What is a Transexual?
Dallas Denny
don't know what really makes a transexual. Certainly there has been much
discussion about penises and whether one is a man or women, but the discussion
hasn't gone much beyond that.
I think what is threatening to many (I'm not naming names, but the discerning
reader should be able to make some pretty accurate guesses) self-proclaimed
transexuals is that they see themselves reflected in postings of people
earlier in the process than they are, and especially see people making choices
they did not make, but might have. Can we say regret, boys n' girls?
But it's not limited to transexuals. I see basically the same thing
coming from three places:
1. Transexuals who wish to distance themselves form those who are "less
legitimate" than they are. That's because they see themselves reflected in
those who have made other decisions, and it repels and frightens them. They
claim a qualitative difference which cannot be defined except by damn they
know a transexual when they see one. They use a circular definition to define
transexuals. If one transitions and has surgery than one is transexual. If
one doesn't, one isn't. But maybe those who pass aren't really.... And maybe
those who don't wish to assimilate aren't... until pretty soon it's just thee
and me, and I'm not too sure about thee (to paraphrase an old toast).
Sound like some folks on this newsgroup?
2. Transgenderists who at one time wanted surgery, decided against it, and
make derogatory remarks about others which is a reflection of their own
feelings around the issue, and not really a look at others. At some level,
there is a "what if..." operating, although they would never admit it. Much
better to categorize those who want and have SRS as deficient in logic in
some way.
3. Crossdressers with strong transexual issues which frighten them.
That's one reason some hetero-TV groups purge members. Hey, if they have
electrolysis and plastic surgery to change their face, they're just
crossdressers with feminine faces, right? If they take hormones, they're just
crossdressers on hormones, right? (Great title for a horror movie, huh?
(They're in your city! They're on your street! CROSSDRESSERS ON HORMONES!
EEEE!"). If they have surgery, they're just a post-op TV. Not like THOSE
TRANSEXUALS! No way!
Let's face it. What we have here are not differenet types of trans
people, but people with different ideologies. There are those who believe
that parrotting the well-memorized transexual party line ("I have always felt
this way. I knew I was a woman in a man's body. It was a birth defect. I
had it cured. I had not choice; it was do [X, Y, Z, choose one] or die,")
makes them transsexual-- or rather, that those who do not mouth the words
cannot possibly be *transexual.* Both crossdressers and transexuals adhere
to this model.
There are other who do not adhere to this model. They categorize their
feelings in different ways. I say "I knew I was not a woman. My body and the
social expecations that we placed on me made that only too apparent. But I
felt natural in the feminine role and desperately wanted to live full time and
have surgery. And so I did, and I have no regrets" I do not say the magic
words: "really" a woman; "trapped" in the wrong body. Does that mean thanks,
but no cigar? I don't think so.
So if there is a TS support group, who gets to participate? Those who have
had the op? Those who believe the Benjamin ideology? Those who, are
JenniSuzan says, "politically correct?" Those Karen and D2 feel are
transsexual (I'm not sure they're really sure about each other. Maybe one of
them has a bit of a nubbin left.)
Just some questions...
-- Dallas
Karen Patrick
Dallas.... really do you need to ask? Pick up the DSM, it's been
there for a longtime. This question should be beneath you in
medical terms...
Politically, well, that's another story, isn't it? That's a
"community" thing. Until it's in (or out) of the DSM, the
definition is not some theorectical construct. Also, check your local state/prov
authorities, they have pretty clear definitions on female too and
who/when one gets that assignment.
The rest...well...that's just politics, isn't it?
Define away...
Tina Marie Holmboe
> Dallas.... really do you need to ask? Pick up the DSM, it's been
> there for a longtime. This question should be beneath you in
> medical terms...
>
> Politically, well, that's another story, isn't it? That's a
> "community" thing. Until it's in (or out) of the DSM, the
> definition is not some theorectical construct. Also, check your local state/prov
> authorities, they have pretty clear definitions on female too and
> who/when one gets that assignment.
I might just be over-reacting here, but... it simply doesn't matter, does it,
how many times it is said ? It does not _matter_ whether it is 'in the DSM' or
not ! Got it now ????
An entry for TSness in the DSM does not mean that a TS is 'mental' - but if a
TS *is* mental, then that DSM thingy comes into effect !
How hard can it be ?
*grumph; still annoyed by other postings the last 24 hours*
Tina
--> I know what curiosity did to the cat, but HEY ! <--
--> We've got nine lives, remember ? <--
Michelle Anne Steiner
(Karen Patrick) wrote:
>Dallas.... really do you need to ask? Pick up the DSM, it's been
>there for a longtime. This question should be beneath you in
>medical terms...
Karen, "transsexual" does not appear in the DSM-IV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelle Anne Steiner | ...and then the day came when the risk to |
| ste...@best.com | remain tight in a bud was more painful than |
| | the risk it took to blossom. --Anais Nin |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica J. Brown
Patrick) writes:
>
>
snip...snip...snip...
What is a Transexual?
Why, it's a misspelling of the word transsexual
Veronica
Dallas Denny
>From: bz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Patrick)
>Subject: Re: What is a Transexual?
>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 12:53:58 GMT
>Dallas.... really do you need to ask? Pick up the DSM, it's been
>there for a longtime. This question should be beneath you in
>medical terms...
The authors of the DSM know fuck-all about transsexualism. Besides, as
someone else pointed out, transsexualism isn't in the DSM-IV. Guess there are
no transsexuals.
>Politically, well, that's another story, isn't it? That's a
>"community" thing. Until it's in (or out) of the DSM, the
>definition is not some theorectical construct. Also, check your local state/prov
>authorities, they have pretty clear definitions on female too and
>who/when one gets that assignment.
>The rest...well...that's just politics, isn't it?
>Define away...
In Texas, there are some legal females, made legal though the courts because
of "hypertrophied clitorises, fused labia, and descended ovaries." Ohio and
Tennessee born MTFs and postops MTF and FTM in Great Britain
are legal male and female, respectively.
Yes, it's just politics.
-- Dallas
Dallas Denny
>From: vbr...@ix.netcom.com(Veronica J. Brown )
>Subject: Re: What is a Transexual?
>In <DnA6H...@freenet.carleton.ca> bz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen
>Patrick) writes:
>>
>>
>snip...snip...snip...
>What is a Transexual?
>Why, it's a misspelling of the word transsexual
>Veronica
No, a transsexual is just a term for transexuals who let the medical
establishment define them rather than defining themselves.
-- D.
Karen Patrick
Dallas,
Please don't tell me the Transgender Agenda is *not* a political
movement?
Part of it is aimed squarely at the diminuision of transsexuality as
a valid condition. As Rev Fallwell uses the Bible to denigrate, the
Transgender Agenda is writing it's own bible of interpretations...to
question it, or disagree with it is heresy. (So maybe it's more of
a religion)
Part of the Transgender Agenda is to denigrate SRS surgeons as
butchers, mutilators, and money hawks.
Part of the Transgender Agenda is to re-write the history of
transsexuals and transvestites into a new condition called "transgendered"
as a single blended existence and to deny the feelings of transsexuals
by dismissing the condition (Gender Dysphoria, aka TS) as a surgical
development only.
Part of the Transgender Agenda is to so completely dismiss pychology
as to tell *all* to avoid any shrinks at any price and to cleave unto
the "movement".
Part of the Transgender Agenda is to "sell" men in women's clothes
as purely a lifestyle choice who must be granted the "rights" of all
genetic women, while retaining the "rights" of genetic men. This
concept is to be applied universally to any man who puts on a dress
or heels or hose and be "on demand" legally recognized as a woman.
Part of the Transgender Agenda is to pronounce SRS as an unacceptable
medical practice because it is a delusional delusional state which causes the request or "caving" into
societal norms. That only "self acceptance" eg:A male must accept himself
as a male, but can *be* a woman based on behaviour and fashion when
that is convenient. Through this of course, SRS must be open to any
who demand it, even over the possible objection of the surgeon, because
it is purely a cosmetic surgery for those with money and a wish to
create a purist "image".
On it goes....
Whatever happened to the time when trans persons talked about wanting to openly fight hate and murder of their peers?
Karen P.
S Martin
On Sun, 25 Feb 1996, Karen Patrick wrote:
>
> Dallas,
>
> Please don't tell me the Transgender Agenda is *not* a political
> movement?
>
> Part of it is aimed squarely at the diminuision of transsexuality as
> a valid condition. As Rev Fallwell uses the Bible to denigrate, the
> Transgender Agenda is writing it's own bible of interpretations...to
> question it, or disagree with it is heresy. (So maybe it's more of
> a religion)
>
> Part of the Transgender Agenda is to denigrate SRS surgeons as
> butchers, mutilators, and money hawks.
>
> Part of the Transgender Agenda is to re-write the history of
> transsexuals and transvestites into a new condition called "transgendered"
> as a single blended existence and to deny the feelings of transsexuals
> by dismissing the condition (Gender Dysphoria, aka TS) as a surgical
> development only.
<more stuff snipped>
The only person I have ever heard express those sorts of opinions is
Laura Masters. Almost the first post I posted here was to say that she
was phobic about having her dick cut of, and was transferring her
feelings onto those who go for surgery. But that's another flamewar.
My only "agenda" is that I really hope that there is some recognition
that, among women born as males, the degree of gender dysphoria differs
widely, as does the appropriate response. It's a continuum. I'm on the
extreme low end of the scale, Laura Lansberry, who nearly had SRS but has
learned to be content without it, is closer to the middle.
For those at the high end, SRS is the only way to have a decent life. I
don't deny that, and strongly support the current method of treating
those who have the need. We low-dysphorics need awareness of options more
appropriate to us, and seek support for the lives which we, by our
natures, have to lead - in just the same way that pre and post ops need
support.
I think your concern is with a radical minority who have helped, at
least, to make us visible.
-Stephanie
Dallas Denny
>From: bz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Patrick)
>Dallas,
>Please don't tell me the Transgender Agenda is *not* a political
>movement?
Of course it is, in part. It is also about personal identity.
>Part of it is aimed squarely at the diminuision of transsexuality as
>a valid condition. As Rev Fallwell uses the Bible to denigrate, the
>Transgender Agenda is writing it's own bible of interpretations...to
>question it, or disagree with it is heresy. (So maybe it's more of
>a religion)
To the truly paranoid, it might seem so. But the movement is about validity
for all of us, regardless of the terms we choose to identify with. And one
thing that has become apparent with the writings of the ever-popular Janice
Raymond, Michel Foucault, and Judith Butler, is that identities are
constructed. A transsexual identity is no different. The emergence of a
transgender identity does not deligitimize transsexuals, although it certain
scares the hell out of people who have convinced themselves they are
exceptional (and different from that *other* gendertrash) when they become
legitimized.
>Part of the Transgender Agenda is to denigrate SRS surgeons as
>butchers, mutilators, and money hawks.
Laura Masters, Linda Phillips, Virginia Prince, Janice Raymond, and a few
others certainly make those noices. Most in the community are pro-choice.
>Part of the Transgender Agenda is to re-write the history of
>transsexuals and transvestites into a new condition called "transgendered"
>as a single blended existence and to deny the feelings of transsexuals
>by dismissing the condition (Gender Dysphoria, aka TS) as a surgical
>development only.
One of the things the movement does is point out similarities between the two
groups, which those with shaky conceptions of self which are dependent upon
distinguihing themselves from that other gendertrash. find threatening.
>Part of the Transgender Agenda is to so completely dismiss pychology
>as to tell *all* to avoid any shrinks at any price and to cleave unto
>the "movement".
There are those who do that feel that way. There are many more, myself
included, who have had negative experiences with mental health professionals
and do not feel that they should have the right to determine the courses of
our lifes, that we should not have to have their "permission" to alter our
bodies.
There are also those, myself included, who do not feel that the desire to
change sex is a mental illness. I think it's just one of any number of
healthy ways of being human, and that it's our society which is sick.
>Part of the Transgender Agenda is to "sell" men in women's clothes
>as purely a lifestyle choice who must be granted the "rights" of all
>genetic women, while retaining the "rights" of genetic men. This
>concept is to be applied universally to any man who puts on a dress
>or heels or hose and be "on demand" legally recognized as a woman.
I doubt if there are many crossdressers who feel that their crossdressing is
not something deeply ingrained in them, either biological in origin, or
stemming from very early learning experiences (or having both causes).
Certainly many feel that SRS is not the mind-boggling sex-altering definitive
procedure others seem to feel it it is. As far as I'm concerned, a much more
powerful indicator of womanhood is how one walks the walk. It is the reality
of living as a woman which is important, and not The Tuck 'N Roll.
>Part of the Transgender Agenda is to pronounce SRS as an unacceptable
>medical practice because it is a delusional delusional state which causes the
>request or "caving" into
>societal norms. That only "self acceptance" eg:A male must accept himself
>as a male, but can *be* a woman based on behaviour and fashion when
>that is convenient. Through this of course, SRS must be open to any
>who demand it, even over the possible objection of the surgeon, because
>it is purely a cosmetic surgery for those with money and a wish to
>create a purist "image".
The point is that for many of us, SRS is a critical need; for others, it is of
lesser importance. I know people who want only SRS, and have no desire to be
social women? Are they "transsexuals?" Not in my book. Nor will they be
women when they wake up after SRS (if they get it).
If I had been born in the last century, before the advent of modern surgical
techniques, I would have still considered myself a woman. But I was born in
this century, and it was available, and I had it. Some on this newsgroup
struggling with their issues but not defining themselves as TS will eventually
have the surgery. Others won't, for a variety of reasons. What *is* it with
the idea that there is a vast and unbridgable chasm between those who have ite
and those who don't, while ignoring the fact that there are some women with
penises and men with neovaginas walking around out in the world.
-- Dallas
-- Dallas
Michelle Anne Steiner
(Karen Patrick) wrote:
>Whatever happened to the time when trans persons talked about wanting to openly
fight hate and murder of their peers?
What time is now. We are openly fighting.
MarlaB 01
(Karen Patrick) writes:
>The Transgender Agenda, IMO is hurting more than it helps, because
>it fails to recognize the realities of too many people while
>portraying the trans population in too narrow a way.
Karen,
I would suggest that either you have misdefined the "Transgender Agenda"
or almost no one supports the "Transgender Agenda". For I certainly do
not support what you have attributed to this agenda, nor do most people I
know. I can tell you what my agenda is...
People born with a gender contrary to their birth sex (i.e. someone who is
transgendered) come in all shapes, forms, desires, conflicts, persons,
etc. As such, there are many many paths that are available to solve life
problems steming from this condition. It is utterly wrong for any
individual to invalidate the beliefs or paths of another transgendered
individual simply because it is different than their own. It is utterly
wront for a transvestite to invalidate transgenderist and transsexuals.
It is utterly wrong for transgenderist to invalidate transseuxals and
transvestites. It is utterly wrong for transseuxals to invalidate
transgenderist and transvestites.
Instead it is right for each of us to communicate our 'differences' to
others to foster understanding and support. It is right for us each to
expend energy in understanding the differences and similarities between
ourselves and others in the transgender spectrum. It is right for each of
us to support every member of the transgender spectrum irrespective of the
label they wear and the path they follow.
That is MY Transgender Agenda. And IMHO, it is as open portrayal, not a
narrow portrayal that recognizes the reality of diversity..
Hugs, Marla
leddo
: others to foster understanding and support. It is right for us each to
: expend energy in understanding the differences and similarities between
: ourselves and others in the transgender spectrum. It is right for each of
: us to support every member of the transgender spectrum irrespective of the
: label they wear and the path they follow.
Wow! All these positive posts today, what a change. {:-)
I fully support all the above. At the same time, I accept that there will
always be divisions in terms of what people are comfortable with accepting,
and (as this group has demonstrated), gender is too diverse an issue to
reach complete consensus.
Furthermore I get the feeling that gender differences
are not to blame for all this righteous indignation. I dare say the people
in question are well qualified to shout their views on any issue.
Cheers,
.M.
--
***********************************************************************
Michael Ledwidge
http://www.nla.gov.au/hype/
National Library of Australia