TS folks simply reject the model as deficient and flawed.
Both your opinions and LD Blakes don't hold water for many of us - and
never will.
> I won't deny the biological maleness consistent with my upbringing.
> There is no need to deny that - I had a beautiful childhood. All my
> problems come from denial of some sort or another.
Including the denial of the reality that some of us have life experience
that is at odds with your assertions and theorizations. To add my voice to
the others that have disagreed, you have your opinion - and many of us do
*not* share it.
> Thanks for reading -- feedback is welcomed!
Feedback given.
--
Kare (Karen Ross)
Politics:, n. A strife of interests cross-dressed as a contest of
principles. - with appologies to Ambrose Bierce
email: kr...@gis.net
Psychodad
On 14 Aug 97 00:54:09 GMT, Caitlyn M. Martin <cmm...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> I won't speak for Ms. Blake, however - it has been my experience that
>> her point is right on the money - and it's not a "male" in a dress shop
>> - it's an admission that at our biological core, we are male, and
>> further, that there is nothing wrong with that (it is not a disorder,
>> but a variation).
>
>Kari,
>
>Please speak for yourself. I do not believe that at my biological core
>that I am male. Increasingly, research is suggesting that there may well
>be a bilogical basis for transsexualism. If you prefer the word variation,
>that's fine. If you are saying it's not a psychological disorder, I agree.
> In fact, it is one of the very few places Laura and I agree about
>anything.
Of course you're male, check your chromosomes, however does being of
male sex makes your a MAN? Male/woamn is not a birth defect (I hate
this whole birth defect theory soem TSs came up with) that should
be corrected a male/woman is just as valid as a female/wowan, female/man,
male/man, etc... As Kari said its just one of the variations, so
accept yourself as one insted of running around getting unnesessary
surgiries and poisoning your body with hormones.
>
>> It came to me through accident that
>> some people in upper management referred to me as "she" in my presence,
>> but "he" when not in my presence
>
>I do not believe that is the case where I work at all. Of course, my
>appearance may have a lot to do with it. Most guys aren't as small as I
>am--even for a woman I am quite petite. I simply do not look like a man
>(nor act like one) which probably makes it difficult for anyone to think of
>me as one. Like you, I started here after transition.
>>
Jeez, so you got a small, not so masculine body and it makes it easier
for you to pass, I think you're a very biased person, just so you
know most CDs are not steell workers in dress who act like Jon Wayne
and wear big blond wigs, and most TSS ARE NOT perfectly passbvle little women
like you, what about a non-passble 6'5" TS? would you deny any kind
of similirity to her as well?
i>> I think at the core of it was that we had never addressed transgenderism
>> publicly. If it were a more open topic, people would have felt
>> comfortable talking and we would have bonded better. In other words,
>> although I was in a sense "victimized", I also share blame for being a
>> coward and hiding behind a paradox of pretense that I should only be
>> perceived as a woman, thereby denying my biological male core.
>
>It's not cowardice. I do not believe I am male at the core, I do not
>present as male in any way, shape, or form, I do not look male, therefore,
>why should I be perceived as anything other than female? BTW, I do
>socialize with a few women from work, and they clearly perceive me as
>female, nothing else.
>
I just hope I will see the time when people will understand the diffrence
between sex and gender, you dont look like a man thsts true, but deep down
no matter how many surgieures you get your sex is still MALE.
why not just accept yourself as a male/woman? I knwop its far more
difficult then pretending to be "normal" but at lest you'd be honmest
with yourself.
>Also, I think you completely miss the point about what being transsexual
>means to most of us. For surgical track M->Fs (and you did post to
>alt.support.srs), we are women. The mistake which gave us some
>incompatible biology is an error to be corrected, nothing more.
>
>> Anyone who thinks they are never read by
>> people that know them well are likely deluding themselves- for there are
>> those that can read us no matter how well we present, and it's about
>> time we recognized just who we are and stood up for our accomplishments.
>
>I think you are the one who is deluded. Sadly, many of us do not become
>totally passable, but a surprising number of us do. I'm sorry if it hasn't
>worked out that way for you, but it is clearly happening for me, and I'm
>just thrilled about it.
>>
Unfortunetly most m2f DO get read on a regualr basis even after years of
hrt, just because you dont get looks doesnt mean you're actually passuing
as a woman, people are just being polite.
>> Laura Blake, if I understand her correctly, calls into question that we
>> will ever achieve equality while we are underground - that we must
>> present ourselves as whatever gender we are, but to fully recognize our
>> biological background and to stop hiding behind the "deformity" model.
>
>Total disagreement. Laura's posts are as biased (against transsexuals) as
>any I've seen. Fully recognize what biological background? Your view
>fails to account for intersexed persons designated as male at birth (who
>are classified as transsexuals), or anyone with other than normal male
>development. If you want to say these folks, or women born with normal
>male genitalia, or men born with normal female genitalia, do not suffer
>from a form of bith defect, I believe you are wrong. What about
>chromosomal abnormalities, like Kleinfelter's Syndrome or Turner's
>Syndrome? These people are classified as male, even though there genetic
>structure is neither male nor female, and when they choose to present as
>female, are also classified as transsexual.
saying that being intersexual is a birth defect is EXTREMELY offensive
to most intersexed people. once again not fitting into male/man-female/woman
bi-polar gender system IS NOT A BIRHT DEFECT THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED
BY HORMOINES AND SURGIRIES. and yes its hard being diffrent, I'm sorry
you idnt have the guts to be honest with yourself, You chose the easy way.
>> While many transsexuals on the net have taken similar, albeit
>> short-lived, positions on this, they are generally shouted down and have
>> left or simply given up trying to educate the world.
>
>Very few take any such position, IMHO. Remember, Laura Blake is not
>transsexual.
>
>> Ms. Blake is most
>> likely the only activist I know that consistently has promoted this
>> model of acceptance over the years, and has the guts to stand behind
>> it. She doesn't claim to have invented it, but refined it and puts it
>> to US to look closely at it.
>
>Looked at it, and rejected it lock stock and barrell.
>>
>> I have to admit, I don't always like what I see when I look at my
>> peers. Then I force myself to look in the mirror and remember the
>> little boy who used to stomp through the woods, had heaps of great times
>> - and even if I did cry myself to sleep because I wasn't a little girl,
>> I won't deny the biological maleness consistent with my upbringing.
>> There is no need to deny that - I had a beautiful childhood.
>
>Good for you. I didn't. I was teased mercilessly, called "sissy" or
>"girl", and beaten up on way too many occaisons.
>
Jeez this still happens to me, also try fag, queen, etc, however
despte all of this I'm going to continue to defend my write to
be what I'm . and I'm not going to let society to correct me into
something they find more acceptable.
Vlad aka Burgerqueen.
Karen Ross
> Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> As yet not well grounded theoretical data is hardly a basis for
> rejecting your biology.
It is only part of the basis, but actually a fairly good basis. There are
other more basic reasons that are rooted on a deeply instinctual and
emotional level. And simply because you can't place a steel pointer on
them does not make them any the less real or any the less vital. When
dealing with human nature, simplistic biological models often do not
suffice. Show me the biological model for DID, for example.
...On the other hand, it isn't much of a basis for
> the inverse either; I have an open mind on the subject, but for the
> record, I beleive m2f persons are biologically more male than female,
> and I could probably submit far more support of that than I could the
> inverse.
Percentage of biological mass or a count of physiologically distinguishable
sex-linked traits, for example would be irrelevant. There is no reason to
believe that very small biological changes can't account for very large
instinctual and emotional differences. As a consequence being
"biologically more male" is not a meaningful counter argument. Also, as it
happens, I know of additional unpublished physical evidence that also
supports Katy's view. Give the reluctance of professional journals to
touch such politically hot and contoversial data, it shouldn't be
surprising that more isn't published.
> So you disagree with my assertion that there are those sensitive enough
> to read us. You are entitled to your opinion.
There are some people who are sensitive enough to be suspicious and a few
who may be personally sure. In practice, if you structure your life
properly, these people are generally irrelevant, IME. I'm quite passible,
but I've seen better. Nevertheless, I've been in a position to know that
in my last three jobs and in association with at least 600 co-workers for a
period of ten years, no one knew. (The employment interval was longer but
I only came out a couple of times to co-workers I trusted and who would
have known, so their feedback is limited to a ten year interval.) That's
no guarantee that on my next job something different may happen. There are
more TS folks where I live now and people may be more sensitive to us.
> Your right to difference of opinion. I respect that you did at least
> look at it. I find it hard to decry her acheivments in the human rights
> field. I wish more people had her view.
And some of her views are not only bogus but quite harmful. I'm *glad*
more people don't expound her views.
m...@dim.com
On 14 Aug 1997 03:53:33 GMT, ro...@tundra.net-link.net (Psychodad)
wrote:
>As Kari said its just one of the variations, so
>accept yourself as one insted of running around getting unnesessary
>surgiries and poisoning your body with hormones.
I would suggest that it is up to each individual to decide what is and
is not necessary/unnecessary and what is or is not poisoning.
You can make that assessment for your body, but don't make it for
others. Each person has a right to make that decision for themselves
without others slapping negative judgments on that decision.
Marla
************************************************
* Marla Louise
* EMail: m...@dim.com
* Homepage: http://www.dimensional.com/~mb/
************************************************
Grrlpetal
Karen Ross wrote:
>
>Show me the biological model for DID, for example.
>
There is a psycho- biological basis for DID and all Dissociative models
of consciousness:
DID forms before the age of six, as the brain is developing and the Self
has not yet solidified. The latest clinical models show that before six,
the human brain has not generated a schema of a locative Self. With the
addition of extreme dissociation due to extreme stress (a typical human
response) PTSD sets in.
DID is an adaptation based upon permanent changes in the excessive
production of Acetacholines (ACTH) resulting in the activation of a
certain location of the brain which would otherwise be non-functional.
This is the biological underpinning of PTSD and it's sister, DID. EEG
measurements of those with DID are remarkably variant from normals.
Persistent trauma beginning past the age of nine does cause PTSD and
even DID like symptoms, usually classified as DDNOS (Dissociative
Disorder, not otherwise specified).
Cindy
Psychodad
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 02:51:46 -0500, Julie Haugh <j...@tab.com> wrote:
>K. D. Cowan wrote:
>> As yet not well grounded theoretical data is hardly a basis for
>> the inverse either; I have an open mind on the subject, but for the
>> record, I beleive m2f persons are biologically more male than female,
>> and I could probably submit far more support of that than I could the
>> inverse.
>
>that only the "sex" of the brain is relevant. And to be
>completely blunt about it, I've had about half a dozen
>different indirect tests of my brain made and they all
>indicate "female". Some of the tests are unforgeable so
>I'm rather certain I'm not "faking" being female in the head.
>--
>Julianne Frances Haugh I wanted to buy a vowel
>mailto:j...@tab.com but I barely had enough money
>http://www.tab.com/~jfh for a clue.
so waht the hell is 'brain sex'? Does your brain have a penis? Or in your case
it got a fully developed vagina? Can you see it on x-rays?
Vlad aka Burgerqueen.
Julia
And another flame war starts fanned by the hot air of psychodad. This
issue has been beaten to death. I thought the flames were finally
extinguished. But alas....
Caitlyn M. Martin
[snip]
> I won't speak for Ms. Blake, however - it has been my experience that
> her point is right on the money - and it's not a "male" in a dress shop
> - it's an admission that at our biological core, we are male, and
> further, that there is nothing wrong with that (it is not a disorder,
> but a variation).
Kari,
Please speak for yourself. I do not believe that at my biological core
that I am male. Increasingly, research is suggesting that there may well
be a bilogical basis for transsexualism. If you prefer the word variation,
that's fine. If you are saying it's not a psychological disorder, I agree.
In fact, it is one of the very few places Laura and I agree about
anything.
> It came to me through accident that
> some people in upper management referred to me as "she" in my presence,
> but "he" when not in my presence
I do not believe that is the case where I work at all. Of course, my
appearance may have a lot to do with it. Most guys aren't as small as I
am--even for a woman I am quite petite. I simply do not look like a man
(nor act like one) which probably makes it difficult for anyone to think of
me as one. Like you, I started here after transition.
>
> I think at the core of it was that we had never addressed transgenderism
> publicly. If it were a more open topic, people would have felt
> comfortable talking and we would have bonded better. In other words,
> although I was in a sense "victimized", I also share blame for being a
> coward and hiding behind a paradox of pretense that I should only be
> perceived as a woman, thereby denying my biological male core.
It's not cowardice. I do not believe I am male at the core, I do not
present as male in any way, shape, or form, I do not look male, therefore,
why should I be perceived as anything other than female? BTW, I do
socialize with a few women from work, and they clearly perceive me as
female, nothing else.
Also, I think you completely miss the point about what being transsexual
means to most of us. For surgical track M->Fs (and you did post to
alt.support.srs), we are women. The mistake which gave us some
incompatible biology is an error to be corrected, nothing more.
> Anyone who thinks they are never read by
> people that know them well are likely deluding themselves- for there are
> those that can read us no matter how well we present, and it's about
> time we recognized just who we are and stood up for our accomplishments.
I think you are the one who is deluded. Sadly, many of us do not become
totally passable, but a surprising number of us do. I'm sorry if it hasn't
worked out that way for you, but it is clearly happening for me, and I'm
just thrilled about it.
>
> Laura Blake, if I understand her correctly, calls into question that we
> will ever achieve equality while we are underground - that we must
> present ourselves as whatever gender we are, but to fully recognize our
> biological background and to stop hiding behind the "deformity" model.
Total disagreement. Laura's posts are as biased (against transsexuals) as
any I've seen. Fully recognize what biological background? Your view
fails to account for intersexed persons designated as male at birth (who
are classified as transsexuals), or anyone with other than normal male
development. If you want to say these folks, or women born with normal
male genitalia, or men born with normal female genitalia, do not suffer
from a form of bith defect, I believe you are wrong. What about
chromosomal abnormalities, like Kleinfelter's Syndrome or Turner's
Syndrome? These people are classified as male, even though there genetic
structure is neither male nor female, and when they choose to present as
female, are also classified as transsexual.
> While many transsexuals on the net have taken similar, albeit
> short-lived, positions on this, they are generally shouted down and have
> left or simply given up trying to educate the world.
Very few take any such position, IMHO. Remember, Laura Blake is not
transsexual.
> Ms. Blake is most
> likely the only activist I know that consistently has promoted this
> model of acceptance over the years, and has the guts to stand behind
> it. She doesn't claim to have invented it, but refined it and puts it
> to US to look closely at it.
Looked at it, and rejected it lock stock and barrell.
>
> I have to admit, I don't always like what I see when I look at my
> peers. Then I force myself to look in the mirror and remember the
> little boy who used to stomp through the woods, had heaps of great times
> - and even if I did cry myself to sleep because I wasn't a little girl,
> I won't deny the biological maleness consistent with my upbringing.
> There is no need to deny that - I had a beautiful childhood.
Good for you. I didn't. I was teased mercilessly, called "sissy" or
"girl", and beaten up on way too many occaisons.
> All my
> problems come from denial of some sort or another.
So did mine. When I stopped denying that I was a woman, despite the
biological differences, they went away.
>
> Thanks for reading -- feedback is welcomed!
Well, I hope that includes negative feedback.
-Kate
Karen Ross
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > >male/man, etc... As Kari said its just one of the variations, so
> > >accept yourself as one insted of running around getting unnesessary
> > >surgiries and poisoning your body with hormones.
> >
hatred
> > for transsexuals, and is immune to reason.
> by all means, don't reply to those whose opinion may differ, not that I
> consider hormones to be poison (if I did, I wouldn't take them,
> though).
Buy a clue, Kari. Michelle said to ignore Vlad not because he holds
diffent opinions but because a long string of threads amply prove that not
only are his positions hog wash, but that he is unwilling or unable to
engage in reasoned logical discourse. As such to argue with him is a waste
of effort for the same reason only a fool argues with a two year old.
dani richard
Psychodad wrote:
<snip>
> so waht the hell is 'brain sex'? Does your brain have a penis? Or in your case
> it got a fully developed vagina? Can you see it on x-rays?
>
> Vlad aka Burgerqueen.
There is a whole book call "Brain Sex".
The postulation is that the brain is structured differently (they say
"diaphomorphic") between males and females. That is the structure of a
female brain is different from that of a male.
The November 5, 1996 issue of Nature has an artical describing a part of
the hypothalmus (the "feeling" part of the brain) that is different
between males, females and m->f transsexuals. The part of the brain they
were studying was a certain size in males. Female brains wof that
reation were only 60% of a male. In m->f transsexuals that same area
was only 40% of a male. The New York Times version of the artical
pointed out that this size different implies that m->f transsexuals are
more "female" than genetic females.
In MMPI-2 test, most m->f transsexual score much higher in "female
identity" (Scale 5) than genetic females.
This corralates with the New York Times article.
Dani Richard
dani richard
Psychodad wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Of course you're male, check your chromosomes, however does being of
> male sex makes your a MAN? Male/woamn is not a birth defect (I hate
> this whole birth defect theory soem TSs came up with) that should
> be corrected a male/woman is just as valid as a female/wowan, female/man,
> male/man, etc... As Kari said its just one of the variations, so
> accept yourself as one insted of running around getting unnesessary
> surgiries and poisoning your body with hormones.
>
Chromosones do not necessarly define sex (or gender).
I take it you never hear of Androgen Insencitivity Sydone. There is
where we get XY women.
Klinefelder's sydrond is XXY.
Is that "male" or "female"?
<snip>
> I just hope I will see the time when people will understand the diffrence
> between sex and gender, you dont look like a man thsts true, but deep down
> no matter how many surgieures you get your sex is still MALE.
> why not just accept yourself as a male/woman? I knwop its far more
> difficult then pretending to be "normal" but at lest you'd be honmest
> with yourself.
My body was wired male.
My brain is wired female.
My live is much improved since I started living as a female.
Every day I pray, "God, Thank you for letting me live this day as a
woman."
Eletrolysis and hormones have been big helps to my state of being.
<snip>
> Unfortunetly most m2f DO get read on a regualr basis even after years of
> hrt, just because you dont get looks doesnt mean you're actually passuing
> as a woman, people are just being polite.
Even genetic women "get read". My wife "read" the wife of a friend as
"transsexual."
<snip>
>
> saying that being intersexual is a birth defect is EXTREMELY offensive
> to most intersexed people. once again not fitting into male/man-female/woman
> bi-polar gender system IS NOT A BIRHT DEFECT THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED
> BY HORMOINES AND SURGIRIES. and yes its hard being diffrent, I'm sorry
> you idnt have the guts to be honest with yourself, You chose the easy way.
The transsexuals and intersexuals seek "appropiate" treatment.
The problem with current treatments for intersexuals is that:
1. It is done without consent.
2. The intersexual is made to feel powerless.
3. It is done in "secret".
4. It is done with a "body guard of lies".
5. It is done with extream shame of self.
I would be "mad as hell" it I was given "inappropiate" treatment for my
transsexulisum. I have worked real hard to the treatment that is "right
for me", not out of some text book. I have a couple of intersex friends.
Much of their loss of self is due to the lies about their true nature.
All the intersexed pesons I have meet have had "gender dyphoria" forced
on them by inappropiate "theraputic" administration of hormones.
All of us (my intersex friends and myself) needed to have the power of
choice restored to us and "appropiate therapy" to enable us to regain
fuction and joy to our lives.
I don't look upon my transsexualisum a a "birth defect". It is rather a
condition that defines and explains a lot about myself. I do see
"appropate treatment" it improve my quality of life. I suffer because I
was forced to live in the "male role". I have sought therapy to
understand what I need to make my life worth living.
For me that choice was eletrolysis, hormones and soon, SRS.
These are my choices.
They work for me.
>
> Jeez this still happens to me, also try fag, queen, etc, however
> despte all of this I'm going to continue to defend my write to
> be what I'm . and I'm not going to let society to correct me into
> something they find more acceptable.
>
> Vlad aka Burgerqueen.
>
>
Same here.
I can and do work with society. I find it is like the "Force". It
controls us, but we also can control it. It is learning how to change
the rules. Were I am living (Huntsville, Alabama), it is working!
Dani Richard
Grrlpetal
It always amazes me to read declarative posts about what I or someone
else may be experiencing in life. I think the lowest point was once,
when one person denied that another person was experiencing a *real*
orgasm. I now read so many assumptions about another persons
reality.....so much misinformation, so much dogma.
So while the hair pulling contest goes on, and tangental points are
examined ferociously with fine-tuned motherboards, I toss my two cents
onto this pile of cyber-bodies in search of correctitude.
No one knows what it's like to be me. No one has seen my struggles, no
one has come to conclusions about my Self the way I have, or approached
my issues with the tools and lessons that I've been given and have
experienced. I don't need *any* justifications for my sense of my
Self(or selves in my case). Don't need Biology, Psychology, or Gender
Theory. Neither should anyone else- but of course everyone has at least
two cents.
BTW, the threads which rely on Gender Theory are hysterically
uninformed. I was once rebuffed because I used the term 'heterosexism.'
The respondent didn't want to discuss sexuality......for those, and
probably most of you who don't know, heterosexism is a social Construct:
the way our Culture defines what is a man/woman and what is not a
man/woman. Sex and Gender are *both* proscribed, enforced, sanctioned,
etc. Point being:
Some of the more vociferous members of the "Old Girl Network" on these
trans newsgroups don't want to be confused with the facts, confuse fact
with opinion, and tend to rely on yesterday's "group think." Which
leads to my final point:
Group Identity is a dangerous thing because it tends to favor certain
behaviors, ideas, etc., while rejecting others. And as groups form,
cliques develop to wield "power over," sometimes merely by ignoring
those who don't fit in, or hammering (flaming) those who threaten the
code of the group
As one of the few posting disciples of Queer Theory (I get letters :),
whereby it is held that Sex and Gender are inseparable,(yes, even I hold
certain ideolgies near and dear) let me remind everyone reading this
that too much of the heterosexual world regards everyone around here as
a bunch of twisted "faggots." Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Trans are coming
together because all of us share many of the same dilemmas and
challenges living in a non-Queer world. Yes, T*s can also be Lesbian,
Gay, or Bi, but it is remarkable how more than a few Lesbians, Gays, and
Bisexuals can also be GenderQueer. And there are a growing number of
"straight queers" who see the beauty of diversity in being yourself and
loving whom you choose to love. And in the end, that's all that really
matters. My Two Cents.
Cindy
Caitlyn M. Martin
Hi, Michelle,
You are correct in that Vlad is not worth responding to, but he did make
two interesting points:
> >Of course you're male, check your chromosomes
Actaully, I never have. Did it occur to you that some women have XY
chromosomes? That when
tested by the USTA, Dr. Renee Richards *passed* her chromosome test? That
KS and Turner's
Syndrome folks are classified as men, but do not have XY chromosomes?
Here's a hint for you, Vlad: I am one of the exceptions I talked about.
I'm not going into details
here.
>>As Kari said its just one of the variations, so
> >accept yourself as one insted of running around getting unnesessary
> >surgiries and poisoning your body with hormones.
Unnecessary for you, not for me. Hormones have had wonderful effects, and
try to stuff this into your
brain: I will have more function as female than I ever could as male.
What does that make me?
>
> Katy, don't bother replying to him; he has often shown an unbridled
hatred
> for transsexuals, and is immune to reason.
Quite correct, but other people are reading this.
Kate
Grrlpetal
K. D. Cowan wrote:
>
There
> is, afterall, a reason most transsexuals rate more "female" than genetic
> females on tests that measure such things, and that is that transsexuals
> probably tend to answer in "appropriate" manner for female, confounding
> results through test-expentancy more than true responses, in at least
> some cases.
Or perhaps a psycho-biological basis if recent findings in preliminary
studies are found to hold water?
In any event, there is a noticable tendency for a number of TSs to
overcompensate, a result of hyperbolizing a singular ideal woman- as if
there were some archetype (for all the Jungians out there). But even
here one has to be careful because hyperbolization of Gender is a
process that most humans engage in to a greater or lesser degree. The
pumped-up Gay male is one example, as is the seperatist "hairy lesbian"
look- an apparent anti-hyberbolization, which is substantially the same
process they claim to be rejecting (a matter of style rather than
substance). As far as tests go: MMPIs, for instance, are Culturally
biased instruments- I knew what they were looking for when I read the
quetions and response choices and I gave it to them in Hearts (how's
that for turning a phrase due to overcompenstation? :)
Cindy
Kristin Rachael Hayward
Keywords:
In article <33F314...@earthlink.net> grrl...@earthlink.net
writes:
Thank you Cindy ... I heard the same from my psychiatrist while I was
hospitalized last fall, but considering the state I was in, I failed
to remember the exact terminology.
On an associated matter, DID can be directed into positive, healthly
modes of expression and behavior, when treated positively and
creatively, as you well know, (Thank you again for your postings and
email on DID.)
While I am still in the early stages of my treatment, I have learned
to accept and love my alters, and to understand that they are good
friends to whom I can turn to in times of need, and even as friends to
whom I can delegate tasks which, as Kristin, I find myself unable to
accomplish.
Kristin Rachael Hayward
Grrlpetal
I know what *that's* like :)
>
> On an associated matter, DID can be directed into positive, healthly
> modes of expression and behavior, when treated positively and
> creatively, as you well know, (Thank you again for your postings and
> email on DID.)
>
> While I am still in the early stages of my treatment, I have learned
> to accept and love my alters, and to understand that they are good
> friends to whom I can turn to in times of need, and even as friends to
> whom I can delegate tasks which, as Kristin, I find myself unable to
> accomplish.
Yes, yes yes! Management! As my psych says, DID is a gift to your
self/selves. You've survived a living Hell the depths of which few
others have ever reached or understand.
It's nothing to be afraid of because it's what you *are.* (sounds like
words of encouragement to a newbie TS, huh? :)
Wishing you serenity and light,
Cindy
Grrlpetal
Laura Blake wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:14:48 -0700, ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle
> Steiner) wrote:
> >I wish that you would stop lying about me like that.
>
> Not much fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?
>
> You people have been lying about me for years.
>
> -----
> Laura Blake
>
> Visit the TransEqual Website at:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/lblake
> -----
And you have been insufferably snotty and intolerant towards me and
anyone else who thought your "male core" is as dispensible as an apple
core. Face it, you're a wonderful activist with a pedestrian theory of
Gender and an attitude problem to boot! And your "you people" statement
points to a bigoted core. Can it be true? Do you have a bigoted male
core as opposed to a biological one?
Cindy
Cindy
Celeste
Remove the alt.support.srs crossposting on this thread or it is gone.
Michelle Steiner wrote in article ...
>In article <33f7904...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, lbl...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:14:48 -0700, ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle
>>Steiner) wrote:
>>>I wish that you would stop lying about me like that.
>>
>>Not much fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?
>>
>>You people have been lying about me for years.
>
>I haven't.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| 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) |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Celeste
Grrlpetal wrote in article <33F7BB...@earthlink.net>...
>Laura Blake wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:14:48 -0700, ste...@antispamm.best.com
(Michelle
>> Steiner) wrote:
>> >I wish that you would stop lying about me like that.
>>
>> Not much fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?
>>
>> You people have been lying about me for years.
>>
Kristine W. Holt
Laura Blake (lbl...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
:
: So far Kara Cowan is the only transsexual who has taken the time to actually
: think about what I've been saying.
This isn't entirely accurate, Laura. You and I carried on some
snail-mail correspondence about four years ago regarding tactics for
securing civil rights. At that time, I was of the belief that the
"disability model," based as it is on medical diagnosis and intervention,
was the way to go. After years of thinking on the issue and experience
in litigating the theory I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't work
very well. Even if it could be made to offer us protections, those
protections would be short-term only, and would serve to box us in
tighter and marginalize us further in the long-term. I remember our
discussions, and your thoughts on the subject have helped me get a grip
on a better way.
Please don't denigrate your influence on the transsexual community. Not
everyone you clash with is against you.
-- Kris
Cheryl
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 16:40:08 GMT, lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake)
wrote:
>Actually Kara, this is completely typical of the crap I've been putting up
>with for nearly a decade, now.
>
>The notion in Michelle's head is that she is the only person she has to
>think about and anything that doesn't come right out of her own dogma is
>deemed to be arguementative and hostile. "If you don't agree with me, and
>I'm a transsexual, then you must hate all transsexuals"... quite the leap of
>logic.
>
Yada, yada, yada. Say, Laura, did that ten year crap begin when you
were thrown out of high school, or when you were thrown out of the
Clark Gender Institute in Toronto? Why don't you be honest as to who
you are and why you hate transsexuals?
>And frankly it is more than a little insecure... it comes directly from
>insecurity. Transsexuals live inherrently insecure lifestyles, as do most
>delusional people. She sheer notion that sex-change is anything but
>compliance with the delusion of femaleness is utterly laughable, but here
>they are all caught up in it, and defending it to the death... often from
>wholly immaginary enemies.
>
Oh yes, the whole Transsexual Empire is threatened by the ravings of a
delusional loser such as yourself. You continually misrepresent
yourself. What is the above paragraph, but more hate-filled
projections of your own failings upon transsexuals, written in your
inimitible semi-literacy?
Gee, I'll have to tell my husband and all my women friends that my
femininity is delusional and utterly laughable, and their acceptance
of me is equally delusional, because Laura says so. I'm very secure
in who I am. Can you honestly say the same? But of course honesty,
or integrity, in the same sentence as Laura Masters/Blake is something
of an oxymoron.
>These days, I find this TS BS to be utterly dismissable.... If as Michelle
>accuses, you have learned, I do have to say that you certainly seem the
>better for it; which is more than I can say for her.
>
You dismiss reality, Laura, if it doesn't suit your own self-promotion
and aggrandizement. After all, you are truly a legend in your own
mind.
>Visit the TransEqual Website at:
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/lblake
Yeah, it's a hoot, though unintentually so. An excerpt from the
classic, under the title "Going to the People":
<< These were heady days for the TransEqual team. We were in the
papers, on television, and we were at the center of attention in
several key bureaucratic circles. Our popularity as what one human
rights officer jokingly called "Transvisionaries" soared. >>
I wonder what they jokingly referred to you when you weren't around.
<< Letters of inquiry began to arrive. People wanted to hear these new
insights, and many of those who inquired were in positions of power. >
You must have been an important man then, huh?
<< The stage was clearly set for the legal equality of transies...
But we had a problem. The time limits on our own cases had expired,
and those we had in the system prior to the summer of 1992 were
withdrawn to protect the new insights. We simply didn't have anyone in
our little group who could bring the social model into a human
rights tribunal. >>
Translation: you lost the grant from the Province of Ontario. It was
a one shot deal, when you'd thought you'd be able to suck the
government teat forever. Did you misrepresent yourself to the Human
Rights Commission also?
Cheryl
of me is equally delusional, because Laura says so. Let's see, you
can't or won't make it living as a woman, so obviously no one else
could, eh? Do you know what projection is, Laura?
Rights Commission also? Where is the truth in any of this, Laura?
You dare call women who have successfully transitioned "delusional",
when your whole life is a practice in the art of deception. Is there
any truth or integrity in you at all?
Cheryl,
Grand Duchess of the Transsexual Empire
Grrlpetal
K. D. Cowan wrote:
>
> Grrlpetal wrote:
>
> >
> > Secondly, both you and Laura are stuck on the idea that the human body
> > is stabile, and that Gender is quintessential, fixed and immutable.
>
> I am not sure how you got that impression. I never said that - I said
> my sex was male, and no amount of hormones or surgery will change that.
Isn't that what you mean by a "biological male core?" If so you approach
Gender based upon the idea of a Stabile Body in that no matter what you
do the essence
of your physical existence is male, and it is tied into biology and "no
amount of hormones or surgery will change that."
> I transitioned and have been crossliving for about the last 2.5 years,
> so I may know a little about gender constructs, and I don't confuse them
> with my sex.
And here is where we differ in terms of world view, Queer Theory, and
Feminist Constructionism. The primary construct that determines Gender
in our society is a heterosexual model. That a man is defined by a
series of certain behavior sets and not others, and that he seeks women
for sex, all of this based upon apparent genitalia, in this case the
penis. Gender is performed upon us, not based on genotypes or in-utero
conditioning, but by the existence of apparent genitals.
This leads to a policing of behaviors and a policing of the employment
of genitalia: As in: straight is good, queer is bad; what is deemed
masculine and what behavior sets are deemed feminine. Any corruption of
the Construct leads to sanctioning, which ranges from a father who
intends to "teach his son to be a "real" man, to the murder of a gay men
because he just happen to catch the eye of a gaybashing posse of teenage
Neaderthals.
Now while I can go into the sexual differentiation is mammals to show
the phallacy :) of the idea of a "biological male core" The underlying
point of this is that the assumption of a biological male core is a
heterosexist assumption, feeding into Bipolar models of GenderSex
(usually a "spectrum"), when in reality GenderSex is a mosaic, a
contiguity. It is not something we scan in two dimensions, but
something we explore, or roam- a topography as varied as human
experience itself. Here's a male-woman, over there a transgendered
lebian, on the right a stone butch, over the other way is a bi
transsexual who's making a bundle on the Paris runways etc.
>
> My only real point in mentioning it is that while it is hurtful for
> people to discriminate against us (those t* people that crosslive) based
> on our sex, it is ludicrous and more than a little disgraceful that the
> same discrimination is actually propagated by people within our
> community, be they TS or TG or whatever. It does work both ways.
I agree, totally. The problem is, is that commuinity has been foisted
on us by the very same people who have traditionally pathologized our
experiences- the psychs, t'pists, etc., who, in their good intentions,
are depathologizing us by ghetto-izing us. This is why Laura deems to
speak for anyone and everyone in a ghetto that few want to live in- and
why she catches heavy flack. Because we're in the ghetto it doesn't
mean we are the same. It means that heterosexism has ruled the day and
Laura wants to internal;ize the oppressor even as she gallantly fights
for her side of the neighborhood. She calls us delusional because she's
told and believes in the concept of trans-comunity (an imposed concept)
and wants to foist her own beliefs on everyone in the ghetto. But some
of us are Jews and some are Gypsies or artists, or communist and it's
sad and pointless to make us uniform for the sake of the Opressor.
Some of us may even try to de-stabilze her soap-box because we find her
a danger to our interests. Every day it's life or death in the ghetto.
Grrlpetal
K. D. Cowan wrote:
>
> The problem I find with the medical literature is that a normally
> occuring variation is therefore a "defect". If you are referring to a
> penis, it wasn't at all defective until I started taking hormones. That
> was an effect I chose to let occur in favor of other, more beneficial
> effects (in my opinion), that go along with HRT.
I found the penis to be alot of work, having to make it workn for sexual
gratification, which wasn't all that gratifying. I don't think that's
deformity, I think, in my case it's a mis-match.
>
>
> But they never turned you into a MAN, did they? It's just awful what
> they tried on you. If our social construct of males included those that
> live as women, then you would have had at least some support for your
> decision to live your life as you felt apppropriate.
If the Heterosexist Construct did not have a code and an enforcement
mechanism, we'd have a much easier time of it. If our personal
perceptions were accepted, than one could be a male woman, another could
be a male born female, and others could define their experience as they
wished. I would choose female born with male genitalia.
>
> > If their
> > ARE transexuals "BY CHOICE" who consider themselves (an unfortunantly
> > me) MEN, then I refuse any identification with them and would never lift
> > a finger to assist them in any way to get srs surgery.
>
My experience has been grueling
> > enough as is- without taking on new MALE-enforced baggage.
And that's the problem with understanding this notion of a "male
biological core" which in itself is Construct based upon the very
Construct which denounces any variation in Gender and Sex. To me this
is accepting Bi-Polarity. I can't accept Bi-Polarity as a model for a
Construct of Gender and Sex.
>
> I can say that I am mostly biologically male - this statement doesn't
> make me a "man", by the way we define the social construct of "man".
> Although not well grounded at this time in research, there is some
> evidence that T* people may share a biological basis with their
> percieved "correct" gender (and I do hate to use terms like "correct",
> as it limits the social constructs on the scale male/.../female).
Apparently one thing you do need are certain proportions of the
hypothalmus.
>
> You aren't. You are different from her, very much so - you may even be
> better in some ways for you will be better prepared to deal with
> conflict in coming to terms with your gender-based alliances. If you
> can in fact, deal with those gender based alliances, that is (many can't
> -- they falsely assume they are the same as women/females, where in
> fact, they are quite different - not worse, not necessarily better, but
> different- and difference can be a beautiful thing). There was once a
> time that, and many "scientists, doctors" still maintain it as true,
> that women were considered lesser versions of humans than male, as they
> were "less developed" than males, since later testosterone changed a
> neutral "female" body. This was used as a basis of "tests" that proved
> women were less able in math and sciences, less logical, less <insert
> your own gender biased markeup here> -- the point is, that this was
> utter nonsense. Women are not lesser developed versions of humans, and
> have all the same abilities of men. I follow that line that
> transgendered people are not less able than females/males, and in
> dealing with the social constructs of gender, may even be better equiped
> to deal with many other motivational constructs such as conflict,
> ambivalance, incongruity, ...
I don't see it this way at all. I was being, performing female (girl)
behavior sets. Was I different? Yes...I was incongruous to the
heterosexist Construct of what is a male. Other girls recognized my
girlhood and I was allowed into the "sorority" until puberty.
>
> I do support the choice for surgery - I just feel it is more of a manner
> to make one's body more inline with their lifestyle choice, than it is
> to correct a defect. If my penis is defective, it is because I made it
> so, for it worked just fine before hormones. I have always thought it
> was a farce that SRS is not "supposed" to be about desires for
> appropriate sexual encounters -- what nonsense that the medical
> community places upon us that we would change a sexual organ, and it
> would not have any bearing on sexual encounters, or be motivated, to at
> least some varying degree, by the same. I mean to say that I agree
> wholeheartedly with the notion that "what I am is not defined by what
> is between my legs" - and this notion remains true even after I have
> surgery. I am still now "female" -- I am male, but a more appropriate
> version of "woman" (in my opinion). Or perhaps, I am transgendered, but
> a more appropriate version of woman is a better phrase because it may
> not produce the "male-hatred" effect so predominant in m2f crossovers.
\
I prefer to see my attainment of SRS as no different than lipsuction or
a facelift. I am employing technology to work towards an idealization
of womanhood. And this is *not* wrong, but human. Wendy (and you and
I) starved ourselves in order to stay close to the female idealization
track. In this way we were no different than so many girls who do the
exact same thing for the same purpose. Our plight is an extreme version
of a socialized behavior set, a submission to a Construct that demands
weak women.
>
> I won't claim that 99% of society see me as any particular type of
> person, as I do not know they see me at all - they see money, they
> react, they are thinking of their dogs, kids, house, carpayment,
> lack-of-a-life -- the idea being that most people don't care, some
> notice but are polite enough not to mention it - others notice it and
> laugh, still more, the thought never occurs to them to question it -
> they see what you present, what I present, it doesn't matter what's
> between the legs; most people really would rather not think about that
> with most other people. I am not in their head, and I can only produce
> psychic ability with those that are very very close to me, so I don't
> know how they perceive me - I can only glimps this from their reactions,
> which they may or may not share. You are entitled, of course, to your
> views, and I respect and support them. We may, in fact, disagree with
> some, and agree on others - that does not diminish my view of you, and I
> hope it goes both ways.. if not, that is your choice as well, but it may
> have an effect on my views as well.
>
> I hope these words find you well -- watch out for hurricanes and
> sinkholes, dogs that don't bark, and mailmen who look lost (they are
> almost never really "mail").
And this is why I think you're a terrific person to communicate with.
You allow others the dignity of their personal views.
Luv Cindy,
See Ya 'round assrs, Wendy :)
>
> luv,
> kadie
Cheryl
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 14:36:45 GMT, lbl...@sympatico.ca (Laura Blake)
wrote:
>Michelle... Long ago, when I first announced TransEqual's work to the
>transgender community (Kara was there,btw.) I learned quite a lesson about
>communicating with transsexuals... They can't hear anything that doesn't
>connect directly to getting a sex-change. Really, they are utterly
>impenitrable, for the most part.
>
And we are yet to learn of any of TransEqual's many proported
accomplishments beyond the continual psychobabble and sociospeak that
we've become long accustomed to in your diatribes. To be fair, I
walked through your website to see if perhaps there could be any
common ground past the platitudes. Sadly, I found little. Under
semantics/terminology, I found this little gem:
<< Transsexual
Someone who requests or has a sex-change operation. Includes both
male-to-female and female-to-male, without regard to their
reasons for doing so. This term has become controversial. Beyond
the social and psychiatric stigma attached, many transsexuals
--although clearly transgender identified-- now actively seek to
deny their membership in the transgender community. Many
actually claim, after sex-change, to be cisgendered. >>
Hardly an impartial definition, I would say, from someone who has
absolutely no credentials in any discipline except a self-defined one.
In addition, I find it interesting that a person who berates
transsexuals for being "deceptive" fails to mention that the "Laura
Masters" of the bibliography is none other than the author. Nor do I
find very objective a dismissal of the medical model of transsexuality
(not the disorder model as Laura claims) and concurrent criticisms of
gender institutions in general, and Toronto's Clark Institute in
particular, without once mentioning that you yourself attended that
institute and left under somewhat clouded circumstance. That's more
than forgetfulness, that's downright disingenuous.
Beyond the hyperbole, it doesn't seem as if there is one shining
moment, one accomplishment that TransEqual (i.e.: Laura Masters/
Blake) can point to of its own. We hear much of your consultation to
the Ontario Civil Rights commission without a mention of why you were
eventually terminated from the government grant. It wasn't perchance
from contentiousness or lack of result, was it?
>
>She, like so many others both online and IRL, just can't hear the realities
>of the world they live in. When it comes to anything that is not overtly
>supportive of their sex-change most transsexuals are deaf, and blind. But
>they certainly are not mute!
>
Though I'm sure you wish we were. There is so much more that might be
said of your lies and distortions that one knows hardly where to
begin. I'm not sure why you have such vitriol for us. Whether it be
self-loathing or bitterness against the Clark Institute for telling
you that you're not a transsexual, or anger at the government of
Canada for throwing you off the public teat, why do you feel it
necessary to bash transsexuals? Why not bash the Canadian public
education system? You had problems there also, didn't you? I smell a
conspiracy here, don't you, "Laura"?
>Over the years since that first announcement in Tapestry, Notes From The
>Underground and several other TG 'zines, as well as on FidoNet I've been
>constantly baraged with letters, phone calls, and e-mails about my work.
>Some days I do nothing but sit here answering correspondence. In these
>hundred thousand plus communiques there is a very interesting division.
Gee, that isn't what you say on your website. To wit:
<< TransEqual's first hint of trouble on the horizon came from the
response to our fliers and announcements: there was none. We didn't
receive even so much as a curious phone call. >>
And later:
<< So, in the heat of the backlash we took our final meeting in August
of 1995 and decided that it was no longer worth the effort. >>
>With vanishingly rare exception... cisgendered people want to know more,
>crossliving transgenderists write for advice, transvestites and transsexuals
>bitch about my every word. This has been going on daily for more than 5
>years Michelle... how would you have me assess the situation?
<< Now, almost a year after the fact, all but one of the cases we
helped file are dismissed and we are still grappling with the many
issues this has raised. Most of us have returned to what is left of
our previous lives, none of us wants to have anything more to do with
the transgender community and what remains is a festering bitterness
and anger that, despite our personal efforts to deal with it, is not
likely to abate for some time to come. All of us have expressed open
hatred for our own peers and I for one think this is well justified,
considering all that has happened. To be sure, it is hard not to be
bitter when you have done something of great worth for so many
people, only to be told to screw off by those who would benefit the
most. >>
>
Laura, you wouldn't be referring here to that nebulous arch-secret
organization that's been persecuting you and Janice Raymond, the
Transsexual Empire? With our Queen who sends us commands from Uranus
that we receive through tinfoil hats. You didn't forget your tinfoil
hat, did you, Laura? But I'm not being gracious, am I, when you've
done something of such great worth for me, whatever that may be.
>You've probably had as much exposure to TransEqual's work as any of my
>non-client contacts, so tell me:
>
>What policy have I encouraged human rights agencies follow regarding
>transies in employment, housing, and services?
>
Give money to TransEqual so Laura has an income.
>What have I suggested should be done about gender clinics?
>
Slash and burn, wasn't it?
>What changes have I proposed in respect of RLT and HRT?
>
What does your opinion matter? You're not a transsexual.
>What changes have I proposed in respect of SRS?
>
ibid.
>What have I advised be done about sexually segregated accommodations
>(homeless shelters, jails, hospitals etc.)?
>
This is the one area with which I do agree. However, have you
actually done anything or simply issued manifestoes?
>Do you actually _know_ ANYTHING about the real work I do?
>
That would be issuing screeds and looking for that nice public grant
to keep things comfortable for a couple of years, eh?
>
>You see Michelle, the whole thing has become so clouded by lies,
>misrepresentations, and entirely dishonest communications that I seriously
>doubt anyone has even a budding clue about the real work I do. Sure you all
>have your ideas: "Laura is anti-transsexual", "She opposes sex-change",
>"She is biased against transsexuals"... I hear that stuff a dozen or more
>times a day. But do you actually know anything about the REAL work that is
>being done?
>
>No transsexual has even taken the time to ASK me, they just go on the
>attack!
,
Laura is much too modest. When M. Masters first came to
Fidonet/TGNet, anyone who had the audacity to disagree was immediately
flamed. Laura is right, everyone else wrong, even if they might have
been living successfully as women for ten or twenty years. We asked
what M. Masters and TransEqual had accomplished, yet we never actually
learned anything concrete. So go ahead, tell us, but pass on the
malarkey, if you please.
>For 5 years I've lived with this schism between the transsexuals and the
>cisgendered reception to my work. On one hand I have cisgendered people
>(mostly in positions of power, btw) quite ready to do something about the
>problems of transgendered people, and on the other I have transsexuals
>bellyaching at me over largely misinformed notions of what is going on.
>
Let's see, can you have a schism between one person and the rest of
the world? Isn't that called schizophrenia?
>As one human rights officer reported to his director: "Laura came to us and
>obtained our promise of legal equality for her peers, which she handed to
>them on a silver platter. The transsexuals then threw out the promise and
>beat her about the head with the platter."
>
That's it, blame the transsexuals for not beating down your door to
receive your wonderful insights. That damn Transexual Empire!
>And given this kind of stupidity, how long would it take you to get
>thoroughly pissed off?
>
You were in a testosterone rage from day one. Why is it no one can
get along with you? Because you try to bully people into submission
and attempt to flame out anyone who may have considerably more
experience living what you only pontificate about. Guess you never
played well with the other girls, huh?
Cheryl Lynette,
Julie Simpson
Ordinarily I am happy to let people just go on their merry way. I'm a
firm believer that people have the right to live their lives the way they
want to. But this is getting a bit much for me.
In article <33f7267a...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, lbl...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> And frankly it is more than a little insecure... it comes directly from
> insecurity. Transsexuals live inherrently insecure lifestyles, as do most
> delusional people. She sheer notion that sex-change is anything but
> compliance with the delusion of femaleness is utterly laughable, but here
> they are all caught up in it, and defending it to the death... often from
> wholly immaginary enemies.
Laura, given that you believe ts's are insecure, and that the newsgroup
alt.support.srs is about _support_ for transsexuals seeking srs, is there
a particular reason you cross-posted to this newsgroup? Are you seeking
to play on these perceived insecurities, to make people feel worse about
themselves and their choices? What an admirable ideal (not).
I do not believe the notion that your claim:
> "She sheer notion that sex-change is anything but
> compliance with the delusion of femaleness is utterly laughable, but here
> they are all caught up in it, and defending it to the death... often from
> wholly immaginary enemies.
has anything to do with the charter of alt.support.srs. This is a
newsgroup about support for sex-reassignment surgery, not about non-op
lifestyles.
Personally I don't care _what_ you think about surgery, it's entirely your
own business. When you raise the question about whether or not surgery is
necessary, well, that's a good point. But frankly I think posts like the
one I've quoted indicate you're a raving lunatic, with some serious
psychiatric problems, and I think you disturb the tone of what is
otherwise a fairly reasonable place. There are plenty of other places you
can argue the non-op perspective. Keep it in the other transgendered
newsgroups, okay, or try not to say anything if you can't say anything
politely.
Why in heaven's name should you get so upset about what other people do
with their lives? It's none of your business!
Julie
Erin Brooker
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <33f910ba...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> lbl...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> >I am tired of fighting back against liars and fools like Haugh,
> Andrea,
> >Michelle, Celeste, and Cheryl.
>
> I am honored to be included in such august company as Andrea and
> Celeste.
> I don't know Cheryl, so I don't know whether it is an honor. On some
> days,
> I'd be honored to be so grouped with Julie, and some days I'd be
> insulted.
>
> >Quite frankly ladies, if brains were
> >dynamite you couldn't even blow your nose!
>
> Now, *that* is funny.
Add me in there too Michelle.
When the State of California changed my sex on my license years ago,
they didn't do it on any petition or simple such as that. They changed
it because of body chemistry and psycological makeup. There was never
any "male core" there (a term obviously derived from whats between the
legs, and not the ears). Frankly I'm getting tired of seeing Lauras
conversations in ASSRS, when they clearly don't belong here. I'm sorry
Laura but please take this back to Alt.Tranny where it truely belongs,
as
(if I may be so self centered here) it doesn't apply to me, and probably
not to many of the other ladies here either. Just my 2cents worth
Erin
Caitlyn M. Martin
> Getting the picture dearie.... THIS is the crowd you have chosen to run
> with... loud mouthed, insecure, and stupid people who simply object to
> anything and everything that is not overtly supportive of their
delusionary
> notions of the way the world works.
>
> Are you proud of yourself?
I promised when I resubscribed to the ngs I would never get into another
flame war with you, and I won't now. Just one question, which does not
need to be answered on line. Why are you posting this to alt.support.srs,
which is a support group for those who want surgery, if not to stir the
pot?
-Kate
Cheryl
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:14:02 +1000, gho...@ozemail.com.au (Julie
Simpson) wrote:
>
>Personally I don't care _what_ you think about surgery, it's entirely your
>own business. When you raise the question about whether or not surgery is
>necessary, well, that's a good point. But frankly I think posts like the
I wouldn't much care either, except that M. Blake/Masters attempts to
impose his warped and prejudicial views on others, including the
Ontario Civil Rights Commission. If a person speaks so disparagingly
of transsexuals, yet purports to represent them in public policy,
well, that person must be ready to accept criticism as part of the
process.
The necessity or viability of surgery is very much on target for this
discussion. I was very fortunate to be involved in New Women on
Transgendernet during a time five years ago when I agonized whether
surgery would be right for me. There were a lot of good people who
helped me work through issues on levels I never would have dealt with
otherwise. Of course, there was a lot of arguing about my surgeon is
better than your surgeon, but that was part of the charm of the place.
Women who are on the surgery track need support and information, and
women who are not need an area to discuss issues too. The keyword
being "women", obviously some of these people haven't the first clue.
>one I've quoted indicate you're a raving lunatic, with some serious
>psychiatric problems, and I think you disturb the tone of what is
>otherwise a fairly reasonable place. There are plenty of other places you
That nicely sums up the general consensus of opinion. How perceptive
of you, Julie, to be so right on target. <g>
>Why in heaven's name should you get so upset about what other people do
>with their lives? It's none of your business!
>
It's personal with him. Post-ops are delusional, transsexual women
are warped creatures, according to M. Blake, and we must accept that
we are really halflings, much like himself. I'd cut off his testicles
for him myself if I thought it would shut him up. Really, dear, it
would be no problem, always glad to help out one's fellow man.
Cheryl
Rev. Karin Conover-Lewis
Enough is enough is enough. It is obvious that you do *not* read the
"alt.support.srs" ng, Ms. Blake, since none of the activities which you
ascribe to it have taken place since it became active. I have no objection
to reasoned, rational discussion which challenges people to actually think
about such major life-changing decisions - in fact, such is the attitude
which predominates in that particular group. The only threads in
"alt.support.srs" that are full of bile and hostility are those which are
cross-posted to it from the "transgendered" groups, and primarily are those
threads in which you are the major combatant.
I do realise that in challenging your perception of reality I am now to be
considered as part of the evil "they" who persecute you so, and for that I
am truly sad. However, and I mean this in the best possible way, please get
yourself some help. The delusions of grandeur and the persecution complex
give it all away. The world is not out to get you. Most people simply don't
have the time and energy it would take to maintain such an extreme level of
hostility and personal vendetta. Stop embracing victimhood, and you will
find that your attackers are non-existant.
In any case, this thread has no business in "alt.support.srs", if it has
any business in existing at all. Personally, I would prefer that these
petty personal attacks take place in private email, where they belong.
Find your place of peace, and there build your world.
Rev. Karin Conover-Lewis
(revk...@flash.net)
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<33f910ba...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
> On 19 Aug 97 01:24:34 GMT, "Caitlyn M. Martin" <cmm...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >I promised when I resubscribed to the ngs I would never get into another
> >flame war with you, and I won't now. Just one question, which does not
> >need to be answered on line. Why are you posting this to
alt.support.srs,
> >which is a support group for those who want surgery, if not to stir the
> >pot?
>
>
> Well, mostly it's because I am fed up to the ears with the bullshit that
> dominates these groups... frankly I doubt that most people here have even
> seen the travel folders for reality.
>
> I am tired of listening to this "priveledged class" bullshit from
> transsexuals. Bigotry disguised as intellectual debate is little more
than
> hoseshit covered in sugar... And when it comes from someone who should
> damned well know better, even the sugar doesn't cover the smell!
>
> I am tired of watching transsexuals circle the wagons against wholly
> imaginary enemies, and guarding the battlements against attacks that just
> plain aren't going to come their way.
>
> I am tired of sitting around here reading people running their own peers
> into the ground, simply because they can't deal with their own antipathic
> feelings about their own kind.
>
> I am tired of fighting back against liars and fools like Haugh, Andrea,
> Michelle, Celeste, and Cheryl. Quite frankly ladies, if brains were
> dynamite you couldn't even blow your nose!
>
> But mostly I am tired of the outright delusion that so clearly dominates
> these groups. Seriously now... do you actually think people buy your
> bullshit about becoming the other sex. Do you really think the world
> doesn't see right through you? The surgery serves one function and one
> function only... It perminently labels you "Transsexual"... nobody
actually
> believes you are female... although there are those of us who will
happily
> grant you your womanhoods.
>
> I guess you and others are right... I DO hate transsexuals... not for
their
> lifestyles... not for their goals... not for their identities... I've
come
> to hate them because of their asinine behaviour.
>
> -----
> Laura Blake
>
> Visit the TransEqual Website at:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/lblake
> -----
>
Cheryl
On 13 Aug 1997 05:24:30 GMT, "Karen Ross" <kr...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>K. D. Cowan <kco...@gte.net> wrote in article
><5sra14$cs2$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
>
>... Anyone who thinks they are never read by
>> people that know them well are likely deluding themselves- for there are
>> those that can read us no matter how well we present, and it's about
>> time we recognized just who we are and stood up for our accomplishments.
>
>I've read others make this assertion before. However, in my experience
>it's not basically correct. The fact that some people may be suspicious
>and a very few may actually be certain of our past, doesn't necessarily
That's been my experience also, that while there may be varying
degrees of suspicion on a bad hair day, what most people see is simply
"woman". Whatever they may suspect, and it really doesn't matter,
I'm always perceived as a woman, because that's the only context in
which I present myself.
>mean anything. Although I transitioned reasonably young and have some
>physical advantages I'm not the most passible I've ever met. Yet, there is
Sheesh, who is? <g> Sometimes I think that's why I get along so well
with other women, I'm zero competition.
>anyone had said anything. They hadn't. In addition, a year before I came
>out to her, there had been a rumor that I was pregnant that circulated once
>when I was out of town. It was widely believed and actually difficult to
>quash. It only went away when it became obvious that I wasn't swelling!
And inside, I'm sure you must have felt like "Yesss!!!" Several years
ago I had a woman friend who asked me while walking her baby in the
park if I'd ever had children. I told her I couldn't, it was a
medical condition. She said that they can do wonderful things with
microsurgery for tubal blockage, which she assumed it to be, so I
finally told her I was TS.
Presumably that was in confidence, but the next day her husband knew,
and by the day after the entire apartment complex. Needless to say I
was less than pleased, but it taught me a lot about who and when and
why to tell about past history.
>I've done it and I've had friends who did it. It can be done, of course
>not by everyone. It also carries an unknown set of risks. It can collapse
>quickly. Nevertheless, it can be done. Assertions that it cannot are
>simply incorrect assertions.
>
It can potentially cost everything, family, friends, job, economic
status, health, even one's life. The only reason to do it is because
to do otherwise is death or madness or living the remainder of one's
miserable existence in depression and despair. It takes some measure
of selfishness, perhaps, or so it may seem to other people, and it
ain't always easy, but it can be done. I know dozens of people who've
done it, and for some punk theorist to say it can't, and even if it
can the person must be delusional, is an insult to the literal hell
that I and most other transsexuals have been through: how dare someone
blithely rant on about the matter of intense pain others have suffered
without knowing a thing about it!
>And some of us TS folks simply reject the model as deficient and flawed.
>Both your opinions and LD Blakes don't hold water for many of us - and
>never will.
>
Note how the medical model becomes the deformity model when it suits
convenience. When these theoretical opinions contradict the reality
of _everybody_ who has transitioned, there's only two conclusions that
may be drawn: M. Blake and his coterie are wrong, or there really is
a Transsexual Empire controlling us from the Moon. I know what I
believe to be true. Sadly, M. Blake seems to hold to the other
opinion.
>Including the denial of the reality that some of us have life experience
>that is at odds with your assertions and theorizations. To add my voice to
>the others that have disagreed, you have your opinion - and many of us do
>*not* share it.
>
Just so.
- Cheryl -
Celeste
ROTFL
Deirdre Clausen
In article <33F952E7...@usa.net>, NOSPAM....@usa.net wrote:
>ROTFL
>
>
>
Well, well. Look who's cross-posting.
Karen Ross
Grrlpetal <grrl...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<33F314...@earthlink.net>...
> Karen Ross wrote:
> >
> >Show me the biological model for DID, for example.
> >
> Okay, Just a point of fact, then:
>
> There is a psycho- biological basis for DID and all Dissociative models
> of consciousness:
>
[comments snipped]
Nice try, but no cigar. K. D. Cowan rejected the biological model for
being TS because it was incomplete - "as yet not grounded theoretical
model". You have described certain changes that are present and several
postulations. Unfortunately, there's still a big gap between the observed
differences and an adequate biological model that would meet the same
implied standard by which she rejected the biological basis of GID. The
point was that there are very few examples anywhere in biological science
that can meet that standard of matching complex human behavior to a
complete biological model.
Kristine W. Holt
Grrlpetal (grrl...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: As far as tests go: MMPIs, for instance, are Culturally
: biased instruments- I knew what they were looking for when I read the
: quetions and response choices and I gave it to them in Hearts (how's
: that for turning a phrase due to overcompenstation? :)
What were they looking for on the "cooked spinach" question? And how did
you answer that one femininely? <SMILE>
-- Kris
Grrlpetal
Laura Blake wrote:
Cross posted material unrelated to assrs.
Karen Ross
Caitlyn M. Martin <cmm...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<01bcac3d$efb6ac00$5e5048a6@cmartin>...
> I promised when I resubscribed to the ngs I would never get into another
> flame war with you, and I won't now. Just one question, which does not
> need to be answered on line. Why are you posting this to
alt.support.srs,
> which is a support group for those who want surgery, if not to stir the
> pot?
When a sow sees a clean pool she only sees it as an opportunity to sully it
into a new sty.
--
Kare (Karen Ross)
Politics:, n. A strife of interests cross-dressed as a contest of
principles. - with appologies to Ambrose Bierce
email: kr...@gis.net
Grrlpetal
Hmmmm....it was a long time ago, don't remember cooking spinach. :( if
your familiar with the entire question I'd like to try to skew it, if
possible ;) but the most obvious one was, "Which would you prefer to
do: race car driving or sewing?" <snicker> when the results came back I
was offered the opportunity to become a mail order bride for some farmer
in Alabama :)
Celeste
Out of pure curiuosity, who was the head article of this thread directed
toward?
Janet
I lurk here frequently and post only very occasionally.
The TS aspect of my life is not a factor in my day to day
existence, but I do think about it often and find much of what
is said in this newsgroup interesting and supportive.
Many of you are still trying to make things right for yourselves.
Some continue to evanglize about gender issues. Spme, like me,
have left most of that behind because since SRS our lives are
much more like that of the other women around us than that of
most T-anything people.
However, I do find this Laura Blake business very disconcerting.
Personally, I don't buy into the "spendor of gender" spectrum.
It is obviously OK for anyone else to believe anything they want,
but my small mind understands men and women; too many variations
on this limited theme and I get easily confused. Clearly, there should
be, and is, a forum for transgenderists of all types. Just as clearly,
alt.support.srs is not it. I believe most TS people would prefer to have
been born into their desired sex and would rather not be any variety of
T*.
Most of us are well aware that this did not happen for us but it doesn't
change what we feel is appropriate for ourselves.
Of course, brunettes who wish they were blonde concentrate on being
blonde, not on the the pros and cons of dying their hair. When you are
contemplating becoming blonde, you might discuss it with others, ask
their advice, try to find the best colorist, etc. You might very well
want
to communicate with someone else who had equally dark hair and went
blonde successfully. Once you have become blonde, if you like it, you
will want to think of yourself as a blonde. You will always know that
you are not a "natural" blonde. But if it was done well and kept up, you
will be, for all intents and purposes, blonde. Others will see you as
blonde,
refer to you as blonde and you will think of yourself as blonde. Perhaps
you always thought of yourself as blonde all along.
Now I am well aware that is a very simplistic analogy. The point is that
if you are considering this type of change, the last thing you want to
encounter is someone who says, "You can never REALLY be blonde"
or "Do you know how crazy it is to switch you hair color"? A few
gentle hints about how hard it is to keep up with those dark roots might
be fine, but I think that's about as far as I would go in dissuading
someone
from a very personal choice.
So, in a group that is intended to provide support to TS people both
before
and after surgery, there is no place for the strident and bitter voice
of a
Laura Blake. This is not a censorship issue. This group has a charter
and
she is consistently off-topic. I have tried to investigate what little
content
her web page contains and have read her self-aggrandizing comments
about the good "work" she does. If this is so, congratulations.
Tolerance
and opportunity for all is a good thing. But she does not belong here.
In
this newsgroup her ranting speaks much louder than any work she might
do. So in the context of this newsgroup, her work is entirely
irrelevant.
I have included some snippets of her recent posting here in which it
seems that she is recognizes a deep division between TS and other T*
people. So be it. Laura, if you are not a TS, that's OK. Leave other
TS people alone. If your work, or the work of others like you, paves
the way for greater tolerance of all of us, I guess that's good.
However,
I think it is far more likely that people who have successfully
transitioned
to the appropriate sex find their telltale legal and social battles
(let's face
it, some of these DO exist, no matter how well we think we've done)
are seriously compromised by association with fetishists,
cross-dressers,
transgenderists and others, who rightly or wrongly, are commonly
regarded
as freaks. Many TS people felt like freaks *before* SRS and make a
real effort to find some sense of normalcy afterwards.
The curious thing to me is why someone like Laura keeps coming back
to a place where she is clearly not wanted. Does she do this in real
life
as she does on the Net? If she goes to a party and everyone calls her
names and asks her to leave, does she stay anyway? Does she have a
list of people who don't like her that she uses to invite herself over
for
dinner?
Clearly Laura can do whatever she wants and *be* whatever she wants.
She can continue to try to post material that no one wants to see to
this
group. However, I would encourage anyone with the ability to send
cancels to do so whenever a Laura Blake posting pops up, cross posted
or not. Her entire existence is off topic for a group that is about new
women (or new men, as the case may be), no matter how Laura feels
about the way we got there. Laura, I don't know you at all, but I resent
almost every self-important word that you write here. I think it would
be
better if you just go hangout with some of those people "in positions of
power"
you claim to know so well. We're all very impressed, and probably not
worth
your time.
Don't go away mad - just go away!
Janet
Laura Blake wrote:
> Over the years since that first announcement in Tapestry, Notes From
> The
> Underground and several other TG 'zines, as well as on FidoNet I've
> been
> constantly baraged with letters, phone calls, and e-mails about my
> work.
> Some days I do nothing but sit here answering correspondence. In
> these
> hundred thousand plus communiques there is a very interesting
> division.
> With vanishingly rare exception... cisgendered people want to know
> more,
> crossliving transgenderists write for advice, transvestites and
> transsexuals
> bitch about my every word. This has been going on daily for more than
> 5
> years Michelle... how would you have me assess the situation?
>
> What policy have I encouraged human rights agencies follow regarding
> transies in employment, housing, and services?
>
> What have I suggested should be done about gender clinics?
>
> What changes have I proposed in respect of RLT and HRT?
>
> What changes have I proposed in respect of SRS?
>
> What have I advised be done about sexually segregated accommodations
> (homeless shelters, jails, hospitals etc.)?
>
> Do you actually _know_ ANYTHING about the real work I do?
>
> You see Michelle, the whole thing has become so clouded by lies,
> misrepresentations, and entirely dishonest communications that I
> seriously
> doubt anyone has even a budding clue about the real work I do. Sure
> you all
> have your ideas: "Laura is anti-transsexual", "She opposes
> sex-change",
> "She is biased against transsexuals"... I hear that stuff a dozen or
> more
> times a day. But do you actually know anything about the REAL work
> that is
> being done?
>
> No transsexual has even taken the time to ASK me, they just go on the
> attack!
>
> For 5 years I've lived with this schism between the transsexuals and
> the
> cisgendered reception to my work. On one hand I have cisgendered
> people
> (mostly in positions of power, btw) quite ready to do something about
> the
> problems of transgendered people, and on the other I have transsexuals
>
> bellyaching at me over largely misinformed notions of what is going
> on.
>
> So far Kara Cowan is the only transsexual who has taken the time to
> actually
> think about what I've been saying.
>
> As one human rights officer reported to his director: "Laura came to
> us and
> obtained our promise of legal equality for her peers, which she handed
> to
> them on a silver platter. The transsexuals then threw out the promise
> and
> beat her about the head with the platter."
>
> And given this kind of stupidity, how long would it take you to get
> thoroughly pissed off?
>
AmandaJaye
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) writes:
>>As for SRS, I want it. But I also know that no amount of surgery will
>>make me female. I am a woman, a girl, a chickie-poo, coo coo ca choo -
>>but I will never be female,
>
>Please define "female" in the context you are using it.
Hi Michelle,
I've been watching this and some related threads, and you've touched on a
valid point here.
The definition of female I use is strictly in the biological sense, ie..
chromsomes, reproductive organs, etc...
In this light, I agree with Laura, et al, that I can never be female, BUT
as I've said in other posts, those characteristics simply have no effect on
my day to day living. Social Security, the VA, the state of California, my
former medical providers, people on the street and even my favorite grocery
bagger consider me female... good enough for me!
Amanda
Karen Ross
> Grrlpetal wrote:
> above. I agree with the notion that it is a delusion to believe that
> hormones and surgery will make me "female". I am technically male, and
> yes, I do present as a woman, but that does mean I have the same
> phenomenological make-up - more that this is who I am now. YOUR
> assertion seems to be that she beleives ALL TSs are therefore
> delusional. This is flawed in that you promote it to mean she believes
> TSs are delusional about most or all things in their lives - this is
> simply not true.
Once again you pimp Laura Blake own pathetic brand of crap. You can choose
to see yourself as a male ("technically" or otherwise). Most MtF TS folks
don't. You seem to have swallowed Laura's line - and hook and sinker.
There are many ways to classify someone as "male" or "female". We each
have a choice. You choose to see yourself as still male because of
sub-microscopic threads of DNA or perhaps some odd reverence for history.
I see myself as female because of the shape and functioning of my body (as
does the State of my birth, for example). You see the glass as half empty.
I see it as half full. Your view is toxic to the spirit. Mine affirms
it. It is not delusional to choose a definition that affirms. It is
highly insulting to choose one that denies our status as female and then to
apply it to the rest of us. *That* is the core of Laura's crap. And it's
the crap you've swallowed.
Disgusting.
Celeste
I will try to phrase these statements as kindly as I can.
If you read Laura's posts from Deja News over the last couple of years,
I think you find someone who has some serious problems. Sometime last
year Laura even disappeared for a short bit. During that time there was
much speculation about the disappearance. Then Laura reappeared.
1) We all know that it would not be ethical to cancel Laura's posts. It
is contrary to accepted usenet policy. Actions of that type only incite
reprisal.
2) There is only one way to deal with someone as troubled and in need of
help as Laura. You must completely ignore Laura's posts. You must give
her the silent treatment. You must not respond to them, ever.
You can expect great a deal of emotion, anger and fomenting from Laura
over the content of even this article.
Laura is not the only net-kook on usenet. They exist all over usenet,
haunting news groups far and wide. They rarely go away unless and until
a truly concerted effort to give that person the silent treatment
succeeds. Even one break from the silence gives the net kook a target to
tango with.
People like Laura deserve a little compassion, maybe a modicum of pity,
but to give Laura any of your time is to feed the fires of her illness.
Keep in mind that this is a person who apparently suffers rejection
throughout their life. People like Laura don't go away because usenet is
all they have to do. They don't have friends. Debate and argument on
usenet is their avocation.
Remember, if you feed the bears in a national park, they will develop a
taste for human food, ravage camp sites, inadvertently injury people,
and well you get the picture.
Erin Brooker
Karen Ross wrote:
Thanks Karen. I wish I could say it as eloquently.
Erin..
Karen Ross
> Do I believe we will ever obtain equality by hiding ourselves in a mask
> of lies? No.
A more appropriate question would be "Do you believe that we will ever
obtain equality by being out as TS?" If you answer "yes" then you either
hopelessly naive or simply a fool.
Celeste
If you would miss Laura's posts, read them on soc.support.transgendered.
My bet is that you are in very small minority of alt.support.srs. This
is support group for people going through or who have completed SRS.
There are plenty of alternatives for people who don't meet those
criteria.
> Romée van der Zee wrote:
> I would miss the contributions of Laura Blake.
Romée van der Zee
Celeste <cele...@NOSPAM.usa.net> wrote:
> If you would miss Laura's posts, read them on soc.support.transgendered.
> My bet is that you are in very small minority of alt.support.srs. This
> is support group for people going through or who have completed SRS.
> There are plenty of alternatives for people who don't meet those
> criteria.
As someone who was ts I am used to belong to a small minority and that
makes me sensitive for the pushing out of people.
As someone who completed SRS many years ago I can tell you that it is
nice to reflect on what happened in my life with more distance.
Especcially since it is connected with so many things I did. It made me
realize that the most important things that I did were not rational. The
more I realized that I knew so little of what was going on, the more I
grew up and shaped my life.
It is a good and rewarding exercise in tolerance to follow Laura Blakes
genderstruggle. It makes me more conscious of the way I transitioned.
In my first reaction I already mentionned that in Holland it is a
question that leaded to a more open debate since professor Gooren put
it.
Perhaps many persons are hurt by the way Laura Blake expresses her
opinions. I can imagine that. I try to neglect that. I even like people
with a passion, how insulting, provoking, and narcissistic they may be.
They are hurt and touched by something that I can recognize.
Romee van der Zee
Diane
In article <1997082610...@amf51-78.amersfoort.nl.net>, From
R....@inter.nl.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rom=E9e_van_der_Zee?=), the following
was written: > As someone who was ts I am used to belong to a small
minority and that > makes me sensitive for the pushing out of people.
OHmigod! I find myself in the completely repulsive position of having
to agree that Laura Blake not be censored from this forum. Make no
mistake I think her diatribes are worthless and intended only to draw
attention to her for her own sociopathic reasons but hey that's just
*my* opinion (and it's probably a correct one but that's another story
<g> ). I mean she's been in the riling up transexuals business for
going on six or seven years now.
Isn't the answer really for those who find her as repulsive as I to self
censor her with the readily available killfile technology present in so
many newsreaders?
Hey if we start excluding her *I* may be next!
Celeste please add me to the (probably short) list of those who would
regrettably not want to exclude her from this forum.
(yech - I'm going to take a shower after this post - brrrrrrrr.)
--
Diane astro@NOSPAM_slip.net
08/26/97 13:46
---------
Deirdre Clausen
I'm not trying to start a fight here. But I do want to offer my view.
Remember: "It's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
In article <34036495...@usa.net>, celeste...@usa.net wrote:
>I suggested giving LMB the silent treatment.
>
>No one has suggested or even hinted of censoring LMB.
>
>Where do people get these bizarre notions?
>
It's not really a bizarre notion. Giving someone the silent treatment is one
thing. But to entreat a whole group of people to give someone the silent
treatment does indeed smack of censorship. It is obvious that you don't want
her here, and you want her to go away. Indeed, you are working toward that
end. I think that' s a lot like censorship.
>In response to someone's article, I simply suggested that people
>completely ignore all LMB posts.
>
>They don't belong here and LMB knows it.
I don't know that *all* articles posted by Laura would be off-topic. If she
were to write an article that interested me, I might be inclined to follow-up.
Whether it was to take her point, or to disagree and offer a counter-point. In
other words, I would ignore an article because of what the article is
about--not because of who posted it. I read all of your articles, but less
than one per cent of those I've read have inspired me to post a follow-up.
>The LMBs of the world need shrinks not news groups, and that has nothing
>to do with LMB's opinions about anything, it has to do with LMB's mental
>illness.
Are you really qualified to make that statement? Exactly why do think Laura
Blake is mentally ill? Or, are you just saying that to further disparage her
in a effort to get people to ignore her?
Sincerely,
Deirdre
Rosalind Hengeveld
In article <09970726121356.OUI31.astro@NOSPAM_slip.net>, astro@NOSPAM_slip.net
wrote:
> Hey if we start excluding her *I* may be next!
>
> Celeste please add me to the (probably short) list of those who would
> regrettably not want to exclude her from this forum.
>
> (yech - I'm going to take a shower after this post - brrrrrrrr.)
Our charter (see my sig) says literally: 'Anyone can post to this newsgroup.'
We merely expect posts to be on-topic and to follow certain other rules,
namely those that are in same charter in addition to those that are considered
part of 'netiquette' by Usenet consensus. However, we are *never* going to
censor anyone for their ideas.
--
Rosalind Hengeveld
Newsgroup hostess and retromoderator, alt.support.srs
Newsgroup charter http://www.xs4all.nl/~rosalind/cha-assr.html
Celeste
> Diane wrote:
> I am glad to now understand that this
> idea was all in my head and not advocated by you.
>
The only candidates for canceling are crossposted articles. That
criterion has nothing to do with their content or their poster(s). As I
have said so many times, it is about maintaining the identity and
individuality of the news group. There are many news groups that have
such guidelines in their charters, including many alt.* groups,
including alt.s.srs.
> I wish you well on your undertaking of "managing" this newsgroup.
> Perhaps you could expand a bit on what you mean by "Retro-management".
>
> I was under the understanding that ALT level newsgroups are, by
> convention, unmanaged.
You must be referring to retro-moderation. It's a practice that started
a year or so ago in various groups because maintaining a moderated group
is a LOT OF WORK. It is also nearly impossible to convert an existing
unmoderated group to a moderated one. Simply cancelling unwanted
articles after posting is much easier. For the moment the esteemed
Rosaline Hengeveld does most of the SPAM cancelling around here. I
cancel a little spam when I see it and when I am on the machine that has
my cancel software on it. You can review the cancels sent by Rosalind
and myself by querying Deja News. Rosalind also posts a report of
canceled articles regularly. You won't find any RFCs on retro
moderation. Keep in mind that ALT stands for:
Anarchists Lunatics and Terrorists
The original creation of the alt.* hierarchy was to provide a wide open
hierarchy outside the big eight dictatorship, from which usenet began
almost twenty years ago.
The news group is not an undertaking. This thing got started a year ago
when I created alt.support.sexreassign. The problem was that the name
was a mistake. I unfortunately succombed to bad influences about the
naming the group. Around the first of the year I got sick of the spam
caused by having the substring sex in the name. AT that time I proposed
alt.support.srs. Then a huge work project insued and I did not have time
to follow through.
Thankfully, Rosalind took up the mantle and did the work to implement my
proposal. Since then Rosalind has diligently been canceling the much,
much smaller amount of spam the group receives, and she maintains the
charter. Rosalind is the person who deserves everyone's thanks and
appreciation. Rosalind is kind a woman with a liltingly high voice,
beautifully influenced by an extremely flattering Netherlands accent.
She is another high tech type by day, who devotes her spare time to
activism on the continent.
Regards ...
Caitlyn M. Martin
Hi, Cindy,
It seems the only answer Kari can give when you ask if she understands is
"no", though she'll never admit it. Here are some of my answers to your
questions, which may explain why I will never agree with Ms. Cowan:
[snip]
>
> Dig this perfesser: Do you know what living hell is?
I'm afraid I do. It may have been a different hell than yours, though.
> Do you know about
> never being accepted as a "male child"?
Yes.
>- do you know what kind of
> "societal nurturing" I received?
No. We are all different. Anyone who claims to know your experience is
full of it.
> Did you experience verbal and physical abuse at home because you weren't
> being, and I emphasize here: BEING A MALE?
Verbal, yes. Physical, no. I guess I was lucky there. Besides, that
didn't come until later. Early on, my parents just swept it under the rug
and hoped it would go away. Physical abuse at school is another matter.
That I know well.
> Do you know what it's like to
> be chased and beaten because everything you did, every move you made,
> every word you spoke, every smile you smiled, every cry you cried was
> BEING GIRL?
Far too well.
> Were you eventually ignored by your parents, abandoned
> within your family because no matter what anyone said or did, and no
> matter how hard you tried to conform to all the abuses you still were
> BEING GIRL?
No. My childhood wasn't like that, thankfully.
>
> Do you know what being raped TWICE while playing dress-up at the ages of
> SEVEN AND ELEVEN is like? The second time the perp said, "I'm gonna fuck
> you you skinny ugly bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Do you know
> about living with the physical damage this resulted in?
No. Cindy, I am truly sorry. I am just now beginning to be able to cope
with my own assault and rape, and that happened when I was 28, after I had
transitioned. I can't imagine what it means to go through it as a child.
> Do you know what
> DID is?
Not first hand, no.
> Do you know what happened when I started recovering my
> allegedly male childhood memories? This is what happened:
> Hospitalization, Paxil, Ativan, Trazodone.
Again, Cindy, I am truly sorry. We all go through our own little version
of hell, but yours seems far more extreme than mine ever was.
>
> Do you know the utter lonliness of losing your girl-friends because of
> puberty?
I didn't have puberty until about 20. Still, they did, so the answer is
yes.
> Here's one from the internalized homophobia department: do you
> know what it's like to avoid looking at girls because puberty hit and
> you know it's wrong to look at OTHER GIRLS?
Yes.
> Did you have a raging Electra Complex in pre-pubescence?
I don't know the terminology. Please explain, if it's not too painful.
> Do you know
> what it's like to smile at a boy because you very being is aroused by
> his presence, only have to have him and his friends pummel you?
Yes. Yes, yes, yes.
> Did you
> have dreams about being pregnant?
Oh my gosh, all the time. I still do.
> Did you get insanely jealous because
> one of the few friends (male or otherwise) you did have in adolescence
> decided to date and have a girlfriend?
Emphatically yes.
>
> Did you have to unlearn the way you walked, the way you talked, the way
> you smiled, deny your feelings, ultimately generating personality
> states?
Yes, except the last part, which is no. I kept my one and only female
identity intact. My therapist is convinced I never developed a male one.
Somehow, I survived this way this long. Oh, and the unlearning part, I
guess I never really succeeded. When I came out to my (extended) family
and friends, nobody was surprised. I thought I had a male persona down
pat. I've only recently learned that I absolutely never did. The
girl/woman in me always showed through. The best it seems I achieved was
looking like someone trying to cover up their femininity.
> Did the horror and solitary misery of your existence lead you into
> multiple drug dependency peaking with a cross addiction to heroin and
> alcohol, resulting in seizures when you finally kicked?
Different mix of drugs, and no seizures. 3 suicide attempts though, 2 by
OD, one of which came way too close to succeeding. If a friend had found
me half an hour later... Oh, and I left no note, and made no anguished cry
for help. I just wanted to die.
>
> I know what all of this is like. The above is an abbreviated,
> generalized description of my so called "male core" life, with all the
> "societal nurturing" I received.
Ah, but you really are male. Just ask Ms. Cowan.
>
> Sorry kadie-diddy, but I have a psychologist and a psychiatrist who
> would testify in court that I always was a female, girl, chicky-poo,
> tra-la-la, or whatever else your two-bit sarcasm can muster.
Ditto.
>More
> importantly, I KNOW WHAT I"VE BEEN, I KNOW WHAT I AM. AND NO HAUTY
> LITTLE MOTORMOUTH OR ASSOCIATES WILL EVER SPEAK FOR ME- NEVER, EVER WILL
> YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TELL ME WHAT i'M ALL ABOUT, WHERE i CAME FROM, OR
> BRAND ME DELUSIONAL OR ANYTHING. LIVE MY LIFE!!!!!LIVE THROUGH
> THIS!!!!!!!!!FEEL IT EXPERIENCE IT, AND THEN TELL ME ABOUT YOUR "CORE."
> I DARE YOU.......................
>
She can't you know. Nobody could live your life but you. I hope it is
finally coming together for you, and things are finally as they should be.
Huge hugs,
Katy
Kristine W. Holt
Laura Blake (lbl...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
:
: OK... so it's really 1 1/2 people....
I'm grudgingly granted "1/2 personhood" -- hope it's my feminine side!
(That's a joke, Laura.)
-- Kris
Grrlpetal
The perfect opportunity to change a topic :)
Who are your role models? Maybe you could tell us why you look up to
these people.
Since I'm posting, then I guess I should start:
My role models are:
Amelia Airheart. Amelia is one of the bravest women who ever lived. Not
just because of her pioneering efforts in aviation, but because in a day
and age where a woman's place was most definitely in the home, she was
up and away, defying role expectations only because she had to do what
she wanted to do. Amelia started out as a nurse, inspired to service by
the wounded veterans of WWI. She then went on to become an English
teacher to newly arived immigrants in New York. If I could only afford
flying lessons!
My Mother: Her incredible insights into the human heart, her wonderul
intuition, her loving devotion and loyalty to me through thick and
thin...whose footsteps could be better to follow?
Jasmie Ghaurie: She's my Barbie Doll writ real:) Runner up: Elizabeth
Hurley.
Courtney Love: Yeah, yeah, she's a bad girl, but so was I at one point.
She's the center of Rock Music, not just the best female rock artist,
but the best in the biz, period. I love her art, her mode of expression,
her take-no-prisoners attitude in guarding her own femininity, as well
as her post-modern critique of the state of Women. She can be playful,
angry, loving, caring, strident and all the time she is Woman. I love
Love :)
Nick: my mentor and friend who picked me up off the ground and dusted me
off when my male persona died a quite sudden death. He led me through
the first stages of transition and showed me how to *do* it. No one
could give more support to me outside of my Mother. Nick is FtM :)
Well those are a few. Anyone else?
Diane
In article <5u0g13$sls$3...@gte2.gte.net>, From Kari Cowan
<kco...@gte.net>, the following was written:
> In my opinion, you do a great disservice to your peers when you
> promote censorship of an individual. As Inderstand it Kari, what
Celeste is oting is not at all censorship. Censorship is when an
individual is not permitted to voice their opinions. This would be the
case if Celeste canceled LB's messages which Celeste tells me she is not
about to do.
Celeste seems to have made it clear to me that what she is proposing is
that individuals excersise their right to ignore LB's messages. Now
you, yourself, are not obligated to do such and I personally have
excercised that particular option for over a year now. This is not
censorship but individual expression. I don't have a problem with this
idea at all.
Personally I have come to believe over the years that the problem lies
not so much with LB, who is easily ignored/killfiled, but with the twits
who habitually respond to her with flames rather then doing as Celeste
suggests.
I hope that you don't think that my killfiling someone on my personal
system or voicing my opinion that others do the same is censorship. LB
and her ilk still have the right to say whatever they desire and I have
the right to make them disappear. Seems to me that even the strictest
Libertarian could agree with that.
--
Diane astro@NOSPAM_slip.net
08/28/97 11:16
---------
Rosalind Hengeveld
In article <3404f35c...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, lbl...@sympatico.ca
(Laura Denise Blake) wrote:
> [...] The reason I don't
> trim the crosspost listings when I reply is really quite simple: I don't
> actually know which newsgroups the person posting the original message
> reads, and if I am to get my point across to them, trimming the newsgroups
> line runs the risk of them not seeing my reply.
That must be why some people -- commonly referred to as 'spammers' -- post
their message to twenty thousand newsgroups: because they don't know which
newsgroups you read, and they don't want to run the risk of you not seeing it.
Sorry, but this doesn't add up.
It is immaterial which newsgroups the person posting the original message
reads. If you want them to see your reply, send them a courtesy copy by
e-mail. What matters is, in which newsgroup your reply would be on-topic and
would be appreciated by at least some of the readers.
--
Rosalind Hengeveld
Erin Brooker
Grrlpetal wrote:
> Well those are a few. Anyone else?
Yeah!!!
Definately Amelia. Because I love aircraft and bravery, and
and she personafies Pretty much everything I'd like to be,
except dead of course.
Then There's Annie Lenox, for her courage and outrageousness
with displaying the truth in a controversial and entertaining way.
Besides, I'm part Scots.
Indira Ghandi, Her gentle hand has led India out of disaster into a
state
which is much more manageable.
Penny Marshall: From a dumb sitcom to the most recognized Director
producer in Hollywood. Almost Supassing
Lucille Ball: I wont insult her memory with mere words. She was a
goddess :)
Sister. Theresa: I'm Pagan, but this Lady deserves all the love and
recognition
she gets.
These are my real heroes now. Anyone else????
Erin
Celeste
What a perennially great question!
There are so many great womyn, so many great people out there that any
list that would fit into a news article would certainly be incomplete.
1) My Mom.
She is one of the most intelligent, learned, educated, talented and
skilled people I know. She taught me good taste, she taught me ethics is
an absurdly complex world, she taught me feminism, she taught my sister
and I the secrets of her culinary mastery, quite importantly -- she
taught me the priceless value of reading, she gave me a sense of self
reliance and confidence that has supported me well throughout the
decades and most importantly, today is among my best friends.
2) Ursula LeGuinn and Anne McCaffrey
Writers whose works describe worlds that teach us more about our own.
3) Maya Angelou
A voice of vision, strength and grandeur that transcends some much less
evolved cacophony far below her.
4) Diana Rigg
An early influence, a lasting influence, a woman who played the first
woman released from house wife slavery I ever saw on mass media. Emma
Peel, set an example of capable, free, strong, self reliant women long
before the concept was common place.
I also adore the Avengers music, written by a woman whose name escapes
me at the moment.
5) Lauren Hutton
A woman whose intelligence and grace rises above the profession that
made her famous.
6) Julie Christie
A woman whose british mystery and fascination sophistication defined my
early sense of being female. Today she is a political activist in
Europe.
7) Germaine Greer
Despite her current transphobia, her 1970 book, The Female Eunuch taught
me more about female socialization than anything I read before or since.
8) My music teachers, too close to my own life to name, but people who
pursued an art form so obscure today that few people even know what it
is!
This meager beginning of a list doesn't even scratch the surface ...
Julie Simpson
> Courtney Love: Yeah, yeah, she's a bad girl, but so was I at one point.
> She's the center of Rock Music, not just the best female rock artist,
> but the best in the biz, period. I love her art, her mode of expression,
> her take-no-prisoners attitude in guarding her own femininity, as well
> as her post-modern critique of the state of Women. She can be playful,
> angry, loving, caring, strident and all the time she is Woman. I love
> Love :)
I like Courtney too, though I have a problem with the fact that she was on
smack while pregnant. She had stuff to deal with, I guess, and seems to
have dealt with it. But the most disturbing thing about Courtney is that
one of _her_ role models was Stevie Nicks, queen of bloat-rock! Urgh!
Who would have figured it from the woman who wrote "Rock Star"?
Cheers
Julie
Romée van der Zee
Laura Blake <lbl...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> If you will note, none of my postings have been crossposted to thist group
> since Celeste started this crap of hers. Also note that THIS thread is not
> being crossposted anywhere else. The "doors" are closed, your gatekeeping
> efforts are not being violated.
Dear Laura,
The doors are not closed. Not formally (no 'content'spamming), nor
practical. Some persons spoke up for you, as I did. Most people didn't
say a word, probably because they recognized there opinion in one of the
postings. So we can not claim majority for whatever position that has
been taken.
I asked you if we could reflect on the way the genderstruggle emanated
in our personal developpement. I think that gives backround to our
statements,
sincerely,
Romée van der Zee
Karen Anne
Celeste wrote:
>
> My suggestion was the silent treatment.
>
Hi Celeste,
Laura Who?..... :)
Sorry, I couldn't pass up an opportunity like that.
Huggs,
Karen
Cheryl
On Thu, 28 Aug 97 11:46:18 GMT, deir...@nospam.erols.com (Deirdre
Clausen) wrote:
>If you want to give Laura the silent treatment, then you should just do it.
>When you try to get an entire newsgroup to give Laura the silent treatment,
>then you are trying get her shunned. And that is a form of censorship.
>
No, I don't think so. It's entirely a matter of choice. There's no
coercion involved, simply one individual stating a viewpoint. I'd
rather not involve myself any further with LMB, because I know
M. Blake from previous incarnations. I choose not to unnecessarily
provoke. It's not good for the group and it's not good for me
personally. I have too much stress in my life now. My husband is in
the hospital recovering from a heart attack, my best friend found out
today she has had Hepatitis C for thirty years and the prognosis
doesn't look good, my step-daughter and baby are being evicted in five
days. I have neither time nor inclination to get in a hissy fit with
someone who obviously hasn't the first clue, yet feels compelled not
only to prosletyze, but to insult, transsexual women who have made new
lives for themselves.
Whether or not you think so, the diatribes attempted to diminish and
demean me and other transsexual women. To what end? Statements have
been made to provoke and perhaps to hurt TS women, so naturally some
of us respond in less than kindly light to these posturings.
Regardless, M. Blake has had a say, many people including myself have
responded, now we are taking not a collective decision but a
collective determination of the next course of events. The group is
SRS support. I've known a lot of people in what M. Blake glibly
descries as the "transgender community". Most of them don't give a
damn about some poseur on a soapbox waving a call to arms, but simply
want to get on with their lives in whatever congruence they can. As
far as I'm concerned, M. Blake has overstepped the proprietaries, and
some of us no longer choose to engage debate with a person who only
seems able to bully, belittle and trivialize others from a position of
utter ignorance, which is perfectly obvious to anyone who has lived as
a woman for more than six months.
Shunning, which I don't think this is, is still not censorship. M.
Blake has the right to make positions known. In turn, if I find it
becoming truly obnoxious again, reserve the right to either ignore or
respond, as I will. To tell the truth, a concept which seems to elude
M. Blake, I don't need the bitching. Straighten up and fly right or
accept the consequences of rash and uninformed remarks. That hardly
qualifies as censorship.
"One is not born, but rather becomes a woman." - Simone de Beauvoir
Cheryl
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:43:36 -0400, Grrlpetal
<grrl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Janice Raymond/ Andrea Dworkin school of Stalinist Feminism- which also
>accepts the Heterosexist Construct. A good source for Feminist
>Constructionism is Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble."
>
Janice Raymond is an ex-nun who abandoned her vows to the little baby
Jesus. What kind of woman would do that to a child? For years I've
been trying to have the Catholic church take care of her by the Swiss
Guard crack assassination team. Those guys are good. "Officer, all I
saw was a man in yellow-and-black pants with a funny hat, took her
head clean off with a pike."
As for Andrea Dworkin, I've never seen such a sorry waste of human
flesh. I ask you, is this fair? These horrid trolls got the prize,
and all I wound up with was the t-shirt and a penis. There ain't no
justice.
Cheryl
On 31 Aug 1997 03:43:13 GMT, Kari Cowan <kco...@gte.net> wrote:
>Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>> In article <5u0g13$sls$3...@gte2.gte.net>, kco...@gte.net wrote:
>>
>> All the harrassment she claims to get is payback that she brought upon herself.
>>
>> >That she still she offers support, legal and otherwise, for
>> >transsexuals, despite that she decided for herself it wasn't in her own
>> >best interest speaks volumes.
>>
>> Peculiar that the overwhelming majority of transsexuals do not consider it
>> to be support. With "friends" like her, we don't need enemies.
>
>What overwhelming majority?
My vote is no. Regardless of personal feelings, LBM is play-acting
therapist to questioning and uninformed people without any sort of
credentials, only a certain mindset that it's my way or the highway.
Don't you think this might be dangerous with impressionable people?
>On the net, or did you survey the TS
>population in Canada?
Including the Newfies and Prince Edward Island? How can you tell
who's a transie come wintertime, under the parkas and mukluks?
(Sorry, I lived in Toronto for several years, couldn't resist.)
>When I used to go to support group meetings,
>myself and another gal were the only ones who even owned computers, and
>she wasn't on-line until I have her an old modem. I would say if you
>are basing that on internet opinions, the sampling for your statement is
>not representative of the population, although it may or may not be
>correct.
I think the transgender groups are a fair sampling of the general
population. If anything, support groups are the more limited group.
Regular members of support groups tend to be those with unresolved
issues looking for support, or those for whom they are a social club.
Nothing wrong with that, but people barely coming out on the one hand,
and transsexuals on the other, do not much attend support groups and
pretty well skew the demographic. Internet, on the other hand, is a
much more democratic measure. I would assume that unless there were
other measures taken into account (financial status, etc.), Internet
may be taken as fair opinion. Of course, all statistics are either
lies or damned lies, but we've already gone down the slippery slope of
truth with Mz Laura.
Cheryl
On 24 Aug 1997 03:13:25 GMT, "Karen Ross" <kr...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>Karen Anne <kar...@usa.net> wrote in article <33FBD7...@usa.net>...
>
>> Thanks Cheryl, for reminding me about disaster. All day today at work I
>> wondered when would be a good time to spring my transition on my boss
>> and you made a very good point: Never trust *any* of the normals.
>
>Ah...rather than "normals", how about "mundanes". (Thanks, B5.)
Uh huh, anything is better than "cisgenderists". Some of my best
friends are mundanes...
"The Psi Corps is your friend. Trust the Corps."
T. E. Kallandra
Michelle Steiner (ste...@antispamm.best.com) wrote:
: I don't know what your problem is, and frankly, I don't care. What I do
: care about is that you have no idea what "support" means and that you are
: destructive to the supportive intent of this newsgroup.
One more reason I keep using alt.transgendered. We need a place where
one can take off one's shoes and kick one's fellow disputant
in their trachea.
TK
Caitlyn M. Martin
Celeste <NOSPAM....@usa.net> wrote in article
<5u5pm0$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Hi Ellen:
>
> Nice to hear from you. How about being an activist for uterine
> transplants? Only politics keeps them from being a reality.
>
Hi, Celeste,
Can you please post some details. I, like most other TS women I've talked
to, have dreamed of having children. I mean really having them, as in
carrying one for 9 months of pregnancy. I've always assumed it's
impossible. You say otherwise. Please explain.
-Katy
Erin Brooker
Kari Cowan wrote:
> We will never gain equality as an invisable entity, but if you
> want to be in the closet, that is your preogative.
Transexuals for the past couple of decades have been seenas this whiney
little group of prima donas' who just jumped up
and down in thier frilly little skirts making all sorts of demands.
No-one has taken us seriously simply because for the most
part, there's always been enough of a whiney contingent
to make us all look really bad.
And if you think we're invisible, GODS are you naive. Theres
an entire industry based solely around our ""trying"" to become
invisible. Until we grow into womanhood, we stick out like a sore
thumb wherever we go, as long as we're in the mundane world.
Yes, several of the privaleges we have today (like staying alive a
little longer) were gleened for us by Tula and Renee Richards, And
Ms. Hunt. But the greatest gifts of freedom and equality have been won
for us by a countless number women who have simply gone to work
each day, worked hard, did a great job, went home and paid the bills,
ON A DAILY BASIS, and they weren't invisible, but they were detirmined
*and* they were *women*.. And *Thats* how we're going to get more
equality
for those who follow us. Plain and simple,,, hard work.. No bullshit..
No stupid
affectations.
And stop trying to call us males in denial.. If you REALLY need to
lecture
boys in dresses then go back to alt.transgendered. And don't call me
a fuckin shill. Your only reason for making that statement is to hurt
someone because your hurting. If you want support *fine* drop the
bullshit
and we'll support you. If all you want to do is cross live, *fine*
""do it"", But at least be respectful enough of the women and girls
around you to put in a good days work
without whineing, so you don't drag them down with you if you go.
I know this seems harsh, and perhaps impossible, but it's the same
advise I was given
by my genetic female friends (christ how differentiating can feel so
slimy). Where was I.
And it's the same that was given to me by one of my bosses (yeah! I got
a few), and
*she's* my strongest champion. Actually they both are when I think about
it.
He's just as emphatic as she is..But I think he's just being wonderful
and clueless.
Erin
RosePress
In article <5udg5l$9hm$1...@narwhal.maximumaccess.com>,
tk...@Baluga.MaximumAccess.com (T. E. Kallandra) writes:
>One more reason I keep using alt.transgendered. We need a place where
>one can take off one's shoes and kick one's fellow disputant
>in their trachea.
I like having smoking and non-smoking zones. Both are legitimate
activities, and their practitioners deserve places where they can do their
thing. Well! If it can be OK to smoke (but not around those who don't want
it), how about breathing fire? I don't much care for vigorous disputation
-- it stirs the sediment at the bottom of my soul up into suspension. But
I'm glad it's there for people who want it.
A place for everything, and everything in its place.
Hugs -- Ellen Rose
Language serves three functions.
The first is to communicate ideas.
The second is to conceal ideas.
The third is to conceal the absence of ideas.
-- Otto Jespersen
Celeste
> Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> Celeste <NOSPAM....@usa.net> wrote
> > Hi Ellen:
> >
> > Nice to hear from you. How about being an activist for uterine
> > transplants? Only politics keeps them from being a reality.
> >
> Hi, Celeste,
>
> Can you please post some details. I, like most other TS women I've
> talked
> to, have dreamed of having children. I mean really having them, as in
>
> carrying one for 9 months of pregnancy. I've always assumed it's
> impossible. You say otherwise. Please explain.
>
> -Katy
Uterine transplants are no more or less possible than any other kinds of
transplants. With today's technology there are people who have received
whole sets of organs, lungs, pancreas, liver, all in one operation.
Kidney transplants have become routine, as have heart transplants. It is
all possible because of anti-rejection drugs.
The problems with a uterine transplant include:
1) Where would you find a donor?
2) The children would be the donor's genetics, not the recipients.
3) There might be problems taking the fetus to term while on
anti-rejection drugs.
4) Think of the media and political uproar. Do you want to be discussed
on CNN?
5) The furor would be a double whammy. Not only would the transplant
itself be criticized by many, the christian "wrong" come to mind, but
the history of the recipient would be criticized as well.
6) Transplanting a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes and cervix would
probably be a relatively simple operation. It would not be much more
complex than a hysterectomy.
Hey Anne Lawrence, would you please fill in more details here? Maybe
hearing some of this information from an M.D. would carry more weight
with some of the a.s.srs readers.
Erin Brooker
Laura Blake wrote:
> Translation: It's ok to be transgendered, as long as you don't look
> or act
> the part. We will tolerate you, if you don't remind us who you
> really are.
Read it that way if you wish Laura. I don't care.. I consider you an
insult toI and my peers. period
> >And it's the same that was given to me by one of my bosses
>
> Sounds like a pre-cursor to discrimination to me. "If you play by
> this
> rule, which I have just made up, I won't fire you".... I'd say that
> pretty
> much borders on harassment in the work place.
I call it a compliment. You can whine all you want.
Diane
In article <5uap09$kk5$1...@gte1.gte.net>, From Kari Cowan
> that her adversary is mentally ill, and that we must all ignore her
> for her own good.
That's an interesting interpretation of what Celeste said but there is a
big difference between saying we "must" ignore someone and we "should"
ignore someone. Since Celeste appears to be an intelligent woman she
certainly knows, as do most of the rest of us, that she cannot say we
"must" ignore someone because there is no effective way to enforce such
an edict.
Therefore she must believe that we "should" ignore LB, which is what she
is actually promoting. There's a world of difference between "must" and
"Should". The former is an edict and the latter is an opinion. I think
it a shame that you waste so much bandwidth on a misinterpretation,
intentional or otherwise.
--
Diane astro@NOSPAM_slip.net
09/01/97 12:24
---------
Deirdre Clausen
In article <34282377...@news.cruzio.com>, che...@nowhere.com (Cheryl) wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Aug 97 11:46:18 GMT, deir...@nospam.erols.com (Deirdre
>Clausen) wrote:
>
>>If you want to give Laura the silent treatment, then you should just do it.
>>When you try to get an entire newsgroup to give Laura the silent treatment,
>>then you are trying get her shunned. And that is a form of censorship.
>>
>No, I don't think so. It's entirely a matter of choice. There's no
>coercion involved, simply one individual stating a viewpoint. I'd
>rather not involve myself any further with LMB, because I know
>M. Blake from previous incarnations. I choose not to unnecessarily
>provoke. It's not good for the group and it's not good for me
>personally.
<snip>
Alright. I take your point. It's just that I get annoyed with people who
stand in their pulpit and tell the rest of us how we should treat an
individual. No matter how well-intentioned, it's just as bad as watching an
engaging and interesting thread go south due to an LB-like diatribe. I say
"LB-like" because there are several of us here guilty of the same thing.
But my main point is still this: If you want to give someone the silent
treatment, then just do it.
Best regards,
Dee
Caitlyn M. Martin
Kari Cowan <kco...@gte.net> wrote in article <5udhnh$iq8$3...@gte2.gte.net>...
> > In the United States a post-op woman is legally considered female.
>
> And yet very few people really buy this - they'll accept you as a
> "woman", but not as a "female". This is the primary reason that I
> support recognizing the transgendered status of our sisters who have
> accomplished great things - to help set role models that we can follow
> and respect, and to foster that same respect in the general populous
> that would denigrate us and not accept our efforts, with or without
> surgery.
>
Ms. Cowan, you spout yet more rhetoric, but fail to answer the basic
question that Cheryl and I both raised. The state of California classifies
me as female. If my Social Security records, or fairly soon my passport,
are any indication, so does/will the government of the United States. What
do you know that they don't?
Cheryl said it plainly. So did I. I will ask for the last time: Why do
you refuse to tell us what your definitions of male and female are? Why do
you not define a post-op woman as female? Who is this mythical "they" who
will accept me as a woman but not female? I don't believe any such "they"
exists.
To quote a very smart, long post-op, former transsexual: "I went through
all this to be a woman, not a transsexual". I have been a transsexual as
long as I can remember. Once I have had surgery, I won't be trans-
anything. That will always be my history, but it is not my future. I do
not want my status recognized as "transgendered", since I no longer will
be. I want it recognized as female, and despite you assertions to the
contrary, it will be.
Kari, please, no more rhetoric. Answer the questions honestly. Or are you
even capable of that?
-Kate
Grrlpetal
ROTFLMAO ;D
Cheryl
On 24 Aug 97 05:28:16 GMT, "Caitlyn M. Martin" <cmm...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>Please, enlighten us. What truly makes someone male or female?
>
>(Getting more than a little tired of this. What does this have to do with
>support for those having SRS?)
>
>-Kate Martin
>
I am too, Caitlyn. I don't know why KD continues to berate this point
especially when it is hurtful to so many people. Yes, my physiology
at birth was male, my genotype is probably XY or some variation
thereof, and, to my personal sadness, I'll never be able to have
children. So what? As we've pointed out continually to KD, these are
not the only characteristics of gender, and except perhaps for the
matter of having children, not even the most important ones.
She refuses to define her terms, so until she does so whatever else
she might say is without substance or merit. Even then, I am so
heartily sick of these assertions and it's rapidly approaching the
point where I won't care what she says. Existentially I am a female
and a woman, and that is the end of the matter. Is there anyone who
is unaware of the physical parameters by which we live? If not, why
to we have to listen to this shallow argument dressed up as profundity
over and over again. It's rather like going up to a person who's had
polio and informing them that they limp. I don't need some
neo-transie or her mentor telling me what I'm well aware of. Beside
being disrespectful and mean-spirited, it insults my intelligence.
Caitlyn M. Martin
Hi, Celeste,
Two issues you raise that I'd like to comment on:
First, what about uterine transplants from FTMs, and could we, in some way,
offer them something in return?
Second, if the ovaries are not included, pregnancy would still be possible
with donated ovum and in vitrio fertilization. Since the sperm could be
the TS woman's own (unless, as in my case, she was sterile to start with
and could not bank sperm) a genetic/biological link could be maintained.
Just my thoughts...
-Kate
Diane
In article <340C7339...@usa.net>, From Celeste
<celeste...@usa.net>, the following was written:
> By the way, you have a creative sense of humor ...
hehehehehe
;)
--
Diane astro@NOSPAM_slip.net
09/02/97 16:23
---------
Erin Brooker
Kari Cowan wrote:
> Erin Brooker wrote:
> >
> > Transexuals for the past couple of decades have been seen as this
> whiney
> > little group of prima donas' who just jumped up
> > and down in thier frilly little skirts making all sorts of demands.
>
> Thank the <enter higher entity power of your choice>
Kari!!!!.. What makes you think that you or we, are any more specialthan
anything else on this mud ball of a planet we occupy, that we
can jump up and down like spoiled petulent childeren, demanding things
from a world that quite frankly doesn't owe us a thing. Thats
ludicrous.I
sencereley suggest you check your reality meter here.
>
>
> > No-one has taken us seriously simply because for the most
> > part, there's always been enough of a whiney contingent
> > to make us all look really bad.
>
> This is why we need better role models.
If you want better role models, be one. Don't try to lead me,I'm not
going to follow. Don't try to follow, because I refuse to lead.
But rather live respectabley with integrity and self respect, and
maybe,
just maybe You'll get mine and a bunch of other peoples as well.
>
>
> > And if you think we're invisible, GODS are you naive. Theres
> > an entire industry based solely around our ""trying"" to become
> > invisible.
>
> Precisely my point, or part thereof. We have become part of the
> glamour.cosmetic market, a system of products
Amen to that.. We are almost no longer freaks. You'll find the dollar
bill definesnormality a lot more powerfully than politics and good
intentions. Sad as that is.
And the fact that this industry is considering us at all here moves us
one step closer
to mainstream society, and away from the circus side shows and city
morgues.
> , and life enhancing gizmos
> based entirely on insecurities. We could take a lesson, or part of
> one,
> at least, from our self-identified "dyke" sisters who don't buy into
> this crap. Ahhhhh,, but we like it.
*Like it???*** You be the butch sweetheart, I'm femme and proud of
it.Maybe I don't like the rates they charge, but theres a lot in this
world
I don't like. And by the way, have you noticed the same vanity
industrial
complex has aimed the same tactics at the entire rest of the human
race????
We are not being singled out here.
> > And stop trying to call us males in denial.. If you REALLY need to
> > lecture
> > boys in dresses then go back to alt.transgendered. And don't call me
>
> > a fuckin shill.
>
> The "U-R-A Shill" thread line was started by Ms. Grrlpetal, not I. I
> don't have the need to insult and defame others that do not agree with
>
> me. A couple years ago, maybe.
>
> > Your only reason for making that statement is to hurt
> > someone because your hurting. If you want support *fine* drop the
> > bullshit
> > and we'll support you.
>
> That's what I tried telling Grrlpetal, and you should have seen the
> email flames she sent me.... sad, very sad indeed.
>
> Since you obviously misunderstood who started that attempted
> blood-bath,
> I'll just delet the rest of your message... read it, but fully
> understand the anger. It was just misplaced, that's all.
>
> kari
I don't care who started this., and as far as misdirected anger.No mam.
It was neither misdirected, nor anger. It's a statement
of *my* price for respect, plain and simple. My friends demand
I give myself and them my best, and I demand that of the rest of us
who wish to get upitty and over vocal. I am tired to the bones
of the bickering postureing and political bull thats taken place here.
For you and anyone else out there, if you want to live as women,
*be women*, thats fine, nobody cares. But don't whine about it.
Nobody cares about geneticly born women being genetically born either..
So just live. Strive to be happy. Cry when you need too. Do your work
with pride and humility. And leave the world in peace.
Erin
Celeste
> Diane wrote:
> In article <340B2374...@usa.net>, From Celeste
> <celeste...@usa.net>, the following was written:
>
> Well I like the concept but I think that your science might be a bit
> shakey here:
>
> > Uterine transplants are no more or less possible than any other
> kinds
> > of transplants.
>
> But how do you *know* this. I assume that you are assuming. I could
> assume that brain transplants were possible with today's technology
> but
> I'd be wrong.
>
> > 2) The children would be the donor's genetics, not the recipients.
>
> Not really - you may be confusing the uterus with the ovaries which
> contain the genetic material.
I should have titled the thread reproductive organ transplants. I was
referring loosely to the entire cluster of reproductive organs, as I
described in my elaboration below. My conclusions are based in part on
discussions with my physician father, and very briefly, in passing, with
one of the physicians that posts here.
>
>
> > (3) There might be problems taking the fetus to term while on
> > anti-rejection drugs.
>
> Considering that most doctors are uncomfortable with the mother taking
>
> anything much stronger then asprin I'd say that this is a pretty safe
> bet cnsidering the enormous host of drugs (antirejection,
> anti-biotics,
> anti-inflamatories etc) required of most transplant patients.
This is an admitted problem that would require further research. But I
do know of at least one cancer patient who was doing chemotherapy, whose
fetus not only survived but is thriving. The choices available to them
in that situation were difficult too, but they managed.
>
>
> > 6) Transplanting a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes and cervix would
>
> > probably be a relatively simple operation. It would not be much more
>
> > complex than a hysterectomy.
>
> Oh from the mouths of babes.... Look I'm not a surgeon (but I play
> one
> on TV) but I used to be a scrub nurse and somehow I think this
> statement
> may be a bit naive. I'd not underestimate the complexity of such a
> thing.
As someone else noted, establishing blood supply and nervous system
connections would probably be the most difficult aspects of the surgery.
Werewomon
I neglected to mention my favorite role model, Gracie Allen, for whom I
really named my daughter. Gracie was a smart, funny woman, with a lot of
show biz acumen- I doubt we would even know Georges name had she not
switched the gag-straight roles early on. Obviously he was miscast in "Oh
God" for it is clear to any rational observer that there is naught but
chaos as far as the eye can see. This is no accident, Some One must have
put all that chaos there. Her name is Eris, and Gracie is her pythia.
And the official version of naming her Gracie is that I named her for the
three Graces; Slick, Jones and Allen.
Molly
Diane
In article <5ulini$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, From Celeste
For most of us - yes. Post-ops don't disappear because they don't
care, they just get a life and move on. Some of us find and amintain
our identities in being transexual and are perpetually fighting battles.
Such people have their place as well as they are primarily responsible
for much positive social change.
--
Diane astro@NOSPAM_slip.net
09/04/97 07:59
---------
Celeste
(smile) It looks like we just showed each other how difficult this
medium really is to master. Some years ago I concluded that human
communication is one of the most difficult skills in the world to
master. At least we were able to ask each other for help. Doesn't that
get us down the road toward better understanding, toward tuning our wave
lengths so that we can understand each other better?
Your tone implies that you have not gotten a good impression of me. I am
sorry for that. I would like to think that my intentions are good. I am
not mother teresa. I am not a therapist. I am just a high tech business
woman, scientific technocrat who had a glimmer about what she might do
to help from her own station in this world. Starting a news group was
something available to me.
Yes, this medium can be impersonal. So how do we work to better
personalize the content of our articles? Maybe one or more people who
know me outside this forum might be able to help assure you that I just
a woman trying to do what I can to the best of my abilities.
Cheryl
On 1 Sep 97 10:01:04 GMT, "Caitlyn M. Martin" <cmm...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Ms. Cowan, you spout yet more rhetoric, but fail to answer the basic
>question that Cheryl and I both raised. The state of California classifies
>me as female. If my Social Security records, or fairly soon my passport,
>are any indication, so does/will the government of the United States. What
>do you know that they don't?
>
The reason we are able to change our birth certificates and licenses
in California, as well as other states, is because of the early work
of Sister Mary Elizabeth and a few others. They worked behind the
scenes to make these things happen, rather than stand on soapboxes
screaming obscenities at passersby, that they are deprived of their
civil rights. Generally transsexuals are treated fairly by the U.S.
government. The Veterans Administration gives me my hormones and
provided me with two years of therapy. It's kept low-key, but it's
there for those of us who qualify. Social Security is very good about
accommodating us, and many if not all of the states have enlightened
policies. How long would that good will last, I wonder, if some group
started making a public spectacle claiming that they were women but
not female, or whatever the party line is? The backlash would come
down like a ton of bricks, first on the pre-ops, then possibly the
post-ops, if the religious nutcases ever got wind of it. They hate us
far worse than gays and lesbians. We're an abomination unto the lord,
or some such nonsense. How long before we start seeing laws against
"crossdressing"?
>Cheryl said it plainly. So did I. I will ask for the last time: Why do
>you refuse to tell us what your definitions of male and female are? Why do
>you not define a post-op woman as female? Who is this mythical "they" who
>will accept me as a woman but not female? I don't believe any such "they"
>exists.
>
There is no such group, except in the minds of the Boobsie Twins. In
the public eye, if you're a woman, you're a female. If you don't
pass, you're a transvestite, some damn pervert. Simple as that.
>To quote a very smart, long post-op, former transsexual: "I went through
>all this to be a woman, not a transsexual". I have been a transsexual as
>long as I can remember. Once I have had surgery, I won't be trans-
Precisely. I've always wanted to be female, girl or woman depending
on my age. "Transsexual" is just the means to get there. There's no
joy in it for me to be a "transgendered person". I lived that way
once, and decided that if I couldn't be a woman I didn't want to just
dress like one.
>anything. That will always be my history, but it is not my future. I do
>not want my status recognized as "transgendered", since I no longer will
>be. I want it recognized as female, and despite you assertions to the
>contrary, it will be.
>
I'm not even sure what transgendered means any more. I get the sense
that it's come to be pretty much a euphemism for transvestite. I have
no problem with TVs, but playing a fantasy woman and actually living
as a woman, good and bad parts of it, are quite distinct. To say that
we're all in some big transgendered melting pot both trivializes the
incredible hardships transsexuals go through and the motivation for
going through it. I am a woman, but I'm still learning to be one and
will be for the rest of my life. Just like every other woman.
>Kari, please, no more rhetoric. Answer the questions honestly. Or are you
>even capable of that?
I don't know, she seems to have fallen under the spell of her guru.
Laura never answers questions either. Laura Blake still cannot admit
to being Laura Masters, although it's quite obvious that it's the same
person. Kind of makes you wonder about these two, doesn't it? Don't
think, don't ask questions, give up your personal path and just
believe the True Gospel According to Laura. Sounds very much like a
cult.
Diane
In article <34132bf...@news.cruzio.com>, From che...@nowhere.com
(Cheryl), the following was written:
> ...
Isn't this thread dead yet??? !
Gee I'm stting to wonder if LB/M's most vocal opponents are really just
more manifistations of LB/M just to keep the argument going. It would
be twisted - it would be vile - but it would be in character. :)
This thread is like a nasty virus - if certain people <ahem> would stop
being infected then it would just die.
--
Diane astro@NOSPAM_slip.net
09/05/97 12:40
---------