You men are still runnin around cuttin yer dicks off.

3 views
Skip to first unread message

te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
in the parking structure Julie <jock...@ix.netcom.com> whispered:
> I've described SRS to other transsexual women while in the
> presence of a transvestite or two. The transvestites tend to
> think I'm every bit as gross and you apparently think Nullo is.
> -- Julie.

Ataualpa Qapoq, Inca, Lord of the Four Quarters: "Do you know what they
_do_ with their God?"

(Benteen and Pizarro look spare.)

Ataualpa: "They _eat_ Him."

--Royal Hunt of the Sun.

Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Co-sysop & WAREZMs. on Baudwaffen BBS, Ominous Procession BBS,
LOs FOrtig Machen BBS, R-Byte's Lager BBS, Elron Xemu BBS,
Gelid Form as Guest BBS, Waterhouse's Wistful Wysteria BBS,
Theme Park Urinal BBS, Compuserve, and America Online.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
"Julie" <jock...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:
> > But I'm with you, Elaine. I think there is a very clear
> > difference between what we do and what he did.
>
> Right. What you did is what you did and what he did
> is what he did. Your justification that you are right and
> he is wrong is based on egocentricism.

I think we all have the right to make whatever personal life choices we
like, so long as we don't hurt other people. The only opinion that matters
of whether a choice you made was right or wrong is yours.

But I refuse to generalize that one type of body modification is the same as
another, that SRS is really no different than an amputation fetish. To me,
it seems clear there are differences in the motivations and the desired
social objectives.

> I've described SRS to other transsexual women while in
> the presence of a transvestite or two. The transvestites
> tend to think I'm every bit as gross and you apparently
> think Nullo is.

That probably has nothing to do with your SRS.

Nicki

Paulinev01

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
> I've described SRS to other transsexual women while in
>> the presence

>> tend to think I'm every bit as gross and you apparently

Lets see, you discussed the inversion process, flaying ot the penis and the
graft and nerve process. Bet you did it in great detail. right down to how
they move the nerves. tie off and cut the testes off.

WHY WOULD THAT UPSET A TRANSVESTITE?

it does cut down the number who wish to become girls thou.

I have been in one or two of those conversations. Normally started by a TV
trying to sound like they knew more than I did about it.

And Nicki is right.


>That probably has nothing to do with your SRS.

does seperate the men form the girls. :)


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

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to

Nicole Hamilton writes:

> But I refuse to generalize that one type of body modification is the same as
> another, that SRS is really no different than an amputation fetish. To me,
> it seems clear there are differences in the motivations and the desired
> social objectives.

Well, we have some degree of cultural approval on our side, in that we're
attempting to go from one recognized category to another. Although not everyone
recognizes the validity of the change (e.g., the Supreme Court of Texas), at
least some people do. Changing yourself into an "other" category, however,
doesn't currently carry the Good Housekeeping Seal.

Yet the concept that body modification is okay for us but a fetish for others
troubles me somewhat. Stigmatizing some conduct as a "fetish", "perverse", or
"unnatural" implies cultural and moral judgments that I have trouble
supporting. In essence, it says you have to have social approval for how you
conduct your life. If that's the case, then it's a short step to limiting trans
people as well. "I'm sorry, you aren't feminine enough to fit in as a woman and
thus SRS on you is no more than fetishistic mutilation and therefore
prohibited." "Intersexed? We're sorry but you seem to be a woman to us so
we'll fix you up to live that way." "Our research indicates that some of you
have a history of erotic arousal in connection with thoughts of being feminine,
so I'm afraid you fall into the category of sexual perverts who will just have
to learn to live with it." "Don't try to tell us that it's natural for two men
or two women to love one another -- that's merely deviant sexual obsession. Go
take the cure."

It's highly unpopular, I know, to challenge the prevailing morality of conduct
and emotion related to sex and sexuality. But we as humans are truly a diverse
species, and the things that drive us often do not fit into neat boxes. It's
often the differentness and variety of people that moves us forward. What if
there'd never been a Christine Jorgensen?


Claire


Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
In article <4FaW4.18988$OP1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Nicole
Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:

> But I refuse to generalize that one type of body modification is the same as
> another, that SRS is really no different than an amputation fetish.

It's not the same. It is, however, a point that -- simply because you
may not agree with it does not make it worthy of sneer wqords.

FWIW, it's hard to classify all eunuchs as "amputation fetisists" as
well. That may be as gross an oversimplification as "cunt mongers" (a
favorite term, lately, in another group) is in describing TSes.

Cheers,
Gwen Smith

--
. .
/\\//\ Gwendolyn Ann Smith * Community Host, Trans Gazebo
> () < Board Member, GEA * Webmistress, TransBay
\/()\/ Webmistress, SCCatl * Webmistress, Gender.org
"I want this to be a harmony of voices" - Lauren D. Wilson
**Posts may not reflect the views of the above organizations

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
In article <39295937...@my-deja.com>, Claire Jameson
<ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> If that's the case, then it's a short step to limiting trans
> people as well. "I'm sorry, you aren't feminine enough to fit in as a woman
> and thus SRS on you is no more than fetishistic mutilation and therefore
> prohibited."

I would contend that we see variations on this above quote all the time
in the trans-usenet.

C[åūŽļå „„.

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to

Eunice Butkus <but...@burned-up.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
392851D7...@burned-up.com...


> What difference does it make? You're all a bunch of bull goose loonies.

We are? Well, if it lifts your depression and distracts you from your
miserable existance, help yourself.

> In the meantime, how's about you transies sticking with
> long sleeves? I saw one the other day sporting around in those tube tops
y'all
> seem to favor and it was enough to scare a dog off the back of a meat
truck.

You drive a meat truck? How fitting! Well honey, you should keep your eyes
on the road instead of _focussing_ so intensly on transsexuals, otherwise
you'll hit a wall or something and it be a shame if your remains become
indistinguishable from your freight.

Ambulance guy: "Gee, this pig sure got one hell of an ugly head."
Police man: "Nah, that's the head of the driver, a Mrs. Buddkiss or
something." "This fine Lady here, Mrs. Claudia W. saw everything, could you
explain again what happened?"
Claudia W.:"Well, I just came out of the Gucci shop, waiting for the green
light when I smelled something really bad, and sure enough this pig truck
came around the corner and I thought to myself, wo! this driver is the
ugliest man I have ever seen when I realized it was just a really ugly woman
steering a smelly truck full with pigs and I smiled. Then she looked at me,
maybe adoring the way I looked or something and suddenly her face changed
and she started staring quite insane really. Next thing I know she ran right
into this wall and pig parts started to fly around in the air, it was
terrible. Poor Mrs. Buddkiss, she was crunshed by the thrust and one pig
flew right into her huge ass, which made her head pop off. That's it really.
What a sad way to go."
Police man: "I am sure it was quite a shock for such a lovely lady as
yourself"
Claudia W.: "Well, now I missed the sales they're having at Bloomingdales."

[...]
> (Mrs.) Eunice Butkus

Claudia W.


Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
"Claire Jameson" <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Yet the concept that body modification is okay for us
> but a fetish for others troubles me somewhat. Stigmatizing
> some conduct as a "fetish", "perverse", or "unnatural"
> implies cultural and moral judgments that I have trouble
> supporting.

Perhaps, but aren't pretty much all important decisions in life about where
to draw the line through some grey area? Setting aside SRS as a possibly
politically charged comparison, a disdain for drawing a line somewhere begs
the question, are there no limits? Is there no difference between what
Nullo1 has done and, say, rhinoplasty, breast augmentation, or even
correction of cleft palate?

Personally, I find far more affinity between Nullo1 and that guy who hired
Butcher Brown to saw off his perfectly good leg than I do between Nullo1 and
any of us or most anyone else who might ordinarily seek cosmetic surgery.
Labels aside, I don't know any postop TS women who, if a choice were
available, would prefer even the best surgical outcome to what nature
ordinarily provides to healthy genetic females. The desire is clearly to be
whole, normal (in the sense of being just very ordinary but female),
functional and integrated into the new role.

Though I don't think it was your intent to imply otherwise, I personally do
shy away from using the words "perverse" or "unnatural" for precisely the
reasons you cite, namely that it implies some moral superiority that I don't
personally feel I have any claim on. I am, however, unrepentant in my use
of the term fetish. It's a perfectly good, scientifically accurate word and
it describes the behavior and self-admitted motivations of someone like
Nullo1 or that Brown victim. The term itself is neutral until and unless
someone cares to take up the position that the behavior and motivations it
characterizes are somehow perverse or unnatural. (Is it possible that
fetishists who object to the term do so precisely because they hold these
repressed views of themselves?)

Finally, it's one thing to stake out the high ground as a personal preserve,
that one is somehow more "open minded" than another so long as the
discussion remains abstract. It is another to actually confront the issue
in specifics. An interesting exercise might be to go listen to that
interview at http://www.bmeradio.com/show2000/marcel/index.html and report
back if you made it all the way to end.

Nicki

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:
> Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:
> > But I refuse to generalize that one type of body modification
> > is the same as another, that SRS is really no different than
> > an amputation fetish.
>
> It's not the same. It is, however, a point that -- simply because
> you may not agree with it does not make it worthy of sneer wqords.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it except, obviously, to point out that
it's not my cup of tea. Nor do I believe that it's "sneer words" to refer
to something in scientifically accurate terms. There are some number of
people in the broad population who find it sexually exciting to fantasize or
actually have amputations. The term for that is an amputation fetish. It
just is. The term is neutral and does not imply any sort of moral
judgement, it merely describes a motivation and behavior.

That you'd label that term a sneer suggests to me that it's you not me that
believes that if one is motivated by sexual excitement that that is somehow
perverse and wrong. Why else would you be uncomfortable with the term? Me,
I don't make these judgements, nor have I implied them.

> FWIW, it's hard to classify all eunuchs as "amputation
> fetisists" as well. That may be as gross an oversimplification
> as "cunt mongers" (a favorite term, lately, in another group)
> is in describing TSes.

Gwen, I don't classify all eunuchs as "amputation fetishists" because, if
for no other reason, I have no idea even who you mean to classify as a
eunuch. Do you, for example, include TS women who, fearing they won't have
the resources for SRS anytime soon, choose an orchiectomy so they can, quite
reasonably enough, reduce their meds? Personally, I don't call these people
eunuchs, I call them TS women, but this is neither here nor there.

A fetishist is one who experiences erotic excitement from objects and acts
(and fantasies involving these objects and acts) that are not usually
considered sexual. That's pretty much all the term means. Amputation
fetishists are people who are sexually aroused by amputations. An extreme
example is that fellow who paid Butcher Brown to saw off his healthy leg a
while back. (You recall he ended up dying of gangrene and Brown was tried
for murder.)

But I admit I am offended, Gwen, by your lumping me with anyone who might
use the term "cunt monger." I don't use the term any more than you do. I
don't think I've given you any reason to insult me that way.

Nicki

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
"Julie" <jock...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Why draw lines at all?

You mean, like between you and me?

Nicki

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to

Nicole Hamilton writes:

> Perhaps, but aren't pretty much all important decisions in life about where
> to draw the line through some grey area? Setting aside SRS as a possibly
> politically charged comparison, a disdain for drawing a line somewhere begs
> the question, are there no limits?

Of course we have the right to determine what we find distasteful or bizarre.
(I don't believe anyone has suggested that your disgust with Nullo isn't within
your purview, Nicki). To my way of thinking, a lot of the things people do are
impenetrably weird, and probably the product of unusual psychosocial
inversions. There's also the possibility that for some -- although certainly
NOT all -- of us, what we call transsexuality is, too. I was long categorized
that way myself.

> Is there no difference between what
> Nullo1 has done and, say, rhinoplasty, breast augmentation, or even
> correction of cleft palate?

Your question goes to the core of the justification issue, Nicki. Exactly what
is the difference these different forms of cosmetic surgery? Why do we consider
some motivations more valid than others? Is it important that we have a "good
reason" -- i.e., a culturally acceptable one -- to do what we deem necessary?

In the abstract, there probably is no difference. If you'd sampled my friends,
for example, most of them would have adamantly maintained there is no difference
whatsoever between me and Nullo. To them, my assertion that these things were
vital to my happiness seemed grotesque and groundless.

> Personally, I find far more affinity between Nullo1 and that guy who hired
> Butcher Brown to saw off his perfectly good leg than I do between Nullo1 and
> any of us or most anyone else who might ordinarily seek cosmetic surgery.

Me, too.

> Labels aside, I don't know any postop TS women who, if a choice were
> available, would prefer even the best surgical outcome to what nature
> ordinarily provides to healthy genetic females. The desire is clearly to be
> whole, normal (in the sense of being just very ordinary but female),
> functional and integrated into the new role.

Absolutely. I'm middle class enough to prefer that people believe I changed to
become whole and healthy, but I don't think many are buying. Nonetheless, while
my reasons may fail the scrutiny of public judgment, they're okay with me.
Sometimes we simply have to go against the grain to satisfy ourselves.

> I am, however, unrepentant in my use
> of the term fetish. It's a perfectly good, scientifically accurate word and
> it describes the behavior and self-admitted motivations of someone like
> Nullo1 or that Brown victim. The term itself is neutral until and unless
> someone cares to take up the position that the behavior and motivations it
> characterizes are somehow perverse or unnatural.

Oh, I think "fetish" definitely carries negative connotations in the minds of
most people. It implies a sexually based obsession, and in our culture that's
generally deemed "bad", or at least unsavory.

> (Is it possible that
> fetishists who object to the term do so precisely because they hold these
> repressed views of themselves?)

That could be. My own objection to being termed a fetishist was that it implied
a moral judgment, and suggested that my motivations were not as worthy of
consideration as those deemed more noble.

> Finally, it's one thing to stake out the high ground as a personal preserve,
> that one is somehow more "open minded" than another so long as the
> discussion remains abstract. It is another to actually confront the issue
> in specifics. An interesting exercise might be to go listen to that
> interview at http://www.bmeradio.com/show2000/marcel/index.html and report
> back if you made it all the way to end.

Well, I don't have an hour to listen to the interview, but can tell from the
picture of the grinning blindfolded guy it ain't my cup of tea. While I do have
some appreciation for the eunuch concept, this wildman seems over the top to me.

I'm not sure what you mean about staking out high ground as a personal preserve,
however.


Claire


Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
"Claire Jameson" <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Oh, I think "fetish" definitely carries negative connotations
> in the minds of most people. It implies a sexually based
> obsession, and in our culture that's generally deemed
> "bad", or at least unsavory.

Fetish more than "implies" a sexually based obsession, it's =defined= that
way, more or less. And of course you're right, for most people the word
does carry negative connotations, but only because they attach negative
connotations to sexual obsessions. I can hardly be held accountable for
other people's value judgments.

Nullo1 makes it quite clear right at the outset of the interview that his
motivation was sexual. I'm merely applying the correct term. It seems
pretty likely to me that if I described his motives in precisely his own
words, people would still view them as unsavory.

What's interesting in our culture is that all around us, there's an
obsession with sex everywhere you look. One need only take a small sample
of the ads which bombard us constantly to find sex offered up as a
motivation to buy cars, cigarettes, makeup, clothing, shampoo and everything
else in our lives. Presumably, that's because these ads work, in turn,
because sex is indeed a powerful universal motivation. But I think most
people just don't like having that pointed out.

Nicki

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
In article <TvdW4.19080$OP1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Nicole
Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:

> Personally, I find far more affinity between Nullo1 and that guy who hired
> Butcher Brown to saw off his perfectly good leg than I do between Nullo1 and
> any of us or most anyone else who might ordinarily seek cosmetic surgery.

I see it as somewhat the opposite, particularly after reading, say,
www.neutrois.com (a small site, but still of note).

And Body Dysmorphics are fascinating as well. Most of them don't see
it as just "sawing off a perfect good leg" for a sexual kick... but
because they have never felt it was a proper part of their body.

Honestly, not *that* far off from my own feelings than those "prefectly
good" genitals I'm getting surgically altered.

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
In article <gUdW4.19096$OP1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Nicole
Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:

> I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it except, obviously, to point out that
> it's not my cup of tea. Nor do I believe that it's "sneer words" to refer
> to something in scientifically accurate terms. There are some number of
> people in the broad population who find it sexually exciting to fantasize or
> actually have amputations. The term for that is an amputation fetish. It
> just is. The term is neutral and does not imply any sort of moral
> judgement, it merely describes a motivation and behavior.

There are also a number of body dysmoprphics who look at amputation in
a much different light than, say, and amputation fetish. It would be
(a rough comparison) like saying that all that a transgender person is
a "fetishistic crossdresser" or an "autogynephiliac."

Not all motivations are that clearly defined.

> Gwen, I don't classify all eunuchs as "amputation fetishists" because, if
> for no other reason, I have no idea even who you mean to classify as a
> eunuch. Do you, for example, include TS women who, fearing they won't have
> the resources for SRS anytime soon, choose an orchiectomy so they can, quite
> reasonably enough, reduce their meds? Personally, I don't call these people
> eunuchs, I call them TS women, but this is neither here nor there.

No, I am classifying enunchs as those who identify as eunuchs. There
is a growing number of them, it seems. Most identify as male, and
choose an castration for a number of reasons. I would direct you to
GQ, April 2000, to the article "Farewell, My Lovelies" for a pretty
fair representation of such (but only pretty fair, as it does suffer
from the typical "how shocking" garbage that we often see in media
representations of transgender behaviour).

And no, I do not believe that eunuchism (ooh.. is that a new "ism?")
equates with transgenderism. I think it is in it's own category. Yet,
there are interesting places where one might see a crossover. For
example, one could see a SOC for such, in order to move them away from
having to go through "cutters" for their treatment.

A TS woman is a TS woman -- not a eunuch. That is, unless she herself
has some purchase into the term.

> A fetishist is one who experiences erotic excitement from objects and acts
> (and fantasies involving these objects and acts) that are not usually
> considered sexual.

Not all do get an erotic excitement from such, any more than you or I
get an erotic excitement from all that we've done on our own path -- in
spite of what many in the straight media would like to think.

That said... it could certainly apply in Nullo's case, given the high
scale interest in CBT on their part. Of course, it would be rather
hard to them to do that anymore, so maybe that was more a prelude than
the actual interest. Perhaps like some TGs who dress to relieve the
tensions of not being able to transition until a later time.

> Amputation fetishists are people who are sexually aroused by

> amputations. An extreme example is that fellow who paid Butcher Brown


> to saw off his healthy leg a while back. (You recall he ended up dying
> of gangrene and Brown was tried for murder.)

Not all do. There is a lot of uncertaintanty, in fact, towards the
reasoning behing the individual in question.


>
> But I admit I am offended, Gwen, by your lumping me with anyone who might
> use the term "cunt monger." I don't use the term any more than you do. I
> don't think I've given you any reason to insult me that way.

No insult was directly intended -- so I offer my apology for such.

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
In article <39299D77...@my-deja.com>, Claire Jameson
<ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> Well, I don't have an hour to listen to the interview, but can tell from the
> picture of the grinning blindfolded guy it ain't my cup of tea. While I do have
> some appreciation for the eunuch concept, this wildman seems over the top to me.

What this makes me think of is who transpeople are generally shown in
the media. You see very few of us just living our lives. That doesn't
see papers.

Think of Oprah a while back, when she had Dana Rivers on. We got to
watch Dana apply her makeup. Then we got to watch Diedre McCloskey do
her hair and pick out a scarf. And this is, IMO, one of the better
representations.

But I am sure that most here would agree that we are more than our
makeup, hair, and attire, no?

When we are shown in the media, usually, it is a highly sexualized
image. It is a hooker, or a skank, or a fetishist. It is played up
how "bizarre" we are.

Consider this, from the Sun Times (now there's a reputable paper!) last
week (emphasis theirs):

> A TRANSSEXUAL bus driver has been told his job is safe - even though he
> now comes to work in DRESSES.
>
> Tommy Simpson, who also wears high heels, make-up and a wig, is
> planning a £10,000 sex change op to turn him into a woman called
> Thomasina.

Shocking, isn't it? And, as we all know, not at all uncommon.

Therefore, I think it could be safe to assume that similar things could
be said in this current piece. Nullo may or may not be as "odd" as the
site wants to make him out to be... but I suspect that they would do
their bast to make it as shocking as possible, to entice people to go
there, and listen to the interview, and above all, get hits to their
site.

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:
> Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:
> > Amputation fetishists are people who are sexually aroused
> > by amputations. An extreme example is that fellow who paid
> > Butcher Brown to saw off his healthy leg a while back. (You
> > recall he ended up dying of gangrene and Brown was tried
> > for murder.)
>
> Not all do. There is a lot of uncertaintanty, in fact, towards the
> reasoning behing the individual in question.

Well, obviously, Mr. Bondy is no longer available to give his own first-hand
account, but from the account his buddy, Gregg Furth, gives in an article at
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/00/04/news-ciotti.shtml, I don't know where you
find room for much uncertainty whatsoever. According to Furth, the two of
them were both self-described apotemnophiliacs (individuals who derive
sexual gratification from limb removal.)

Nicki

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:
> What this makes me think of is who transpeople are generally
> shown in the media. You see very few of us just living our lives.

And I doubt you'll see us portrayed more sympathetically by arguing to the
press that we're no different than Nullo1.

Nicki

Cheryl

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
On Mon, 22 May 2000 17:12:44 GMT, "Nicole Hamilton"
<hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:

>> It's not the same. It is, however, a point that -- simply because
>> you may not agree with it does not make it worthy of sneer wqords.
>

>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it except, obviously, to point out that
>it's not my cup of tea. Nor do I believe that it's "sneer words" to refer
>to something in scientifically accurate terms. There are some number of
>people in the broad population who find it sexually exciting to fantasize or
>actually have amputations. The term for that is an amputation fetish. It
>just is. The term is neutral and does not imply any sort of moral
>judgement, it merely describes a motivation and behavior.

Years ago when I was on CompuServe's Human Sexuality Forum, right
along with Genderline there was a group called Wannabees. Curious, I
wandered in one day to find out what it was about. The individuals
there had amputation fetishes. I thought this rather bizarre, and
reported back that they thought they were much like transsexuals.
That provoked considerable outrage and controversy, much as it's doing
now. At the time, these individuals wanted to be called "wannabees",
as in "wanted to be amputated".

>That you'd label that term a sneer suggests to me that it's you not me that
>believes that if one is motivated by sexual excitement that that is somehow
>perverse and wrong. Why else would you be uncomfortable with the term? Me,
>I don't make these judgements, nor have I implied them.

The term "fetish" is probably inappropriate in this case, it's initial
meaning being one of artifact rather than artifice. However, few
would care about such fine distinctions.

It seemed as if some of the individuals were not so much into the
actual act of amputation but rather entertained the desire of being
amputees. There were also those who didn't want to be amputated
themselves, but rather were interested in partners who had
amputations. I don't know, I didn't really understand any of it. It
did give me a small perspective, though, on how some non-transsexual
people might view us.

>> FWIW, it's hard to classify all eunuchs as "amputation
>> fetisists" as well. That may be as gross an oversimplification
>> as "cunt mongers" (a favorite term, lately, in another group)
>> is in describing TSes.
>

>Gwen, I don't classify all eunuchs as "amputation fetishists" because, if
>for no other reason, I have no idea even who you mean to classify as a
>eunuch. Do you, for example, include TS women who, fearing they won't have
>the resources for SRS anytime soon, choose an orchiectomy so they can, quite
>reasonably enough, reduce their meds? Personally, I don't call these people
>eunuchs, I call them TS women, but this is neither here nor there.

I tried to castrate myself at twelve, but I found the pain more
excruciating than exquisite. I found that I really, really don't like
pain. This Nullo sounds like he got off on the pain aspect of it, but
I'm not sure that is the motivation of all wannabee amputees. It's
very difficult for me to get my head around why someone would want to
remove an arm or leg, though I can perhaps empathize to a degree with
the strangeness of human desire. They don't have a Standards of Care
for this sort of thing, and legitimate doctors won't do it. So
perforce these people turn to the butcher Browns of the world.

>A fetishist is one who experiences erotic excitement from objects and acts
>(and fantasies involving these objects and acts) that are not usually

>considered sexual. That's pretty much all the term means. Amputation


>fetishists are people who are sexually aroused by amputations. An extreme
>example is that fellow who paid Butcher Brown to saw off his healthy leg a
>while back. (You recall he ended up dying of gangrene and Brown was tried
>for murder.)

Of course, Brown should have been put away many years ago. But I
can't help wondering at what human impulse would consider amputation a
desirable thing. Is there necessarily a sexual component? I confess,
I don't understand at all.

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <a3jW4.19297$OP1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Nicole
Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:

> And I doubt you'll see us portrayed more sympathetically by arguing to the
> press that we're no different than Nullo1.

Oh, I am rather different from Nullo. But they have their path, and I
have mine.

There may, however, be places where our paths cross. Then again, there
are many other paths that I (or you) have and will cross.

Never said that their path was "no different" -- just that their path
cannot be disparaged simply because of one's own choices. :-)

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Nicole Hamilton writes:

> What's interesting in our culture is that all around us, there's an
> obsession with sex everywhere you look. One need only take a small sample
> of the ads which bombard us constantly to find sex offered up as a
> motivation to buy cars, cigarettes, makeup, clothing, shampoo and everything
> else in our lives. Presumably, that's because these ads work, in turn,
> because sex is indeed a powerful universal motivation. But I think most
> people just don't like having that pointed out.

Yes, that was my original point. We know that sexuality touches virtually every
aspect of human existence, yet we allow our culture to make some rather fine
judgments about what is approved sexuality and what is not. Without an
awareness of these distinctions and the way they permeate our considerations, we
run the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot.

Take me, for instance. I'm a hypocrite, but at least I know it. ;-)


Claire


Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <3929CB3F...@my-deja.com>, Claire Jameson
<ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> Yes, that was my original point. We know that sexuality touches virtually every
> aspect of human existence, yet we allow our culture to make some rather fine
> judgments about what is approved sexuality and what is not.

::Veering ever so slightly::

This is something that I have found curious. Sexuality is so close to
the core of human existence, and does indeed touch virtually every
aspect of our existence.

Yet we are so quick to point out that being trans -- of virtually every
stripe -- is not about sex. At all.

Just something more to ponder.

te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
in the parking structure Gwendolyn Ann Smith <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> whispered:

> In article <3929CB3F...@my-deja.com>, Claire Jameson
> <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that was my original point. We know that sexuality touches virtually every
>> aspect of human existence, yet we allow our culture to make some rather fine
>> judgments about what is approved sexuality and what is not.
>
> ::Veering ever so slightly::
>
> This is something that I have found curious. Sexuality is so close to
> the core of human existence, and does indeed touch virtually every
> aspect of our existence.
>
> Yet we are so quick to point out that being trans -- of virtually every
> stripe -- is not about sex. At all.
> Just something more to ponder.

Well, we can _start_ to attempt a fix by outlawing all of the descendants
of the Emperor Constantine's solar-phallic death cult, abolishing all class
distinctions with universal totalitarian collectivism, and dying everyone
grey....

OR, we could try to promulgate the notion that people with no scientific
training should butt out of things which we as a species haven't even
made a start at describing....

A little epistemological humility never hurts...but in literature the only
people who practice it are always extraterrestrials...

Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"And someone's giving them BOOZE, for Chrissake!"
-- Dr. Gonzo
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
in the parking structure Claire Jameson <ceja...@my-deja.com> whispered:

> Yes, that was my original point. We know that sexuality touches virtually every
> aspect of human existence, yet we allow our culture to make some rather fine
> judgments about what is approved sexuality and what is not. Without an
> awareness of these distinctions and the way they permeate our considerations, we
> run the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot.
>
> Take me, for instance. I'm a hypocrite, but at least I know it. ;-)
>
> Claire

Oooooh, Girl. And people talk about _my_ tongue.

(I've been _meaning_ to talk to you about your toungue, as it turns out...
But my context is so predictably the delicatessen....)

Theoni (First Sliced Tongue Sandwich, age 9)
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Those who labor in the earth are the chosen of God."
- Thos. Jefferson
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <xskW4.249342$8k3.1...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>,
<te...@cx159572-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com> wrote:

> Well, we can _start_ to attempt a fix by outlawing all of the descendants
> of the Emperor Constantine's solar-phallic death cult, abolishing all class
> distinctions with universal totalitarian collectivism, and dying everyone
> grey....

I look good in grey.

> OR, we could try to promulgate the notion that people with no scientific
> training should butt out of things which we as a species haven't even
> made a start at describing....

Naw... that's no fun...

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
I went back and listened to the interview, and still feel Nullo is a little over the
top. However, I can sort of understand where he's coming from. My life has taken
me down different roads, but it is possible that had I been where he has been and
done the things he's done we could have wound up in a similar place.

I am not sure I can truthfully say that I always viewed myself as a woman inside, or
that I constantly lusted for SRS. There were other things going on inside me, too.
Transition and surgery were a partial resolution to feelings of dissonance that lay
deep within me, yet perhaps there might have been other answers. I have never been
certain exactly what those feelings were, or why I chose to address them as I have.

Where I am now feels good. Would any other course have left me less satisfied?
It's very hard to say. Of course I have a terrible tendency to always think the
grass is greener somewhere else, and acknowledge that my feelings are often
influenced by that essential insecurity.


Claire


I wrote:

> Nicole Hamilton writes:
>
> > Finally, it's one thing to stake out the high ground as a personal preserve,
> > that one is somehow more "open minded" than another so long as the
> > discussion remains abstract. It is another to actually confront the issue
> > in specifics. An interesting exercise might be to go listen to that
> > interview at http://www.bmeradio.com/show2000/marcel/index.html and report
> > back if you made it all the way to end.
>

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Gwendolyn Ann Smith writes:

> Claire Jameson <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, that was my original point. We know that sexuality touches virtually every
> > aspect of human existence, yet we allow our culture to make some rather fine
> > judgments about what is approved sexuality and what is not.
>

> This is something that I have found curious. Sexuality is so close to
> the core of human existence, and does indeed touch virtually every
> aspect of our existence.
>
> Yet we are so quick to point out that being trans -- of virtually every
> stripe -- is not about sex. At all.

Gwen, until I got involved with the on-line world, I was operating on the assumption
that being trans was primarily about sexuality. No other reason had ever really
occurred to me.

That was my truth, though I do not believe it is so for everyone. From a distance we
may see a tree, yet on closer inspection every branch, even every leaf has its own
unique patterns.


Claire


Paulinev01

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
> What if
>there'd never been a Christine Jorgensen?
>
>
>Claire

She wasnt the first to change her sex. and she was a very good role model for
many of us. but with out her there would have been someone.

if you wish to think horrors try imagioning Virginia Prince being the role
model.

I know Virginia, i even like her but heaven forbid she could have been our role
model.

Just a nightmare thought.

Diane

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
My...my my....tsk..tsk....

I leave for a few days and the next thing I know people are running
around cutting off various body parts - with *no* anesthesia at all as
I understand it.

Well personally I am all for this, th only qualification being that
the do-it-yourselfer also preform a lobotomy at the same time so as to
avoid future outbreaks of unbridled creativity....yes,
definitily...lobotomies all around are in order.

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
"Diane" <dev...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Well personally I am all for this, th only qualification
> being that the do-it-yourselfer also preform a lobotomy
> at the same time ...

Just about 30 years ago, Esquire magazine ran one of its Dubious
Achievements articles and reported that a man in Japan had drilled 27 holes
in his head with a power drill and LIVED!

He killed himself by drilling 28 holes.

I remember reading that and thinking how very surprised he must have been
after the first one or two. Do you think he might have been kicking himself
that he didn't spring for the extra Yen for that wing bit?

Nicki

Paulinev01

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
>I don't classify all eunuchs as "amputation fetishists"

for an amputation fetis would not onw just want a part of them amputated? and
so not eunichs do so to remove the male ability to reproduce. leaving no
pressure on sex or sexual leasure?
( it dont work that way tho, I had plenty of pleasure, and orgasms that becoam
more intense)

If one has the testes removed for gender reasons if that a eunich, if one has
them done for medical reasons is that a eunich.
or is one only a eunech if one does it to stop reproduction and in the belief
tha tit will stop sexual thoughts and abilities.

I had my orch for med ressons, I did so only after asurances that I would not
give up the sensations I had there. I did it to get rid of the pain of inflamed
testies for 2 years that I could not even close my legs with. they could not
even be touched.

Even after they were removed I would have slapped anyone who said I was a
eunech. I was a woman then, I had physical problems and like a cyst on an
overy or other female problem I had to have it removed. By the way what do we
cal a woman who has had her overies removed? eunice?

Just rambeling. Hate the word eunech.

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Paulinev01 writes:

> Even after they were removed I would have slapped anyone who said I was a
> eunech. I was a woman then, I had physical problems and like a cyst on an
> overy or other female problem I had to have it removed. By the way what do we
> cal a woman who has had her overies removed? eunice?
>
> Just rambeling. Hate the word eunech.

Somehow it doesn't particularly bother me. Years ago a friend denounced me as "a
eunuch living as a woman." He had opposed my changes and was just blasting away in
anger, but I could see his point of view. Could be true, I thought, but so what?
I liked my life better.

For me, a little creative imagery about myself has always been helpful. Most of
the healthy people I know have more or less consciously devised a space for
themselves to describe and define who they are, and within it they are largely
impervious to detractors and naysayers. Occasionally in the law business it's
necessary to deconstruct that, and doing so almost always makes me uncomfortable.
People spend a lot of time and energy putting their persona together, and if they
are not strong at the core you can wind up doing real damage. Reality checks can
be quite upsetting if we are not prepared to embrace all aspects of it.

In general, however, I think it's appropriate to allow each individual to
self-define. We're enabled to set goals and ideals, and lift ourselves beyond the
muck of subsistence. It also makes the world a much happier place. ;-)


Claire


Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

> Just about 30 years ago, Esquire magazine ran one of its Dubious
> Achievements articles and reported that a man in Japan had drilled 27 holes
> in his head with a power drill and LIVED!
>
> He killed himself by drilling 28 holes.

I liked the story about the guy who tried to commit suicide by repeatedly
hitting himself in the head with a hammer. The problem was that he kept
knocking himself out before finishing the job.


Claire


Diane

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
On Tue, 23 May 2000 17:19:46 GMT, Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:
>If one sez they ID as such, then they are such.

Just a quickie comment that, IMHO, a philosophy such as the above
ignores the fact that definitions regarding social identity are and
always have been consensual by society as a whole.

That's why when someone says, "I am your leader" it is not accepted
outright as such by others but rather has to be proven and then
accepted by surrounding society according to whatever consensual
definitions are already in place. The same applies with for such
statements as "I am a man/woman" or "I am a transsexual" or "I am a
wealthy person" for that matter.

Self identification is a concept used to indicate what a person
*thinks* her/she is. Whether this will be accepted by anyone else
around is governed by existing societal concepts and definitions.
Unless one intends to live a solitary life it is, in the end, what
overall society thinks you are, not necessarily what *you* think you
are, that defines your place within society.


Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <20000523084623...@ng-cp1.news.cs.com>,
Paulinev01 <pauli...@cs.com> wrote:

> for an amputation fetis would not onw just want a part of them amputated? and
> so not eunichs do so to remove the male ability to reproduce. leaving no
> pressure on sex or sexual leasure?
> ( it dont work that way tho, I had plenty of pleasure, and orgasms that becoam
> more intense)

A friend of mine turned me onto a web site last night. www.eunuch.org.
Though I personalyl was squicked by some of the information (and that
main page graphic - ugh!), I still found it an informative read -- on
both eunuch/smoothie stuff and amputation stuff.

I would *highly* recommend their "technical FAQ, at
http://www.eunuch.org/faq-tech/index.html for information on the above.



> If one has the testes removed for gender reasons if that a eunich, if
> one has them done for medical reasons is that a eunich. or is one only
> a eunech if one does it to stop reproduction and in the belief tha tit
> will stop sexual thoughts and abilities.

The easy answer, it seems, would be this:

If one sez they ID as such, then they are such.

I suspect, though, that that is as clear cut as some of the identity
issues we see in our own community.

I'll let their FAQ hit some of the rest of that.

> I had my orch for med ressons, I did so only after asurances that I
> would not give up the sensations I had there. I did it to get rid of
> the pain of inflamed testies for 2 years that I could not even close my
> legs with. they could not even be touched.

Makes sense to me. I've had another trans friend with exactly the same
problem.

> Even after they were removed I would have slapped anyone who said I was a
> eunech. I was a woman then, I had physical problems and like a cyst on an
> overy or other female problem I had to have it removed.

I can't say that I personally would slap them, but I sure would correct
them. I'm not, nor ever will be, a eunuch. 'tis not what I'm about.

> By the way what do we cal a woman who has had her overies removed?
> eunice?

Eunice! ::Laughing:: Cute.

> Just rambeling. Hate the word eunech.

For myself, I would hate it to. If someone wants to ID as such --
that's fine by me. They aren't me.

Cheers,
Gwen Smith
(Can we move back a little closer to the topic of the group?)

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <coflisoi2j92u8tr8...@4ax.com>, Diane
<dev...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 May 2000 17:19:46 GMT, Gwendolyn Ann Smith
> <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:

> >If one sez they ID as such, then they are such.
>

> Just a quickie comment that, IMHO, a philosophy such as the above
> ignores the fact that definitions regarding social identity are and
> always have been consensual by society as a whole.

I believe we've been over that ground before, Diane, in the other group.

It's hardly a "philosophy" -- more of a thumbnail.

And I stand by the above. If one identifies as a eunuch -- then I
don't have a problem with it. They are not claiming anything that
affects my life.

Cheers,
Gwen Smith

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Gwendolyn Ann Smith wrote:

> And I stand by the above. If one identifies as a eunuch -- then I
> don't have a problem with it. They are not claiming anything that
> affects my life.

I can dig it. Although Diane is right that status in a group is assigned by
the group, it usually doesn't matter much to me what other people call
themselves, or even what they call me. I have a pretty fair idea who I am
myself.


Claire

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
"Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:
> But if Nullo calls hirself a eunuch (actually, ze claims the term
> "smoothie"), why should I care? It doesn't affect me ...

But it does if people -- particularly some in one's own community -- argue
there is some similarity between him and me that I don't agree with. That
intrudes on my space to define what I am and it may also affect how I'm
perceived by third parties who hear that argument and accept it.

Nicki

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <392AD2A8...@my-deja.com>, Claire Jameson
<ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> I can dig it. Although Diane is right that status in a group is assigned by
> the group, it usually doesn't matter much to me what other people call
> themselves, or even what they call me. I have a pretty fair idea who I am
> myself.

!Precisely!

I'm not speaking of "group think" or how a society might label a person
(lord and lady knows they've given me plenty of labels over the years),
but just how *I* might. I'm not talking "status" (that's a whole
'nother thang). I'm just talking about what a particular person calls
themselves.

Nullo had hir balls whacked off. Some of us have had the same thing
done -- but I doubt any of us would say that our motivations were
precisely the same as Nullo's.

But if Nullo calls hirself a eunuch (actually, ze claims the term

"smoothie"), why should I care? It doesn't affect me, nor does it make
me think that anyone here who has had a similar procedure (albeit in a
different fashion and for different reasons) is also a eunuch.

It's (IMO) sorta like meeting a Bhuddist, and assuming that anyone who
has a religious belief is *also* a Bhuddist. That would not make sense
-- it's flawed logic.

Cheers,
Gwen Smith


(gender neutral pronouns used in this post simply for my ease in
writing this)

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <92vjis021qhgb3f4f...@4ax.com>, Cheryl
<che...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> Years ago when I was on CompuServe's Human Sexuality Forum, right
> along with Genderline there was a group called Wannabees. Curious, I
> wandered in one day to find out what it was about. The individuals
> there had amputation fetishes. I thought this rather bizarre, and
> reported back that they thought they were much like transsexuals.
> That provoked considerable outrage and controversy, much as it's doing
> now. At the time, these individuals wanted to be called "wannabees",
> as in "wanted to be amputated".

There were some most interesting groups in HSX, weren't there? I
didn't spend much time there, though, 'cuz I just didn't dig the
interface (amongst other things).

And this is one of those grey areas. I can see some *similarities*
with some portions of body dysmorphics and gender dysphorics -- but I
would definitely have a hard time buying that they are "much like
transsexuals." Seems that to do so invalidates both the "wannabees"
and the transsexuals, really.

> It seemed as if some of the individuals were not so much into the
> actual act of amputation but rather entertained the desire of being
> amputees. There were also those who didn't want to be amputated
> themselves, but rather were interested in partners who had
> amputations. I don't know, I didn't really understand any of it. It
> did give me a small perspective, though, on how some non-transsexual
> people might view us.

I've talked with a couple of said folks over time (not many, though),
and had even spoken to one, some time ago, who was both a an amputee
fetishist and a cross-dresser. Their biggest fantasy was dressing up
as a disabled woman. It was -- different.

And ya, it does give one a glimpse, doesn't it? That's one of the more
fascinating things about it, to me.

When I first picked up the article from GQ I mentioned earlier (a
friend had sent it my way), my initial reaction to the piece was a mix
of revulsion and contempt. And when I find myself having those
feelings (a little something I learned from too much liberal-thinking
in high school and college), I tend to want to explore them, and ask
myself "why does this bother you? What is it that is triggering these
feelings."

It was I opening. ;-)

> I tried to castrate myself at twelve, but I found the pain more

> excruciating than exquisite. I found that I really, really don't like
> pain.

I tried around the same age, and had the same reaction you had. To the
letter.

> This Nullo sounds like he got off on the pain aspect of it, but
> I'm not sure that is the motivation of all wannabee amputees.

::nod:: I gather it is that for some, but not all.

I guess the way I would compare it woudl be such. Some people really
get off on wearing a frilly dress, or a bra, garter belt, and panties.
But not all. If one buys into autogynephilia, you could say that some
get off on the idea of feminizing their body. But not all.

Grey areas can be so difficult to pidgeonhole.

> It's very difficult for me to get my head around why someone would want
> to remove an arm or leg, though I can perhaps empathize to a degree with
> the strangeness of human desire. They don't have a Standards of Care
> for this sort of thing, and legitimate doctors won't do it. So
> perforce these people turn to the butcher Browns of the world.

Precisely. I touched upon that in a small piece (which I should really
expand, beings I wrote it before I was really aware of eunughs) I wrote
some time back. I wonder, if they opted to push for a standards of
care for their own treatment -- would we be willing to help them with
our experiences with such?

> Of course, Brown should have been put away many years ago.

And thankfully, he is. Only 14 years, though. Then again, at his age
and in his health, he won't likely survive his incarceration.

> But I can't help wondering at what human impulse would consider
> amputation a desirable thing. Is there necessarily a sexual component?
> I confess, I don't understand at all.

::nod:: It's a bit to grok, and I still have plenty of bare spots in my
own understanding of this. I know that, with eunuchs, it surprised me
that their gender identities were so strong as males, in spite of the
castration (then I sat back and really thought about it). I also found
it, disturbing, that some of these folks would actually *want* those
bits saved in a jar (I know that mine can gladly grace a dung heap in
Wisconsin, thanks).

But I do gather that it has as much of a sexual component as
transgenderism (in other words, as I said above - it's there for some
but not for all).

Great post, Cheryl.


Cheers,
Gwen Smith

Paulinev01

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
>Cheers,
>Gwen Smith
>(Can we move back a little closer to the topic of the group?)

NO!

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <20000523164306...@ng-fe1.news.cs.com>,
Paulinev01 <pauli...@cs.com> wrote:

> >(Can we move back a little closer to the topic of the group?)
>
> NO!

Well... ok

So I've been having a struggle with table properties under strict XHTML
1.0, and the revisions to the < center > tag, especially with MSIE 5.0
Mac. Do I have to migrate to using the CSS "box" properties instead of
tables, or should I bend the XHTML standards and include a
"align=center" property to the table element?

Cheers,
Gwen "way, way off-topic" Smith

P.S.: Anyone reading the book "Trans-Sister Radio" yet? Very cool.

Michelle Steiner

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
Gwendolyn Ann Smith wrote:

> And I stand by the above. If one identifies as a eunuch -- then I
> don't have a problem with it. They are not claiming anything that
> affects my life.

If a person identifies as a eunuch, but has not been castrated, is that
person a eunuch?

It seems that it depends on the definition of "eunuch."

--Michelle

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Nicole Hamilton writes:

> "Gwendolyn Ann Smith" <gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:

> > But if Nullo calls hirself a eunuch (actually, ze claims the term

> > "smoothie"), why should I care? It doesn't affect me ...
>
> But it does if people -- particularly some in one's own community -- argue
> there is some similarity between him and me that I don't agree with. That
> intrudes on my space to define what I am

I'm not sure what other people say limits our ability to set our own
definitions of self, Nicki. We decide that, and don't need anyone else's
approval if we're sure of our decision.

> and it may also affect how I'm
> perceived by third parties who hear that argument and accept it.

Well, yeah, but what are we gonna do about it? I get more crap about being a
lawyer than I do about being a tranny, and most of it in my opinion is
unjustified. But it just goes with the territory. Occasionally it gets so
out of hand that I'll say, "Hey, man, you've got that all wrong!" Yet for the
most part, I think it's better to just try to live a decent life and educate
by example whenever possible.

I could stand on the street corner all day and yell, "Okay, I'm a lawyer but
I'm not one of those scuzzy types!" I fear, however, that such an endeavor
would be viewed as not only unseemly but hopelessly ineffective as well.


Claire


Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
"Claire Jameson" <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what other people say limits our ability
> to set our own definitions of self, Nicki.

I didn't say it did. I said it intrudes on my space the same way as any
other boorish behavior. I don't like other people trying to tell me how I'm
defined. I'll handle that myself, thankyouverymuch.

> Well, yeah, but what are we gonna do about it?

I reserve the right to tell them to go suck an egg. :)

Nicki

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Nicole Hamilton writes:

> "Claire Jameson" <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, yeah, but what are we gonna do about it?
>
> I reserve the right to tell them to go suck an egg. :)

Har! With my luck, they'd be a bunch of egg-sucking fetishists who'd get off on
the idea.


Claire


Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
Nicole Hamilton said...

> But it does if people -- particularly some in one's own community -- argue
> there is some similarity between him and me that I don't agree with. That
> intrudes on my space to define what I am

Then don't agree. It's not that big a deal.

You've defined who you are. It really doesn't matter a hill of beans
how Nullo defines hirself -- especially because I would bet that ze
would use very different terms than you.

FWIW, *I* would never say that you are the same as Nullo. Nor have I.
Which is why it seems like I am missing something in your argument.

I'm saying this... and I'll boil it down to something very simple: If
Nullo calls themself a smoothie, or a eunuch, or even a blue spruce --
fine. Doesn't change who I am. Doesn't really even affect my life
(aside from the pointless notes of mine on some newsgroup, of course).

Ze is not calling hirself a "Nicki" or really using any terms that
defines a Nicki. If ze did, then we might have something to argue with
hir about.

Similarities? We've covered that elsewhere. This isn't about
similarities. It's about definitions.

> and it may also affect how I'm
> perceived by third parties who hear that argument and accept it.

This is a major difference between you and I. I am not that bothered
by third parties. It would bug me, sure, if someone decided to call me
a eunuch. That's not what I am (nor what I will ever be, frankly).
What the mystical *they* call me isn't what I am.

I mean -- if I took on every name I've ever been called, I'd be (a
partial list) a faggot, a sodomite, a sissy, a pervert... and many
more). I don't consider myself any of the above.

Cheers,
Gwen Smith

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <392AFDBC...@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> If a person identifies as a eunuch, but has not been castrated, is that
> person a eunuch?
>
> It seems that it depends on the definition of "eunuch."

Ya - I've been pondering that myself. I think I would be tempted to
say that it does have a castration "requirement" to it.

But *that* would open up a whole nuther can o' worms, perhaps -- and as
I am no expert on Eunuchs (nor, honestly, do I wanna be), I'm not gonna
be the person who makes that decision, any more than I'm gonna walk
into the "when is someone a transsexual" argument.

Let's just say that -- if someone tells me they are, and they seem
relatively believable, and there isn't anything to tell me otherwise,
then fine. Be all you can be.

I *really* don't want to see any proof of it, ya know? ;-)

Michelle Steiner

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
Claire Jameson wrote:

> I could stand on the street corner all day and yell, "Okay, I'm a lawyer but
> I'm not one of those scuzzy types!" I fear, however, that such an endeavor
> would be viewed as not only unseemly but hopelessly ineffective as well.

An internet-radio personality I know describes himself as "a straight,
white, buddhist, vegetarian, lesbian, fraternity boy trapped in the body
of a recovering transsexual woman, patent attorney with a bizarre sense
of humor and a masters degree in city planning."

He says that the usual response to that is "You really have a masters
degree in city planning?"

And everything in that quote is accurate, if you accept "detransitioned"
as equivalent to "recovering transsexual woman."

--Michelle

Paulinev01

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
>"when is someone a transsexual" argument.

just before they becom the person who thay are with SRS. I bacame a woman. some
become men.

I can not tell you when one become a transexual but I can tell you where it
ends. and with me that was about 3 years ago When I became a woman in
transition. and SRS was only 1 year ago.

>I'm not gonna
>be the person who makes that decision,

the dicisionis only up to the person on the journey, everyones else opinion is
a grain of sand.

>I am no expert on Eunuchs

is there one. I have never met one. or a eunich.

> Michelle Steiner
><mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> If a person identifies as a eunuch, but has not been castrated, is that
>> person a eunuch?

Michelle, I respect both of you but this is a chicken and eggs thread.

>> It seems that it depends on the definition of "eunuch."
>

>I would be tempted to
>say that it does have a castration "requirement" to it.

physical or chemical. as you can see there is no end to this arguement.

Diane

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
On Tue, 23 May 2000 23:52:16 GMT, Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:

>
>I'm saying this... and I'll boil it down to something very simple: If
>Nullo calls themself a smoothie, or a eunuch, or even a blue spruce --
>fine. Doesn't change who I am. Doesn't really even affect my life
>(aside from the pointless notes of mine on some newsgroup, of course).

Can't speak for you but when the day comes that Nullo or someone like
him goes on Springer and calls himself a transsexual than that would
probably affect me to some degree vis a vis other people's perceptions
and attitudes.

But of course it's unlikely that anything like that would ever
occur...

Diane

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
On Tue, 23 May 2000 21:04:30 -0700, Melissa <meli...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>>It mattered to Christie Littleton.
>>
>
>Very good point Michelle.

Dittos.


Claire Jameson

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to

Diane writes:

> Melissa <meli...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>It mattered to Christie Littleton.
> >>
> >
> >Very good point Michelle.
>
> Dittos.

It's a damn good point, and one that may cause me to revise my liberal
politicking. Now you're talking about my ox being gored, Michelle.

I guess I was thinking more in terms of newsgroup wars, and all the
gee-hawing that goes on about who is and isn't a transsexual. It's been
my tendency to think of this as a tempest in a teapot, but maybe it does
have some bearing on real life. It sure would be nasty to get tossed in
the men's prison on the theory that we're actually male eunuchs.

Despite all that, I still can't deny the role erotic feelings played in
my own transition, and I guess I just get prickly when I hear people
putting that down as fetishism. That's the exact line I ran into in
earlier attempts to transition. The implication is that if you've got
sexual motivations you're not a "true" transsexual and thus don't
qualify for the goodies and are just off on some seamy sexcapade.


Claire


Claire Jameson

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to

Michelle Steiner writes:

> My point of contention is with those who maintain that all late
> transitioners's major motivation is eroticism.

Why would they say this phenomenon is more prevalent in late transitioners, I
wonder? In my case those influences were much more powerful when I was young,
which is consistent with what others have told me. Erotic motivations are
hardly universal anyway.


Claire


Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
I guess that's what I do when I tell people "I'm a _real estate_ lawyer."
<G>

Joann

--
****************************************************************************
* Joann Prinzivalli
*
* visit my website at:
*
* http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Chelsea/8828/ *
****************************************************************************
*

Claire Jameson <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:392B0ACE...@my-deja.com...
[]>


> I could stand on the street corner all day and yell, "Okay, I'm a lawyer
but
> I'm not one of those scuzzy types!" I fear, however, that such an
endeavor
> would be viewed as not only unseemly but hopelessly ineffective as well.
>
>

> Claire
>

Paulinev01

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
>It mattered to Christie Littleton.
>
>--Michelle
>

I feel sorry for her, and empathize with her but she did make one small error.
she did not change her birth certificate. If she had there would not have been
any issue to decide.

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
"Claire Jameson" <ceja...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >>It mattered to Christie Littleton.
>
> I guess I was thinking more in terms of newsgroup wars,
> and all the gee-hawing that goes on about who is and isn't
> a transsexual.

I wondered about your previous comments as it did seem we were talking past
each other.

We live in a political world, one that only grudgingly grants acceptance to
minorities.

Just this minute, we're exempted (along with pedophiles) from civil rights
protection, insurance doesn't usually cover our medical expenses (even if
the companies do seem to have billions to pay for some guy's Viagra), our
rights to participate in sports are routinely challenged, we definitely are
at a disadvantage seeking custody of our own children, and, as Littleton
shows, the states can at any moment declare we're not even women. Our
acceptance by society is at best marginal, which is precisely why so many of
us want to be stealth, never telling anyone about this one really cool thing
we've done.

I would like for this to be an ideal world where everyone can be given
freedom, respect and equal rights and benefits. But it's not.

To me, it seems this is a triage situation. All I ever wanted out of this
was an opportunity for life as an ordinary, normal woman. I think that's
enough of a battle right there. It's just not in me right now to take up
the cause of everyone who wants, for whatever odd reason, to lop off various
random body parts, cover the rest with tattoos and go on radio talking about
"exquisite pain."

The reason is very simple: I don't see it as a given that we can win just
with our own agenda. I am sure that if our message, that all we want is
acceptance as ordinary, normal women, is allowed to be mixed with those of
Nullo1 and every other "body modifiers" out there, the result will not be
that we help them and help ourselves to a common victory. If our message is
hard for the general public to understand, Nullo1's is simply impenetrable.
Confusing their message with ours will not lead to gains for both, it will
simply ensure a more certain failure for us.

If there are connections between what we do and what people like Nullo1 do,
and if there are those who believe that if we are to gain our rights then
certainly, so also should the body modifiers, let them first work clearly,
specifically and unequivocally for our rights. This is merely pragmatics,
that progress on the civil rights battleground is slow and that each new
advance is made only from the stronghold of the last.

Nicki

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
"Paulinev01" <pauli...@cs.com> wrote:
> >It mattered to Christie Littleton.
>
> I feel sorry for her, and empathize with her but she did
> make one small error. she did not change her birth
> certificate. If she had there would not have been
> any issue to decide.

Sorry, not so, Pauline. She did change her BC, but the judge ruled that
that had been handled as an administrative matter and was not binding on his
court. What would have been more interesting is if she'd obtained an order
recognizing gender and stating that she was entitled to all the usual
accommodations afforded to women. (Even better if it had listed marriage as
one of those accommodations, which I'm chagrined to admit I overlooked
mentioning my own order I obtained last year in MA Probate Court. But then
again, I did it pre-Littleton; who knew?)

Nicki

Paulinev01

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
>--Michelle (thinking: "or is that 'Castroated'?")
>

ah just go matriculate yourself. :)

Paulinev01

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
>Sorry, not so, Pauline. She did change her BC, but the judge ruled that
>that had been handled as an administrative matter

she tried to change it after they were married. I believe after he was dead.>I


did it pre-Littleton; who knew?)
>
>Nicki

no one. I ws pushed into it becouse I wished to have Silicone implants. or I
probably would not have either. now that I made the change I have piece of mind
as well.

Regardless of what did happen the court is wrong and knowinly is forcing this
to the supreme court in an effort to define male and female. and that they can
not ever be changed. I do support Phylis FRye and the attemt to stop it. but
wish it never had come to this point.

We will gaing little if Mrs Littleton wins, and if she looses we are all
damned. You me and anyone who does not have the right DNA.

We might have to have an adoption for spocial inharetance rights or some dumb
thing.


eeehhh this is a horable subject.

Claire Jameson

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

> To me, it seems this is a triage situation. All I ever wanted out of this
> was an opportunity for life as an ordinary, normal woman. I think that's
> enough of a battle right there. It's just not in me right now to take up
> the cause of everyone who wants, for whatever odd reason, to lop off various
> random body parts, cover the rest with tattoos and go on radio talking about
> "exquisite pain."

I can empathize with the tattoo people and the masochists, but don't plan on
taking up the cudgel for them. Yes, in the theoretical sense I'm similar to
them but political expediency may require me to create a little distance.
Nevertheless, I don't intend to denigrate them.

> I am sure that if our message, that all we want is
> acceptance as ordinary, normal women, is allowed to be mixed with those of
> Nullo1 and every other "body modifiers" out there, the result will not be
> that we help them and help ourselves to a common victory.

Oh, yes, I agree. While I'm not holding my breath for acceptance as an ordinary
woman, I don't worry too much about the body modifiers dragging us down.
Remember, we are beautiful like movie stars.


Andrea


Michelle Steiner

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00