Cissexual -spread the word (was: Re: Tranny Crap)
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
Claudia W. wrote,
>
> As this may not be already established (but ignored) as Cissexual is,
> may I introduce Femiphobia as the concept behind Homophobia?
You are of course at liberty to introduce anything you please. But
note that (a) homophobia means fear of "homo"s, not fear of men; hence
"femiphobia" is not a good parallel or counterpart, whether meant as fear
of women or fear of the feminine. (b) Femi- (or, more properly, femini-)
is a Latin prefix while -phobia is a Greek suffix. There is already too
much of this kind of linguistic miscegenation as it is, and it's a good
idea to avoid adding any more. (c) In any case, why would "femiphobia"
be the concept behind homophobia? Most gay guys are not the least bit
feminine.
Fussy? Yes, but so was Isaac Asimov, who was the one whose writings
sensitized me about this.
Tammy
--
For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or e-mail:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
grrl*@*petal
<clau...@my-deja.computersdrivemecrazy> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>[x-posted!!]
>
>grrl*@*petal <IL...@Debs.cooy.uk> wrote
>
>[shrunk]
>
>> >>However,make some specious claim about being more womanly, more
>> >>committed, or just plain superior than this is the height of arrogance.
>
>I'm not arrogant, I don't need to be, I am the Empress of the Universe.
><never mind, read on, I suck at jokes>
>
>> But there you go. To be transgendered doesn't exclude *any* form of
>> expression that steps outside heterosexist conformity.
>
>I got a problem with "heterosexist conformity". If we are interested to ever
>remove the discussion around Transsexuality out of the context of sexual
>preference and thus the choice of partner, we need to abandon the concept of
>"Heterosexuality" as a counterweight to Transsexuality/Transgenderism. It is
>simply wrong for all obvious reasons and a fatal logical flaw. Replace
>"heterosexist conformity" with "cissexual conformity" and I am perfectly
>happy. If you want to call the name of the "enemy", don't use a _wrong_ term
>which is, btw, detoragory towards your heterosexual sisters and brothers,
>use the _correct_ name, which is Cissexual.
No it's not derogatory. It's a matter of understanding the meaning of
heterosexism, which is the social manifestation based upon
heterosexuality- and that is that heterosexuality is the criteria by
which all else is measured. Within heterosexism are understandings of
what womanhood and manhood are- that all that is woman or man is
derived from the penis entering the vagina. This is the basis for he
predominant gender construct.
Freud built a career out of it. He represented the authority of the
male over the Other. The female was permissable but flawed. Forever
orbiting the phallus. Any other manifestation of sexuality was
deviant- disordered. All non male heterosexuals *naturally* obtain
less from the social order.
All understandings of male and female are derived from this and still
are to a great extent. The woman as vessel, carrying sacred life-
hence abortion restrictions. In Brazil a man may have a thousand
mistresses but if his wife has an affair he may kill her with
impunity.
Adoption is a profound example of hetero-sexism. Because a baby is
concieved by a woman out-of-wedlock- outside the institution of
marriage, it is likely the baby will be placed for adoption, because
of the "illegitimacy" of the pregnancy, pregnancy being the female
function in marriage, an institution historically predicated upon
insuring the male will have a sexual partner.....how many prosecutions
for rape within a marriage ever go forward, even as rape can and does
occur within marriage.
More to the point, even as domestic partnership is actualizing it is
only considered *equivalent* to marriage, not equal- why? Because of
the function of sex- penial-vaginal sex.l I would far easier to just
have gays and lesbians marry each other. Why establish a seperate but
equal arraingement? Such arraingements are generally considered
discriminatory yet not when it comes to the heterosexist enforcement
mechanism that marriage originates from.
>
>Very empowering, here it comes again: Cissexual. Not only is it correct, it
>is a powerful tool. I've tested it several times on Cissexuals on Usenet and
>they absolutely hate it. Hear them squeal and whine by slapping this term at
>them, they love to -pathologize- us by Trans categories but strongly reject
>if this logical consequence is applied towards them, since they live in the
>delusion that normality and thus the implementation of the status quo is the
>dowry of majority.
I want pathologizing to end. I want the majority to see what it's
doing to the minoritty and cease to it out of recognition of an equal
humanity. Not justt an equivalent one.
>
>*Think* about it, and consider carefully your motivation if you are planning
>to reject.
>
>> Stalinist Lesbians and Homophobes do that so well.
>
>As this may not be already established (but ignored) as Cissexual is, may I
>introduce Femiphobia as the concept behind Homophobia?
Interesting and not offf the mark. Queer disccourse is a direct
manifestation of femninist discourse. But then if "femiphobia" aren't
we just saying Non-males, and more typically non-het males?
Cindy
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
TLM
>
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> C[åūŽļå „„. <clau...@my-deja.computersdrivemecrazy> wrote in message
> news:8dk7kt$maf$1...@news.news-service.com...
> > Very empowering, here it comes again: Cissexual. Not only is it correct, it
> > is a powerful tool. I've tested it several times on Cissexuals on Usenet and
> > they absolutely hate it. Hear them squeal and whine by slapping this term at
> > them, they love to -pathologize- us by Trans categories but strongly reject
> > if this logical consequence is applied towards them, since they live in the
> > delusion that normality and thus the implementation of the status quo is the
> > dowry of majority.
> >
> human behavior, psychologists consider a probability of occurrence outside one
> standard deviation as being abnormal. I forget my basic statistics, but I
> think everything outside one standard deviation represents only a very small
> percentage of the sample. On the other hand, everything inside one standard
> deviation represents a large percentage as well as the majority.
68% is within the +/- 1sd. 16% below and 16% above.
> Does it bother you if you exhibit a behavior that is considered statistically
> abnormal? It doesn't bother me. Statistically, (I could be wrong about this)
> being transgendered is not normal; however, the key to acceptance is in the
> education of the majority not arguing with the basic definitions of behavioral
> analysis.
True.
> --
> JoAnn Peeler
> Proud to be me... (Proud to be abnormal.)
Tommie M.
Diane A.
<clau...@my-deja.computersdrivemecrazy> wrote:
>Which is why homosexuals can't marry, transsexuality is a mental disorders,
>and intersexual infants have to endure genital mutilation.......I am not
>saying that this is all the shrinks fault, but they are giving justification
>to a perverted "common sense".
Homosexuals can marry in some EC countries I believe - in many others
they are awarded full domestic partnership rights. I think a
northeastern state in the US just gave them those rights as well.
Transsexuality is no longer a mental disorder as defined by the newest
DSM I believe...intersexual infants don't routinely undergo genital
mutilation as far as am aware - mistakes sometimes are made but that's
about the size of it. No one is plotting and scheming to screw up
their lives out there.
Things do change... slower then you or I may like but they do change.
Deb Marsh
news:8dmsah$8un$1...@news.news-service.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> No. No. No. No. godamnit. The point is that Transsexualtiy has nothing to
> do with sexual preference, to counterpart it with Heterosexuality is
>*WRONG*. Just because the majority of Cissexuals appears to be
> heterosexual does still not make it it a balance to Transsexualtiy
And:
>You think you as a currently homosexual Transsexual fits into their
> lifestyle kumbaya song?
As the other half of this relationship I feel empowered to comment 8-)
You say, earlier in this thread that -
"A Cissexual (male or female) therefore may be gay, straight, lesbian,
whatever just as A Transsexual (male or female) may be gay, straight or
lesbian, whatever and An Intersexual (male/female/both/none) may be
gay, straight, lesbian,whatever"
Ok, so now I'm confused. If cissgender is that which is not transgender -
its opposite if you like - then, it would seem reasonable to assume that,
the terms gay, straight or lesbian are not applicable to folk occupying the
latter category.
How is it possible for the transgendered to inhabit states of being only
relevant to those who believe in gender fixity? To be transgender and
straight (or gay, or lesbian) entails the acceptance or acknowledgement of a
static state. To be transgendered and 'straight' is a contradiction - for,
so to be, one would need to believe that transgender was merely an interim
on the route to something else - this 'something else' being a destination
where opposites could be recognised - how else is straight or gay possible?
Paradox then? You say that:
"CS discribes people who grow up in the believe that what they have between
their legs determines their gender......."
It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that some transsexuals are also
cis because their drive towards SRS would seem to go along with such
assumption. Are they mistaken? In any event, this factor dilutes the
argument because, clearly, for some, cis and trans are complimentary
rather than opposing.
Also, cis, as counter position, becomes reactionary rather than
revolutionary if folk on either side of this divide (if divide it be other
than simple expedient semantics) are capable of occupying similar states of
recognisable sexuality.
Clearly then, within your terms, homosexuality occurs in both states - just
that one is predicated upon what's between one's legs and the other upon how
one perceives one's self and one's partner (one's partner, hopefully,
concurring, otherwise it could all become a tad indistinct 8-)
Sexual descriptives become meaningless within such parameters since the
terms are rendered fluid contingent upon philosophical stance - so why
employ them? Why assert the possibility of sexual preferences at all? Surely
such assertion undermines the point - returning to the recognisable as a
means of contradicting it. Funny thing to do really.
Bottom line: Sexuality is contingent upon gender. Gender is a social
prescription - a cultural interpretation of biological potential, predicted
on the basis of latent possibility. Gender, therefore, is a social
consequence of biological determinism.
Now, we say, founded upon our comprehension of this fact, that such an
artefact can be manipulated by the same social forces which manufacture it -
and so it can. We say that gender resides in the head and not the loins - we
say that self definition takes priority over social prescription. We say
that sexuality is an intimate consequence of our interpretation of what is
occurring.
So, why don't we go further. Why don't we say that gender is an
irrelevance -past its 'sell by date' - not germane to the human condition
because its social consequences limit us all.
Why do we say that we recognise your terms, will even adopt and go along
with them, just so long as it is we who are empowered to interpret them so
far as we, ourselves, are concerned. Why bother with any of this?
Your stance is ideological - it is a political position - laudable in some
ways - but no more the truth than that which it contradicts because it still
pays lip service to the expression it seeks to undermine - it, therefore,
undermines nothing. The revolution is absorbed - as are all revolutions. The
clashing of perspectives where synthesis looks depressingly familiar really.
Debs
grrl*@*petal
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:14:11 +0200, you wrote:
>
>No. No. No. No. godamnit.
>The point is that Transsexualtiy has nothing to do with sexual preference,
>to counterpart it with Heterosexuality is *WRONG*. Just because the majority
>of Cissexuals appears to be heterosexual does still not make it it a balance
>to Transsexualtiy. I write appears because how heterosexual is a man that
>_wants_ a tiny, submissive, Asian woman? How heterosexual is a man that
>_wants_ a blonde woman with big titts? They aren't ! They are paraphilics
>who desire a 3D counterpart of their fantasies!
No yourself. I wasn't equating transexuality to sexual preference. I
was talking about heterosexism, the social construct evolved from
heterosexual male social dominance.
However, you make interesting points if I *were* to accept
pathologizing hedterosexual male dominance. Actually one could if it
was sociopathology.
There is an incredible book about the sociopathology of male
dominance. It's called "Men, Women and Rape" by Babara Wills. It
shows how rape has been used an insttrument of social control over
women's bodies. Lotsa hard stats, sound historical references, etc.
>
>Also, look at other Cissexuals, as Lesbians and Gay men. What good have they
>done _us_ besides a forced colonization in form of a famine existance on the
>end of the "gblt" row? What do Lesbian Cissexuals see in _us_ that is not
>based on published neurosis/paranoia a la Raymond/Greer?
I don't know about this either, Claudia. The one group of people who
helped me the most through my transition thru SRS were Cissexual
Lesbians. Medical care, encouragement, support. In fact, except for
Dr. Menard, every other aspect was assisted by lesbians- oh yeah,
there were two gay men, one of whom held my hand through it as a true
friend and confidant. None of them had the time of day for Stalinist
Lesbain Seperatists. And yes, Raymond/Greer are as neurotic and as
dangerous as any white supremacist.
>What do Gay
>Cissexuals see in _us_ besides a Drag Queen that went a bit to far? When it
>comes to _true_ acceptance, Homo Cissexuals are _even worse_ than Het
>Cissexuals. Intergroup discrimination Love, just the same thing as the
>lighter/darker African thing, with the difference that we Transsexuals have
>to succumb to their definitions if we want to take part, and boy are they
>cruel. I am talking about the _real_ view, not some
>pc-bullshit-we-are-all-one-big-family-attitude.
Neither am I. Real life experience. RLE! Hahaha ;-D
>defense they have against _their_ pathologisation. You think you as a
>currently homosexual Transsexual fits into their lifestyle kumbaya song?
ALRIGHT! Fuckin' Public Enemy- "This ain't Kumbaya, baby!" God they
rocked.
Lemme tell ya' somethin.' I don't give a flying fuck anymore whose
party I can't come to, ya' know? Fuck 'em.
> Ha!
>Well go and have fun. Make sure you hit the right keys, but don't reserve a
>place for me in this ensemle because I wont join the alternative lifestyle
>party. Nothing alternative and nothing lifestyle about me.
True. UBstr8. Not exactly an alternative at all.
>Before I went
>stealth I have never ever met any Gay/Lesbian that *really and truly* looked
>at me beyond their projections, same counts for the Transgendered, but I
>have met quite a number of Het folks that could make that jump. The TG/TS
>relations are perticulary problematic, because they are our closest
>relatives
Kinda like Pygmie Chimps to humans analogy, eh? At least we can get
them to roller skate.
>with lot's of parallels and overlappings but in their desperate
>attempt to grab any straw they sure have scratched the Transsexual face
>while gasping for the lifestyle straw.
I don't know. You seem very angry about this. I look at it that I
already did transexual. The crossing is over- Broke on through to
the otherside, yeah.
>We Transsexuals are a very small
>number, yet everybody wants to fuck with us..........
I think teenagers are the biggest problem for TGs. They desparately
seek conformity at any cost. Anyone who seeks conformity at any cost
will spend us in the process.
So, yes- there are elements in the g&l community who will identify
with oppressor as the price for acceptance- normalization of gayness.
This is a *very* big debate within the the gay and lesbian community.
A faction that says "we're just like you (straights), except for the
bedroom" and a faction that says "we are not like straights and never
will be because of the determinsim of heterosexism." Hence we call
ourselves "Queer." Now the wonderful thing is even Str8s can be
Queer, if they recognize how this determinism limits themselves as
well.
>
>[examples for validation of insistance snipped]
>
>> I want pathologizing to end. I want the majority to see what it's
>> doing to the minoritty and cease to it out of recognition of an equal
>> humanity. Not justt an equivalent one.
>
>Good, then look at the song you are about to sing, because
>girrrrlllll....let's first think of getting equivalent and in a couple
>thousand years, when we have found a non extinguishable energy source and
>all goods are for free, then we might consider thinking about an equal
>humanity.
Nonsense. Just thirty years ago, gays and lesbians were tossed into
psychiatric hospitals and given electro-shock just because. So many
things have happened and changed in a social conext within my forty
years of existence. The whole EU and major American corporations and
now one State of the US recognizes domestic partnerships.
South Africa, once the bastion of Intolerance and racism is the
*first* nation to assert the right of sexual orientation in it's
*constitution.*
All depends how you look at things.
Cindy
There are dance clubs that have Queer Nights, where all sexual
orientations and gender expressions come together and revel in the joy
and beauty of difference.
Sooner or later.
>--
>Claudia W.
>___________________________________
>clau...@my-deja.computersdrivemecrazy
>entferne/remove/verwijder -putersdrivemecrazy-
C[åūŽļå „„.
Diane A. <dev...@somewhere.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
8rosfsg4cclaa0ulr...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:03:20 +0200, "C[εϋήοε ₯₯."
> <clau...@my-deja.computersdrivemecrazy> wrote:
>
> >Which is why homosexuals can't marry, transsexuality is a mental
disorders,
> >and intersexual infants have to endure genital mutilation.......I am not
> >saying that this is all the shrinks fault, but they are giving
justification
> >to a perverted "common sense".
>
> Homosexuals can marry in some EC countries I believe - in many others
> they are awarded full domestic partnership rights. I think a
> northeastern state in the US just gave them those rights as well.
I wouldn't know about that, however EU&US are a narrow circle to state that
things are improving.
> Transsexuality is no longer a mental disorder as defined by the newest
> DSM I believe...
So TS's can just walk to the surgeon now? No letters? No RLE? No evaluation?
No shrinks?
intersexual infants don't routinely undergo genital
> mutilation as far as am aware - mistakes sometimes are made but that's
> about the size of it.
Again, EU&US only are a fraction of the planet...
No one is plotting and scheming to screw up
> their lives out there.
Who needs a plot when ignorance and idiocy rule?
> Things do change... slower then you or I may like but they do change.
The question is, in which direction are they changing? And how much
substance is behind the fassade?
-C.
Deb Marsh
news:michelle-366602...@news.swbell.net...
> In article <8dnsbm$evr$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Deb Marsh"
> <DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Ok, so now I'm confused. If cissgender is that which is not
> > transgender - its opposite if you like - then, it would seem
> > reasonable to assume that, the terms gay, straight or lesbian are not
> > applicable to folk occupying the latter category.
>
> Let me try. Gay and straight refer to the gender of the object of one's
> attraction as compared to one's own gender *at the time*.
Aha! But according to which criteria? Which is my point. Cis or trans and
what if each half adheres to opposing principles. Grasp the concept - just
doubt the value of an application which recognises the possibility of
movement and ends up by fixing destinations. Any relationship capable of
being seen as both straight and gay, at one and the same time, and by its
actual participants ,displays much more than just opposing perspectives - it
demonstrates their irrelevance.
The concept is powerful if, and only if - to my mind, it allows this next
step. Otherwise it becomes merely a mirror image. Also, gender *at the time*
suggests that this changes (or is mutable), which if it does (or is), so
does sexual orientation.
> My gender is female; if I'm attracted only to females, I'm gay; if I'm
> attracted only to males, I straight; if I'm attracted to both (as I am),
> I'm bi.
And if you are attracted to a male who identifies as female - or a female
who identifies as male? Do you distinguish between biological male/female
and self-gendered male/female? Do you require qualifiers or is it about
present belief? And does it take two - or can you project it onto the
subject of your affections? By which I mean is their gender open to your
interpretation as well? Think about this Michelle because it is pertinent to
this exploration.
Not knocking the concept (although it looks like inversion rather than
insight) - just saddened by the unnecessary full stop which appears to
terminates evolution in full flight.
Debs
grrl*@*petal
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <8dq7e4$ov4$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Deb Marsh"
><DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Let me try. Gay and straight refer to the gender of the object of one's
>> > attraction as compared to one's own gender *at the time*.
>>
>> Aha! But according to which criteria?
>
>Each person's self identity.
>
>> Also, gender *at the time* suggests that this changes (or is
>> mutable), which if it does (or is), so does sexual orientation.
>
>That's why I much prefer gynophillic and androphillic as terms to
>describe one's orientation.
>
>I think the above answers the rest of your questions as well.
Hmmmmm. By this though you're saying genitalia is in the head-
psychological genitals? Gynophyllic/androphyllic by virtue of the
person identifying with the genitalia (since you use gyno and andro
with have everthying to do with sexual charactersitics) they prefer
for themselves or already have? If it's what they prefere then it's
preference for a mind set of a person orientated towards a given
genitalia *they* perceive as preferable. So then how would physical
genitalia enter the equation except as a concept based upon physical
manifestation or the potential of manfestation. I which case the
realness of genitalia doesn't count as much as the idea of genitalia.
I don't write this to personalize, but to examine what you have said.
Because to me what you are saying is genitalia doesn't count but
rather the idea of gentalia as it manifests within the psychological
make-up of the individual- identity always being a series of beliefs
based in part upon physicall manifestaion and perception.
This would seem to be a construction- a construction based upon core
beliefs about the Self and the physicality that potentiates, rather
than ncesssarily entails.
cindy
And so, construct away, as our species is wont to do.
TLM
>
> In article <8dnsbm$evr$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Deb Marsh"
> <DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You say, earlier in this thread that -
> >
> > "A Cissexual (male or female) therefore may be gay, straight,
> > lesbian, whatever just as A Transsexual (male or female) may be gay,
> > straight or lesbian, whatever and An Intersexual
> > (male/female/both/none) may be gay, straight, lesbian,whatever"
> >
> > transgender - its opposite if you like - then, it would seem
> > reasonable to assume that, the terms gay, straight or lesbian are not
> > applicable to folk occupying the latter category.
>
> attraction as compared to one's own gender *at the time*.
>
> attracted only to males, I straight; if I'm attracted to both (as I am),
> I'm bi.
>
>
> --
> I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
Well, I am legally male, still possess male plumbing, self identify as
woman. I self identify as lesbian, society would view me as heterosexual
(but a little unusual in appearance), legally I could marry a female.
I just don't know about these categories/terms used to pigeon hole
people.
Ultimately I am just who I am, for good or bad.
Tommie M.
TLM
>
> In article <8dq7e4$ov4$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Deb Marsh"
> <DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Let me try. Gay and straight refer to the gender of the object of one's
> > > attraction as compared to one's own gender *at the time*.
> >
>
> Each person's self identity.
>
> > Also, gender *at the time* suggests that this changes (or is
> > mutable), which if it does (or is), so does sexual orientation.
>
> That's why I much prefer gynophillic and androphillic as terms to
> describe one's orientation.
>
> I think the above answers the rest of your questions as well.
>
>
> --Michelle
I sort of like the attitude you have/express here Michelle.
Tommie M.
Paulinev01
my one and last word on this subject PLEASE......... stop.
WHEN ITS TIME ITS TIME
the hardest step of any journey is the first, the most satisfying is the last.
Now go take on the day
PAULINE/Paula
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
>
> TLM <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message news:3900B21A...@flash.net...
>> Well, I am legally male, still possess male plumbing, self identify as
>> woman. I self identify as lesbian, society would view me as heterosexual
>> (but a little unusual in appearance), legally I could marry a female.
>
>
> Looking a bit "unusual" can mean almost anything. I'm trying to
> understand if you appear to others to be a woman or if this is just
> something you've got going in your head and the rest of the world
> isn't up to speed on your "self-identity".
> -- Julie.
I've seen her, and if she's being read as anything but a woman, we're
_all_ in the cheese:).
She's a nice-looking lady, or cameras lie.
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"You're now quoting Joanie Tine, probably THE most obnoxious,
self-absorbed transsexual on the internet. Even for you, this is
truly pathetic. If I EVER became like Joanie, I would sincerely wish
someone to take me out and shoot me." --Liz "I'm not fat!" Michaels.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
grrl*@*petal
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <3900c3ea...@news.newsfeeds.com>,
>slink...@fatal.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmm. By this though you're saying genitalia is in the head-
>> psychological genitals? Gynophyllic/androphyllic by virtue of the
>> person identifying with the genitalia (since you use gyno and andro
>> with have everthying to do with sexual charactersitics) they prefer
>> for themselves or already have?
>
>No, not genitalia. Someone who is attracted to women is gynophilic;
>someone who is attracted to men is androphilic--and what determines who
>is a man and who is a woman *so far as that attraction is concerned*
>(and for no other purpose) is the perception of the person being
>attracted.
Yes, but what to do upon that attaction is contigent upon what you can
offer. There's nothing to limit you're attractions, but genitalia and
sexual response are intertwined. You may get off on it all, and more
power to you if you do so. Yet you and I made a choice of SRS-
reconstruction of genitalia. And it was specific- penis converted to
vagina. Who you are attracted to is limited by what you can do on a
mechanical level.
If I decide to use a tool belt, am I expressing penile intercourse?
Or is it penitrative?
>
>Of course, we bisexual (omnisexual?) people don't have to worry about
>that. <smirk>
Omnisexual? I guess few would understand the reason why you linger in
the produce department at the supermarket, never mind the animal
shelter <snicker;->
In any event it's not merely who you are attracted to, or your latter
statement would not be offered. Unless your a bedroom altruist.
Grant you, makes no matter to me what you're orientated towards. 8-)
Cindy
>
>--
>I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
TLM
>
> In article <3900c3ea...@news.newsfeeds.com>,
> slink...@fatal.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Hmmmmm. By this though you're saying genitalia is in the head-
> > psychological genitals? Gynophyllic/androphyllic by virtue of the
> > person identifying with the genitalia (since you use gyno and andro
> > with have everthying to do with sexual charactersitics) they prefer
> > for themselves or already have?
>
> No, not genitalia. Someone who is attracted to women is gynophilic;
> someone who is attracted to men is androphilic--and what determines who
> is a man and who is a woman *so far as that attraction is concerned*
> (and for no other purpose) is the perception of the person being
> attracted.
>
> that. <smirk>
I agree, and this was how I read the post with these terms mentioned.
> --Michelle
Tommie M.
TLM
>
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> TLM <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message news:3900B21A...@flash.net...
> > Well, I am legally male, still possess male plumbing, self identify as
> > woman. I self identify as lesbian, society would view me as heterosexual
> > (but a little unusual in appearance), legally I could marry a female.
>
> Do you live as a man or as a woman?
>
> Looking a bit "unusual" can mean almost anything. I'm trying to
> understand if you appear to others to be a woman or if this is just
> something you've got going in your head and the rest of the world
> isn't up to speed on your "self-identity".
>
> -- Julie.
check my webpage at http://www.flash.net/~tonmcc for recent pictures,
without any makeup by the way.
I have lived fulltime (woman) for 1 year now, and loving it! Before that
I was evolving androgynously for about 2 years. I have always identified
as a woman, and lived very unhappily as a man in my earlier years.
Tommie M.
Diane A.
wrote:
>. In particular, it struck me as odd that a
>person who identifies as a lesbian would be seen as a heterosexual
>if he/she were in a relationship with another woman. This might be
>an area where you want to self-investigate a bit more -- there aren't
>a lot of "heterosexual lesbians" out there nor are there....
Not actually correct. There are in fact a significant of (usually
older- say 30s and above) lesbian women who became married to men and
stayed in the marriage for whatever reason. Perhaps there are
children involved,perhaps they did come out un till later in the
marriage and are hesitant to dissolve the security that they derive
from marriage.
One need only look at the personals fro any large lesbian publication
or in fact the "women looking for women" section in any personals
adverts to verify the above. One will find a surprising number of
"married" (to men) lesbian women looking for encounters.
People's circumstances many times necessitate deviating from standard
pedestrian definitions of cherished ideals.
TLM
>
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> TLM <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message news:390154BC...@flash.net...
> > Julie wrote:
> > > TLM <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:3900B21A...@flash.net...
> > > > Well, I am legally male, still possess male plumbing, self identify as
> > > > woman. I self identify as lesbian, society would view me as
> heterosexual
> > > > (but a little unusual in appearance), legally I could marry a female.
> > >
> > > Do you live as a man or as a woman?
> > >
> > > Looking a bit "unusual" can mean almost anything. I'm trying to
> > > understand if you appear to others to be a woman or if this is just
> > > something you've got going in your head and the rest of the world
> > > isn't up to speed on your "self-identity".
> >
> > without any makeup by the way.
> >
> > I have lived fulltime (woman) for 1 year now, and loving it! Before that
> > I was evolving androgynously for about 2 years. I have always identified
> > as a woman, and lived very unhappily as a man in my earlier years.
>
> the "woman" signifiers. In particular, it struck me as odd that a
> person who identifies as a lesbian would be seen as a heterosexual
> if he/she were in a relationship with another woman. This might be
> an area where you want to self-investigate a bit more -- there aren't
> lesbians who can legally marry their female partners. "Legal
> marriage" tends to be a bit of a sore spot these days.
>
> -- Julie.
I meant that society might see it as heterosexual, based on genitals.
But I see it as lesbian myself. Yes, "legal marriage" can be a sore
spot. But as I am male by law, I could marry a female.
Tommie M.
TLM
>
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> TLM <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message news:39022E7E...@flash.net...
> > Julie wrote:
> > > Cool. I was just trying to reconcile all of the male signifiers with
> > > the "woman" signifiers. In particular, it struck me as odd that a
> > > person who identifies as a lesbian would be seen as a heterosexual
> > > if he/she were in a relationship with another woman. This might be
> > > an area where you want to self-investigate a bit more -- there aren't
> > > a lot of "heterosexual lesbians" out there nor are there very many
> > > lesbians who can legally marry their female partners. "Legal
> > > marriage" tends to be a bit of a sore spot these days.
> >
> > But I see it as lesbian myself. Yes, "legal marriage" can be a sore
> > spot. But as I am male by law, I could marry a female.
>
Sorry, I should have said "by legal status".
> As for legally marrying your girlfriend, I'd have a very hard time
> accepting you as a lesbian if you were to do that. I know that this
> is a source of disagreement between various people, but that smacks
> of privileged behaviour.
I just see it as a legal possibility. There are toher places in the
world where gays can form a legal union, whatever it is called.
> Something to think about -- you seem hung up on heterosexuality.
> You might want to consider how all of these heterosexual concepts
> are going to fuck with your ability to be a homosexual woman.
No, I am not hung up. I am just considering all aspects, even the
cisgendered and str8 view points. I personally don't place much stock in
any labels.
What I want is a relationship with a female/woman and most probably not
involving the use of the penis. What society or any one individual would
call our relationship is of no concern to me. The two of us would decide
how and what we consider it to be, and that is all that would matter.
To quote popeye: "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam."
> -- Julie.
Tommie M.
Deb Marsh
news:8dvvc6$8kg$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> X-No-Archive: YES
> As for you and your dick, while its lack of use might be interesting to
> =you=, I'm not particularly interested in what you and your dick do or
> do not do.
>
> At any rate, this is now sufficient outside the charter of alt.support.srs
> that I'm going to bow out.
Look at the headers. Whilst you might be pontificating from a ng apparently
more interested in pizza deliveries than SRS at the moment, Tommie is
posting from SST a more diverse and eclectic forum you will observe. (Oh,
don't know though, the vexed issue of service charges seeming to give the
lie to this contention at the moment 8-)
Anyway, no need to be rude to Tommie, a rather thoughtful and civilised lady
in the experience of those of us who post here.
Debs
TLM
>
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> TLM <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message news:3902D2E3...@flash.net...
> > Julie wrote:
> > > But how is society going to see your genitals?
> >
> > Sorry, I should have said "by legal status".
>
> reinforcing your "legal status"? You really seem very much to wish to
> cling to heterosexuality and maleness in your homosexual and female
> relationships.
>
> > > As for legally marrying your girlfriend, I'd have a very hard time
> > > accepting you as a lesbian if you were to do that. I know that this
> > > is a source of disagreement between various people, but that smacks
> > > of privileged behaviour.
> >
> > I just see it as a legal possibility. There are toher places in the
> > world where gays can form a legal union, whatever it is called.
>
> you'd understand that the number of places in this world where two
> homosexual women are able to enjoy the rights of a heterosexual
> couple are virtually nil. In fact, I know of no jurisdiction in which
> homosexuals and heterosexuals are on an equal legal footing.
>
> > > Something to think about -- you seem hung up on heterosexuality.
> > > You might want to consider how all of these heterosexual concepts
> > > are going to fuck with your ability to be a homosexual woman.
> >
> > No, I am not hung up. I am just considering all aspects, even the
> > cisgendered and str8 view points. I personally don't place much stock in
> > any labels.
>
> about what it's like to be in a lesbian relationship. Most of them seem
> to be very much informed by heterosexuality.
>
> > What I want is a relationship with a female/woman and most probably not
> > involving the use of the penis. What society or any one individual would
> > call our relationship is of no concern to me. The two of us would decide
> > how and what we consider it to be, and that is all that would matter.
>
> are male/woman you seem to be engaging in yet another heterosexual
> construction. If you are a "woman" and have a dick and this doesn't
> impact upon your "womanhood" or your "self-identity" as a lesbian,
> why is it that your partner cannot also have a dick, if she is a woman and
> has a "self-identity" as a lesbian?
>
> As for you and your dick, while its lack of use might be interesting to
> =you=, I'm not particularly interested in what you and your dick do or
> do not do.
>
> At any rate, this is now sufficient outside the charter of alt.support.srs
> that I'm going to bow out.
>
>
> -- Julie.
You are not understanding my position. You have made assumptions from
what I have said that are not true.
I now drop the subject. I will not answer anymore in this forum.
If you really wish to understand me, do so by my private e-mail or drop
the subject.
Tommie M.
Diane A.
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: YES
>If you had enough experience in this world as a homosexual woman
>you'd understand ....
Let's (all) keep in mind that your very own experience as a woman, let
alone a homosexual woman, is just shy of four years. Pot calling the
kettle and all that...
We, all of us - especially myself, are on a continuing journey. Just
because we happen to arrive at the same place doesn't mean that we've
all seen the same sights along the way.
Diane A.
wrote:
>
>And your newsreader is busted. I trimmed ASSRS from the Follow-Up
>line. Apparently your newsreader doesn't know what to do with that line,
>so I removed ASSRS from the Newgroups line this time ...
Mine must be busted as well. I'm using Forte Agent.
Deb Marsh
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> Deb Marsh <DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8e00p8$v1g$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Look at the headers. Whilst you might be pontificating from a ng
> > apparently more interested in pizza deliveries than SRS at the moment,
> > Tommie is posting from SST a more diverse and eclectic forum you will
> >observe.
> Tommie is posting in ASSRS. I don't care where "she" thinks "she" is
> posting. ASSRS is in the header, that's where I hang, deal with it.
And *you* are posting in SST and we have to hear what you think - unpleasant
though this often is.
> And your newsreader is busted. I trimmed ASSRS from the Follow-Up
> line. Apparently your newsreader doesn't know what to do with that line,
> so I removed ASSRS from the Newgroups line this time ...
Had noticed, restored it for my response - thought that your opinions
deserved an airing in another place so that those following the discussion
wouldn't be presented with any sort of 'cliff-hanger' - I mean, don't y'
just hate it when that happens? (Removed the German group though cos
they must be feeling rather colonised, themselves, by now - y' think?)
> > Anyway, no need to be rude to Tommie, a rather thoughtful and civilised
> > lady in the experience of those of us who post here.
>
> "Thoughtful" isn't a word I'd use. I'm thinking more along the lines of
> "hasn't bothered thinking before colonizing". That doesn't sound very
> thoughtful to me.
Trying to work out whether you're spite driven or merely unaware of your own
duplicity - no I'm not - don't really care. If you are cruel to one of our
own in here, some of us tend not to like it - simple enough for you?
Oh yes, don't bother engaging me on this one - more than capable of watching
my own back dear - besides, you're not really up to it (I think that we both
understand this really 8-)
I know - do the ostrich trick <plink> <plonk> now she's gone.......
Debs
Deb Marsh
news:lMLM4.1786$vx6....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Deb Marsh" <DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> > Anyway, no need to be rude to Tommie, a rather thoughtful and civilised
> > lady in the experience of those of us who post here.
>
> I'm happy that you said that, Debs. Julie has <plonked> so many of us
though
> I'm not sure she will even see any responses. :)
Seen it happen too often Elaine, Tommie is a really nice lady and I just
couldn't ignore it this time really.
Debs
Deb Marsh
news:8e119v$f1s$2...@news.online.de...
> X-NO-ARCHIVE:YES
> wunderbare Idee... und es waer noch 'ne viel wundervollere, wenn Du auch
> gleich d.a.s.tg aus dem header nehmen wuerdest. Zwar waer die Diskussion
> vielleicht sogar on topic, aber in der de.* hierarchie ist die
> Umgangssprache halt mal deutsch. Alternativ waere natuerlich noch die
> Moeglichkeit in deutsch zu posten ;)
Appologies Zara
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen.
Deborah (who cannot speak a word of German)
grrl*@*petal
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:01:30 -0500, "Julie" <no...@nowhere.nodomain>
>wrote:
>
>>X-No-Archive: YES
>>If you had enough experience in this world as a homosexual woman
>>you'd understand ....
>
>Let's (all) keep in mind that your very own experience as a woman, let
>alone a homosexual woman, is just shy of four years. Pot calling the
>kettle and all that...
Not to mention a stint of not being able to make it with another TS
because....I hope she finally realized what she meant by that. Her
lecture to TLM might be a clue, but ya' never know ;-)
>
>We, all of us - especially myself, are on a continuing journey. Just
>because we happen to arrive at the same place doesn't mean that we've
>all seen the same sights along the way.
And this sums it up, Diane. We can agree to disagree and drop it, we
can discuss without being chauvinist snots. You, Debs, Julie and I
have all crossed the same boundaries. It *is* unique (duhuh- like any
of us need reminding) and we criss-cross on our journeys. Best of
alll if we let ourselves, we remain individuals instead of faceless
players with numbers tattoooed to our backs. And in our exchanges and
conversations, hopefully we learn from each other- and mutually. To
me this is what sisterhood is about. A lock-step family is not a
family.
Cindy
Deb Marsh
> X-NO-ARCHIVE:YES
> no need to apologise, I can understand that the headers are sometimes not
> really the focus of interest in the heat of a discussion :). Still though,
> having had the personal bickering of the international ngs crossposted to
> d.a.s.tg became rather interrupting IMO. Though far from perfect, we try
to
> keep the discourse in the ng away from verbal D/s games ;)
>
> >
> >Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen.
> >
> >Deborah (who cannot speak a word of German)
>
> LOL... so you must have a really cool quote book :)
Feeling totally inadequate now - if I possessed a tenth of the facility for
German that you have for English I could, at least, attempt to access some
of my favourite thinkers in their mother tongue.
Cool quote book: Tractatus Logico-Philosopicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein (have
the dual language version)
The preceding passage goes;
Meine Satze erlautern dadurch, dass sie der, welcher mich versteht, am Ende
als unsinnig erkennt wenn er durch sie--auf ihnen--uber sie hinausgestiegen
ist (Er muss sozusagen die Leiter wegwerfen, nachdem er auf ihr
hinaufgestiegen ist.)
Er muss diese Satze uberwinden, dann sieht er die Welt richtig.
Thus, the great Logical Positivist falls back upon the metaphysical - a
beautiful moment, to me.
Well, no accounting for taste - is there 8-)
Thanks Zara
Deborah (no more 'off topic' to your group from me - I hope 8-)
Diane A.
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: YES
>
>Deb Marsh <DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8e12ia$kij$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I know - do the ostrich trick <plink> <plonk> now she's gone.......
>
>Not a bad idea!
One can choose to hide from their past or face up to it as one
chooses. Thing of it is....the past is still there regardless.
Deb Marsh
news:9hv6gsoq1svvjfejg...@4ax.com...
Diane, you're really buzzing today 8-)
Debs
Diane A.
<DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Diane, you're really buzzing today 8-)
Ignore me - it's just my mean streak showing...Bad Diane...Bad..Bad
Diane! (I'm not fully housebroken you know but then again some people
seem to like that sort of thing...)
Deb Marsh
No, no, y' soppy cow - meant in terms of a whole collection of recent
stuff - 'insightful' buzzing - oh yes 8-)
Debs
Diane A.
<DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>No, no, y' soppy cow - meant in terms of a whole collection of recent
>stuff - 'insightful' buzzing - oh yes 8-)
Oh that..... you post enough and you just get lucky....also I
recently purchased a million monkeys with a million keyboards.....
Diane A.
<vampi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:49:46 GMT, Diane A. <dev...@somewhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Oh that..... you post enough and you just get lucky....also I
>>recently purchased a million monkeys with a million keyboards.....
>
>and theyre working overtime????
Sure. But they work for peanuts.
Diane A.
<never_ever_...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>> >Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen.
What's that mean? What one can't speak, therefore must one ?write?
Is that it?
Prob not write is schreiben I think.
Deb Marsh
Lord! conspiracy to make me feel simple 8-)
Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.
Debs
Diane A.
<DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.
Ohhh... thanks!
Diane A.
<DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.
Got to get to work... but I do hear that the group in question has
ways of making you speak.
Bye!
Deb Marsh
> X-NO-ARCHIVE:YES
> >Er muss diese Satze uberwinden, dann sieht er die Welt richtig.
> >
> >Thus, the great Logical Positivist falls back upon the metaphysical - a
> >beautiful moment, to me.
>
> recognisable according to Wittgenstein. The limitations of language and
thus
> logic. As far as I remember Wittgenstein changed some of his earlier
> positions, as expressed in the tractatus logico-philosophicus, rather
> dramatically later in life. Maybe because he lacked the inspiration of the
> solitude of the Irish west coast where he wrote the tractatus ;)
Made the mistake of reading the sequel (Philosophical Investigations) first.
The Tractatus is a brilliant, flawed masterpiece - not about believing -
more about exposing one's self to genius really. Besides, pithier than
Russell, translation or otherwise - oh yes 8-) Besides, who wants to expose
themselves to solutions - where's the fun in that?
"But if you are 'certain,' isn't it just that you are shutting your eyes in
the face of doubt? - They are shut."
Philosophical Investigations
take care
Debs
Anne Nonymous
1) It means the same thing.
2) Most people (including cissexuals) can figure out what it means without
consulting a dictionary, because...
3) ...all the elements of the word, from prefix to suffix, are in common
usage
4) It doesn't make the speaker sound like she's trying to impress people
with her vocabulary
and last but not least:
5) It doesn't sound like a place where raw sewage is processed.
I'm sure I could come up with more if I gave it some thought.
-Anne
grrl*@*petal <IL...@Debs.cooy.uk> wrote in message
news:38fe42d5...@news.newsfeeds.com...
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:09:03 +0200, "C[εϋήοε ₯₯."
> <clau...@my-deja.computersdrivemecrazy> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >[x-posted!!]
> >
> >grrl*@*petal <IL...@Debs.cooy.uk> wrote
> >
> >[shrunk]
> >
> >> >>However,make some specious claim about being more womanly, more
> >> >>committed, or just plain superior than this is the height of
arrogance.
> >
> >I'm not arrogant, I don't need to be, I am the Empress of the Universe.
> ><never mind, read on, I suck at jokes>
> >
> >> But there you go. To be transgendered doesn't exclude *any* form of
> >> expression that steps outside heterosexist conformity.
> >
> >I got a problem with "heterosexist conformity". If we are interested to
ever
> >remove the discussion around Transsexuality out of the context of sexual
> >preference and thus the choice of partner, we need to abandon the concept
of
> >"Heterosexuality" as a counterweight to Transsexuality/Transgenderism. It
is
> >simply wrong for all obvious reasons and a fatal logical flaw. Replace
> >"heterosexist conformity" with "cissexual conformity" and I am perfectly
> >happy. If you want to call the name of the "enemy", don't use a _wrong_
term
> >which is, btw, detoragory towards your heterosexual sisters and brothers,
> >use the _correct_ name, which is Cissexual.
>
> No it's not derogatory. It's a matter of understanding the meaning of
> heterosexism, which is the social manifestation based upon
> heterosexuality- and that is that heterosexuality is the criteria by
> which all else is measured. Within heterosexism are understandings of
> what womanhood and manhood are- that all that is woman or man is
> derived from the penis entering the vagina. This is the basis for he
> predominant gender construct.
>
> Freud built a career out of it. He represented the authority of the
> male over the Other. The female was permissable but flawed. Forever
> orbiting the phallus. Any other manifestation of sexuality was
> deviant- disordered. All non male heterosexuals *naturally* obtain
> less from the social order.
>
> All understandings of male and female are derived from this and still
> are to a great extent. The woman as vessel, carrying sacred life-
> hence abortion restrictions. In Brazil a man may have a thousand
> mistresses but if his wife has an affair he may kill her with
> impunity.
>
> Adoption is a profound example of hetero-sexism. Because a baby is
> concieved by a woman out-of-wedlock- outside the institution of
> marriage, it is likely the baby will be placed for adoption, because
> of the "illegitimacy" of the pregnancy, pregnancy being the female
> function in marriage, an institution historically predicated upon
> insuring the male will have a sexual partner.....how many prosecutions
> for rape within a marriage ever go forward, even as rape can and does
> occur within marriage.
>
> More to the point, even as domestic partnership is actualizing it is
> only considered *equivalent* to marriage, not equal- why? Because of
> the function of sex- penial-vaginal sex.l I would far easier to just
> have gays and lesbians marry each other. Why establish a seperate but
> equal arraingement? Such arraingements are generally considered
> discriminatory yet not when it comes to the heterosexist enforcement
> mechanism that marriage originates from.
>
> >
> >Very empowering, here it comes again: Cissexual. Not only is it correct,
it
> >is a powerful tool. I've tested it several times on Cissexuals on Usenet
and
> >they absolutely hate it. Hear them squeal and whine by slapping this term
at
> >them, they love to -pathologize- us by Trans categories but strongly
reject
> >if this logical consequence is applied towards them, since they live in
the
> >delusion that normality and thus the implementation of the status quo is
the
> >dowry of majority.
>
> I want pathologizing to end. I want the majority to see what it's
> doing to the minoritty and cease to it out of recognition of an equal
> humanity. Not justt an equivalent one.
> >
> >*Think* about it, and consider carefully your motivation if you are
planning
> >to reject.
> >
> >> Stalinist Lesbians and Homophobes do that so well.
> >
> >As this may not be already established (but ignored) as Cissexual is, may
I
> >introduce Femiphobia as the concept behind Homophobia?
>
> Interesting and not offf the mark. Queer disccourse is a direct
> manifestation of femninist discourse. But then if "femiphobia" aren't
> we just saying Non-males, and more typically non-het males?
JoAnn Peeler
ny
> Best of all if we let ourselves, we remain individuals instead of faceless
> players with numbers tattoooed to our backs. And in our exchanges and
> conversations, hopefully we learn from each other- and mutually. To
> me this is what sisterhood is about. A lock-step family is not a
> family.
>
numbered. My Life Is My Own!"
-- Number 6
<sign> :) -- they just don't make them like that anymore.... <sigh>
--
JoAnn Peeler
Proud to be me...
Diane A.
wrote:
>"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
>numbered. My Life Is My Own!"
>
>-- Number 6
>
><sign> :) -- they just don't make them like that anymore.... <sigh>
They did two years ago I hear....
TLM
Julie wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> TLM <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message news:39034C41...@flash.net...
> > Julie wrote:
> > > You keep making some pretty fundemental mistakes based on "beliefs"
> > > about what it's like to be in a lesbian relationship. Most of them seem
> > > to be very much informed by heterosexuality.
>
> [ mucho snippage ... ]
>
> > > So you wouldn't consider a relationship with a male/woman? Since you
> > > are male/woman you seem to be engaging in yet another heterosexual
> > > construction. If you are a "woman" and have a dick and this doesn't
> > > impact upon your "womanhood" or your "self-identity" as a lesbian,
> > > why is it that your partner cannot also have a dick, if she is a woman
> and
> > > has a "self-identity" as a lesbian?
>
> [ more snippage ... ]
>
> > You are not understanding my position. You have made assumptions from
> > what I have said that are not true.
>
> No, I've drawn logical conclusions from what you have said.
>
> You've stated that --
>
> 1). You are legally male.
By Texas law, I am legally male, not my fault, I couldn't change it.
> 2). You are a woman.
I self-indentify as a woman despite the legal status.
> 3). You are a lesbian.
As I am seeking a woman for a relationship, I consider it as lesbian.
> 4). You can legally marry a woman.
Only by virtue of my legal status, if the woman I eventually meet is a
legal female. If she is a TS/TG and legally male, then marriage is not
possible in Texas. I did not exclude TS/TG from my choice of women.
> These are contradictory.
You have to look at my situation from 2 separate aspects:
1-the legal and physical facts
2-my own personal point of view
I see no real contradiction if viewed in this dual vision. I know many
friends in a similar situation as I am in. Trapped where I am by the
legal system as it now does exist. I use male/female for legal and
physical status, and man/woman for a person's self identification and
social presentation.
> The "male" part isn't (no biggie -- many of us
> are/were male ;-), it's the rest of it that is contradictory. In virtually
> all
> of the countries in the world (I can't think of any where this isn't
> actually
> true ...) two women cannot marry. 2 and 3 can be true -- indeed, for 3
> to be true, 2 must be true. Yet for 4 to be true, 2 cannot. Indeed, for 4
> to be true, 3 really can't.
>
> What allows you to even state 4) is an experience of heterosexuality.
> This is what it means to be "informed by" something. Men and women,
> in our society, are the ones granted the right by the state to marry.
>
> There certainly =are= existent exceptions -- Alabama and Ohio with
> respect to post-ops, many states with respect to pre-ops. But this isn't
> about the exploitation of loop-holes which do not exist for all members
> of the set of "lesbians". It's actually about calling into question the
> ethics of asserting an identity without owning it. It would be akin to
> saying "I am a woman" and then living as a man because you like the
> perqs of being a man. Actually, it's =identical= to saying that. This is
> not ethical behavior. It is purely selfish behavior.
>
> There are other issues as well -- being male and a woman, but
> casting others who are also male and women as second class
> partners.
I never explicitly said this, sorry.
> The assertion that you can "marry a woman" presupposes
> that your potential partner does not also enjoy the legal status of
> "male". This can be interpreted either as homophobia (the fear of
> actual homosexuality which would occur if you were romantically
> involved with another person with male genitals) or just plain old
> garden variety transphobia. But whether it is driven by homophobia
> or transphobia, it certainly is a heterosexual construct.
I agree that these ideas do come from a heterosexual construct, but I am
not transphobic or homophobic. Ask any of my many friends, many are
TS/TG/gay!
> The exceptions you seek to exploit actually do exist in a non
> heterosexual domain -- they exist in "transsexual space". What you
> are doing (and the people who are screaming at me are demonstrating
> that they do not grasp ...) is proclaiming a lesbian "identity" while
> living a transsexual reality. This is why the assertion of an identity
> is meaningless -- it requires no particular action. Right thought
> leads to right actions. Your actions flow from your thoughts -- you
> cannot have the internalized identity of "lesbian" if you are
> producing "heterosexual" behavior. Again, it's a contradiction.
Look at this with the dual vision I mentioned above.
> No one would view what I'm writing as "an attack" if I wrote "if
> you wish to be seen as a woman, you must wear clothes which are
> typical of women, you must speak in a voice typical of women,
> you must move in a manner typical of women, your facial hair and
> body shape must be typical of women". That is basic Passing 101.
> Yet what is being described here is no less real -- this is the head
> work that too many transsexuals, and far more M2Fs than F2M's,
> fail to do.
I do live and work and play as a woman 24/7! Ask any of my local
friends!
> > I now drop the subject. I will not answer anymore in this forum.
>
> Too late. You already did ;-)
>
> > If you really wish to understand me, do so by my private e-mail or drop
> > the subject.
>
> You aren't the only person in the world. There are other who might
> benefit from coming to understand how heterosexuality can really screw
> up your ability to grok homosexuality ...
>
> -- Julie.
Sincerely trying to explain,
Tommie M.
Diane A.
wrote:
>No, I've drawn logical conclusions from what you have said.
>
>You've stated that --
>
>1). You are legally male.
>
>are/were male ;-), it's the rest of it that is contradictory. In virtually
>all
>of the countries in the world (I can't think of any where this isn't
>actually
>true ...) two women cannot marry. 2 and 3 can be true -- indeed, for 3
>to be true, 2 must be true. Yet for 4 to be true, 2 cannot. Indeed, for 4
>to be true, 3 really can't.
Your logic is hopelessly flawed - almost as bad as the assumptions and
presumptions you are basing it on.
The premise "two women cannot marry" is overly and overtly simplistic
just as is your conclusion "if you can marry therefor you are not a
women".
Any mtf transsexual who has maintained their existing relationship to
a spouse could testify easily enough to that.
Your "womenlier then thou" bit was old hat when Celeste tried it years
ago.
Didn't wash then - doesn't wash now.
>You aren't the only person in the world. There are other who might
>benefit from coming to understand how heterosexuality can really screw
>up your ability to grok homosexuality ...
Oh come off it. Less then four years ago you were posting as a man
in an overtly heterosexual relationship - now you've apparently become
the epitome of lesbanality. I hardly think that you have the
experience to counsel someone else on their chosen path or the
correctness of their self definitions.
Look to your own garden child, and allow others the right to grow
their flowers as they please.
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
>
> Your "womenlier then thou" bit was old hat when Celeste tried it years
> ago.
Awp! Rosenkreutz' Law: mention of Celeste ends the thread!
> Didn't wash then - doesn't wash now.
I've been meaning to bring that up, the showers are fixed, and I'm
rawther in the mud for a soapfight. Anyone?? (I be packin' Dr. Bronner's
Peppermint.)
> Oh come off it. Less then four years ago you were posting as a man
> in an overtly heterosexual relationship - now you've apparently become
> the epitome of lesbanality.
She's a diver, she gets _into_ things. When she comes back, she tells
us stayabeds how it was.
Now, look: you're two formidable ladies, and you will shake the earth
if you start fighting again. The locals will think Thor's bowling, and
those who know it's you two will presume it's something that requires
Beano. Can't like _that_.
Let's try and look for the things we like in each other, and focus on
them. I'd start listing them, but with both of you, I exceed permitted
message size for my system. But Julie is fearless, you are wise. She is
constant, you can dance your viewpoint like Tinkerbell with an Omnimax,
and show more sides of life than a Cubist. You both have ridiculous
taste in cars...err...uh....
> Look to your own garden child, and allow others the right to grow
> their flowers as they please.
Garden? You talking to me? (There's nobody else here covered with
steer manure, you _gotta_ be talkin' to me....)
Really can we just _try_ to love each other a little more. I happen to
_know_ that you both do, and that is That Which Endures.
More people love both of you than you can possibly know. Many read
you month after month never revealing their existence, gaining hope,
feeling their own reality become more substantial, believing in their own
existence simply becuase you are real, in the world, living, and reporting
back to them. Because of you, someday they will step into the light.
In ways you can never know, you have mothered them. Can't you believe
it hurts them to see fighting between you? You are their dreams.
You have power in that role. How will you use it?
(This means you, too, Julie, so no spitwads.)
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Freen, freen on the gronkel,
Where the spinge and the razzifrazzin play,
Where seldom is heard
A coherent word,
And the parser's freewheeling all day...."
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Diane A.
wrote:
>Awp! Rosenkreutz' Law: mention of Celeste ends the thread!
Hmmm could be a good law... needs a new name though...."Merillin's
law"
>She's a diver, she gets _into_ things. When she comes back, she tells
>us stayabeds how it was.
Or maybe she is just taking out her frustrations on those nearby.....
>Let's try and look for the things we like in each other, and focus on
>them. I'd start listing them, but with both of you, I exceed permitted
>message size for my system. But Julie is fearless, you are wise. She is
>constant, you can dance your viewpoint like Tinkerbell with an Omnimax,
>and show more sides of life than a Cubist. You both have ridiculous
>taste in cars...err...uh....
Mine actually works though ;)
>More people love both of you than you can possibly know. Many read
>you month after month never revealing their existence, gaining hope,
>feeling their own reality become more substantial, believing in their own
>existence simply becuase you are real, in the world, living, and reporting
>back to them. Because of you, someday they will step into the light.
>In ways you can never know, you have mothered them. Can't you believe
>it hurts them to see fighting between you? You are their dreams.
>You have power in that role. How will you use it
I'll try to be better - sorry.
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
> wrote:
>>Awp! Rosenkreutz' Law: mention of Celeste ends the thread!
>
> Hmmm could be a good law... needs a new name though...."Merillin's
> law"
Oh _sure_, then we have fights about how to pronounce it(!)
>>She's a diver, she gets _into_ things. When she comes back, she tells
>>us stayabeds how it was.
>
> Or maybe she is just taking out her frustrations on those nearby.....
Well, of course _I_ could never relate to _that_:). Anybody in our world
is cranky, I look for the tell-trail trickle of blood...or at least a
big baggy blister footwards. Julie still has periods. What can I say?
She's young.
>>and show more sides of life than a Cubist. You both have ridiculous
>>taste in cars...err...uh....
>
> Mine actually works though ;)
I won't _tell_ what speed she quoted as std movin' along speed in Flatland
Texas...I had bad dreams that night...couldn't find the brake.
>>More people love both of you than you can possibly know. Many read
>>you month after month never revealing their existence, gaining hope,
>>feeling their own reality become more substantial, believing in their own
>>existence simply becuase you are real, in the world, living, and reporting
>>back to them. Because of you, someday they will step into the light.
>>In ways you can never know, you have mothered them. Can't you believe
>>it hurts them to see fighting between you? You are their dreams.
>>You have power in that role. How will you use it
>
> I'll try to be better - sorry.
<Huggles>
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Each of you is a single cell in the great body of the State. And today,
that great body has purged itself of parasites. We have triumphed over
the unprincipled dissemination of facts. The thugs and wreckers have been
cast out. Let each and every cell rejoice! For today we celebrate the
first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directive.
We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure
ideology where each worker may bloom secure from the pests purveying
contradictory and confusing truths. Our unification of thought is more
powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people.
With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk
themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion.
We shall prevail!"
"On January 24th,
Apple Computer will introduce
Macintosh.
And you'll see whey 1984
won't be like "1984."
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
JoAnn Peeler
Julie <no...@nowhere.nodomain> wrote in message
>
> You aren't the only person in the world. There are other who might
> benefit from coming to understand how heterosexuality can really screw
> up your ability to grok homosexuality ...
>
its just you... I guess I'll just have to ponder this for awhile....
Step down from your soap box for a moment Julie. I don't think the world has
come to the point where we need to test people for womanliness. Or is Diane
right -- perhaps you're still smarting from your encounter with the RLS on
SWLAB?
Okay, maybe that's a bit too much. However, your dialog with Tommie could have
been delivered with a bit more tact. Tommie isn't an enemy. Like most everyone
posting here she is on a journey of self discovery. How does your manner
facilitate her journey and preserve your credibility?
Akbara
knowledge is not so good ....
Anne Nonymous wrote:
>
> For all of the reasons listed below, plus:
>
> 1) It means the same thing.
>
> 2) Most people (including cissexuals) can figure out what it means without
> consulting a dictionary, because...
They have just start to think about themself
You cant consider transsexuality without the problem of
cissexuality.
The cissexuals think they are "norml" because they are
"non"-transsexual ...
"non"-concerned. Thats not true.
They most repressions against transsexuals come from
cissexuals groupfantasies and (i missed the english word ...
)defences
Diane A.
>
>You cant consider transsexuality without the problem of
>cissexuality.
How odd I considered my very own transsexuality for twenty odd years
without even hearing that cilly word before.
>The cissexuals think they are "norml" because they are
>"non"-transsexual ...
>"non"-concerned. Thats not true.
>They most repressions against transsexuals come from
>cissexuals groupfantasies and (i missed the english word ...
>)defences
Now that's just cilly. You are making a very large assumption. One
can't base an argument on what one assumes - but rather on convincing
supporting evidence.
Diane A.
wrote:
>The Littleton decision is a massive injustice against Mrs. Littleton.
"Mrs. Littleton" never bothered to get her name changed on her birth
certificate and the judge cited that in his decision. Additionally
there has been some discussion that Mrs. Littleton's defense was not
as sharp or as prepared as it could have been. While I certainly
don't agree with this decision there is, as is many times the case,
more then just one side to a story.
>It is something we want =overturned=. The laws against same-sex
>marriage are equally unjust, but exploiting the loophole created by
>an unjust decision isn't right.
One could equally argue that a person who claims that they are in
transition yet still presents as a male part of the time in order to
take advantage of male privilege to see his son during a divorce is
equally guilty. Since you, yourself were in that exact scenario some
four years back once again we are faced with quite a dilemma.
Was your decision to exploit society's acceptance of you as a male in
order to see your son any more valid then someone's exploiting a
marriage loophole in order to be with and take care of the one that
they love?
Of course you could have indeed seen the error of your ways and are
now engaged in a campaign to stop others from making the same
mistake. Reformed smoker's syndrome I suppose.
>The fact that you are forced to have
>legal ID which indicates "male" is an injustice. It is something else
>we want corrected. You would lose your privilege to marry a
>woman in the process -- but it isn't a privilege you are entitled to
>at this point anyway.
So easy to say to someone else...but turn that around and say "Julie
you would have lost your son in the process had you not presented as
male" and you are presented with somewhat of a different story. I
would argue that you should allow Tommie the same privilege to exploit
an unjust system that you yourself took advantage of less then four
years ago Julie.
Diane A.
wrote:
>I tried tact. I got stupidity in return.
Now you're being unjust and unfair. Tommie has been utterly civil
about the whole affair. Name calling does not make your argument any
stronger.
Since Iknow that you do not take *my* word foranything significant <g>
I can only suggest that you look to the other participants in this
forum who appear to be telling you as well that you are wrong. You
should listen more often, women do in general.
Diane A.
wrote:
>My car works fine
I'm sure it does dear.
Diane A.
>
>Just a curious question from a newbie - what's cissexuality?
A very cilly word that some people made up (I first heard it from
Laura Blake - don't ask) to piss off heterosexuals.
JoAnn Peeler
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> > Step down from your soap box for a moment Julie. I don't think the world
> has
> > come to the point where we need to test people for womanliness. Or is
> Diane
> > right -- perhaps you're still smarting from your encounter with the RLS
on
> > SWLAB?
>
> postings in that group? Homophobia =is= ugly ...
>
Me, homophobic? Oh contrare mon ami. If I developed an aversion to
homosexuals or their lifestyle I would lose over half my friends. Truth is I
meant to write RFS but I have been doing alot of research into their beliefs
and alot of websites espousing these ideas use the word lesbian as much or
more than the word feminist. I guess their propaganda did a good job of
convincing my fingers.... Look Julie, I can see you are trying to resolve
how you fit into a lesbian/feminist role when there is a faction (I don't
really know how big) that believe that transsexuals are an affront to
womankind. Just because you have come to terms with your feelings about
womanhood and have resolved to sacrifice your supposed male priveledge on
the altar of feminist seperatism doesn't give you the right to apply these
principals to others.
> > Okay, maybe that's a bit too much. However, your dialog with Tommie
could
> have
> > been delivered with a bit more tact. Tommie isn't an enemy. Like most
> everyone
> > posting here she is on a journey of self discovery. How does your manner
> > facilitate her journey and preserve your credibility?
>
It wasn't that hard to understand what Tommie was saying. To critique her
posts as stupidity says a lot about where *you* are coming from. If she
wants to examine the idea of legally marrying a woman while at the same time
self identifying as a woman then why question it? As transsexuals (you and
I) we have had our rights stomped upon by society in general. If she decides
to play the *legality* card how could you possibly blame her.
Yes, I believe I know where you are coming from. I know that transsexuals or
transgenderist who maintain or use their legal status as males muddies up
the waters for people who are trying to convince the populace that MtF
transsexuals *are* women. However, your implication of unrenounced male
privilege is completely off target. How many lesbian couples do you know
that would fly to Connecticut to get married if (and when) that state
legalizes same-sex marriage? As far as I know, lesbian couples in California
cannot marry; however, if one can afford (i.e. privilege of wealth) to go
to another state to get married would you call those women selfish for
exercising a privilege not all of their sisters have?
The path you are walking is fraught with peril. I hope you find what you are
looking for but I think in a few years you are going to regret the things
you said to Tommie.
JoAnn Peeler
> >"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
> >numbered. My Life Is My Own!"
> >
> >-- Number 6
> >
> ><sign> :) -- they just don't make them like that anymore.... <sigh>
>
> They did two years ago I hear....
Kewl... I didn't know that. Now you've get me excited.
Diane A.
wrote:
>Me, homophobic? Oh contrare mon ami. If I developed an aversion to
>homosexuals or their lifestyle I would lose over half my friends.
Welcome to the club! Last week I got an email from her accusing me of
being a homophobe as well. Perhaps it's the Texas heat <g>...
>. Look Julie, I can see you are trying to resolve
>how you fit into a lesbian/feminist role when there is a faction (I don't
>really know how big) that believe that transsexuals are an affront to
>womankind.
Oh it's a big one....it certainly is a big one in California and
Washington. Unlike Julie I also dabble in lesbian circles but don't
use that as a rationale for my "womanliness". Anyone who's been there
(and I suspect that you have) knows that there is an enormous level of
insecurity amongst the more separatist elements there. They need
scapegoats and we are wondrous ones indeed for them.
Julie's odd reactions towards people these days are understandable, if
not excusable, because of the enormous amount of stress that must be
caused by attempting to gain the respect of a group (Lezzies) by the
putting down of another group (TSs, TGs) to which one is inextricably
a part of.
Blacks have a word for this..Oreos...Black on the outside and white in
the middle. Perhaps TSs will need a similar word...what will we call
it I wonder?
>Just because you have come to terms with your feelings about
>womanhood and have resolved to sacrifice your supposed male priveledge on
>the altar of feminist seperatism doesn't give you the right to apply these
>principals to others.
Bingo!
>As far as I know, lesbian couples in California
>cannot marry; however, if one can afford (i.e. privilege of wealth) to go
>to another state to get married would you call those women selfish for
>exercising a privilege not all of their sisters have?
I believe Vermont t or New Hampshire may have just ratified a legal
marriage law for homosexuals. Am I correct?
>The path you are walking is fraught with peril. I hope you find what you are
>looking for but I think in a few years you are going to regret the things
>you said to Tommie.
Amongst others I imagine ;)
Diane A.
wrote:
>
>Kewl... I didn't know that. Now you've get me excited.
It was a nom-de-plume I used just before Celeste went completely batty
as a reaction to all the little boxes she was putting everyone in.
BTW I have that theme on MP3 if you like. I can email it.
JoAnn Peeler
I saw a couple of episodes of The Prisoner in rerun when it was in college.
I was hooked immediately, but then the took it off the air. Its been twenty
years since then and I haven't been able to find it on the tube again....
Thank you,
JoAnn Peeler
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> <te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
> news:kH9N4.205775$8k3.1...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
>> >>taste in cars...err...uh....
>> >
>> > Mine actually works though ;)
>>
>> I won't _tell_ what speed she quoted as std movin' along speed in Flatland
>> Texas...I had bad dreams that night...couldn't find the brake.
>
> sports car it has its share of problems. It was driven yesterday, it
> will be driven tomorrow, and if I get a fresh coat of wax on it, I'll
> drive it Saturday or Sunday.
>
> Who knows, I may even violate a few speed limits in the process.
I waxed a car once....
I was much younger.
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
I invited him over. The venue was mine, the subject was kissaki...and,
if I had anything to do with it, some huggafuge. But he didn't get the
point, kept asking about my hamon. The evening ground on like that.
I said I doubted I could get my lips over his tsuba, anyway.
"Life on the Edge: Musashi and Me" by Theoni Kallandra
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
>> >"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
>> >numbered. My Life Is My Own!"
>> >
>> >-- Number 6
>> >
>> ><sign> :) -- they just don't make them like that anymore.... <sigh>
>>
>> They did two years ago I hear....
>
> Proud to be me...
Actually, on the reboot groups, they've announced that there will be a
Prisoner movie, Mr. McGoohan is the exec.producer.
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"It will be DYNAMITED"
--Auric Goldfinger
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
JoAnn Peeler
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:04:24 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpe...@gte.net>
> wrote:
> >. Look Julie, I can see you are trying to resolve
> >how you fit into a lesbian/feminist role when there is a faction (I don't
> >really know how big) that believe that transsexuals are an affront to
> >womankind.
>
> Oh it's a big one....it certainly is a big one in California and
> Washington. Unlike Julie I also dabble in lesbian circles but don't
> use that as a rationale for my "womanliness". Anyone who's been there
> (and I suspect that you have) knows that there is an enormous level of
> insecurity amongst the more separatist elements there. They need
> scapegoats and we are wondrous ones indeed for them.
>
California but with all the propoganda its difficult to tell for sure.
Thanks for verifying that for me.
In the late 80s, I was a card carrying member of NOW. It was during that
time that I got a full dose of anger from feminists and lesbians who
resented me. I may be wrong, but the feeling I get is that if a man can
choose to become a women then it undercuts their argument that women are
seriously disadvantaged. I asked a few of them that if having the
"advantanges" of being a male meant so much why didn't they just sign up for
FtM SRS and go on with life.
Their response was, "I'm a woman not a man."
My response was , "precisely."
> Julie's odd reactions towards people these days are understandable, if
> not excusable, because of the enormous amount of stress that must be
> caused by attempting to gain the respect of a group (Lezzies) by the
> putting down of another group (TSs, TGs) to which one is inextricably
> a part of.
>
I wanted to be accepted as well. I guess I didn't have Julies endurance. Now
I'm happy to have a circle of friends who are stay-at-home moms as well as
friends who have non-traditional life styles. I guess I've travelled pretty
far from my NOW days...
> Blacks have a word for this..Oreos...Black on the outside and white in
> the middle. Perhaps TSs will need a similar word...what will we call
> it I wonder?
>
Let's just agree not to call it anything. I don't bare any ill will towards
Julie. She's exploring a path that I myself have dabbled with. Its just that
its true that there is no one as fanatical as a convert....
> >As far as I know, lesbian couples in California
> >cannot marry; however, if one can afford (i.e. privilege of wealth) to
go
> >to another state to get married would you call those women selfish for
> >exercising a privilege not all of their sisters have?
>
> I believe Vermont t or New Hampshire may have just ratified a legal
> marriage law for homosexuals. Am I correct?
>
Yes, I just looked it up. The Vermont courts have given the legislature a
mandate (order?) to develop either a marriage or domestic partner laws.
Hmmm, where did I come up with Connecticut? I guess I must be bigotted
against New England states. They all look the same to me....;-)
Speaking of *feminism*, the last couple of years or so due to the backlash
of feminist estrangement of transsexuals, I've found myself hating the word.
I prefer to state that I believe in *humanism*. Feminism is way too
exclusive in my mind and I would rather be a part of a movement that sees
human rights injustices (whatever they may be) and stands against them.
BTW, Theoni mentioned your's and Julie's cars. What kind of car do you have?
Later,
--
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:11:10 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpe...@gte.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Kewl... I didn't know that. Now you've get me excited.
>>
>> as a reaction to all the little boxes she was putting everyone in.
>>
>> BTW I have that theme on MP3 if you like. I can email it.
>>
> Thanks, I would be way thankful.
>
> I saw a couple of episodes of The Prisoner in rerun when it was in college.
> I was hooked immediately, but then the took it off the air. Its been twenty
> years since then and I haven't been able to find it on the tube again....
> Thank you,
> JoAnn Peeler
It's at most video stores/libraries, as is some of the "Danger Man"
series which preceeded it. (Secret Agent on this side of the Atlantic.)
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Hear our humble prayer, O God for our friends the animals, especially
for animals who are suffering; for any that are hunted or lost or
deserted or frightened or hungry; for all that must be put to death.
We entreat for them all Thy mercy and pity, and for those who deal with
them we ask a heart of compassion and gentle hands and kindly words.
Make us, ourselves, to be true friends to animals and so to share the
blessings of the merciful. -- Albert Schweitzer
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
cissexual
=====================================
translated from German - please read:
=====================================
I don't know what the general mood is like here, but the cross-posting
of these non-sense threads in this newsgroup is slowly going on my
nerves (these threads being nonsense to me as long as at least one side
shows nothing but ignorance).
First, this newsgroup is in GERMAN LANGUAGE - usually, one gets scolded
here if one uses too many foreign words [in German language] - and I
don't feel like discussing in English here in de.alt.*
Second, these discussions seem totally fruitless to me.
So if anyone feels like doing transatlantic S/M games, they should
please do this in the international studios without crossposting the
show here.
greetinx
...
Karine.NF
Number 2 :
"Now be reasonable old boy... It's just a matter of time.
Sooner or later you'll tell me. You co-operate tell us
what we want to know and this can be a very nice
place. You may even be given a position of authority."
Prisoner :
"I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed,
briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."
Yeah, my life is my own, and if I decide to live as a
woman, to be a woman (that it is in my mind, my
behaviour), it is my own responsability, it is my own choice,
it is my own body and nobody can hinder me in my way.
Tenderness. Karine.
PS : sorry for my poor langage, I don't write english
very fluently.
Deb Marsh
news:8e502d$qs6$1...@wanadoo.fr...
> PS : sorry for my poor langage, I don't write english
> very fluently.
You could have fooled me sweetheart.
Debs
Karine.NF
No Deb, I did not fooled you, I'm a fan of "The Prisoner", and I know the
majority of the cues (lines, in french : réplique pour le théatre) of that
TV serie. I know that cue inside out (by heart).
I ever fooled anyone, I hate the lie, even if I don't have tell to anyone
what are my feeling about my own transexuality.
Tenderness. Karine.
PS : to read english : no problem, because even if I don't know a specific
word, I can understand the global sense of the sentencies, afterwards I look
for the news words in my dictionary to complete my understanding.
But to write, I is an other storie. I'm using a dictionary the seek the
rigths word, an after I try to make good sentencies, and here is it harder
rather than reading.
grrl*@*petal
wrote:
>
>Julie's odd reactions towards people these days are understandable, if
>not excusable, because of the enormous amount of stress that must be
>caused by attempting to gain the respect of a group (Lezzies) by the
>putting down of another group (TSs, TGs) to which one is inextricably
>a part of.
Fuck'em all. If I could get over on the law I would, especially where
love is concerned. Bsides- I don't buy into essentialist dogma
anyway.
The ultimate perversion of the law renders its utility absurd. Some
may even take a hint from this.
>
>Blacks have a word for this..Oreos...Black on the outside and white in
>the middle. Perhaps TSs will need a similar word...what will we call
>it I wonder?
A Tampon: Stuffs her head up a bio-cunt to absorb menstrual blood
(female bio-waste) and so claim attachment with the ovary endowed.
Glad to be dumped on. Makes her feel useful.
Julie is a Tampon. <snicker;->
>
>I believe Vermont t or New Hampshire may have just ratified a legal
>marriage law for homosexuals. Am I correct?
Vermont: Ratified and signed into law. Which brings up voting with
one's feet.
Susan M. McDonnell
;-)
Sue McDonnell
<te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
news:OijN4.206742$8k3.1...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
dana sibera
> >cissexuality.
>
> without even hearing that cilly word before.
Just a curious question from a newbie - what's cissexuality?
thanks,
danabanana
TLM
I have given up responding to Julie. NO MORE!!!
Tommie M.
TLM
>
> Diane A. <dev...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:t9s9gs4g7aupggkjj...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:11:10 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpe...@gte.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Kewl... I didn't know that. Now you've get me excited.
> >
> > It was a nom-de-plume I used just before Celeste went completely batty
> > as a reaction to all the little boxes she was putting everyone in.
> >
> > BTW I have that theme on MP3 if you like. I can email it.
> >
> Thanks, I would be way thankful.
>
> I saw a couple of episodes of The Prisoner in rerun when it was in college.
> I was hooked immediately, but then the took it off the air. Its been twenty
> years since then and I haven't been able to find it on the tube again....
>
> Thank you,
> JoAnn Peeler
I am sure that one of these days it will show up on nicklodeon or tvland
or somewhere on cable/satellite.
I have not seen it either lately. It was a great series.
Tommie M.
TLM
> very fluently.
I think it came out clear to me. You have rather good english skills.
Tommie M.
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
> Hi Deb,
>
> No Deb, I did not fooled you, I'm a fan of "The Prisoner", and I know the
> TV serie. I know that cue inside out (by heart).
>
> I ever fooled anyone, I hate the lie, even if I don't have tell to anyone
> what are my feeling about my own transexuality.
>
> Tenderness. Karine.
>
> PS : to read english : no problem, because even if I don't know a specific
> word, I can understand the global sense of the sentencies, afterwards I look
> for the news words in my dictionary to complete my understanding.
> But to write, I is an other storie. I'm using a dictionary the seek the
> rigths word, an after I try to make good sentencies, and here is it harder
> rather than reading.
You have an exceptionally good instinct for the flow of the sentence.
Your sentences are every bit as good as most native speakers, and your
writing is LOTS better than a lot of my Systems Analysis students:).
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Use old words: feed the racial memory.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
> Diane,
>
> I have given up responding to Julie. NO MORE!!!
>
> Tommie M.
That is a rational and mature response. There are millions of people
who can get along, and other who can't, and group membership changes
as the people change. Best to just walk away, and see how things ripen
with time.
I know whereof I speak, since I'm,
Just Another Cheese:).
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Freen, freen on the gronkel,
Where the spinge and the razzifrazzin play,
Where seldom is heard
A coherent word,
And the parser's freewheeling all day...."
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
> greatly relaxed state of mind. Then you want to go buy a new
> car. Pick a gently used Corvette -- that will make you feel
> much younger.
No, I _have_ a dream car: a mint-condition (engine-drivetrain-wise)
Checker. The Ultimate '55 Chevrolet. Room room room.
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
A dozen, a gross, a score, Plus three times the square root of four,
Divided by seven plus five times eleven, Equals nine squared plus zero, no more.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Karine.NF
To share my experience about my transexuality, will, perhaps, increase my
english understanding...
Tenderness. Karine.
Diane A.
wrote:
>
>Why question it? For the same reason that feminists question whether
>women who claim to be feminists, but exploit the privileges of their
>male partners, have a legitimate claim to "feminist". It's commonly
>framed as "you talk the talk, do you walk the walk?"
A case could easily be made that mtf transsexuals who retained cushy
techie jobs after transition got them precisely because of male
privilige and if they indeed were serious about being a feminist they
would quit said jobs and make it as a women without relying on their
former status.
Of course one would have to be a complete moron to do such a thing.
You didn't, I didn't. Opps... come to think I did because I never
entered the programming field until *after* transition myself but you
get the idea anyway. Anyhow I would have kept my job.
Sorry - this sounds too much like "I've got mine - now we can impose a
higher ideal on all the rest of you".
Not buying it. Nope.
Diane A.
wrote:
>> BTW I have that theme on MP3 if you like. I can email it.
>>
>Thanks, I would be way thankful.
In your mailbox- had to send it as a .wav though.
Diane A.
wrote:
>
>BTW, Theoni mentioned your's and Julie's cars. What kind of car do you have?
I drive a Prince song.
Diane A.
>
>I have given up responding to Julie. NO MORE!!!
Sensible. In her defense Julie is rather new and is going through
some of the ups and downs that most all of us went through way back
when. I shudder to recall some of my own thinking regarding being a
woman twelve or thirteen years ago. Insecurity abounds in almost all
of us - some more so then others.
Some three or four years into my transition Sister Mary Elizabeth told
me that I wouldn't even begin to understand what being a woman is all
about until I was one for 10 years or so. Thinking I knew it all
already I silently smirked that bit of advice. Well sister M.E. -
guess what? You wuz right.
Diane A.
wrote:
>
>It's at most video stores/libraries, as is some of the "Danger Man"
>series which preceeded it. (Secret Agent on this side of the Atlantic.)
Preceeded it but as any rabid Prisoner fan would tell you was on a
different story line altogether. Darn good show though!
I always wanted to be a spy but after I found out what a "mechanic"
does (friend of a friend etc.) I decided I'd probably end up in one
of those villages myself.
Diane A.
wrote:
>
>
>No Deb, I did not fooled you, I'm a fan of "The Prisoner", and I know the
>majority of the cues (lines, in french : réplique pour le théatre) of that
>TV serie. I know that cue inside out (by heart).
Put me up in a little chateau for a few weeks and I'll bring the whole
series along for you to see. A jug of wine, a loaf of bread and
Number 2.
Paulinev01
Their are lots of "US" who liked it. love it when it reruns on satalite.
Avengers, Secret Agent. lots of good stuff.
May have had something to do with all of us being "prisioners" too.
WHEN ITS TIME ITS TIME
the hardest step of any journey is the first, the most satisfying is the last.
Now go take on the day
PAULINE/Paula
Paulinev01
>techie jobs after transition got them precisely because of male
>privilige
Anyone want my cushy teckie job. I have to kiss eveyones anss and still try
to pass whith them yelling at me I am a man . Retail sales is not a plesant
job to begin with.
I dont buy anyone having a cushy job while transitioning. Some may be fortuante
to have the law on their side so they can show that they can do thier job in
either gender, but even that is risky. Some even tried it owning the company
they worked at, and still failled.
Some good argumenttalist could make a case for anything. and there are always
more than one wy to put things.
Regarless this is probably the hardest way to work there is.
te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
What I liked about McGoohan's shows was his refusal to carry a gun:).
His first Danger Man episode was titled "War of the Cameras". I'd just
gotten an Argus C-3 for christmas....
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"We shall bend Murgatrid's socks," the guard said reassuringly.
"Thanks!" said Leeming, "Damned decent of you."
"Merse, faplap! Amash!"
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
TLM
>
> >Oh shit!! Another one. Damn!!
>
> Their are lots of "US" who liked it. love it when it reruns on satalite.
>
> Avengers, Secret Agent. lots of good stuff.
>
> May have had something to do with all of us being "prisioners" too.
>
>
> the hardest step of any journey is the first, the most satisfying is the last.
>
> Now go take on the day
>
> PAULINE/Paula
Oh yes! I love both of those. I thought Mrs Peel was very beautiful.
Tommie M.
Paulinev01
>Oh yes! I love both of those. I thought Mrs Peel was very beautiful.
>
>Tommie M.
Ahh Emma.. Honor Blackman was good too but I have only seen one with her in and
dont even remember where. She gave up the part for a small part in Goldfinger.
Then there was the Saint, Persaders. etc.
Diane A.
>"C[εϋήοε ₯₯." wrote:
>>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> denk nicht einmal daran Dich auf Diane einzulassen, das ist Ignoranz und
>> Frustration in kombinierter, konzentrierter Form, komplett dicht- Galle
>> anstatt Hirn.
Good heavens Claudia- it wasn't enough that I had to plonk you - now
you seem to find it necessary to stir up the pot across international
boundaries??
We were doing just fine with you in my kill file (and I did notice
that no one else is responding to you either ;) ) so please stop this
nonsense as it just irritates both groups. Go find a small country to
invade or something and leave us all alone please.
Liese Mueller
> Homosexuals can marry in some EC countries I believe - in many
> others they are awarded full domestic partnership rights.
It isn't more than your belief. Registered partnerships for homosexual
couples like in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands or France have
nothing to do with marriage. If those countries would actually allow
real same sex marriages, they would have problems to get legally
accepted all their marriages in other countries. On the other hand
registered homosexual partnerships won't be accepted in that countries
which deny any legal homosexual partnerships - which means most
European countries. So it also a misunderstanding that "in many others
they are awarded full domestic partnership rights".
> I think a northeastern state in the US just gave them those
> rights as well.
Vermont, yes. But which other US state will accept those rights? AFAIK
in most US states a homo "marriage" from Vermont (or whereever) counts
simply nothing, even so-called liberal California recently denied
pro-homosexual legislation.
> Transsexuality is no longer a mental disorder as defined by the
> newest DSM I believe
DSM-IV - but which meaning a psychiatric manual has for the society
you live in, e.g. your neighbours?
> Things do change... slower then you or I may like but they
> do change.
Far too slow!
Viele Gruesse
Liese Mueller
Liese Mueller
> Good heavens Claudia- it wasn't enough that I had to plonk you - now
> you seem to find it necessary to stir up the pot across
international
> boundaries??
Please note that you are already "across international boundaries" for
some days. de.alt.soc.transgendered is a German newsgroup, its
language is German. So if you x-post to d.a.s.tg, please do that in
our language. You have to get used to it. <g>
Viele Gruesse
Liese Mueller
Paulinev01
>
>(irgendwie kommt Dein name hier in fremden Schriftzeichen
>:-) )
>From: Akbara Akb...@web.de
I love it when you speak French!
kc
--
Programming & Development ~ Studio Wired Angel
~ http://www.wiredangel.com ~
Zarah <never_ever_...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:8eagur$v98$1...@news.online.de...
> X-NO-ARCHIVE:YES
>
> Diane A. schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:20:39 +0200, Akbara <Akb...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >Good heavens Claudia- it wasn't enough that I had to plonk you - now
> >you seem to find it necessary to stir up the pot across international
> >boundaries??
>
> What exactly is the benefit of plonking someone when you answer the posts
> across 3 ngs and two languages ?!? This is way beyond me... but I'm a
> natural blond anyway.
>
> >
> >We were doing just fine with you in my kill file (and I did notice
> >that no one else is responding to you either ;) ) so please stop this
> >nonsense as it just irritates both groups. Go find a small country to
> >invade or something and leave us all alone please.
>
> who is us and who is them ? Maybe you forgot in the heat of the action
that
> all newsgroups are by definition international, in the sense that the
> nationality of a poster is not relevant. It's only the language of
> conversation that is defined through the branch of a hierarchy. And as sad
> as it is, you are violating not only the charta of a single ng, but that
of
> a whole branch of ngs by crossposting your brilliant ideas to the de.*
> branch in American.
...true webbie secrets, one could use http://www.dictionary.com/translate to
translate to other languages, often gets the gist of it across. Universal
translators are around the corner now.
...zutreffende webbiegeheimnisse, man konnten
http://www.dictionary.com/translate verwenden, um zu anderen Sprachen zu
übersetzen, erhält häufig das gist von ihm herüber. Universalübersetzer sind
um die Ecke jetzt.
ist close?
les véritables secrets de webbie, un ont pu employer
http://www.dictionary.com/translate pour traduire à d'autres langages,
obtient souvent le gist de lui à travers. Les traducteurs universels sont
autour du coin maintenant.
/ok.end.file.just.playing \\*.lsl
Diane A.
<never_ever_...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>What exactly is the benefit of plonking someone when you answer the posts
>across 3 ngs and two languages ?!? This is way beyond me... but I'm a
>natural blond anyw
What exactly is the benefit of this little game that you and Claudia
play with crossposting trolls between the newsgroups?
Think I'll plonk you as well...it's a shame really most Germans I've
met have been quite civilized but you two...well....
Plonks to ye both!
Diane A.
<liese....@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>Please note that you are already "across international boundaries" for
>some days. de.alt.soc.transgendered is a German newsgroup, its
>language is German. So if you x-post to d.a.s.tg, please do that in
>our language. You have to get used to it. <g>
Yes, quite right.May I suggest that members of your group, such as
Zarah, Claudia and most recently I note, yourself, not post into
groups into which you do not want to receive replies.
I point out that it was indeed their initial crossposts - and now
yours that generated the replies.
Good day.
Diane A.
<liese....@gmx.de> wrote:
>Diane,
>
>> Homosexuals can marry in some EC countries I believe - in many
>> others they are awarded full domestic partnership rights.
>
>It isn't more than your belief. Registered partnerships for homosexual
>couples like in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands or France have
>nothing to do with marriage.
Thank you for your reply. I do point out that you have crossposted
across both the German and the English transgender groups and the
replies received understandably in English may be distracting to the
GErman groups.
I would like to suggest your not crossposting to the two groups in the
two groups in the future and I would suggest that others either remove
the German group from their replies as a matter of curtesy to our
foriegn friends (or else reply in German of course machts nichts zu
mir).
I have purposly replied to both groups in rder to get the message
across.
Emi Melissa Briet
> > newest DSM I believe
>
> DSM-IV - but which meaning a psychiatric manual has for the society
> you live in, e.g. your neighbours?
"Transsexuality" isn't...
but "Gender Identity Disorder" is
--Emi
--
Emi Briet -- Ameritech.net's kawaii techie-chan! ^_^
Keep your ear to the radio, and keep hot water with you at all times!
RanmaCode[1.3]: r+(+) R!++ AG HS X++ SP Du+ m+ mu++ E:#antijen H F:+
a27 d+ s-: NA x Sch:CS,BA L:E ma+ M w++ N,IE
Zarah
Diane A. schrieb in Nachricht ...
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:59:34 +0200, "Zarah"
>
>Think I'll plonk you as well...it's a shame really most Germans I've
>met have been quite civilized but you two...well....
... I'd guess that we're just a little bit more adaptable to our usenet
environment than the others....
>
>Plonks to ye both!
you're welcome
Zarah
Kristyanna V
is what they were refering too
Kristyanna