P{ractical Disclosure
Eris
An example. I joined my choir three years ago. There was no legal or moral
reason to disclose *what* I was - I was a woman and that was all that was
needed.
I told all up front that I was a transsexual woman and that was because I
knew I would need some "special help". You see for personal reasons, I did
not wish to sing as a bass or tenor. I did not wish to be "one of the
guys", although our choir has one female bass and one female tenor. I did
not wish to go to a section rehearsal with "all of the guys". I wanted to
sing - at the least - alto. I wanted to be "just one of the girls".
Fine, practical limitations. A woman would have different training for
alto, assuming she did indeed have a low register. A male has what we call
a falsetto. So, in my case, I needed training to strengthen my former
falsetto voice to a good singing voice - that takes a totally different
process. Hiding would have blocked that training from me.
So we started out. Initially, a few minutes of falsetto and I was out for
the count. Perhaps two songs out of a two hour rehearsal or concert. But
as I was given the proper training for my voice, the same training a
counter-tenor would receive, I was able to develop my singing voice (much
more difficult than a speaking voice) to a higher range and increase both
the range and the duration. After a year of proper training, I could sing a
full concert as an alto with little problem. After another year, I could
use my old "male" bits to even better use, being able to hold a note for
longer due to the additional lung capacity.
This year, I moved up from alto to soprano. How? Because the training as a
counter-tenor was effective and my range had increased steadily with use and
practise. Music has recognised a counter-tenor as well as castrati for
years. Does that "bother" me? Not one bit. A "male" soprano is indeed a
different type of voice that a female soprano and the texture of my voice is
different from the other sopranos. Again, given the lung capacity, I can
hold a note longer, and increase the power when other sopranos are unable to
hold. In "Donna Nobis Paceum" a B is sustained, paused and becomes louder
over two full bars. Not an especially high note, the other sopranos drop
off one by one until I only am left to end with a little "S". It sounds
wonderful, a blend of the two types of voices. The same happens in "On a
Clear Day", and holding that note, long after the others have dropped off,
until I get a final cut from the director is a wonderful and moving
experience.
Now, if I had elected to simply report in as a woman, I would never have
been trained nor able to develop my singing voice as a counter-tenor. Using
only my legal gender, I would have missed out on a very good thing by being
blinded by a personal mythology, that I was indeed simply a woman. I am
not, in this and many ways. I am a transexual woman. That is not something
I have any reason to hide.
Labels are so silly. I am what I am - a transsexual woman. That simple
statement gets me wonderful help from other women. A woman with a perfume
shop gave me a two hour personal seminar on wearing perfume and selecting
which to wear. Without that "course" I would have continued with scent that
was not really in keeping with me - for as a male, I knew how to buy perfume
for others, not how to buy it for myself and wear it. Women born learn
those tricks along the way. We have to start later. I am not ashamed to
state that I needed some help, and am very glad to have received it.
I suppose this is really were Jennifer and I differ. I cannot understand
her and she obviously cannot understand me. We talk and write a different
language, as to others here. To me, there is nothing wrong with that, not
one thing. What is wrong is when on attempts to classify a difference as a
right or wrong, a very subjective and judgemental approach in my opinion.
In truth, neither are wrong, they are simply different. I suppose by her
interpretation, she feels entitled to call me by what I regard as insulting
terms. To her, with her limited personal interpretation of the word
"woman", I may not be. To myself, and legally, I am. My mistake before was
in caring what she or anyone else here thought. Just as to me, I have a
personal subjective view of most of her comments, and those of others here.
While I do not understand the mentality of those who feel obligated to
insult others, I accept their right to do so in a group such as this.
I shall continue to enjoy my life; Jennifer shall continue to insult those
who do not agree with her. I happen to enjoy the pleasures, such as the
choir, that discloser bring me; she wishes to not disclose and can follow
life where that leads her. Fair enough. We each make choices.
--
Hugs,
Willow
NOTE: The opinions above are those of the writer and are not directed at
anyone nor aimed at convincing you of the right or wrong of anything. The
writer is bias, opinionated and stubborn. This expression of the writer's
opinion is admittedly possibly wrong or possibly right, or a combination of
the two,. Unless clearly referenced, there is no scientific basis for
anything stated herein. You may differ and convince me that I am wrong.
Please feel free to do so . In the event some of the above is in response
to an opinion expressed by you, if the writer differs from your opinion that
is not an attack on you as a person nor does the writer claim that you are
wrong. It is simply that the writer's opinion differs from yours and
differences are neither good nor bad, merely different. That being said,
nothing should be inferred as a personal attack unless such is clearly noted
as such - and the writer assures you that if she intends to get personal,
you will know it...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/17/03
Rachelle Moore
GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<GaWnb.217589$9l5.176618@pd7tw2no>:
>Now, if I had elected to simply report in as a woman, I would never have
>been trained nor able to develop my singing voice as a counter-tenor. Using
>only my legal gender, I would have missed out on a very good thing by being
>blinded by a personal mythology, that I was indeed simply a woman. I am
>not, in this and many ways. I am a transexual woman. That is not something
>I have any reason to hide.
Good for you.
But consider this. You might also as well have said: "I know my voice
seems bassy, but that doesn't feel right for me. It should be be
higher, and I desire to cultivate a higher range."
Any you know what? I think if you stop talking about, or to,
Jennifer, she'll leave you alone, too.
And then (oh no! I feel a fantasy coming on!) maybe you'd begine to
cultivate a new habit of circling 'round points of *agreement* rather
than disagreement, and people would be tempted to respond more often.
I don't know. I just think you might enjoy that more.
On the other hand, you might not. I don't really know. <shrug>
-
Rachelle
-
Rachelle
Eris
The lesbians in the choir do very well. Did you have some other group in
mind? Oh yes, I see. You think that you are a woman and others TS are
not. Well, as TR would say, "Bully for you!!!".
I disagree totally.
I wonder. How would you "measure" any difference as to how I am treated?
Do you know, so far away? No, I think not. I am treated just as any of the
girls are. Except for one thing - I am a bit different and need special
coaching on voice. That is simply because structurally, I am different in
my vocal chords - as are you, by the way. Just the same as me. Sorta makes
you want to slice your throat, eh???
Now, there are two if not more approaches to this. Your way is presumably
to just go and attempt to sing alto. That would not work, so eventually if
not sooner you would either (1) leave the choir for fear of disclosure or
(2) join the guys in the tenor/bass. Admittedly, two women in the choir
have done just that due to their range.
I did not wish to sing tenor or bass for the reasons stated. Nor did I wish
to just give up and not sing. So I got the necessary help by simply telling
the truth, and now have a wonderful experience that few have shared.
Why, may I ask, do you feel it necessary to make one wrong and one right?
Can they not simply be different, and valued for that? You obviously wish
to make some sort of value judgement. Well, your choice, honey. I really
have to say that the attitude of "*I* am a woman and you are not" that you
repeat (as do others here)sounds like a childish game out in a schoolyard,
but if that is what you think, who am I to say "nay". By singing soprano, I
am not "better than" an alto, or a bass or tenor. All parts are needed of
harmony and none to the exclusion of the others.
Rachelle, you wrote...
"But consider this. You might also as well have said: "I know my voice
seems bassy, but that doesn't feel right for me. It should be be
higher, and I desire to cultivate a higher range."
Sorry, no go. Basic understanding of male/female differences here. I am
told that females do not have a falsetto voice. For males that develops due
to the lowering of voice that a male gets in puberty. Those physical
differences make for a very different training routine. If I had merely
tried to sing alto, I would be stuck back were I was three years ago. Try
Anne Rice's "A Cry to Heaven" which does an excellent job of describing the
training given to castrati or listen to the few counter-tenors available on
CD today. The physical difference result in a different tonality, a timbre
that is subtly shaded. That is one reason what castrati lasted so long, up
to the 20th century.
I fear neither of you have provided me with what I wanted - to sing alto or
soprano well, not just for one song, but for a full two hours or more. Your
two answers did not give that result, but instead gave a result that might
be more socially acceptable to you. Fine. I fail to see right or wrong,
woman or man in any of the answers. They are merely different.
Hey, one more point. I am damn proud of the hard work and effort that were
necessary to make my wish come true, and others not just in the choir
understand how difficult it is to do as I did. For me that is a big plus.
Willow
Eris
I do *not* identify as a castrati. I never have and do not now. Any more
than I identify as male. But if one ignores myth and faces reality, in a
real world, if I am going to sing soprano that is the type of training. I
do not like the word or the connection, but that is reality - my vocal
chords are male as that is who I was unfortunately born. I suggest it would
be much stranger to sing bass or baritone as a woman. That is, if one
wishes to sing in public. I did not wish to merely walk away, as it would
appear you would do.
A question. Assuming you had a hobby, a passion. Would you give it up
totally just to be yoru idea of a woman? Or woudl you find a way to do what
you wanted, in a practical and possible, if difficutl manner. IU get the
feelign that you would sacrifice any such passion for the image of being a
"woman". That is sad. I enjoy singing and did so for some time before my
transiton. So, according to you, I have to give that up to be what I am, a
woman? No thanks, dear.
Do you like distortions, Elaine? Is is a necessary part of your life to use
inuendo agaisnt othrs? Well, feel free. Personally, I think you overdo it
most of the time, but if tha makles you happy - go ahead.
In any event, instead of offering any practical suggestion, you resort once
again to nasties. That says something, I should think. Not about me...
By the way, if *you* were to try to sing soprano that is the same training
you would require given your presnece here. Kinda gets you again, doesn't
it. I mean, having to use a male technique, *just like me*.
Why not try to understand, instead fo jsut ranting? Well, maybe your hobby
is ranting...
Syblil Hedingham
Eris
Firstly, without knowing you, I will accept that you do pass totally, all
the time and every time. Elaine too. Gosh! If it makes you happy, I will
be prepared to accept that Jennifer passes fully and completely. That would
indeed give you a different set of experiences. Do you sing? In a group,
in public, with an admission fee? That gives me a totally different set of
set of experiences too, does it not? Is one good and one bad? Please
explain to me. I wish to know. Is one female and the other male? I have
no idea, but if you do, please tell me.
So tell me. I have to assume that you would require a physical looks test
for TSity or approval for SRS. Could not just have anyone apply and get it,
right? I mean, they would have to look right, to be a woman and all.
If that be so, then pray explain how that can be in any way deemed
"medical", or anything but a surgical beauty contest. By your own logic, I
cannot be a "woman" as in your opinion (let's accept that right now) I do
not look "right", but "wrong". You are basing that totally on appearance
and nothing else. I will accept that as your belief. On what, if any basis
, do you go further? If cosmetic, then all surgery stops (against medical
ethics, removal of health body parts, all that sort of stuff) tomorrow,
unless you like Tangiers. What then of transsexuality, but a choice, pure
and simple, based only on physical traits. I grant, by the way, that
primaries such as Leslie Townsend do indeed look better as a rule. I do
wish. If you are as pretty, you are very lucky. Me? Eastern European
peasant, and not bad by those standards.
If you wish to state only that your experiences are different because you
look better and more like a woman, I accept that - without reservation. I
would suggest that an ugly woman is faced with the same problem, confronted
with a beautiful (at the moment, for standards do change) young woman. I
could say the same for a rich woman, or an Italian woman. So???
No. It must go deeper than that.
It must be part of us inside.
Now, you could say I think like a man. Well, as a man, people said I seemed
to think and act as a woman, causing all sorts of problems - perhaps
including Thailand. After all, there were others who did *not* share my
experiences, and I suspect that my feminine nature rather than my physical
appearance prompted much of that problem, a potential that bothers me still.
(By the way, I had attempted several times to correct your assumption as to
the reasons for my transition but if you really want to hold on to Usher's
theory, that is fine too. Wrong, but your opinion, after all).
So, if I can follow you, as I am not pretty, look a bit awkward, that is it.
Done. Gone. So where is the "woman inside", honey? Or do you suggest, as
I think Conway does, that only those who look like pretty women can be
women? If so, come with me to Prince George, where I must rate in the top
50% appearance wise (northern towns, you know. Beauty goes south...).
Really, I am trying to understand. Do we make cancer treatment depend on
what a person looks like??? Do we only treat GID in those that look pretty?
For if one defines transsexuality only by appearance, or even mostly so,
then Conway is indeed right, an only primaries and a few others should have
that "mental condition" and be allowed SRS. That seems wrong to me,
especially if there is indeed "a woman inside".
But... Gee!!! If there is more than just appearance, and regardless of
what experiences you may or may not have as a post-op, how do you get to
"true transsexual"??? For it seems many TS pre- and post- do not fully pass
and thus cannot share the experiences of Elaine, Jennifer and you.
Shucks. I am so unhappy now. Because I cannot pass fully by your
standards, I cannot share all your wonderful experiences, and thus cannot be
a "true transsexual", just like you three. Woe is me!!
I gotta tell you. I have lived as Willow, a woman, for five years. Not
much, I suppose, But I simply love my life and look forward to each new
day. So if I am not a "true transsexual" (as if that were some sort of
prize), I do indeed "fit" into society better just as I am, and love it. I
know, I should be depressed, morbidly so.
Sop tell me, getting back to Elaine and all. What is right or wrong in all
this???? Granted your experiences are yours, and mine, mine. I give you
the beauty prize - you three can share if you wish or let Paris select - but
what in heavens name does that have to do with right or wrong, TS or non-TS,
or anything but? How do you define a "true transsexual"???
...opps! I think I get it. If you are pretty, you can be a true
transsexual. If you are not pretty or passable, you must be a ... fetisitic
transvestite? Is that the rule???
Oh dear.
Eris
decided he had to be a she as a result of sexual abuse in a foreign country,
it would even be tragic. But it's just the way it is."
Let me see, after re-reading this. If you are TS and do not pass, it is
tragic - you are not a true transsexual (because you do not pass fully).
But... if you happen to be raped because of your femininity as a male, that
femininity being part and parcel of GID, you get no sympathy because... it
happened in a foreign country??? Would it be "better" to be raped in the
good old United States???
Did you ever stop to think I was RAPED because of my visible - if
unacknowledged - TSity, not that my TSity was cause by the rape. At that
time, I had no understanding of TSity at all. Or do you just assume that
because Jennifer says it happened one way, that has to be the way?
Gods above, WHY IN HELL DO YOU THINK I WAS RAPED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!
Others were not - I was. Do you, as others have, think I wanted it, because
it happened to me???
Ah hell, believe what you want. I really do not care.
Eris
probably when I stated transition. But, you see, I had to start transition.
It was either that or die. I suppose if this were a nice world, I would
have been pretty as you as well, but I was note.
Just please tell me - what in heaven's name does that have to do with right
or wrong, good and bad, or if or if not I am a transsexual. For that is the
point you and Elaine drum up every day.
Fixation on the Thai sex trade??? Knowledgeable as any person who is in
that country for any time. Fixated? Hardly. I find that rather
presumptive, really. Is a person who knows more about a certain thing than
you "fixated"??? Or merely more knowledgeable???
I read the Bangkok "Post" daily - that is a fixation.
You may indeed be a true transsexual. You may indeed be pretty and totally
passable. But you know, you are not - and in my opinion never will be - a
lady.
Rachelle Moore
GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
>Firstly, without knowing you, I will accept that you do pass totally, all
>the time and every time. Elaine too. Gosh! If it makes you happy, I will
>be prepared to accept that Jennifer passes fully and completely. That would
>indeed give you a different set of experiences. Do you sing? In a group,
>in public, with an admission fee? That gives me a totally different set of
>set of experiences too, does it not? Is one good and one bad? Please
>explain to me. I wish to know. Is one female and the other male? I have
>no idea, but if you do, please tell me.
Extroverts are more forward and assertive than some others. Water has
a way of being naturally wet, the sky favors being the color blue a
lot of the time, extroverts seem happiest when they're caught up by
exterior factors and objects that seem somehow central, rather than
when they're in relationship with a center. :)
And extroverts are *'way* underrepresented on the internet.
How valuable are those experiences to Elaine, who wishes to be
stealth? How do you suppose they *privilige* you? Or do you suppose
that they do? It's hard to avoid the impression that you believe they
do, but it might not seem that way to you. So I ask! :)
-
Rachelle
Eris
important, what you are not....
"You didn't have any "femininity". You point-blank admitted that the
notion you were transsexual in any way, shape or form only came up
because you were raped as a mature adult, in a foreign country, while
learning all about the Thai sex trade."
Nonsense. "Learning about the Thai sex trade"?? Lord love a duck! Vivid
imagination you have there, honey. "Point blank admitted". Read again,
Cranky. I stated, and have done so many times, that prior to Thailand I was
in deep denial, ignoring my self and my feelings and trying to find any
other answer. What Thailand caused was a decision to accept that which was
there. That was the spark that caused me to throw away a very nice career
and set a new course. As you did not know me before you have no idea of
what I was before, femininity or whatever. Still, you may proceed as you
will.
"Not 50 or 60 year old men, in a foreign country, hanging out with Thai
she-male
sex workers."
I love that line. Wonderful imagination you have there, Cranky. Enough to
say you are so far off the mark that it is more funny than you really could
understand.
"> I think you were raped because the men who raped you figured you
> for someone into the sex trades."
Now that is equally impressive, as imagination goes. The only link with
reality is the faint possiblity that Thai guards are as ignorant as you are
trying to be (I am assuming you are trying as if you are not, you must be a
little further along than I had thought) - assuming that any foreigner in
Thailand must be there due to the sex trade.
> Men =do= get raped. Believe it or not. They don't even have to be
> feminine men to get raped.
Yes, indeed. A little bit of truth emerges. "Male on Male Rape" by Michael
Scarce covers that, one of the few books on the subject.
"What your therapist never explained to you, nearly as I can tell, is that
rape isn't gender specific.
Ah dear, so sorry to disappoint you. We discussed that at length, as did
the clinic. Sorry I do not fit in your preconvieved little box, but that's
life.
[Ignoring some of the good bits] What makes me a woman
> is that I'm a woman without qualification. I don't have to ask for
> special choir treatment, I just sing in choirs. I don't do any of the
> special things you do. If anything I avoid the things you do because
> I know from experience that they'd keep me from being a woman.
Now, let me see. Accepting that you are indeed perfect in every possible
way, can sing soprano with no effort at all and jump tall buildings too,
sing in choirs even though you had just writtien that you stopped doing that
for other reason - but never mind - you avoid doing things I do because...
" I know from experience that they'd keep me from being a woman".
Seems to me that you try a whole lot too hard. I just live my life, as a
woman. I do not assume I know what you wear, as you do, nor do I assume
that I know why you wear what I assume you wear, as you do. Sily realy, but
I don't presume to knwo from miels away. *Nor do I try to be anything but
what I am". I do nto give up singing because that would "keep me from being
a woman". I try to do what I want, but as a woma does.
Frankly, I cannot understand why you would try so hard, pretty as you say
you are (no, I have not seen pictures of you, so really all I have is your
word, which I fully and uncoditionally accept, of course - just as your
singing, dear. My goodness but you are blessed amongst women!). Maybe I
try harder because I am Number two, as the ad goes. But really, I do not
try at all to be a woman, I just am. Simple, really. I am a woman not as I
give up or avoid things that experience might "keep me from being a woman",
whatever those might be. I continue to do what I love doing, because that
is me. And me, in this case, is a transexual woman, Willow. I cannot think
of anything I would give up doing now to "keep me from being a woman". You
see, I am a woman and simply live my life doing what I do. Ah yes, that's
thet rub. I am a transexual woman, but you - no, you are a woman!!! But...
"I know from experience that they'd keep me from being a woman". Hmmmmmm.
Seems to me that if you are then that woudl not concern you in the least.
In fact, if I were you, or even similar, I would have stayed a bass or
baritone in my choir and continued to sing - just as two women do - one a
bass, one a tenor, and but fully women from day one, - just as you...
Opps! I forgot, you were not born a woman physiclaly were you? So, while
they, as *real* born women can sing bass and tenor without worry of beign
kept form being woemn, as they were born that way, you do not. Hmmmmm.
Tell me agian, why are you nto doing that? Dear me, could it be that you
are ... no.. it could not be.. a transsexual woman?? Might that explain
why you are here, on a transsexual newsgroup?
Gosh! Cranky, you get me so confused. You are not a transsexual woman, but
a woman, yet you do not do things that might keep you from being a woman,
and that seems to mean you might... Just might, mind... be something other
than a woamn, but you *are* a woman so why wuld that matter at all??
Sure.
> You care very much what I believe. I've met your kind before.
> You're incapable of being a woman in society and when someone
> comes along and points that out, it pisses you off. So instead you
> proclaim your transsexuality as if being a "transsexual" is what
> people like me want.
Now, hang on here. I thought you were a woman, not a transsexual. But you
now are saying that I am saying I am transsexual, which is what "people like
[you] want"??? I must hav missed soemthing in the translation. You did say
you were a woman, not a transsexual and definately not a transsexual woman.
But now you are saying you want to be just what I always claim to be - a
transexual woman??? But I am worng because I keep you from being what you
wnat, which is...
Oh dear. Cranky, you have me all confused. What I do think is tha you need
a new handle. "Cranky" is fine, if a bit mild. "Old" I will leave to you,
bu ttake you at yoru word. As to "lady" - no. Honey, you may be many
things - a woman, or a transexual, or a natural alto and a natural baritone
who does not use falsetto at all - all of those things and more. HTose I
give you as you wish. But a "lady"?????? Oh no, not that.
> I haven't a clue why you changed sex, beyond some fascination
> you have for Thai she-male sex workers. It's neither too late nor
> impossible for you to go back to being a man. Personally I'd
> prefer that you do exactly that.
Golly. Aside from terrible leaps of imagination, I do not wish to "go back"
and just for the record, please advise as to the surgeon you use who reverse
SRS. Not that I wish to, but it would be good information to have on hand
for others...
Eris
I shall not respond to any of this save one small tiny point...
"I've read enough of your website to know that your interest is more than
some passing fancy, or even accidental education."
Golly. I do not have now, nor never have I had, a website. Strange, is it
not, to read so many things about me from a non-existent source???
The rest of your post is now more clearly shown. You as a primary, self-
identified, refuse to accept that secondary can exist or have any right to
be. Perhaps Elaine is the same. Margaret Deirdre O辿artigan perhaps?
That would fit the "Cranky", and "Old". Care to try to get me to commit
suicide, as you did with another TS? I was a member of Sunday Night Sewing
Circle when that happened, and I cried when we found out. You drove JoAnna
to suicide and then crowed about your "victory". I always wondered what had
happened to that person. Minnesota first, then Oregon, was it not?
TransHistory has that story - to me, she personified the worst in people of
any sort. That story is found at
http://www.transhistory.org/history/index.html
If that is you, the shoe fits very well. If not, well, you sure went to the
same school...
Either way, "lady" you are not.
Eris
that they do? It's hard to avoid the impression that you believe they
do, but it might not seem that way to you. So I ask! :)"
Rachelle,
If I had *any* idea of that the question is, I would try to answer...
Just what privilege am I claiming here???
Eris
You wrote...
"That's nice because being a "lady" isn't one of my goals."
That is good, honey, because you certainly are not! Now, that should be a
compliment to you.
Still looking for my website. You know, the one you wrote about where I
profess a fixation (your word, right/) about the Thai sex trade. YOu
remeber. Just a few hoiurs ago, when you wrote...
" I've read enough of your website to know that your interest is more than
some passing fancy, or even accidental education."
Could you please, pretty Cranky, send me the website citation. Having never
had one, I would love to read what someone has made up aobut me!
You know, you do so make me wish I were doing a cross-examination. That
would be such fun!!! You are a woman, but have to refrain from things that
might endanger that or coause others to think you mightn not be... a what???
You are mad at me for being a transsexual, but then claim that I cannot be
because you are, yet you are a woman, you said. Golly!!!! Now, add that
you pass *all the time* and sing so very well... AH dear. Brings joy to my
nasty nasty but not TS heart.
I shall sleep so welll tonight, just dreaming...
Willow
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/18/03
Rachelle Moore
GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
>"How valuable are those experiences to Elaine, who wishes to be
>stealth? How do you suppose they *privilege* you? Or do you suppose
>that they do? It's hard to avoid the impression that you believe they
>do, but it might not seem that way to you. So I ask! :)"
>
>Rachelle,
>
>If I had *any* idea of that the question is, I would try to answer...
>
>Just what privilege am I claiming here???
To demand either approbation or censure for the choices you've made,
e.g...
>...Do you sing? In a group,
>in public, with an admission fee? That gives me a totally different set of
>set of experiences too, does it not? Is one good and one bad?
...in order to *try* to find an opening for browbeating people into
responding about the (excuse me) petrifying inanity of the
autogynephilic diagnosis, or perhaps just argue with.
Does that make it clearer? "Support" doesn't mean "arguing ideas."
Why do you keep insisting on picking out people to try to argue with?
The only reason I question this is that you seem to think it's
unreasonable when they choose to be nonresponsive. <shrug> So, do
you think the fact that you've chosen to reveal your medical history
to your 3-d cohort should give you some special status, or not?
And (just a suggestion) if you shortened your posts, I think you might
get more responses: and I also think it would be better for your
condition, because you might be able to see where you're letting it
get the best of you in the heat of writing.
-
Rachelle
Amanda Angelika
news:PoYnb.79$C22....@news.uswest.net
and didst say:
| Eris wrote:
|| Now, disclosure...
||
|| An example. I joined my choir three years ago. There was no legal
|| or moral reason to disclose *what* I was - I was a woman and that was
|| all that was needed.
||
|| I told all up front that I was a transsexual woman and that was
|| because I knew I would need some "special help". You see for
|| personal reasons, I did not wish to sing as a bass or tenor. I did
|| not wish to be "one of the guys", although our choir has one female
|| bass and one female tenor. I did not wish to go to a section
|| rehearsal with "all of the guys". I wanted to sing - at the least -
|| alto. I wanted to be "just one of the girls".
|
| one of the girls".......you are and shall remain in their eyes a man
| who had a sex change. You use your "transsexual" status as a crutch
| to get what you want and you certainly do no good for the people who
| really are women and accept all the disadvantages along with the
| benefits.
I tend to agree, in this situation, though I think it can be a dilemma whether to
disclose or not since in some situations, one's past, ones "transsexuality"
"transness" generally, is a fact of ones existence, something that happened, and in a
lot of creative activities, ones relationship to the universe as a humanbeing seems
to be fundamentally important, people will want to know who you "really" are. But
it's a difficult one. I suppose one advantage painters have is that we are rarely
seen, I know at least two artists who changed their names to non gender specific
words, and they weren't even "T" at least not in context or to the extent we speak of
here. But that's another interesting point Eris/Willow raises, "Trans" issues very
often arise for non-TS/nonTG individuals and a certain degree of "transgenderism" is
possibly the norm, so I suppose if one wants to be seen as "normal" a certain
acceptance of being "trans" is probably necessary. But I'd agree if you tell people
you are TS which in effect is often like saying you "used to be a man" it is probably
not a good idea if one want to be fully accepted as a woman, but I suppose it depends
what someone wants really.
--
Amanda
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
AMaÑda AÑge1iKa ßerry
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Web Design Folio - (shameless plug)
----------------------------------------------------------
www.artberry.net or www.angelika.me.uk (own site)
www.cheapaschips.cc *NEW*(Roberts Emporium - Cardiff's finest Flea
Market) www.kink-club.com (Cardiff's Premier Fetish, BDSM and tranny
party venue)
----------------------------------------------------------
www.tinyurl.com/q5hx *NEW* - Ebay Listings - Art for Sale
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/03
Eris
Just in case you missed the other thread...
Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but this rather seems like stalking,
M.D.O. You were very, very good at stalking. After another one, are we???
Gosh! not only two nasty evil secondaries, but both lawyers too!!! Got
room for another notch on your... whatever???
Well, your methodology has not changed that much from Oregon days, and if
you are not M.D. O. you certainly share many personality traits. Rather
like being in correspondence with Satan - for that is certainly how many
view
you. A partial list available upon request, of course. And that would
make Elaine... Oh well, let's not go there, shall we. Just leave the
acolyte for now, Oh Mighty Mistress of Mendacity! I am sure you have choir
boys by now as well...
Now, so little of M.D.O.'s works remain to compare. Like dust, they have
blown away. Well, not dust. Dry venom.
One bit of venom remains, your post following JoAnna's death. While I have
not compared styles, the thoughst are certainly mirrored so well. Of
course, you are writing your side of the story below, in the very best light
possible. Those of us who knew JoAnna know the other side. But the tone
and temper of this posts suits you, you know. Righteous and always better
than others, indignant, always the poor primary defending the purity against
mere secondaries. The abuse survivor. Mocking of my experieces and lying
concerning such simply things as web pages. Oh yes, the connections are
clearly there to be seen. Almost liek solving one on "America's Msot
Wanted", only you were never wanted, not ever, by anyone. That post -
perhaps of yours - reads as follows...
An Abuse Survivor Speaks
by Margaret Deirdre O’Hartigan
It’s in the evening of July 7th and I’ve just received word that JoAnna
McNamara killed herself last night. I got the news from Dean Kotula, who
called all the way from Boston to leave the following message on my
answering machine: “You can quit harassing Joanna because she committed
suicide last night.”
Since there are obviously people — like Kotula — who are going to blame me
for contributing to McNamara’s death, I may as well share the fact that my
immediate reaction to the news was one of relief. Not regret or chagrin —
and certainly not guilt.
Relief.
Any woman whose complaints of harassment and intimidation have been ignored,
dismissed, denigrated or laughed at knows the sense of relief that I’m
talking about. Two years ago I filed a State Bar Complaint against McNamara
after being repeatedly harassed by her and her client — Lori Buckwalter — as
they threatened me in an unsuccessful attempt to force me to publicly
repudiate news stories which credited me for the decision by the Oregon
Bureau of Labor and Industries to accept complaints of discrimination from
transsexuals on the basis of disability. I knew — as so many abused women
have known before me — that people who try to threaten us into submission
are capable of far worse.
I knew — as so many abuse survivors have learned before me — that silence
only plays into the hands of abusers, and that breaking the silence by
reporting the abuse was the only chance I had to refuse to be compliant in
my own victimization.
Any woman who has ever sought to protect herself by obtaining a restraining
order — only to be denied — knows the sense of relief that I’m talking
about. Last year after McNamara bragged to me that she’d researched the fact
I had a concealed weapon permit, I attempted to file a Stalking Protective
Order against her in the Multnomah County Court — which was denied by Judge
Mary Overgaard, who expressed concern at the adverse impact upon McNamara’s
career as an attorney that issuing such an Order would have. I knew, as so
many abused and dead women have know before me, that my stalker was capable
of murder — and I felt the sense of betrayal that comes at seeing the good
ol’ boy network take precedence over a woman’s safety. Those of us who
survive the terror know the sense of relief and vindication that floods
through us when we learn that our stalker murdered themselves and didn’t
take us with them.
Last year Transsexual News Telegraph reported that my 1996 Bar complaint
against McNamara and editorialized that “The use of aggressive tactics isn’t
new for O’Hartigan, who is known for her contentious and downright nasty
style of fighting.” TNT didn’t bother to report the threat made against me
by McNamara’s client that if I didn’t “work it out” with them that it would
be done “in some other more disagreeable or public way”. Instead, TNT choose
(sic) to denounce my legitimate defense of myself against harassment and
intimidation as “aggressive” — as if harassing telephone calls to my home to
make threats wasn’t “aggressive”, “contentious” and “downright nasty”.
Whatever led McNamara to take her own life, it wasn’t me — anymore than
itwas my responsibility that McNamara chose to harass me two years ago —
anymore than it was my responsibility that McNamara began stalking me last
year, checking out whether I had the means to defend myself against attack.
I am sick of men (sic) like McNamara and Buckwalter who — after decades of
adult white male privilege — decide to change sex in their 40s and expect to
continue to exert their male dominance over those of us who have lived our
entire adult lives as women. I am sick of having McNamara’s abuse,
harassment and stalking of me ignored while I’m accused of “harassing” her
simply for daring to defend myself the best I know how. And I’m sick of
seeing the accrued adult white male privilege of the McNamaras and
Buckwalters used to invalidate the experience and wisdom of those of us who
have struggled for most of our lives as women because we were never the men
that they were.
JoAnna McNamara is dead — and I’ll clutch to my bosom the security that
knowledge provides for the rest of my life. It’s one less violent, abusive,
arrogant, intimidating, invalidating man that I have to deal with in my
life.
[Perhaps your testiment, Cranky. Ther is "Body Building", wtih more of
you...
"Growing fat is anathema to most people in our society, let alone
deliberately choosing to grow fatter. This probably accounts for the popular
misconception that women like me are mere victims of ruthless men who seek
to take advantage of us to satisfy their own perverse desires. My own
experience couldn't be further from that image of "feeders." Growing fatter
is one of the most intensely sensuous things I have ever experienced and I
came to the realization that I enjoy gaining weight of my own accord, only
later seeking out those rare men who enjoy a woman's physical growth.I love
the sensation of eating beyond satiation almost as much as I love the
subsequent expansion of my entire body. / The fatter I grow the more
exquisitely attuned to my own body and to another's touch I become. Then,
too, there is no small amount of satisfaction for me in seeing a lover's
eyes widen in amazement at my growing bulk, knowing all the while that there
are very few women willing and happy to let someone share in such a simple
pleasure / Those men and women who watch my burgeoning breasts, belly and
hips with love and appreciation magically transform each new stretch mark
into a love-bite and turn each new ripple of flesh and roll of fat into an
embrace that can be shared. I love having my fat body fondled and caressed,
assured I will continue to be loved the fatter I grow. I love the sense of
awe that my swelling body engenders. I love growing fatter"
[There is more, of course. Love the stuff on Vancovuer RApe RElief,
indicating you are still in Portland. Hmmmm. To close for me - a good
reason to move].
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/18/03
Eris
her one of her web pages! Whoopee!!!!! Satan is found, in his lair!!!!!
Willow
Rachelle Moore
GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
>Oh yes, another link. Cathy P. lurks here, and there you are, referenced on
>her one of her web pages! Whoopee!!!!! Satan is found, in his lair!!!!!
Except -not surprisingly- you omitted to include the link.
Did you mean to include it?
-
Rachelle
Eris
Actually, it is interesting. I am a lawyer and thus bound by precedent.
Assuming a denial is issued, according to the what I believe are ruling
decisions, an accused who denies an allegation in this newsgroup is assumed
to be guilty and the accusation proved. This is based on numerous
judgements by Her Honour Cranky (as she then was) and Her Honour Usher.
These have been followed many times, and thus I consider them binding
After all, when in Rome....
Now, the link is pagan Wiccan, not obvious on the surface. But Margaret is
a contributor and guiding light here: www.aztriad.com/purpos1.html
Draw your own conclusions. Sort of like reading articles about me done over
four years ago, drawing conclusions and calling that truth. Again, a
precident...
Check out our Margaret's other works that show up on a Guru search. Basic,
primaries only, damn the rest, and let's hate secondaries and grow fat
together. Notice hwo the same themes come up repeatedly, with some of the
same insults.
Having met JoAnna on the net when she was alive, I considered Maragret a
prime mover in her death. Margaret's note after was callous and cruel, just
as our Cranky. There are a great many threads and now that she is proved
guilty by the standards here, it all comes clear. It expalins her anamosity
and viscious streak, which was her trademark five years ago as well. It
would also explain why she acts, writes and pronounces like Usher, but draws
a line between. To Margaret, Usher, myself, and any other secondary are so
much dross. She is a Primary, one of god's annointed.
k.c.
news:x1iob.228001$9l5.110966@pd7tw2no...
> much dross. She is a Primary, one of god's annointed.
What do you mean by that?
Eris
were "good enough" to have transition and SRS. All others were dismissed as
failures of one sort or another. They were not "transsexuals" but somethi
ng else, something lesser and definitely bad. Joanna was not a primary, one
of the causes of that dispute. Her picture on the Transhistory site still
shows her as she was, a beautiful woman. Not good enough to meet the
standards of Margaret, of course, and I do not have a pic of her.
It is similar to the quest here for the "true transsexual". You define that
by looking at yourself - or so it seems to me - and when others differ,
denounce them as some "lesser species". Margaret was then as she is now
very good at that - getting under the skin and finding a weak spot. Then
pressing and thrusting again and again, especially if the person was
weakened. JoAnna had experienced business problems after and during her
transition, not unusual for a TS woman lawyer more or less on her own. IMO,
Margaret being totally self absorbed just continued to push and push, rather
like Usher and Cranky try here. A Chinese water torture, again and again
and again - the same insult, repeated again and again. Perhaps Usher learnt
that from Cranky, I don't know.
Also part of the pattern is to become the victim. Margaret in her final
post the day after JoAnna died does this so well. She is the poor one, the
poor woman so upset and hurt. Me, me, me. Look at *her* words. What did
she feel when told? "Relief", according to her. We all knew differently
then, for we had seen prior signs and JoAnna was well regarded.
Look here - on this group. Usher repeats that pattern as well. She drums
at others, then when they respond, she cries to the heavens "Oh poor me!!
Look at what they are doing to me!!~!". Old trick - the religious right did
that deliberately, to make christians, not gays, victims. Look back over
the past years and you will see the pattern, framed by Robinson and Farwell
as strategy. Look to Margaret's letter as posted. Same, same. Old, tired,
but it sucks in the suckers.
Anyway,. a good search will give you more of Margaret's approach. We
secondaries are indeed dross to her, to lowly to even wipe her boots, I
fear - at least, in hr own opinion. primary secondary, Coway, anti-Conway,
HT or AG or "real transsexual". Al the same really. Bottom dwellers
fighting over who gets closest to the cave.
Willow.
"k.c." <quee...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_giob.64398$HS4.573323@attbi_s01...
Rachelle Moore
GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
>Rachelle,
>
>Actually, it is interesting. I am a lawyer and thus bound by precedent.
>Assuming a denial is issued, according to the what I believe are ruling
>decisions, an accused who denies an allegation in this newsgroup is assumed
>to be guilty and the accusation proved. This is based on numerous
>judgements by Her Honour Cranky (as she then was) and Her Honour Usher.
>These have been followed many times, and thus I consider them binding
Following your logic, then, since she's not denying it, it must not be
true. (Absent an explicit stipulation that an allegation, if let rest
by an accused, warrants an assumption of the guilt of the accused.)
>After all, when in Rome....
...get the hell out of town as fast as you can!!! :)
>Now, the link is pagan Wiccan, not obvious on the surface. But Margaret is
>a contributor and guiding light here: www.aztriad.com/purpos1.html
>
>Draw your own conclusions. Sort of like reading articles about me done over
>four years ago, drawing conclusions and calling that truth. Again, a
>precident...
I'm seeing twelve(!) names under the acknowledgments, including
Christine Jorgensen's. Further, I'm not at all seeing how these pages
are relevent to expressing any judgement about any putative
"primary/secondary" split.
>Check out our Margaret's other works that show up on a Guru search. Basic,
>primaries only, damn the rest, and let's hate secondaries and grow fat
>together. Notice hwo the same themes come up repeatedly, with some of the
>same insults.
In a word: I won't. *You* supply them. *You* describe these themes
therein, and *show* how they come up. It's not up to me to not only
read, but *search out* texts that describe someone's prejudice against
"secondaries"- simply because you've caught hold of the idea that
Julie is that "someone."
>Having met JoAnna on the net when she was alive, I considered Maragret a
>prime mover in her death. Margaret's note after was callous and cruel, just
>as our Cranky. There are a great many threads and now that she is proved
>guilty by the standards here, it all comes clear. It expalins her anamosity
>and viscious streak, which was her trademark five years ago as well. It
>would also explain why she acts, writes and pronounces like Usher, but draws
>a line between. To Margaret, Usher, myself, and any other secondary are so
>much dross. She is a Primary, one of god's annointed.
JoAna took her own life for her own reasons. Margaret's essay was
certainly not cruel to JoAna; she was dead when it was written.
"Callous" it was; but what's callous but half-dead armor of skin
protecting what's vital underneath? And who of us don't have the
burden of that shell? (of the present posters, mind) Cranky is cruel
(sometimes:) but not callous; she deploys cruelty like a fine-edged
tool, and seems to me quite, quite sensitive to its effects. The
lucky few who are her "targets" feel this as vicious, and perhaps
indicative of animus- until attention is given to discerning what she
really cares about (which she doesn't make easy and obvious).
And this analysis even ignores what she's written, which is that she
transitioned seven years ago.
When was the last time you communicated with Margaret? Have you
*ever* communicated directly with her?
-
Rachelle
Eris
Again, I am forced to bow to precedent here...
Proof? TransHistory has the story. Anyone can find that and then do a
Yahoo search. If I gave you all the info by sites, I would them be accused
of editing or selecting.
Precedent? None other than Her Honour Usher, and again Her Honour Cranky.
If you recall, Usher did a search and provide only one article, then went on
a rant. Cranky? She just wrote that she read all these wonderful things on
my website, about sex work in Thailand. I do not have nor have I ever had a
web site.
Again, when in Rome...
I follow my stalwart examples.
Seems to me that most TS women are rather nice types, almost shy. You get a
few, Usher and Cranky come to mind, who push and push and push - not to get
what they want, but to "demonstrate " something to someone, perhaps
themselves. Margaret is yet another example.
Now, you are entitled to your opinion as stated. That is fine. I have
already referred to a group called SNSC. JoAnna and I were both members, so
long ago. If I get a tad emotional, we lost her that night, and I do indeed
remember.
> Following your logic, then, since she's not denying it, it must not be
> true. (Absent an explicit stipulation that an allegation, if let rest
> by an accused, warrants an assumption of the guilt of the accused.)
Exactly so. You see, by the precident set in this group, an accsuation is
always right. Espeically when the party ignores it (silece is acceptance)
or when they deny it (the more they deny, the guitier they are) or when the
even acknowledge it. Normal fare for here, it seems to me. Once the
accusation is made, thsoe such as Usher and Cranky keep it up, again and
again. Well, there is the methodology, pure and simple. It was Margret's
as well.
>Further, I'm not at all seeing how these pages
> are relevent to expressing any judgement about any putative
> "primary/secondary" split.
Please note the attachment below and that "She researched and published
information on the Galla, a transsexual priestesshood that existed in
ancient times in the Mediteranian region, notably Rome". A search for GALLA
takes you directly toi CAthy's site, and a very good one it is.
Indeed, that citation does not. One cite, and one only. TransHistory is
Gwen Smith and well respected both are (actually, it was sent earlier, but
here it is again swince you asked). Paragraph One and after can be read.
http://www.transhistory.org/history/
Margaret Deirdre O'Hartigan
Margaret Deirdre O'Hartigan is a very productive yet controversial
transsexual activist. She appears to have a strong sense of indignation at
perceived personal injustice that has on many occasions led to conflict
within the transsexual community. In particular, Ms. O'Hartigan expresses a
deep hatred of "Secondary Transsexuals," those that transition in middle age
instead of in late adolescence, describing them as having had "adult white
male priviledge," as shown by her comments in the transsexual press. One
author stated that O'Hartigan's horozontal hostility has hurt the
transgender community as much as her activism has helped it.
Ms. O'Hartigan adamently opposed removal of the Gender Identity Disorder in
the DSM for adults or children, citing the simple fact that she had
experienced this abuse without a GID diagnosis, while the Harry Benjamin
International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards of Care establish the
proper treatment for GID as non-abusive therapy, hormonal, and surgical
intervention, not abusive "cures."
In 1981 Ms. O'Hartigan wrote an article in the Minnesota Technolog entitled
The Pride of Amazons.
After transiton she became involved as a transactivist in Minnesota. She
successfully sued the state to obtain funds for surgery as she was then on
public assistance.
Later O'Hartigan moved to the state of Washington where she worked as a
typist. At one point she applied for a job as a typist in the State Police
only to discover that they required a polygraph test prior to employment.
She felt that the test which was known to include questions regarding
private matters, such as sexuality, was unconstitutional. It had already
been ruled as unconstitutional for most employers.... but law enforcement
agencies were exempted from this ruling. In 1987 O'Hartigan called the ACLU
who joined in her suing the Washington State Police. In 1989 the first court
agreed with her but a in 1992 the Washington State Supreme court overturned
the ruling on appeal.
In the early 1990's Ms. O'Hartigan was believed to be the first transsexual
to use Seattle's new (1986) anti-discrimination ordinance in a case against
a bisexual women's organization that had excluded her because she was a
transsexual.
In the early to mid '90s O'Hartigan relocated to Portland, Oregon where her
outspoken and abrasive manner alienated her from a transgender/crossdressers
organization, NorthWest Gender Alliance (NWGA). To be fair... she was not
the only transsexual to feel uncomfortable with the organization as it did
not empower transsexuals to even run their own support groups... instead a
heterosexual part time cross dresser ran the group! The facilitator had made
remarks that several transsexuals felt were indicative of opposition to
public and insurance funding of surgery. Remarks we published in the NWGA
newletter that Ms. O'Hartigan took exception to... and were later retracted,
with apologies, at her request.
Seeking an alternative to NWGA, Ms. O'Hartigan successfully lobbied the
Phoenix Rising Counseling Center, a gay & lesbian staffed and friendly
institution, to begin counseling transsexual and transgender individuals and
groups. Group meetings at Phoenix Rising were later to play an important
role in organizing the transsexual community to participate in TransActivist
led events including the Alan Hart Protests and lobbying of the Oregon State
Legislature to preserve the BOLI Decision.
Margaret O'Hartigans interests spanned over a wide range of efforts. She
researched and published information on the Galla, a transsexual
priestesshood that existed in ancient times in the Mediteranian region,
notably Rome. She led efforts to expose the role the Unitarian Universalist
Church has had in publishing virulent transphobic books, including Janice
Ramond's 1979 printing of The Transsexual Empire among others. O'Hartigan
established the Filisa Vestima Foundation in order to collect funds to aid
indigent transsexuals gain access to health care.
During the mid '90s O'Hartigan wrote extensively for the transsexual
feminist magazine, TransSisters, serving as a staff writer until she outed
"Mustang Sally" in another magazine, The Bar Area Reporter. Mustang Sally
was also a staff writer for TransSisters and also a San Fransisco based
lesbian and gay paper as a stealth transsexual lesbian. Davina Anne
Gabrielle the editor for TransSisters felt that she could no longer tolorate
O'Hartigan's horozontal hostility directed at a sister staff writer and
removed O'Hartigan from her staff position. However, O'Hartigan's letters to
the editor continued to be printed (with minor editing).
Also during this period Ms. O'Hartigan helped several transsexual people,
including Dean Kotula, and herself file discrimination complaints with the
Oregon State Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI). Although Ms. O'Hartigan
articulated the theory that transsexuals were covered under Oregon's
disabilites anti-discrimination laws, BOLI was unconvinced. She sued her
employer under the theory that she was being illegally denied equal medical
coverage for the same proceedures and medication (estrogenic hormones,
covered for menopause, but not for gender dysphoria) that other women in her
employer's firm recieved but not she. The company retaliated by terminating
her. Her subsequent complaint to BOLI was under consideration when another
case being handled by transsexual attorney JoAnna McNamara, was instrumental
in convincing BOLI arbitrators that Oregon law did indeed cover
transsexuality under the disabilities anti-discrimination law. This became
known as the "BOLI Decision." Ms. McNamara was acclaimed by several gay and
lesbian activists, including openly gay state legislator, George Eighmey as
the one who was responsible for the BOLI Decision. Margaret O'Hartigan felt
that the credit was rightly hers since she was the first to argue the very
law that was invoked. However, BOLI officials, including the director in
this author's earshot (in the hallway, during Oregon State Senate hearings
on SB-44, in the spring of '97), cited Ms. McNamara's legal brief with
supporting theory and case law as the decisive document. The Transsexual
News Telegraph published a letter from BOLI indicating the decisive nature
of Ms. McNamara's involvement.
Ms. O'Hartigan's understandable disappointment at not receiving full credit
led her to make public and private statements that unjustly castigated Ms.
McNamara and her client Lori Buckwalter. Even after McNamara's death, O'
Hartigan wrote a vicious attack that contained several exagerated claims and
falsehoods.
This was not the only time that another TransActivist was unjustly targeted
by O'Hartigan. In 1996 while working with several activists to educate and
open a dialog on the inclusion of Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM, a
very controversial topic, O'Hartigan unjustly accused Jessica Xavier of
racism in private conversations and letters to mutual friends, some of whom
were people of color, based on a single thoughtless remark that was quickly
retracted. This author heard vociferous comments from Ms. O'Hartigan
regarding the alleged racists remark, and how they were indicative of
underlying, unmitigated racism. This author also heard a recounting of the
remark and the retraction from Jessica Xavier and holds that Jessica was not
intending to defame people of color, nor is a racist. Jessica reported that
the accusations cost Jessica several friendships with San Fransisco based
TransActivists.
Margaret Deidre O'Hartigan's horozontal hostility toward other
TransActivists has been noted and decried in the pages of The Transsexual
News Telegraph, a magazine that O'Hartigan herself has often been published
within.
On June 22, 1996, O'Hartigan received Pride Northwest's 1996 "Spririt of
Pride Award" for her "tireless advocacy for the trans community and for
trans consciousness raising with both the Les/bi/gay and general straight
cultures."
**********************************
> In a word: I won't. *You* supply them. *You* describe these themes
> therein, and *show* how they come up. It's not up to me to not only
> read, but *search out* texts that describe someone's prejudice against
> "secondaries"- simply because you've caught hold of the idea that
> Julie is that "someone."
If the above reference is not sufficient, do a search. There are links from
TransHistory. Good enough for government work...
> JoAna took her own life for her own reasons.
Agreed, and with a lot of push form Margaret. I knwo you think that cruelty
ssuch as Margaret's is just fine. I do nto. Lucky few?? Having been
targetted by Margaret, I have no idea of how you consider this lucky.
Still, you and I do nto agree on tha tpoint and ther must be even more than
two opinions. Yes, JoAnna was dead when that was sent. What was said and
done beforte, also by Margaret is the crus of the issue.
> And this analysis even ignores what she's written, which is that she
> transitioned seven years ago.
Close. Maybe not a tight fit, but allowing for some things, maybe. Good
enough for government work...
k.c.
> Margaret's view was basically that only primaries (as they were then
called)
Ahh, interesting. But what do you think of that? How does it affect you
today? Do people really still rank by primary/secondary status? (what is
it really, for that matter - I've seen some define it as those that
transition early, and other's define it as a gender identity that formed
early whether or not they actually transitioned - is there any consensus?)
Eris
Yes, it does effect me. For that is the base of the attacks by Usher and
those like her against anyone else. Dressed up in some different
terminology, it is that some are "true transsexuals" and others are not.
The arguments for between primary and secondary are exactly the same as
those that now are between those who think AG is right, and those who do
not. This group - transsexuals that is - are always ready to fight over
things like.
A primary, first discussed by Benjamin, would be one who always felt like a
female, as early as two or three. She did girl things as a young child,
probably as a teen, and started hormones under 20 unless prevented. She
generally looks more feminine than a secondary. She passes well. Now, most
draw the line by age, but I do not think of that as a total absolute.
Almost all are heterosexual as women. Marriage at any time is normally not
allowed. Certainly most under 30 at the time of SRS wound be viewed as
primary, those over less so increasing with age. As there are many
"translations", it is hard to define in a precise manner off the top of my
admittedly small head. Blanchard deliberately replaced primary and
secondary with homosexual transsexuals and autogeniphila. I happen to
prefer the old terminology, as I was not directly involved in the battles
waged, more an observer..
I accept our perpetual squabbles as the natural order of things. I do not
like it and find it personally offensive. It would be my hope that all
transsexuals could work together for some common goals, but as you are well
aware, some say they are women, not transsexuals (save for some silly reason
when they "want" to be transsexuals) and other say they do not need more
civil rights, as they are fully women.
Willow
k.c.
> Dear KC,
>
> Yes, it does effect me. For that is the base of the attacks by Usher and
> those like her against anyone else. Dressed up in some different
> terminology, it is that some are "true transsexuals" and others are not.
Yet by the way you describe it, you both seem the same from where I am
sitting, both transitioning later in life, neither having any inkling as to
the root before a certain older age.
I don't think anything justifies any kind of "attack" upon people, here or
anywhere, for what it's worth.
> I accept our perpetual squabbles as the natural order of things. I do not
> like it and find it personally offensive. It would be my hope that all
> transsexuals could work together for some common goals, but as you are
well
> aware, some say they are women, not transsexuals (save for some silly
reason
> when they "want" to be transsexuals) and other say they do not need more
> civil rights, as they are fully women.
Not to split hairs, but all of us, except those of the F2M group of course,
are women. Perhaps you meant to assert that some move on to embrace their
womanhood, and put the transsexed aspects behind them, while others identify
primarily as transsexed people, and which leaves the gender identity up to
others because they are either out by choice or by necessity. It's been my
experience that if people know one's background, they will go out of their
way to gossip about it, so-and-so is "really a man" even if that person is
years post-op, so it's really no wonder why people stay mum about their
background if they don't have to disclose why would they? Ok ... well I can
see the world needs "out" people too - probably more are needed than are
willing to live that way. For to be "out" as a transsexed person is to
intentionally invalidate ones own identity in many other people's eyes, and
they are then seen differently than what they went through transition for in
the first place. So can you blame anyone for that? People transition, by
and large, to put their transsex issues behind them, not to make it a
life-long pursuit. And yet that might be exactly what it is.... but each
has to walk their fate as they would.
Just a thought - don't worry about what Jennifer thinks of you. And don't
worry about what our Cranky Old Lady thinks of you. Be more concerned with
what you think of you- and if you are happy with that, than fuck all the
rest of us. FTW Maybe it's a GenX thing, I don't know.... but think about
it! :-)
Eris
I agree. In this there is no right or wrong, only different. I have no
problem with the belief structure of either Jennifer or Cranky. They can
believe what they wish. I need not agree. As a lawyer, I acted for many
that I did not agree with - old news.
It is when they stigmatize and attack others merely for being different from
them that I get a tad upset. Other than that last point, I really could
care less.
Why would I? I am happy as a little clam and what Jennifer does miles away
has no impact upon that. When she insists on using male terminology towards
me, that I object to totally. Some would call it courtesy, others being
polite. I do not care about the label attached. I am not Gen X, but an old
lady who has been around this planet for probably double your age. When I
was growing up, one dressed up to go shopping and milk came by horse drawn
wagons - up to the 60s. We did not have TV but radio, type of thing. We
were taught courtesy as a part of life, old fashioned as that might sound
now.
When they tell me what I should be, or lie directly concerning me, it is
irritating. The Thai sex trade stuff for example. Fabricated from whole
cloth and designed to hurt. Why should it bother me? No idea really - I
just dislike those who lie about others, I suppose. My problem is that I
attempt to correct it. The rule here - guilty if you deny...
Jennifer can do as she wishes, brag about whatever she wants. Cranky can
always be the best at everything. Mildly amusing, then tiring. That
happens. But when they go out of their way to attack anyone - myself or
others, I find that too much. In attempting to address that, I may at times
go a tad overboard, and admittedly so. Usher, for example, gets tiring and
boring , but eventually she hits a nerve or I am not in the mood - her
intention. Anne, Ray and Mike I consider friends, and I will do a lot for
any friend.
Most of the internet is a lot of fun for me. I enjoy exchanging notes with
those who write books, for example. So I get in touch after reading a good
book. Sometimes that sets up a long correspondence, as it did when I
collected C.S. Forester. That does give me some insights which I pass on in
other lists. Here, it would look like bragging and just lead to attacks.
No need.
My life does not really revolve around this list. Being disabled, I have
computer access 24/7, so it must seem that way. But we have a car and I
have my electric buggy, so Sonia and I do get out. The internet is a
lifeline for me, with regualr posts aorund the world. I enjoy that, but am
not addicted to it. A small condo at the moment (soon to change) so the
computer is next to the evening area.
Anyway, we are on the move norht soon, to our new house. Weeks without a
computer. Cold turkey.
Eris
I did not address one point...
> Yet by the way you describe it, you both seem the same from where I am
> sitting, both transitioning later in life, neither having any inkling as
to
> the root before a certain older age.
If I did not agree with Blanchard, Usher would be - as she was at one time -
a boon companion. But if I accept Blanchard and I am indeed like her, then
what does my acceptance mean to her. She feels threatened, so she attacks.
Simple, really.
Like Lenin, you attack those closest to you *first*.
Yes, exactly so. That is why she attacks me so often. Or really, one
reaons. I have had SRS, she has not. I am happy - I doubt that she is. We
older types get grouchy....
Hugs,
Eris
several reasons, but one was indeed the pushes from Margaret, repeatedly
when her "prey" was weak.
I stand corrected on TransHistory. Agreed.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/19/03
Deb Marsh
news:kguob.14662$W84....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> X-No-Archive: YES
> It's not a primary versus secondary thing. It's a woman versus "I must
> remind everyone I used to be a man" thing.
You're becoming rather pithy these days, Julie 8-)
Debs
Eris
You assume that only you way is right for all. Typical, for Margaret I
mean. I suggest that any name of any transsexual woman known to any person
on this lists, from Jan Morris to Leslie Townsend, is a transsexual womanand
are more than equal with you in every way including being transsexual women.
They do not hide. You do not hide that of which you are not ashamed.
Leslie wrote a moving statement in her book, regretfully packed now so that
exact quote is not available to me. It states, basically, that until she
learnt to accept both, she could not be a full person. That was after 18 or
more years of stealth. She realized that complete person is one who accepts
all of her life.
Singing is a special thing to me, but is not a special things to most. It
is something I enjoy. (By the way, you stated baritone before, but that's
fine):
.
"I don't avoid doing women's things because they'd keep me from being a
woman, I >avoid doing =transsexual= things.
That modifies what you stated earlier, but that's fine. I hate to point
this out, I really do, but what is a transsexual thing? Aside from that,
you are a woman, as you state repeatedly, so why would you bother with
"transsexual things". And one point further, why do you then also claim to
be transseruxla, and staek that out as your turf too. As to singing alto
and soprano,
Ah, the clothing matter again. You have no idea fo what I wear day to day,
so srop off the assumptions, Margaret. Just like you read all about me in
non-existent web sites. I am sure by the repeated way you bring it up that
this is another of your fabrications that you want to hold up as truth.
Sorry - wrong as in so many things, but hey! If that keeps old Margaret
going, go right ahead. I'll just point out the wrong assumtions, which seem
to take such a time when dealing with your posts concerning me.
>I'm just not so gender role constricted that the bottom half has a penis
and the
> top half has a vagina.
As mentioned before, one woman in our choir does sing bass, another does
sing tenor. I chose a different way which you label "wrong". I do not care
what you do - save for that last part. Labelling any route we take as
"wrong". Wrong to who but you??? And who made you the judge and arbitrator
of right and wrong???
>What you
> also refuse to grasp is that I don't think it's impossible for you to
become
> a woman -- just stop being transsexual and either you'll be a woman or
> you'll be a man. But so long as you embrace being transsexual, you'll
> never, ever, not in a million years, be a woman.
I am a transsexual woman. That is just fine with me - and a growing number
of others too, especially the younger ones. You wish some sort of purity
and divisons of right and wrong. I do tno buy that - other than as your
personla choice. To label right and wrong for personal choice is silly.
Being a transexual woman is merely one way of being a woman, just as a Black
weoman, an Italian woman, or a Republican woman.
> Women don't tell other women "I used to be a man, so please help me
> sing like a woman".
No. And women do not have SRS to become woemn, either.
> Hoisted on your own petard.
I liek my petard. What about yours, Margaret? You see, I accept yoru way
as one way. I elected a diffferent way. So??? I do not make either right
or worng, you do. Nor do I demand to be a "woman" when it suits, or a
"transsexual" when arguing for purity. I am always a transsexual woman,
which is to me just what you are too.
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/03
Eris
Well, just because you do "not buy it", that does not stop it, does it?
Thankfully we do not have you as the final arbitrator of our lives.
You make a series of assumptions on your post, as always, and mostly
incorrect, as always. Following the same methods after all these years, eh?
I appreciate your experience as your experience, but it is not the template
for all transsexual experience. Because I was different than you in my
evolution does not mean per se that you are better than are worse than me in
being a transsexual woman. Just as being prettier, or singing better, or
stalking better, doe snot make you anything but Margaret.
> Just being "pretty" isn't the point. It's being a woman because you
> =are= a woman. Not changing sex because you had some kind of
> nervous breakdown or whatever after getting raped.
Again, the assumption of "becasue. So boring. Now Margaret, I am not going
to correct you on this again. Just drop what you do not know, okay. Of
course, MArgaret knwos just *everything*, doesn't she????
> How can you
> possibly not know what's "wrong" until your 50 or 60 years old?
Sad, tired, wrong - repeat of wrong no. 57 as well as age.
> Hey, I didn't fly to Thailand. I've read enough of your website
> to know that your interest is more than some passing fancy, or
> even accidental education.
No wbsite. Never had, don't now. And yo were reading this where????
Lovley fabrication, MArgaret.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Eris
ho...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Eris
I just *knew* you would pick up the Usher approach!!! Thank you so much for
confirming my opinion of you.
And just like Usher, you try to make your interpretation of what happened in
Thailand rule. Sorry, Margaret, but several others who know much more of
the story, and of me, and of transsexuality, and all agreed that I am what I
am - transsexual. Your disputing that is really of no consequence at all.
But it is nice to be in your thoughts...
> Willow isn't a primary or a secondary.
May I buy one of your copies of the transcripts with my therapist??? Nice
to read after these years. Simply point, you were not there, you do not
know, and truth is not in you.
>Transsexuality had always been =us= begging and pleading with therapists to
let us do what we always knew, at some level at least, we needed to do.
Most tell what they think and feel, and things go rather smoothly these
days. The begging and pleading come from those who are turned down for not
meeting the requirements or the diagnosis standards. I do not read begging
and pleading in to Jennifer's comments, for example. Hmmmmm. Did they
diagnose you as a fetisitic transvestite, so you begged and pleaded to have
the diagnosis changed???
Margaret, please stop jumping to assumptions and then stating your
assumptions as truth.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Eris
Of course you knew JoAnna. No surprise there at all...
"Areness" and denail can take many forms, not only those approved by you (do
you issue a certifcation mark"???????)
Waht you think of whay I did what I did is of no consequence to me. At
best, you have a small part of my story. Suffice to say that thsoe
professionals who treated me arrived and differing conclusions than do you.
I think they are right; you as always think you are right. Well golly! Add
that to the singing, the appearance, the passing, the reading on
non-existing sites, and ther you have it - a perfect person, who is woman at
one time, transsexual at others, depending upon what she wants, and always
right.
I am a transexual woman 24/7. Easy.
> For you, by your own words, there was no active denial. There was
> no anything that you or anyone else could point at.
Definately not uncommon.
> The "Willow Narrative"...
Which repeats the same old, same old "interpretation, whihc suits you. And,
of course, you read much of this on the non-existant weeb site, did you not?
>You attack Jennifer, but at least Jennifer has
> had that awareness since being a teen.
So she says. Trust is such a nice thing, Margaret. And you and Jennifer
make such a nice pair together.
Margaret, corresponding with you is not a highlight of my day, although it
should be. I have not known many in life who were perfect and never made
mistakes, especially when not cowing the facts. But then, that is
consistent with you, is it not???
I accept your way as your way. No problem. I simply state it is not the
*only * way, and no way is right or wrong. Debating over who is what and
how they got here is rather meaningless.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Eris
transexuality and can determine al these issues, even diagnose without
meeting. "Apparently"? Your assumption is showing...
You remind me of someeone as well....
Eris
using a Dictaphone, I fear, and a total inability to physically write (I
have to print to have it understood). One result from being "changed" from
left to right in early school, as was common then.
Kind of you to sympathize, but I rarely drink, if you mean alcohol. Rather
a typical statement from you, thought. Do you like making things up, or did
you just fall into that habit????
Deb Marsh
> One way, your way, my way or the highway. My terms, love 'em or leave.
> Ho ho...
You must do it your way, even if this includes trying to post as much as
everyone else combined - and you're doing quite well in this respect really
8-)
Hell! I have no problems with the way you self-relate (only you can do it).
I don't understand where you are coming from though and, although I defend
your right to understand yourself any old way you choose, I don't relate to
the accounts of your journey as being anything like the route which I took.
Now, hey!, this don't amount to anything at all unless and until you
commence to project your comprehension beyond yourself to the point that I
find my understanding being co-opted in the name of something "greater than
both of us" - whatever that might happen to be.
We cannot all be you - and some of us would just like to get on with being
ourselves free from the encroachment of a philosophy of body-parts, decorum,
appropriate femininity, and archaic notions about what being a lady means.
Ya know, screw that frilly sofa cushion cover twaddle and women come out of
a giant jelly mould crap.
Debs 8-)
Deb Marsh
news:djvob.524$2v6....@news.uswest.net...
> There is only one way. You apparently didn't change your sex to match your
> perceived gender......you just had SRS (for reasons I don't understand)
> which you feel makes you special in some way.....or else you wouldn't feel
> the need to reveal it to everyone. You remind me a lot of LB. Neither of
> you displays any understanding of transsexualism or the motivations of
> transsexual women who only want to live their lives as women.
The difference between "being" and "conversion" one might be forgiven for
suspecting 8-)
Debs
Eris
Yes, and that shall stop when we start our move, thankfully. Being disabled
and having a computer is sometimes a curse, especially when it rains. Maybe
all ship in and send up a large screen TV?????
> Hell! I have no problems with the way you self-relate (only you can do
it).
> I don't understand where you are coming from though and, although I defend
> your right to understand yourself any old way you choose, I don't relate
to
> the accounts of your journey as being anything like the route which I
took.
Fine, we are in accord.
> Now, hey!, this don't amount to anything at all unless and until you
> commence to project your comprehension beyond yourself to the point that I
> find my understanding being co-opted in the name of something "greater
than
> both of us" - whatever that might happen to be.
I try not to do that, even with Usher. I also try not to make any way right
or wrong, good or bad. We all go different ways. Nor do I attempt to
define a "true transsexual" and then use insults to enforce that definition.
That is what bothers me with Jennifer and Margaret. They use male terms and
such - and I resent that.
> We cannot all be you
Thankfully. That woudl truly be a terrible world.
-and archaic notions about what being a lady means.
A product of my age and enviroment, I fear. In the last case, as you may
recall, there was agreement. I would be the first to admit that I am
archaic in that and perhaps other regards. That is differnt, but worng only
if someone else decides what is right.
> Ya know, screw that frilly sofa cushion cover twaddle and women come out
of
> a giant jelly mould crap.
Archaic, yes, but even I stop short of that.
Now, this is even more scary is it not??? Agreement in the main?
Eris
pronouns that I accept. I have stated that many, many times. Following the
precedents set here by the two Honourables, dear. And a very simple way to
stop that - I shall cease when they do.
[Cue stage left - Jennifer to rant that she will continue to call me what
she thinks... Old news]
Eris
some distance, not right at hand.
> Sure, O'Hartigan is a bitch, and there's plenty to blame her for, but
> Joanna's death is not one of them.
You reflections do assist. I suppose that my understanding of events came
from certain joint contacts which may well have been partially myth.
Admittedly they may have been emotional and stretched things a bit. In
fact, what I related here was a much tempered version, which may require
further tempering.
Thanks.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Deb Marsh
> Deb Marsh wrote:
>
> > Ya know, screw that frilly sofa cushion cover twaddle and women come
> > out of a giant jelly mould crap.
>
Acutely observed, Elaine, and probably explains why my invitation to the
Buckingham Palace Garden Party ain't been forthcoming either 8-)
Debs
Eris
> some others here (including Jennifer, IMO)--we're women 24/7.
If that was all that would be fine. But Margaret comes here, as does
Jennifer, and not only claim to be women, but here - if here alone - claim
also to be "true transsexuals" and decry those who do not meet their
standards. If you are all women, then fine. I can accept that. But then
you want to be not only transsexual, but the only "true transsexuals".
24/7?? No, I think not. The time you spend here, if only that, you are and
profess to be transsexual, and the definers of that word.
IN you or next posit, you talk about what appears to be a transsexual
matter. Why would this happen if you were just a woman???
Hey, you can do as you wish! Just do not tell me I am not what I believe
myself to be - a transsexual woman. You do not determine that, nor
Jennifer, nor Margaret.
A transsexual woman is a woman with a male past. Transsexual is an
adjective and to simplify the adjective is deleted, just as it would be for
"Italian". You say you are not a transsexual woman - fine. I will believe
that too, if I am somewhat puzzled by the need for SRS and such. You want
to use a limited definition, the post-modernist one - that's fine too. (8%
or more of the world differs, but I am very liberal.
We are here, on this list, mostly comprised of transsexual women. You are a
woman, but not a transsexual, but claim as well to be a "woman" and a
"transsexual" but not both - and the ability to go back and forth as it
suits. Seems to me that here, if *not* in full dress public, we can let our
hair down and admit to ourselves that we are transsexual women. But I
accept, that may not do for some.
The same as some here has found not need for more civil rights as they are
women only, or no need of activism in that cause, as that wood be outing.
Hey, that is fine. go and do just that. It simply seem strange that if you
are women, you would hang around a place for transsexuals and then demand
that you be recognized as the standard for transsexuals. Get on with your
lives as women. No problem.
Eris
I did indeed ignore Jennifer for some time, and other as well. But that
just seemed to encourage them to fabricate more. I actually responded to
their suposed truths with reality, but that does not work either. So I
finally decided to simply be guided by their precident when responding to
them.
I suppose that I simply get a tad angry with fabrications, such as my
alleged web site, and such. I get moreso when pronouns and insults are
used.
If there was a reasoned discussion here, I would be delighted to partake and
drop the nonsense - for such it truly is.
Eris
Eris
> emphasis: "transsexual" or "woman"?
Most of the time, neither. In my view I am both, concurrently. And if a
government form does not have a third choice to the "male" "female", I
default to woman.
When people meet me in person, I am simply Willow and they can infer or
declose what they want. If conversation makes a turn and I feel it right to
do so, I disclose; if not, I do not. If there is a possibility of helping
another learn, I use both. If asked - which very rarely happens - I use
both equally.
Choir is a good example. Given my background, I had no desire to be singing
"with the guys". I could not have attended a section rehearsal in that
mode - a reason deep and personal to me. Nor did I wish to simply fake
things. I disclosed, got the training I needed, and now to any new member I
am simply Willow, one of the sopranos. If the new members are told or not I
have no idea. If an old member mentions my past in conversation, it does
not bother me - why should it?
As to the "you" usage, in reflection I used it both in a plural and singular
manner, in one statement. That is less clear than it should have been. I
accept your statement that you have never stated any of those things
directly.
Deb Marsh
> Now, this is even more scary is it not??? Agreement in the main?
You know as well as I what the "problem" is here. AG is perceived as
threatening. It is threatening to the understanding of those who fall
outside of its fetish-predicated grip. The whole notion, with its "if you're
not homophobic-gay" then you must be "eroticized by the flesh and
paraphernalia" school of thought is, actually, quite disturbing to those
whom cannot find any point of reference upon which they might hang their
hat.
It looks like imposition. It looks like invasion. It looks like a masculine
perspective (where I intend masculine to encompass a particular mindset
reliant upon an artificial distinction manifested through the rules and
expectations from the victor's point of view).
This entire conceptualising of the reality of others is so much more than
revolting and imperious - it is bollocks. Now, when presented with bollocks
of this type we can either look about for places where we and it overlap and
attempt some comfort from an "apparent" understanding - or - we can assert
the inaccuracies and inconsistencies and proclaim ourselves "not very
interested really." Indeed, so "not very interested really" that we'll take
it by the throat and give it a pretty damned good shake in the interests of
clarity.
Not me. It wasn't like that. I don't relate nor am I even brushed by the
spurious certainties contained within this Snake Oil Salesman's doctrine of
the human condition.
Debs
Eris
Deb Marsh
Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Not me. It wasn't like that. I don't relate nor am I even brushed by
the
>spurious certainties contained within this Snake Oil Salesman's
doctrine of
>the human condition.
Still with the old "me Vs. Them" quint little ideas aren't you
Sweetie. Still cant grasp that you're outlook on transexuality isn't
the old Alpha and the Omega? Autogynephelia just doesn't cut it in
your rigid little view of "How Things Should Be" does it? Well try to
wrap your small mediocre mind around this concept will 'ya? There's
more to being a woman then just your small ideas of rightness or
wrongness ya know? There IS no ME vs. US...ther IS no me there IS no
us..there only IS. Or can't you quite wrap that shrivelled up tissue
that once passed for grey matter around that concept?
This is how ir starts. This is how YOU ALWAYS start it Sweetie.
First it's the autogynephiles, then it's primary vs. secondary
thenit's me and then it's only YOU.
Time to grow up a bit. Try reading some Queer theory Go buy a book
fer once in yer life cause we've heard yer sorry rant too many times
before .
And the darkness grew and grew
And in that sorry light I knew
It wasn't me that was asking the question
It was only you.
Debs 8-)
The REAL one
Eris
Thank you for clarifying the impostor. I am not in the habit of verifying
e-mail addresses and assumed, as was intended, that you were posting. I
shall watch for "raptoess" and regret that I did not make this distinction
prior to this.
I fear that the small group I formed was "bequeathed to "raptoress" due to
that very misunderstanding.
> Still with the old "me Vs. Them" quint little ideas aren't you
> Sweetie. Still cant grasp that you're outlook on transexuality isn't
> the old Alpha and the Omega? Autogynephelia just doesn't cut it in
> your rigid little view of "How Things Should Be" does it? Well try to
> wrap your small mediocre mind around this concept will 'ya? There's
> more to being a woman then just your small ideas of rightness or
> wrongness ya know? There IS no ME vs. US...ther IS no me there IS no
> us..there only IS. Or can't you quite wrap that shrivelled up tissue
> that once passed for grey matter around that concept?
With that, I agree fully. In fact, I do nto even think that Jennifer is
worng - she is differnt from me and if it were nto for her constant insults,
I could really care less about her identification. I do draw the line and
orgams, though.
Willow
Rachelle Moore
GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<kKAob.237055$pl3.99419@pd7tw3no>:
>Deb,
>
>Thank you for clarifying the impostor. I am not in the habit of verifying
>e-mail addresses and assumed, as was intended, that you were posting. I
>shall watch for "raptoess" and regret that I did not make this distinction
>prior to this.
>
>I fear that the small group I formed was "bequeathed to "raptoress" due to
>that very misunderstanding.
Who for various reasons handed it on to me... would you like it back?
Sign up, and it's yours again! :)
-
Rachelle
Deb Marsh
all over Usenet 8-)
Debs
Deb Marsh
news:273c672f.03103...@posting.google.com...
> This is how ir starts. This is how YOU ALWAYS start it Sweetie.
> First it's the autogynephiles, then it's primary vs. secondary
> thenit's me and then it's only YOU.
Hello again. Its rather nice to have one's very own dysfunctional
doppelganger - sorta imitation sans spellchecker. Do try a little harder
though to capture that true Deb Marsh style - yeah! I've got ten writers who
can give me that genuine Deb Marsh feel - (Barton Fink eh? Now that was a
rib tickler if ever I saw one or knee slapper as you colonial types might
say?).
Where was I? Oh yes, what ever happened to that chirpy, Dick Van Dyke,
cock-n-ee patter? I was really getting into that m' old china. Go on now
though, be a little devil and regale me with some more pastiche
conceptualisations. Ya know, the life and times of the bitter and
disappointed set against a backdrop of whoops Mrs Miggins where've I left m
expletives and hurtful barbs.
On second thoughts: Try rubbing a few more brain cells together sweetie and
attempt "me" as if you were actually in with a chance of achieving it.
Ambition eh? Nothing wrong with that really - dream the impossible dream. Oh
wait, you've already done that one - how did it turn out in the end?
Debs
Deb Marsh
> Deb,
>
> Thank you for clarifying the impostor.
Well, apart from the fact that you were writing to the impostor here,
everything else is probably just peachy, albeit a tad curious.
Handy hint: I don't crosspost to
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose or alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
all that often really. Tsk!
Debs
Jennifer Usher
> Now, disclosure...
>
> An example. I joined my choir three years ago. There was no legal or moral
> reason to disclose *what* I was - I was a woman and that was all that was
> needed.
Of course not....since there is not a chance in the bad place that you
would EVER, remotely, in your wildest dreams, actually fool someone
into thinking you actually are a woman. We all know that Mr. Willow.
I guess you will have joined a certain twit from down under as a
Mighty Morphing Power Troll.
BTW, you slipped up and signed one of your messages. You don't even
lie very well.
Jennifer Usher
Eris
I have responded to that quote here more than any human could. That is the
reporter talking, not me. It is truly sad and rather pathetic that you
would use that again.
No therapist would do as that claims, not did mine.
Usher beat you by at least two months with that same quote, and equally
mis-interpreted. Do we hae to replay all of that again???
Eris
> to be completely out and open about being a woman. Glad we cleared
> that up.
Great!!!! And bully for you!!!!!!!
Now, did you not also claim to be a transsexual??? Or was that a mistake?
Or do you do one when it satisfies and the other when you wish? And if you
are a woman why are you here, on a transsexual newsgroup??? More
especially, how do you claim the right to determine who is, or is not, a
transsexual...
By the way, the spelling "observation" was such fun. You are inventive when
you get nasty, aren't you, Margaret? That and the old news article?
The news article, which you stated was a web page, was supposed to be
"evidence" backing another of your wonderful claims - my alleged vast
expertise in the Thai sex trade. No such statement, is there? Another
fabrication, Margaret?
Actually, I have no expertise in the Thai sex trade. I was granted insights
whilst kidnapped by aliens years ago, about the same time you were in
Minnesota.
Eris
> Of course not....since there is not a chance in the bad place that you
> would EVER, remotely, in your wildest dreams, actually fool someone
> into thinking you actually are a woman.
Gee, is that what you do, Jennifer?? Go around "fooling people"??? That is
how you think of transtion? Fooling people? And you such a woman, with
orgasms and all. Perhaps you fool people there as well???
Jennifer, I am very glad for you - to go around in life fooling people into
thinking you are a woman. Not unexpected news, but it must be nice to get
that out in the open, finally.
Eris
This shall save us a lot of time...
I will just go and re-read Usher's posts, to save you copying the same
questions and such. As you seem determined to rehash the same material, we
do not need to post at all! Perhaps we number Usher's brilliant observation
and then you can just send out "46" or "37"? Just like the old joke???
Imagine! Someone copying Usher! That must be a first!!!
...ah yes, and just like the old joke. Rather apt.
Jennifer Usher
"Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnr54q$1413tg$1...@ID-172934.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I tend to agree, in this situation, though I think it can be a dilemma
whether to
> disclose or not since in some situations, one's past, ones
"transsexuality"
> "transness" generally, is a fact of ones existence, something that
happened, and in a
> lot of creative activities, ones relationship to the universe as a
humanbeing seems
> to be fundamentally important, people will want to know who you "really"
are. But
> it's a difficult one. I suppose one advantage painters have is that we are
rarely
> seen, I know at least two artists who changed their names to non gender
specific
> words, and they weren't even "T" at least not in context or to the extent
we speak of
> here. But that's another interesting point Eris/Willow raises, "Trans"
issues very
> often arise for non-TS/nonTG individuals and a certain degree of
"transgenderism" is
> possibly the norm, so I suppose if one wants to be seen as "normal" a
certain
> acceptance of being "trans" is probably necessary. But I'd agree if you
tell people
> you are TS which in effect is often like saying you "used to be a man" it
is probably
> not a good idea if one want to be fully accepted as a woman, but I suppose
it depends
> what someone wants really.
Personally, I don't feel that "trans-anything" is actually a part of who I
am. Any more than diabetes is. It is simply a condition I have to live
with. And in the case of transsexualism, it is a condition that can be
treated with considerably more success. So why should I wallow in it? Of
course some, who are autogynephilic, need that to feed their fetish.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <Xldb...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:mi72qvknsfd1pt7t3...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> >Fine. I accept that I do not fully pass. Happy now?? I knew that was
> >probably when I stated transition. But, you see, I had to start
transition.
> >It was either that or die. I suppose if this were a nice world, I would
> >have been pretty as you as well, but I was note.
No Mr. Willow, you would not have died. You would have just been frustrated
sexually.
> You really are incapable of staying out of these stupid debates about how
well
> people pass, aren't you?
I believe it is called insecurity. But then again, you have considerable
experience with not passing.
> You come here under half a dozen disguises and it always ends up the
same...
> these fools suck you right back into the exact same conversation over and
over
> again... and you walk right down the tunnel with them.
Oh the irony, the irony...
> Really, Willow, get a clue!
And when you do, tell Lyle where you found it. He still hasn't found one.
--
Jennifer Usher
Haute Bebe
"Cranky Old Lady" <no...@nowhere.nt> wrote in message
news:YQOob.15624$qo4....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> And you, as the old news article
> that you now so hate points out, are an autogynephile.
You say that like it's a BAD thing. :-)
Eris
To save you more unfruitful effort our choir has one female tenor and one
female bass. No strict line is drawn.
For my own personal reasons, I did not with to sing with the guys. Highly
personal to me.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/28/03
Eris
better at straight fabrication, but you appear to be learning.
Hey! I don't care. You are the more well rounded and talented person in
the human race, a total woman in every way (pregnancy too, I assume) and
talented in every art, craft and skill. I agree that you are all those
things.
Burt you really are getting rather boring. As you base your work on
Jennifer, I really think numbering her posts would be best - save you having
to redo them all.
Haute Bebe
> Only when they become activists and present themselves to society as
> representative of all transsexual women.
So the question (which I'm sure has been asked many times in many contexts)
becomes: who is a better "representative of all transsexual women" --
someone who wants to be or someone who doesn't? It's a quandary, alright .
. .
Eris
I do so agree! And of course, it is all a plot, because no woman would
suggest she may have at one time been transsexual, so there would be no
activists.
Which is very right as we do not need any damn activists. After all, we are
women! I understand. Anyone who outed themselves by being an activist
could not be a woman as you are. Does the last part of your post imply that
some activist has gone around stating than she is typical of all
transsexuals, rather than an individual? Who presented themselves as a
representative specimen. Or was it just that they stepped forward to speak,
and thus to you that made them stand for all transsexual women?
You see, I do not understand. If a person steps forward to speak out, as a
transsexual woman, where is she representing herself as the template for all
transsexual women? Most would understand that she is one of many, not all
the same. Or should only the "primary" be allowed to speak for our
"community", so you would not be embarrassed by the appearance of a
secondary. Yes, I can see that would be upsetting.
Deb Marsh
> X-No-Archive: YES> news:JEwob.625$2v6....@news.uswest.net...
> > Now that's not very "lady" like language. :)
>
> You don't hang around the "ladies" I hang around! I found Deb's
> language to be the very height of femininity. Why, I expect her to
> break into a Helen Reddy song any moment now ...
Unlikely.
"Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman"
Debs 8-)
Amanda Angelika
news:ECIob.10668$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net
and didst say:
| "Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:bnr54q$1413tg$1...@ID-172934.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
|| I tend to agree, in this situation, though I think it can be a
|| dilemma whether to disclose or not since in some situations, one's
|| past, ones "transsexuality" "transness" generally, is a fact of ones
|| existence, something that happened, and in a lot of creative
|| activities, ones relationship to the universe as a humanbeing seems
|| to be fundamentally important, people will want to know who you
|| "really" are. But it's a difficult one. I suppose one advantage
|| painters have is that we are rarely seen, I know at least two
|| artists who changed their names to non gender specific words, and
|| they weren't even "T" at least not in context or to the extent we
|| speak of here. But that's another interesting point Eris/Willow
|| raises, "Trans" issues very often arise for non-TS/nonTG individuals
|| and a certain degree of "transgenderism" is possibly the norm, so I
|| suppose if one wants to be seen as "normal" a certain acceptance of
|| being "trans" is probably necessary. But I'd agree if you tell
|| people you are TS which in effect is often like saying you "used to
|| be a man" it is probably not a good idea if one want to be fully
|| accepted as a woman, but I suppose it depends what someone wants
|| really.
|
| Personally, I don't feel that "trans-anything" is actually a part of
| who I am. Any more than diabetes is. It is simply a condition I
| have to live with.
Gender is something everyone lives with whether they are aware of it or not it's part
of having a personality and being who one is in the world. Many people who don't have
"gender dysphoria" or regard themselves as "transgender" may experience situations
where they may face limitations, dissatisfaction or discrimination as a result of
their gender or perceived gender and what is expected of them as a result of that.
And in the case of transsexualism, it is a
| condition that can be treated with considerably more success.
Well I think what makes "transsexuals" different is we don't fit our perceived gender
and or birth sex at all, or at least very poorly. Mild dissatisfaction or "gender
dysphoria" or desire to do things not normally associated with our gender or sex may
affect a lot of people, like for example one may get female truck drivers, who would
not identify as "transgender" as such, but are just women who like driving a truck.
So why
| should I wallow in it? Of course some, who are autogynephilic, need
| that to feed their fetish.
Well yes the whole notion of "transgenderism" or even "transsexuality" in some
instances as something "different" to other people may just be an excuse to engage in
sexual fetishes and have nothing to do with actual gender identity. A man a dress is
still a man in a dress just as a female truck driver is still a woman who drives a
truck and even surgical alteration does not change what a person is fundamentally.
The whole basis of "transgender" identity is to some extent a PC illusion it has
become a kind of cultural "institution" that people enter into but is it real? Or is
it just a game?
I don't know I sometimes feel like someone who doesn't have a gender at all this
particularly seems to be the case when I do art which seems to be in someways beyond
gender and like touching a part of ones being that is universal and spiritual. The
"problems" gender/sex only seem to apply to living in the world, which seems to be
something I can switch off from.
--
Amanda
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
AMaÑda AÑge1iKa ßerry
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Web Design Folio - (shameless plug)
----------------------------------------------------------
www.artberry.net or www.angelika.me.uk (own site)
www.cheapaschips.cc *NEW*(Roberts Emporium - Cardiff's finest Flea
Market) www.kink-club.com (Cardiff's Premier Fetish, BDSM and tranny
party venue)
----------------------------------------------------------
www.tinyurl.com/q5hx *NEW* - Ebay Listings - Art for Sale
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/03
Eris
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/03
JoAnna McNamarra
>No. After being raped, I had some issues which remain.
"AFTER BEING RAPED" ??
YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!!
YOU raped ME when I cam over to see you which led DIRECTLY to my
suicide. AND I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU'VE DONE THIS TOO EITHER!!!
You're a sexual predator your cold hearted bastard of a man.
You prey on getting other transsexuals near you AND THEN YOU RAPE THEM
JUST LIKE YOU RAPED ME!!!
Eris
You have your way, I have mine. I fail to see that either is good or bad,
merely different. why do you insist that your way is "right"??
Sections have section rehearsals. For personal reasons, I find it hard to
be in a room full of guys. I do not do well under such circumstances. So
as start, for personal reasons, I do not wish to be in such a situation.
Wit a room of women, I have no similar problem.
I suggest this has nothing to do with GID and everything to do with a
particular form of PTSD. If I was still male, that would be the same.
Unless you wish to claim expert status on that issue as well (and even so),
you are merely voicing your opinion, not a right or wrong. Not all have eth
ssamereasons for their actions, and by jumping to your conclusion, you avoid
other very obvious reasons.
I am rarly alone with a male - by choice. Even in a shop. The reason for
that should e rather obvious. My own world is almsot exclusivly female.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/03
Eris
that I am aware of. What you interpret is yours, and yours alone. You
claimed that from my web page, later that article, I had a great knowledge
of the Thai sex trade and she-males. Now, can we at least call that a total
fabrication? Without shifting to new ground? Just that one point?
Probably not - you and Jennifer share an inability to admit you were or are
wrong. Understood - it goes with some conditions. You must be better than
others, and never wrong. You must be prettier, more passable, and all
woman. Then true transsexuals. Part of the diagnosis.
You know, Jennifer really did this part better. Read over her posts and
maybe you can come up with a better approach - or at least different.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/03
Eris
any more than drag queens or cross-dressers are transsexual. It's
an entirely different motivation, and more often than not, an entirely
different outcome."
So spaketh Margaret, the final arbitrator. Certified "True Transsexual", by
herself, judge of all others. Based on... her intuitive knowledge of
everything.
My goodness, you are sooooo talented. Wonderful stuff. I mean, you do not
need an encyclopaedia, do you. Know everything, without even reading. Such
a marvel, you are Margaret.
Eris
simply using what I know of Blanchard and noting a misstatement.
Anyone can read it on the Net, for free.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/28/03
Jennifer Usher
> Having met JoAnna on the net when she was alive, I considered Maragret a
> prime mover in her death. Margaret's note after was callous and cruel,
just
> as our Cranky. There are a great many threads and now that she is proved
> guilty by the standards here, it all comes clear. It expalins her
anamosity
> and viscious streak, which was her trademark five years ago as well. It
> would also explain why she acts, writes and pronounces like Usher, but
draws
> a line between. To Margaret, Usher, myself, and any other secondary are
so
> much dross. She is a Primary, one of god's annointed.
Sorry sir, but you are an autogynephile, so "primary" and "secondary" don't
even apply. Oh, and it gets worse. My therapist has said she would
consider me a "primary." That is, if she really used those terms. <g>
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Look here - on this group. Usher repeats that pattern as well. She drums
> at others, then when they respond, she cries to the heavens "Oh poor me!!
> Look at what they are doing to me!!~!". Old trick - the religious right
did
> that deliberately, to make christians, not gays, victims. Look back over
> the past years and you will see the pattern, framed by Robinson and
Farwell
> as strategy. Look to Margaret's letter as posted. Same, same. Old,
tired,
> but it sucks in the suckers.
ROTFL! Let's see... You were the one who played the victim, and when that
didn't work, you then made veiled, and not so veiled, threats against me.
And when I reacted to your actual threats of potential real harm, you claim
I am the one "playing the victim?" I can see why you no longer practice
law. I certainly hope you never practiced criminal law....if you did, I
shudder to think of how many innocent men and women sit in prison because of
your rather poor skills at rhetoric.
Jennifer Usher
"k.c." <quee...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JSkob.65003$Fm2.53799@attbi_s04...
> Ahh, interesting. But what do you think of that? How does it affect you
> today? Do people really still rank by primary/secondary status? (what is
> it really, for that matter - I've seen some define it as those that
> transition early, and other's define it as a gender identity that formed
> early whether or not they actually transitioned - is there any consensus?)
Actually, it has fallen into relative disuse since they discovered
"autogynephiles." Of course, the issue is not whether or not some
transition for truly bizarre reasons, like getting a hard on at the idea of
being a woman like Willow, but how such should be determined. Clearly,
Willow is an autogynephile. On the other hand, to simply define it solely
on the basis of age at transition is absurd.
The simple bottom line is, either you have a female gender, or you are a
male who is trying to pretend to be a woman. Age when you transition,
whether you are straight or lesbian, or whether you were married to a woman
are not really proof one way or the other.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Yes, it does effect me. For that is the base of the attacks by Usher and
> those like her against anyone else. Dressed up in some different
> terminology, it is that some are "true transsexuals" and others are not.
> The arguments for between primary and secondary are exactly the same as
> those that now are between those who think AG is right, and those who do
> not. This group - transsexuals that is - are always ready to fight over
> things like.
No sir. It has nothing to do with "primary" and "secondary." You are an
autogynephile, not a transsexual. It is as simple as that. And the issue
is not "right and wrong." The issue is much more complex than that. The
issue is, is it wise to let men, such as yourself, who want to be women,
because of some bizarre sexual fantasy, have irreversible surgery just to
indulge that fantasy. And worse, there is increasing evidence that such
persons ultimately are not sucessful as post-ops. Put in simpler terms, the
issue is not good versus bad, but whether people should be allowed to harm
themselves, and potentially others. When people like you have regrets, when
you rub society's nose in your bizarre fantasy, when you go around telling
everyone how you are a *transsexual*, you hurt those who really are
transsexual. Put in very simple terms, you are literally a one-man Jerry
Springer Show, spreading ill will towards transsexuals on a constant basis.
> A primary, first discussed by Benjamin, would be one wfho always felt like
a
> female, as early as two or three. She did girl things as a young child,
> probably as a teen, and started hormones under 20 unless prevented. She
> generally looks more feminine than a secondary. She passes well. Now,
most
> draw the line by age, but I do not think of that as a total absolute.
> Almost all are heterosexual as women. Marriage at any time is normally
not
> allowed. Certainly most under 30 at the time of SRS wound be viewed as
> primary, those over less so increasing with age. As there are many
> "translations", it is hard to define in a precise manner off the top of my
> admittedly small head. Blanchard deliberately replaced primary and
> secondary with homosexual transsexuals and autogeniphila. I happen to
> prefer the old terminology, as I was not directly involved in the battles
> waged, more an observer..
And once again, Mr. Willow reinvents himself. He is no longer an
autogynephile, a term he has bandied about for some time, but is now just a
good old "secondary." No, autogynephile is the right term for you.
Blanchard is mostly full of crap, but in your case, he got it right.
> I accept our perpetual squabbles as the natural order of things. I do not
> like it and find it personally offensive. It would be my hope that all
> transsexuals could work together for some common goals, but as you are
well
> aware, some say they are women, not transsexuals (save for some silly
reason
> when they "want" to be transsexuals) and other say they do not need more
> civil rights, as they are fully women.
Oh wel do work together for common goals. Unfortunately, you, Lyle Blake,
and Jerry Springer are working ever so much harder against us.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Precedent? None other than Her Honour Usher, and again Her Honour Cranky.
> If you recall, Usher did a search and provide only one article, then went
on
> a rant. Cranky? She just wrote that she read all these wonderful things
on
> my website, about sex work in Thailand. I do not have nor have I ever had
a
> web site.
Alas, but lying hurts your case. In truth, you came into the newsgroup and
made statements that raised red flags for several. Then when you were
questioned on those statements, you stood by them. You were already looking
rather questionable when the article was uncovered, and, as I recall, you
also stood by the statements in the article...until it was obvious that no
one was buying your story.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Cranky Old Lady" <no...@nowhere.nt> wrote in message
> Margaret is a bit of an odd creature. She's responsible for the phrase
> "Everyone who transitions after me [ in age ] is a transvestite". And
> yet, there is always someone out there who transitiond before her. And
> before that person, and that, and so on. To claim that "age of
transition"
> is the singular determinant is an admission that transsexuals aren't
> women for only women-born women cannot be topped.
Gee, and here I thought you were the one who came up with that one. I do
recall you playing the age card a few times.
> Where I differ with Margaret is the observation that many of us were
> very much aware of our natures, along with a great many around us who
> never had a problem noticing our difference and the nature of that
> difference, didn't exist in supportive, safe, or well-informed
environments.
>
> My dispute with you has nothing to do with the classic "primary versus
> secondary" conflict. Many "secondaries" had a clue, even if it was just
> some sort of fetishistic behavior from their teens. Even if it was just
an
> awareness that they'd better act all "manly" to hide their "inner woman".
I would say that someone who was aware that they needed to act "manly" to
hide their "inner woman," would qualify as primary. If there is any
difference, it has nothing to do with ages, but everything to do with why
one actually transitions.
> I've termed that "denial versus deniability". Primaries lack deniability.
> A primary cannot conceal their core identity from anyone because it is,
> well, their core identity. It leaks out all over everything. A secondary
> is at least "aware" that there is something wrong, and they know what
> it is because that awareness is central to "being in denial".
How very self-serving. I don't care how strong your core identity is, given
enough pressure, you will learn to hide it as best you can. No, perhaps not
perfectly, but well enough to survive. Otherwise, it might all well become
moot.
> And that, the requirement that one whs is in denial =know= what they
> are in denial of, is why I know your story of "denial" is a fabrication.
> It is the contradiction between "I did not know until my therapist told
> me so" and "I was in denial". Deep down an alcoholic in denial knows
> that they have an alcohol problem. They might hide it from others by
> staying home when hung over, or drinking only at home, or anything
> else to conceal it from others and perhaps even themself. But the
> alcoholism is there. It can be seen, or measured. It is confronted by
> the alcoholic on a regular basis.
Amazingly, we agree for once.
> For you, by your own words, there was no active denial. There was
> no anything that you or anyone else could point at. A primary goes
> to a therapist to obtain access to sex change technology, or prehaps
> to obtain legitimate access to that technology. A secondary goes to a
> therapist to be convinced they aren't transsexual, having already formed
> that belief in their mind -- they want the excuse to avoid transition.
But
> they =know=, at some level, before they make that first appointment,
> that "transsexual" is something that just might come out.
A very strange definition of "primary and secondary." But then we all know
you think you are really the only true primary transsexual who ever walked
the face of the earth. Things are nowhere near as simple as you want to
make them.
> The "Willow Narrative" is that you were raped in Thailand and you
> went to a therapist. As part of that therapy you are told, by your
> therapist, that you are really a "woman". Slowly you backfill your
> narative. You've now added "I was in denial", stealing material from
> secondary transsexuals. Even secondary transsexuals had an
> awareness that you lack. You attack Jennifer, but at least Jennifer has
> had that awareness since being a teen. Even if it was just the "I am a
> crossdresser" level of awareness. There's none of that in the "Willow
> Narrative".
I was aware a long time before my teens. When I was in elementary school,
I remember wanting to be able to change. But at the time (early Sixties), I
was unaware of ANY technology that could help me. My only hope seemed some
form of magic, and that was in a bit short supply.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> "Areness" and denail can take many forms, not only those approved by you
(do
> you issue a certifcation mark"???????)
But your story is simply a load of crap. You don't even come close to
exhibiting anything resembling transsexualism.
> Waht you think of whay I did what I did is of no consequence to me. At
> best, you have a small part of my story. Suffice to say that thsoe
> professionals who treated me arrived and differing conclusions than do
you.
> I think they are right; you as always think you are right. Well golly!
Add
> that to the singing, the appearance, the passing, the reading on
> non-existing sites, and ther you have it - a perfect person, who is woman
at
> one time, transsexual at others, depending upon what she wants, and always
> right.
POPPYCOCK! You have been trying to convince everyone here that you did the
right thing, for the right reasons, and NO ONE really buys it.
> I am a transexual woman 24/7. Easy.
No, you may be a transsexual now, but you are not a woman. Unfortunately
for you, SRS is pretty much irreversible.
> So she says. Trust is such a nice thing, Margaret. And you and Jennifer
> make such a nice pair together.
No, I was aware far earlier than that. You were never aware.
> Margaret, corresponding with you is not a highlight of my day, although
it
> should be. I have not known many in life who were perfect and never made
> mistakes, especially when not cowing the facts. But then, that is
> consistent with you, is it not???
>
> I accept your way as your way. No problem. I simply state it is not the
> *only * way, and no way is right or wrong. Debating over who is what and
> how they got here is rather meaningless.
But your way is an incredible load of manure. We debate over you for a very
simple reason. As a warning to others.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> cranky Margaret.
>
> I just *knew* you would pick up the Usher approach!!! Thank you so much
for
> confirming my opinion of you.
>
> And just like Usher, you try to make your interpretation of what happened
in
> Thailand rule. Sorry, Margaret, but several others who know much more of
> the story, and of me, and of transsexuality, and all agreed that I am what
I
> am - transsexual. Your disputing that is really of no consequence at all.
> But it is nice to be in your thoughts...
Interesting thought...when questions first arose, why did you stick by your
original story? Why did you not explain these hidden bits and pieces of the
story? Could it be because they simply do not exist?
> > Willow isn't a primary or a secondary.
>
> May I buy one of your copies of the transcripts with my therapist??? Nice
> to read after these years. Simply point, you were not there, you do not
> know, and truth is not in you.
You have revealed more than enough to allow many here to conclude such.
Sorry, but it is already clear that you saw an incompetent therapist.
> >Transsexuality had always been =us= begging and pleading with therapists
to
> let us do what we always knew, at some level at least, we needed to do.
>
> Most tell what they think and feel, and things go rather smoothly these
> days. The begging and pleading come from those who are turned down for
not
> meeting the requirements or the diagnosis standards. I do not read
begging
> and pleading in to Jennifer's comments, for example. Hmmmmm. Did they
> diagnose you as a fetisitic transvestite, so you begged and pleaded to
have
> the diagnosis changed???
I seriously doubt that Julie was around during the begging and pleading
days. I was not either. In fact, none of my therapists has ever questioned
my diagnosis, and I have seen several who are quite experienced in dealing
with transsexualism.
> Margaret, please stop jumping to assumptions and then stating your
> assumptions as truth.
Uh, you do realize that you are calling someone named Julie by the name
Margaret.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Cranky Old Lady" <no...@nowhere.nt> wrote in message
> You're confusing diagnosis with access to technology. Which isn't the
> least bit surprising -- "diagnosis" is what it's all about for you. Being
> "diagnosed" a woman -- like it's a disease or something.
True...
> No one had to tell me I was a woman, or that I might be a woman, or that
> perhaps I'd be happier being a woman. What I needed was to know that
> the mechanics of sex change actually worked. From there, what I needed
> was the permissions slips. No "diagnosis" required.
When I first approached a doctor, that was pretty much what I was looking
for. I had finally discovered that I had been right about myself when I was
in my 20's, and that what I had read at the time was wrong. The first
therapist I saw, a very experienced psychiatrist, who was semi-retired, said
he believed that I was a transsexual after the first session, immediately
referred me for hormones, and began telling me that I would probably go to
Vanderbilt University for surgery. Needless to say, I was thrilled and my
ex was a bit confused and very upset
--
Jennifer Usher.
Eris
rants.
The funny think is, by doing so she confirms again and again that she is
exactly what she seems to hate the most - a dreaded "autogynephile". Aside
from her ovet display of male methods in writing, her story is confirmation
enough. I do wonder about hter therapist - who seems to encourage her
delussions - but that is only Uhser's report of the conversation. Perhaps
she is one of those patients that must be humoured. One of those instances
where we see the need for a second letter...
Masturbation with a penis while thinking of one's self as a woman - multiple
times, marriage, transiton late in life - oh yes, all the elements are
there. Granted, this is a surmise only from her jottings. So much of her
is defending herself - she is "primary", she "passes" totally, she is just
wonderful in all respects, and, of course, so everything.
No wonder she seems so threatened and acts as she does. The theory fits so
well. The funny think is that if she jets got off her rants and such, maybe
there might be some doubt. As she continues, she shows the worst side of
the triats so well.
Never worry, Jenniefer. You too are transsexual - but of the Zeteic School.
I accept you as one of us here on "alt.support.srs" and do not dispute your
right to be here. You don't have to continue to try to "prove" yourself.
We love you just as you are, we accept you.
Eris
first meeting, of course. Primary, not secondary, always passing right from
day one, everyone confirming your status as reported by you, the joy at
certain medical questions, the constant self-justification and
self-appreciation for all your goodness, the supposed therapist's remarks
that you are so very good - and now an instant referral for surgery, the
very first meeting!
Why, how could it be otherwise??????
Haute Bebe
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Il8pb.1840$qh2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sorry sir, but you are an autogynephile, so "primary" and "secondary"
don't
> even apply. Oh, and it gets worse. My therapist has said she would
> consider me a "primary." That is, if she really used those terms. <g>
Which she obviously does, for your benefit.
I'm not surprised that you've bought into the "heirarchical" model of
transexualism, and have reported yourself at the supposed pinnacle.
However, one must question the competence of any therapist who considers a
50+ year old man with a history of fetishistic transvestism, marriage and
fatherhood a "primary transsexual." Unless, of course, you're being less
than honest about yourself to her. Wouldn't be the first time an
autogynophile has told a therapist what she wants to hear in order to get
hormone and surgery letters.
"I used to fall victim to the temptation
to believe that my experience was the only correct one. That the
way I did things was the only right way. But, I have learned, we
each have our own path to follow." -- Jennifer Suzanne, 7-19-99
Cranky Old Lady
"Eris" <er...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:w2Qob.247031$6C4.155370@pd7tw1no...
[ I've grown rather tired of responding to you as it's just about impossible
to figure out the context of what you write ... ]
> Of course. You would be far more representative of all transsexual women.
> I do so agree! And of course, it is all a plot, because no woman would
> suggest she may have at one time been transsexual, so there would be no
> activists.
It's possible to be an "activist" without being a public figure. You can do
it by anonymous writing -- letters to the editor, politicians, political
leaders,
allies -- or by anonymous speaking and education. The last public speaking
engagement I did included an honorarium. I'd given my contact a fake name
and when I spoke to the audience they addressed me by that name. When
it came time to get the information needed for the honorarium, I declined
because I didn't want my personal information hanging around that
organization.
Over the past several years I've made it a policy to avoid any sort of
photography when I'm in groups where =any= of the members are
"transgender", unless the vast majority aren't.
When I do speak out for "transgender rights" it is in the context of rights
for everyone to be free from being held to gendered stereotypes. I am 100%
opposed to the "transgender" notion that femininity in males is related to
"womanhood" in any way, shape or form. Being opposed to all forms of
special rights, I'm also 100% opposed to any form of accomdations made
on the basis of being "transgender". "Transgender" harms women, and
being a woman, that means it harms me.
So, stuff your bogus accusations that people like me aren't politically
involved. Once gaain, it's "You aren't advancing the agenda I want
advanced, so you are a bad person".
Eris
> Because you're engaging in gender stereotyping. Gender stereotyping
> is evil. It should be exposed and called out as sexist behavior whenever
> and wherever it occurs.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/28/03
Eris
not seriously think that *anyone* would imitate Jennifer, but she seems to
like the style.
Ah well, we all make choices...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/28/03
Eris
Actually, I agree that for a person in stealth, you are indeed supporting,
and that is good. I do not suggest that all should be open and out
activists - that would be silly and a denial of personal wants. I do
advocate - and have for some time - that those that are stealth do as you
indicate you are doing.
That is wonderful.
One does not have to walk away. You can be stealth and still contribute and
I am glad that you are doing so.
By the way, I do not real any accusations directed against you in this
regard.
As to the "gender stereotyping" - well, we differ there substanially. Fair
enough, I do nto say either is right, as long as ther is repsect for a
perosn who holds another opinion. And I do believe that more protection is
necessary for transsexuals and transgendered. That coudl be a totally new
thread - and should be. Suffice it to say, we have the right to change name
and gender almost universally in Canada. Marrioage is not (or shall be
after parliment changes the law formally) an issue.
That still leaves many grey areas, such as our Immigration Act (For the
purposes of that Act, you and I are still deemed males, very specific and
targeted. Jennifer if arrested would still be placed in a male prison.
Those types of laws should be changed. Many fo thsoe exist and one cannot
assume that beign a woman on a birth certificate is a "sure thing" in other
areas, or even states (see Gardiner).
The problem, as I see your positon, is that such if fine until and unless
there is a problem. Just like nobody needs a hospital until there is a
problem. Oh yes, if you pass totally 100% of the time, ther can still be
issues that arise. But then, that is a personal decison of course. And, as
you took pains to point out, I do nto pass 100% all the time, every day -
althought I seem to do very well in that regard.
Eris
did; Bailey "reported", in a manner of speaking.
I have not asked Ray as to that specific area of concern.
In respect of all M>F being male, certainly that is physically correct.
Like it or not, the internal stuff stays the same, as do other bits and
pieces. Post-modernism gives another answer to man/woman, of course,
diverting gender to mind and sex to body.
To me, once you start twisting words to mean what you want, in contrast to
most of humanity, the new definition fails. I suggest that 98% of humanity
has no problem telling the difference between a man and a female. A man and
a woman, in respect of transsexuals, is only marginally more indefinite.
Not my "rules" but the way society is, universal. Personally, if it gives
you pleasure to deny that , that is fine. The problem comes when your view
clashes with the view of society. Society trumps. Save for chromosome
issues and intersexuality, the issue is moot for most of the world, save us.
Personally, I am surprised that society has gone along with us as far as it
has, at least in Canada. The Clarke lobbied for we had little lobby power
on our own. To give credit where due, Laura played a role in that series of
changes, I am told.
> The problem, as always, is that males are subjected to more social
pressure
> to have one of two "acceptable" sexual orientations. While there is the
> standard "compulsory heterosexuality" which affects males and females
alike,
> within the gay community there is substantial pressure to be exclusively
> homosexual.
Agreed.
> When I read Bailey's research on the subject, I saw no control for that
> social pressure -- he took sexual response as if it was a pure biological
> phenomenon with no socialization component.
Again, Bailey did nto do the research and Blanchard's is generally hard to
find save for university libraries.
> As for autogynephiles actually =being= men, that's what autogynephiles
> have repeatedly claimed.
Lawrence is not alone by any means. Ekins for one, from England, and a very
long list in NOrth America. Have you nto noticed that very few
professionals are visible in the Conway camp? That is, non-TS who have
gender studies as a specialty? Second, try a re-read of the discussion of
"Cher". Prior to SRS, her behavious was rathe rstrange. aFter, she was -
and is - a very wonderful woman. In personal correspondence, Mike has
confirmed to me that after SRS, even before, he considers a TS woman a
woman. His opponents say otherwise. Well, who should kow better - the
person being asked for his opinion, or those that try to interpret that
opinion?
As an autogynephile, I was indeed once a man, physically. Admitted (que
Jennifer, stage left). That is why I am indeed transexual, for I have
changed that "sex", legally, to that of female. Ever since Jorgensen, that
transiton has caused legal and other issues, none of them fully resolved in
over 50 years. Indeed, if one llos for a "true transsexual" the AG come
closest, in several professional opinions. For they do indeed change sex.
The "primary" according to your own positon as stated, never does. Her
"gender" remains the same as it always was. Soem, including Usher I
bleieve, even dispute that sex is changed.
Regardless. Those are theories. I do not agree with you, nor you with me.
So??? I suggest neither of us could prove our psoition in a test. Just
like science coudl not prove the world wasd round in 1870, and the other
side, the Zetetic Astonmers coudl not prove it flat. We may want somethign
to be true, but proving it is another matter.
Persoanly, I do not think that warrants the hue and cry that is present
here, but that is only my opinion. Fellings are not facts. What is a fact
is that you requried sRS to be a woman, of physically a woamn, and that
means ther was a reason. Birht defenct? No, you were of a differnt sex, if
not gender.
Eris
mis-spoke, but that seems to me to be a letter expressing an opinion, not a
news article.
We have gone from web page to news article to letter of opinion. No, I do
not deny what I am - I accept that fully. Imputing good or bad, good or
evil - that is another department.
By the way, Andrea, of TS Roadmap, and I have carried on a correspondence
throughout this affair. We differ, but I think we respect one another. She
has no difficutly with my gender and has never called me a man, or used male
pronouns. Perhaps she is also old fashioned, as I am. I do nto liek
Jennifer, but I woudl nto call her a male even if that is what I think. Nor
you. Back when I grew up, we called that courtesy.
The "Margaret" episode? A study in applied insults and responces,
"alt.suppprt.srs" style. I very clearly spelt out what I was doing and why,
throghout earlier posts. Just following precident here on this newsgroup.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/28/03