A Rationale for SRS
Sandra
rationale for SRS.
Laura, I will explain it one more time for you although I
doubt you're even remotely interested in the truth this
article exposes.
In as simple a set of terms as I can manage for you:
The body and brain/nervous system have been shown to be sexed
at different times during the process of human gestation. If
the timing is off or the hormonal wash is of reduced potency
or absent the brain/nervous system does not become sexed to
the same degree, or even in the same vector, as the remainder
of the body. Since it is axiomatic that gender-identity is a
psychological self-identification, it follows that the
brain/nervous system plays a predominant part in the formation
of one's sense of gender duality or integration. Studies of
different reaction mechanisms such as staring, voice
recognition, and cuddling behaviors between baby boys and
girls show internal gender identity markers exist as early as
6 months of age. The degree of gender duality or integration
can then be rationally attributed to the degree of difference
in the sexing of the brain.
With that said, SRS may be viewed as an attempt by an
individual exhibiting a body/mind sexual dichotomy to achieve
a relative degree of fusion between the way one's body sex has
developed and the way one's brain development mandates their
brain's gender identity. People with this condition are
typically classified as "transsexual", although other
classifications of gender dichotomy do exist, some of which
are social and some of which are not. All of them can be
mediated to some degree using methods derived on a case-by-
case basis. Case studies have also shown that purely psycho-
emotive or psychiatric attempts to re-adjust the mind to the
body have been notoriously ill fitting to the individual and
the person's true gender identity, although submerged, often
re-surfaces even after prolonged psychotherapy.
The only other treatment that provides relief for this
condition, in a majority of cases of polar opposite gender-sex
dichotomy, has been shown to be surgical. The rate of
satisfaction among carefully selected study groups who have
participated in a surgical SRS solution is generally in the
80-90 percent range with some recidivism in a limited small
number of samples.
Does that explain it to your satisfaction, Laura? Or did I use
too many big words?
Sandra
Sugir
Rare, but hey....
Poetry happens...
Sugir
"Sandra" <Sand...@notmyrealaddy.com> wrote in message news:Xns95F7C4AFF...@151.164.30.93...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Sandra
-------------------------------------------------
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:7q9j0154dshm9uuo0...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:19:49 GMT, Sandra
> <Sand...@notmyrealaddy.com> wrote:
>
>>Does that explain it to your satisfaction, Laura? Or did I
>>use too many big words?
>
> Yeah I get it... BrainSex. I was writing about that stuff
> in 1991.
>
> Your postulate is flawed for one simple reason... What you
> don't seem to understand, however, is that just because one
> has a woman's mind (soul, spirit, whatever) in a
> biologically male body DOES NOT make one a transsexual.
> (Example: Me.) It does not automatically follow that a
> person in that situation actually has to do *anything*
> about it.
No, Laura, that is the basic NATURE of transsexuality. What you
have overlooked is that without that one cannot BE transsexual
or transgendered to any significant degree, or in any capacity,
so it is the basis for all gender-identity issues. That
body/brain sex dichotomy is the merely the starting point. All
variations of transgender begin with that one simple fact. That
is exactly the point I was trying to make and which you
overlooked. The second paragraph allows that there are different
flavors of gender/sex dichotomy classifications. It is the level
of difference and need of the individual to align those two that
distinguish between them. So you fit in that classification. A
transsexual is one that has an overwhelming and urgent need to
align the body/gender disparity, if necessary through surgery. A
transgenderist is one who's urge for sex/gender alignment is
less compelling but sufficiently strong to drive them to a
cross-living experience without the requirement that they
undergo surgical reassignment. A crossdresser is one who's
sex/gender alignment is closer to what is often considered
hetero-normative but still compelling enough to drive them to
express their need through cross dressing experiences alone.
-------------------------------------------------
>
> While BrainSex DOES offer a believable theory for both
> cisgender and transgender identity, it does not explicate
> the source of the sex-change wish. Your entire premise
> hinges on an unquestioned *assumption*... That being a
> woman in a male body is a bad thing that must be fixed.
> That is a purely SOCIAL matter... variable, at best a
> result of what degree a given society is permeated by
> transphobic ideals.
No Laura, you mistake the predominant urge and level of
discontent with one's body as if it were imposed from outside
then internalized. The pressure is innate and internal from the
beginning of life and, depending on the individual, it is either
weak or intense or anything in between. It is the akin to height
of water behind a dam. If the lake is low the pressure behind
the dam is lessened and if the lake is full the pressure is
great. At some point the lake becomes so full that the water
pressure must be released. This explains the need of a cd to do
the "collect-purge" cycle, the transgenderist's need to live
full time in their chosen gender role, and a ts's need for an
as-complete-as-possible body integration. It's not about good or
bad it's about NEED! It's an imperative -- some just feel it
more strongly than others.
-------------------------------------------------
>
> In differing societies, transgender identity, no matter
> it's source, has been viewed very differently. For example
> the Chuchee Indians saw it as a blessing upon the tribe,
> the Wintke were hearalded as powerful medicine and often
> acted in the role of tribal elders at very young ages.
> They were considered to be of "two minds", able to speak
> for both males and females on tribal matters... and they
> were given power because of it. Another example, the
> Serrer of Africa, were often ostricised and sometimes held
> up to ridicule their entire lives. The interesting
> difference between these two examples is that a Wintke who
> castrated herself would have been banished from the tribe
> and seen as having rejected their gods, where as a Serrer
> who did was then allowed to engage in tribal business as a
> woman. There are lots of other historical examples... the
> Navajo ritual of "the basket or the bow", allowing
> pubescent children to choose their tribal roles... The
> Hijras of India engaging ritual castration as a rite of
> passage... and on and on.
What you overlook with this analogy is the current state of
medical technology. With the advent of modern surgical
procedures and knowledge there are those now who are capable of
providing a hormonal and surgical solution to the issue of high-
pressure gender/sex disparity. In earlier societies there were
even then those who pushed the envelope to go for a more
"traumatic" transformation. The Gallae were such. The Hijra as
well and in Indonesia the Mak-Mak. We exist and have existed as
long as humanity has existed, all over the world with all our
different intensities. With the development of techniques to
create a surgically correct vulva and vagina, and chemical
wizardry to provide hormonal reassignment, we've stepped into an
entirely new realm of support for those with severe gender/sex
dichotomy issues. Earlier societies could not have dreamed much
of this was even possible let alone routine.
-------------------------------------------------
>
> Your premise fails, utterly, to take any consideration of
> the society in which you must live and the way our
> experience within that society informs your decision
> making. You are, in effect, removing yourself from society
> and placing your own soul under a microscope **made and
> calibrated by society** to reach your conclusions.
We use society and technology to achieve that which we must
have, Laura -- integration, wholeness, congruency. Not only with
society but with ourselves as well. You make those same choices
every day in other ways. If you didn't you'd have no need to
crosslive.
-------------------------------------------------
>
> What you are not doing is allowing for the effect society
> has on your perception of gender... and self. You are,
> effectively, internalizing social perspectives, seeking a
> "magic pill" answer. But the reality, right there for you
> to see is the causality of the SRS wish is almost entirely
> extrinsic in origin... it lies in that unquestioned
> assumption in your own explaination; that just because one
> is transgender identified, they must do something about it.
> It is that *assumption* that creates the SRS desire.
>
> We are not specimins, held in stasis, on a slide for
> convenient viewing, Sandra... We are beings that live
> amongst and interact with other beings... our every idea,
> thought and action is informed and influenced by our
> communion with others. Life, love and belief are all
> interactive processes. Your perspective fails, utterly, to
> take that into any account.
Of course society has an effect on us. We're social creatures
and we want to be as connected to others as we can. Some feel
that connection more, some less, but we all live in society and
have our own perceptions of how that society shapes our lives. I
would not have been able to find a doctor to prescribe hormones
if not for society. I would not have been able to work for the
money living full time during my RLT without society. I would
not have been able to fly to another country for SRS and return
with such transcendent peace if not for society. I would not be
able to go dancing as the woman I am and be unafraid of making
intimate alliances with attractive men if not for society.
>
> Care to try again?
>
>
Care to reconsider your position in light of the above?
-------------------------------------------------
> =====
> Laura
>
Sandra
yoo...@localhost.com
> But the reality, right
> there for you to see is the causality of the SRS wish is almost entirely
> extrinsic in origin... it lies in that unquestioned assumption in your own
> explaination; that just because one is transgender identified, they must
> do
> something about it. It is that *assumption* that creates the SRS desire.
and then:
On 9-Feb-2005, Sandra <Sand...@notmyrealaddy.com> wrote:
> No Laura, you mistake the predominant urge and level of
> discontent with one's body as if it were imposed from outside
> then internalized. The pressure is innate and internal from the
> beginning of life
i see this as the basic difference in your two arguments. Laura believes
that the pressure to live in one's "other" gender role comes from outside.
Sandra feels that the same pressure comes from within.
in my case it was from within. and while i have met lots of T* folk, i know
of none that decided to transition because they felt pressured externally
(or as Laura put it, "extrinsic"-ally). Laura, if your definition of
"extrinsic" pressure is something akin to "society is telling me that i have
to follow the binary dictates of gender", then i believe we are at a
pedantic point in the comparison of the two arguments.
Laura's argument implies that by denying the external pressure one lives a
life of a TG person and thus one can be something *other* than man/woman. i
know of several of us that live "in the middle" and are quite happy.
However, living in the middle is difficult, especially in homophobic / "red
state attitude" areas.
Sandra's argument implies that one internally feels the pressure to live "in
the other gender rôle". One could argue that is *conformist*, but if one
wishes to conform, that argument becomes moot. me, i'm trying like hell to
conform, but my diet is giving me hell! haha seriously, nothing would give
me greater pleasure than the ability to do stealth. it ain't happening.
i see neither person as absolutely correct in the "implied argument" view.
If one wishes to live in the middle, have a nice trip, and wear kevlar or
live out here in SF. if one wishes to conform, and can do stealth, then an
entire world is open to them that is closed to me, and i for one am quite
happy for them and wish them all the happiness in the world.
who would not take a stealth option if they could, and avoid the slings and
arrows of the Great Uneducated Masses (GUM™)?
both Laura's and Sandra's view points were outlined in a very eloquent and
informational manner. i knew about the Winkte before, but now have more
native people's information for further perusal.
thanks to you both!
ciao
yvette
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
yoo...@localhost.com
> >both Laura's and Sandra's view points were outlined in a very eloquent
> >and
> >informational manner. i knew about the Winkte before, but now have more
> >native people's information for further perusal.
>
> Well, before you go thanking either of us, I STRONGLY suggest you take
> some
> reading comprehension courses. So far you've been wrong about me, either
> misinterpreting or misstating my positions every single time.
your "positions", such as they are, would be much easier to understand if
you had the precision of, say, a good programmer. by "building in"
ambiguity, you have given yourself tons of wiggle room, so that further
argument is always possible. you should be a politician - you're a natural.
(nb: this is not a compliment - see #4, below.)
however, i stand corrected on 4 points:
1) i now completely understand your viewpoint. i don't agree with it, but
hey, you're entitled to it.
2) i won't detract from your viewpoint. it's logic, or lack thereof,
speaks for itself.
3) i'll never again attempt to find common ground between someone who is
non-negotiable and someone who is negotiable.
4) i now realize the futility of trying to compliment you. what a total
and complete waste of time.
vty
pauli...@cs.com
cisalpine) is a neologism meaning "not transgender," that is, having a
gender identity or performing in a gender role that society considers
appropriate for one's sex. The prefix cis- is pronounced like "sis."
The term was probably created by Carl Buijs, a transsexual man from the
Netherlands, in 1995. Along with the less commonly used cissexual, it
originated as a way to shift the focus off of a marginalized group, by
defining not only the minority group but also the majority. This is
based upon the hypothesis that categorizing everyone will illustrate a
difference between equal alternatives, whereas singling out the
minority group implies some deviance, immorality, or defect on the part
of the labeled group. Some transgender people hope that the use of the
word cisgender will increase mainstream acceptance and eventually
remove the taboos. Others point out that the term heterosexual is very
widely used but seems to have done little for the gay rights movement.
However, prior to 1995, there was no standard word used to describe
non-transgender people without the use of negative prefixes while still
avoiding terms like "normal", "born" or "genetic" (women or men).
Many (particularly transsexual) communities use the term
"non-transsexual" or "non-trans", perhaps because the more
scientific-sounding term "cisgendered" has not yet gained popularity or
widespread usage in everyday English. Others, however, consider it
inappropriate to define any group by what they are not.
Cisgender can be used in place of less accurate terms such as
biological or genetic male or female since transgender people are also
"biologically" (and not made from some non-biological material), while
the "genetically"-argument fails when one considers the genetic
variations present in intersex people. Born male or female is equally
inaccurate, since transgender and transsexual people feel that they are
born with a male or female gender identity irrespective of their
physiological sex. The use of the term real male or female is both
inaccurate, because each and every point that is usually attributed to
"real" (=cisgender) women either does not apply to all cisgender women
either, or to transwomen and/or many intersex women as well, or to
transmen as well, who are usually not counted as "real women". (The
same of course applies to "real men".) When used comparatively these
expressions are often seen as disrespectful to and by transgender and
transsexual people.
The origination and use of cisgender can be compared to the reclamation
of profane words and hate speech, such as nigger and queer.
Some have perhaps jokingly commented that if trans people can be called
trannies for short, then cisgender people can be called "cissies".
A word is just a word. a person is whomever they wish to be.
P/B
Sugir
<pauli...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1107972679....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Some have perhaps jokingly commented that if trans people can be called
> trannies for short, then cisgender people can be called "cissies".
I like that.
It won't work. :)
But I like it.
Sugir
>
> P/B
Sugir
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message news:i4lk01l5gqqqp792p...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:46:00 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com wrote:
>
>>your "positions", such as they are, would be much easier to understand if
>>you had the precision of, say, a good programmer.
>
Tester, right?
I had a tester once that was a Stanford grad
and had won a county title in the beauty pageants.
She became my lover for a while, the first black
woman I had been with.
Sugir
>
>
>
> =====
> Laura
Sugir
"Sugir" <Su...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:420a6f97$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
> "L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message news:i4lk01l5gqqqp792p...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:46:00 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com wrote:
>>
>>>your "positions", such as they are, would be much easier to understand if
>>>you had the precision of, say, a good programmer.
>>
>> Sweety, I've been programming in Pascal, C and Basic for nearly 30 years.
>
> Tester, right?
>
> I had a tester once that was a Stanford grad
> and had won a county title in the beauty pageants.
>
> She became my lover for a while, the first black
> woman I had been with.
What was my point?
I guess that it seems doubtful that a acting-out moron like you, Blake,
would have much of a clue about programming.
You seem to be an obsessed nutcase that needs to take a hot tub.
Jennifer Usher
> Does that explain it to your satisfaction, Laura? Or did I use
> too many big words?
Nah, just too many *true* ones.
--
Jennifer Usher
diane...@yahoo.com
Lyle Blake writing as L D Blake wrote:
> Sweety, I've been programming in Pascal, C and Basic for nearly 30
years.
> =====
> Laura
Sure you have Lyle..... sure you have....
Course that doesn't explain why you only lasted 30 days on the Delphi
newsgroup before being found out as a fraud and simpleton. As I recall
you couldn't seem to grasp and accept the nature of structured
exception handling - something that has been mainstream in the PC world
for at least the past 7 years now.....
Idiot.
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
> Yeah I get it... BrainSex. I was writing about that stuff in 1991.
No, you don't "get it." Not even close.
> Your postulate is flawed for one simple reason... What you don't seem to
> understand, however, is that just because one has a woman's mind (soul,
> spirit, whatever) in a biologically male body DOES NOT make one a
> transsexual. (Example: Me.) It does not automatically follow that a person
> in that situation actually has to do *anything* about it.
No, what you don't seem to understand is, "YOU DON'T HAVE A WOMAN'S
ANYTHING!!!" Well, maybe a woman's wardrobe, but nothing more. Actually,
that is exactly what makes one a transsexual, which I agree, you are not.
You are a man (biologically and physically) who *desires* (i.e. wannabe) to
adopt the apparel of a woman, but who lacks an intrinsic female gender. Not
everyone who desires to crossdress, or even crosslive, has a female gender.
Now, for someone who is so out, loud, and proud about whatever the heck it
is that you are, it seems funny that you would one of those who has to try
to coopt the transsexual experience and claim to be something you are not.
Are you really so ashamed of your desire to crossdress that you feel the
need to claim, falsely, a female gender? Wow, talk about "transphobic!"
> While BrainSex DOES offer a believable theory for both cisgender and
> transgender identity, it does not explicate the source of the sex-change
> wish. Your entire premise hinges on an unquestioned *assumption*... That
> being a woman in a male body is a bad thing that must be fixed. That is a
> purely SOCIAL matter... variable, at best a result of what degree a given
> society is permeated by transphobic ideals.
No, it offers a believable theory for the existence of transsexualism. The
simple bottom line is, we have a body that is male, and a mind that is
female. Our female mind wants to relate to a female body. Our self-image
(SELF, got that?) is at odds with our body. It has NOTHING, absolutely
NOTHING, to do with SOCIAL MATTERS. You see, this is where you show your
ignorance of transsexualism. You are the one making an assumption. You are
assuming that because you like to wear women's clothes, and play pretend,
you have a female mind. You don't. You are one of the vast number of men
who have a fetish. Something entirely unrelated to transsexualism. Of
course, it appears that you are ashamed, so you feel the need to claim to be
something you are not.
> In differing societies, transgender identity, no matter it's source, has
> been viewed very differently. For example the Chuchee Indians saw it as a
> blessing upon the tribe, the Wintke were hearalded as powerful medicine
and
> often acted in the role of tribal elders at very young ages. They were
> considered to be of "two minds", able to speak for both males and females
on
> tribal matters... and they were given power because of it. Another
example,
> the Serrer of Africa, were often ostricised and sometimes held up to
> ridicule their entire lives. The interesting difference between these two
> examples is that a Wintke who castrated herself would have been banished
> from the tribe and seen as having rejected their gods, where as a Serrer
who
> did was then allowed to engage in tribal business as a woman. There are
> lots of other historical examples... the Navajo ritual of "the basket or
the
> bow", allowing pubescent children to choose their tribal roles... The
Hijras
> of India engaging ritual castration as a rite of passage... and on and on.
Gee Lyle, you are so ignorant and bigoted that you do not even realize you
just shot yourself in the foot. Look at what you wrote....over and over you
mention people being castrated. People in societies where technology was
not advanced enough to allow for full SRS, they made a PHYSICAL change that
was the maximum allowed. Further, you are talking about situations that are
not relevant today. Your argument makes no more sense than someone arguing
that if God had meant for man to fly, He would have given him wings.
> Your premise fails, utterly, to take any consideration of the society in
> which you must live and the way our experience within that society informs
> your decision making. You are, in effect, removing yourself from society
> and placing your own soul under a microscope **made and calibrated by
> society** to reach your conclusions.
No, you are almost right, but your bigotry shines through everytime. We are
looking inward, not outward. We are doing what is right for us, not what
society demands. You do not share this need. Your need is different. You
should be a proud and loud crossdresser. You should be out advocating for
the right of men who desire to do so, to dress as women. But you are so
bloody ashamed of what you REALLY are, that you have to try to claim to be a
woman in a male body, and then deny certain characteristics of those who
are, so you can claim to be one of us.
> What you are not doing is allowing for the effect society has on your
> perception of gender... and self. You are, effectively, internalizing
> social perspectives, seeking a "magic pill" answer. But the reality,
right
> there for you to see is the causality of the SRS wish is almost entirely
> extrinsic in origin... it lies in that unquestioned assumption in your own
> explaination; that just because one is transgender identified, they must
do
> something about it. It is that *assumption* that creates the SRS desire.
No Lyle, that is what you are not doing. You are ashamed of being a
transvestite, a crossdresser, a man in a dress. You want to excuse your
behavior, but not change your body. So, you claim that we are wrong, so you
can fit in. Really, it is amazingly sad how warped your thinking really is.
What creates the SRS desire is, obviously, something you lack. But, wait,
if you lack that something, then you must be a <GASP> transvestite or
crossdresser. But you are to ashamed to admit that, so you claim to have a
female gender. But you don't. You choose to do as you do. Accept
yourself, and get out of our group. Leave us alone, and stand on your own.
> We are not specimins, held in stasis, on a slide for convenient viewing,
> Sandra... We are beings that live amongst and interact with other
beings...
> our every idea, thought and action is informed and influenced by our
> communion with others. Life, love and belief are all interactive
processes.
> Your perspective fails, utterly, to take that into any account.
No Lyle, it simply shows the truth about you, and the truth behind you
scream "transphobia" so much. You are transphobic, not us.
> Care to try again?
Nah, she got it right the first time. You will just now go completely
bonkers, having been forced to face the truth again.
--
Jennifer Usher
yoo...@localhost.com
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:46:00 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com wrote:
>
> >your "positions", such as they are, would be much easier to understand if
> >you had the precision of, say, a good programmer.
>
> Sweety, I've been programming in Pascal, C and Basic for nearly 30 years.
actually, if you knew how to read, you would have noted that i said, "a
*good programmer*". (see second line of my indented quotes, above,
right-hand two words.) "good" followed by "programmer". "good" meaning
"not a hack that writes ambiguous code so she can wiggle her program out of
that, as well".
perhaps it's you that ought take that READING class.
sweetie.
ciao
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
news:nk5k01hltpsatgs0f...@4ax.com...
> One can be any of man-male, woman-male, woman-famle or man-male and one
can
> still be a transsexual, or not. Think about it, how many M2F TSs have you
> met with not so much as a hint of femininity in them who are pursuing male
> to female surgery? Transsexualism isn't even about Gender Identity...
it's
> about disgust with one's genitalia. The thing you appear to be missing is
> that one is not *born* with a built in self-hatred, that is LEARNED from
the
> experience of growing up in a world that encourages it in many ways.
Yes Lyle, and you are the one who is self-hating. You cannot accept being a
transvestite, so you have to make up a claim to have a female gender
identity. You hate yourself, but you redirect that hatred to transsexuals.
> Think about it... have you ever seen a 3 year old who's disgusted with
their
> looks? That doesn't come along until much later, after society and all
it's
> mechanisms get hold of them... it is learned.
Actually, some 3 year olds (a bit young to develop such awareness, but not
unheard of) do express a desire to be rid of their penis. At that age, they
probably have not made the connection between what is between their legs,
and what they really are, but it does occur.
> Have you ever actually read anything I've written?
Yes, we have. And it is simply a load of crap.
> I have been saying this for *YEARS*, Sandra. In fact, you have actually
> taken me to task for it several times over in ASCD...
Not for saying that, but for what you add to it.
> I didn't overlook it at all.
No, you ignored it.
> I am simply smart enough to realize that being transgendered has little if
> anything to do with the sex-change wish.
No Lyle, you are self-hating enough to come up with some of the crap you do.
> See... there's that unquestioned assumption again...
Just because you do not have that desire does not mean it does not exist. T
hat is YOUR fallacy.
> Why do they have to align at all?
> What says there is such a thing as a misalignment?
The problem is, you do not have this need, but your self-hatred requires you
to deny that it exists at all. Why do we have to align our bodies and
brains? In order to feel complete and whole within ourselves. What says
there is a misalignment? Our internal sense of self.
> These assumptions come from SOCIETY not biology. It is the world around
us
> that tells us what is right and wrong, good and bad, important and
trivial.
> Were you to carry your current line of insight even a couple of steps
> further, you would actually blunder onto it. You are, in fact stopping
short
> of arriving at the answer...
No Lyle, that is what you want to believe, what your self-hatred compels you
to need to believe. You are simply blinding yourself to the real answer.
Lyle, of course there is no need for a crossdresser such as yourself to not
need SRS. There are countless men who enjoy dressing up, some going so far
as to do it on a regular basis. They are self-accepting and healthy.
Unlike you, they do not feel the need to convince themselves that they are
something they are not. If you think being a transvestite is wrong, the
stop doing it.
> Lets take a very basic example... 2 + 2 = ? Your mind instantly and
> automatically replaced the ? with a 4, did it not? You didn't need to
give
> it any thought at all, did you? In fact, I'd bet it wasn't until the
second
> glance that you realized I had typed question mark instead of the number
> four. Now... this is in there pretty deep, it's fully automatic stuff, we
> don't even have to consciously solve the problem, the answer just surfaces
> in our mind all of it's own accord. However... We weren't born knowing
> this, we learned this from the society around us, usually in grade 1. It
is
> neither genetic nor automatic... it is a result of education. So, now ask
> yourself, how much of what you believe to be true actually comes from
> society not some intrinsic source?
Who taught the first person to add? Is math subjective? Could we somehow
change things to make 2+2 equal something else? Of course not. Society
merely teaches us how to understand, and express that which objectively
exists. In this case, it teaches us how to express our inward feelings.
> As you correctly pointed out in your original article, kids as young as a
> few *weeks* display gender difference. However, at that age they lack a
> *definition* of Gender and the awareness of Sex that could lead them to
> conclude "I want a sex-change"... they're just being their innocent
selves.
> The *definition* they need is actually supplied by society, from watching
> mommy and daddy, from other kids in the family, from friends and peers,
from
> teachers and instructors and, for the last half century, from watching
> television.
And that definition is simply the means to express what they already feel.
What they learn is what their feelings mean, not their feelings themselves.
Now, on the other hand, you *learned* that for you wearing women's clothes
brought some form of pleasure. You did not have an intrinsic need to be a
woman, just a desire to impersonate one. But society slapped you on the
hand and said "Bad Lyle, don't do that!" So, you saw other people who were
accepted doing what you wanted to do, and you said I will pretend to be one
of them. But you didn't fit in. So you tried to change the definitions to
fit your own prejudices, and in doing so became the bigot you are today.
Truly sad.
> What your original postulate misses is that at this delicate young age,
most
> kids are totally unaware of the differences between the sexes. The first
> knowledge of this usually comes along about age 4 or 5 when the child
begins
> becoming more social and gains a little play-time independence to explore
> their world. We've all seen that cute little painting with the boy and
> girl, with their pants pulled out in front, looking terribly puzzled. It
is
> not possible for them to have any appreciation that Gender and Sex are
> linked or how they combine before they are aware there are sex differences
> in the first place, can they?
Yes, and during this time, the little boy realizes, at first, that other
children who feel like "he" does, don't have penises. He begins to realize
that something is wrong, and he begins to desire to change it. He may think
it will fall off. He may bury his feelings, and try to cope. At this
point, it is not a major issue. He can pretty much function in the world,
though he is beginning to feel out of place. He is told to be a little man.
He is told to do things in ways that feel wrong. And he is told that he has
to do this because of that thing between his leg. Then when he gets older,
he learns just what a mistake that thing is. He learns just how it will
affect his life. He learns that it will prevent him from enjoying his body
as any woman would want to. And he wants to be rid of it. It has never
felt "right," and now he knows just how wrong it is.
> It really isn't until much later, sometimes as late as puberty, that we
put
> gender and sex together in any meaningful way. Why? Because we do not
yet
> have a working definition of Gender. We are still sorting that out,
> learning from the world around us. The reality is that most of us are
> indeed aware that we are different than other kids, but until that Gender
> roadmap is completed we are incapable of analysing or understanding the
> significance of it. And lacking that we are totally unable to appreciate
> the role of Body Parts (Sex) in our self-understanding.
No, you didn't have any idea at that time. You had not *learned* to be a
crossdresser. You were a normal male child, with no inkling that something
would happen to change your behavior.
> In our present society the Gender roadmap contains a mistake... it tells
us
> that Gender and Sex can only combine in two possible ways... it tells us
by
> extension that anything else is wrong. "You are flawed and must be fixed
if
> you are not Cisgendered like the rest of us". In fact it is painfully
easy
> to explicate this mistake, repeated endlessly within our present society.
I
> call it the "Cisgender Rules" and it goes like this...
>
> 1) Everyone is Cisgendered by default.
> 2) It is wrong to be anything but Cisgendered.
> 3) Those who are not Cisgendered must appear Cisgendered.
> 4) Those who do not appear Cisgendered are beneath consideration.
And this, ultimately, is what you truly believe in, even as you try to
revolt against it.
> This is what we learn from society... but it is also a perfect description
> of *transphobia*. It describes a world in which those who are not
> cisgendered are expected to spend their lives trying to become
cisgendered.
> Which is exactly what you did.
Transphobia is when you cannot accept that you are a crossdresser, and have
to call yourself a woman.
> Not surprisingly, the Cisgender Rules are being absorbed about the same
time
> one is learning to add simple numbers... and look how automatic that is!
It
> has, in fact, become one of life's unquestioned assumptions.
>
> The biggest single difference between you and I is that I see those 4
rules
> for the pile of bigoted rubbish they really are... and you chose to live
by
> them.
What you fail to understand is, there is nothing wrong with wanting your
gender and sex to match. Yours does. What doesn't match is your choice of
clothing, and your gender and sex.
> And tell me now... where does that come from?
From having just such a disparity.
> It does not automatically exist with being transgendered. In fact some
> people who are not transgendered at all have it going on and some people
who
> are profoundly transgendered never come across it... in reality, Sandra,
one
> has little if anything to do with the other.
Transgender is an umbrella term that is largely meaningless outside of a
political context. You misuse it, and try to make it something it is not.
> That "overwhelming and urgent need" you describe is a *REACTION* to the
> transgendered state you find yourself in, a question of how deeply you
have
> internalized the transphobia extant in our present day society. It is
> neither genetic, hormonal, nor innate... you have learned this from
society.
> It's part of the unquestioned assumption... Rules #1 and 2.
No, the problem is reaction to being a crossdresser. You feel ashamed, so
you want to be something else, but you cannot be a transsexual, so you try
to change the facts to suit you.
> All nice tidy little boxes... socially convenient, to be sure, but wholly
> unrelated to human nature.
No, they force you to admit you are doing something that society, and you,
view as basically wrong.
> It is. It is learned from the world around us.
Sorry, but it is not.
> Just like you internalized 2 + 2 = ? to the point where you don't even
see
> the question mark... you have internalized social standards about Sex and
> Gender to the point where you don't even see the transphobia.
Sorry, but no. that taking two objects, and adding two more leaves four
objects is an objective fact. What has been "learned" is how to communicate
that idea to others.
> Horsecrap... If that were the case, how do you explain me or any of the
> thousands of other transgenderists? For that matter, how do you explain
the
> numbers? Transgenderists, males who live full time as women, females who
> live full time as men, probably outnumber transsexuals by a couple of
> decades of magnitude, crossdressers probably outnumber both groups by a
> ratio in the hundreds to 1 ... if this motivation is so innate, so urgent,
> how do you explain that only a tiny minority of transgendered people
> actually feel it?
It goes back to "wannabe" vs. "really are." They want to be something they
are not, rather than being who they really are. The answer to why so few is
simple. True discongruity of gender and body is RARE. You, and most
others, do not have it at all.
> The ONLY explanation that makes any sense at all is that you have been far
> more influenced by transphobia than the rest of us... a deeper state of
> victimization, not a higher level of need.
No Lyle, you are the transphobe, and it is driving you to victimize
transsexuals.
> Not at all... Do you really think if someone went to a Wintke and
suggested
> they could surgically (or then, magically) transform them into a female
> they'd want that? It would have gotten them tossed out of the tribe! Of
> course they would reject it.
Or, perhaps the tribe would change its attitudes.
> Appreciate this... think about it... what does it tell you? Fear of
> ostracism is very deep in most people, perhaps even instinctual... what
you
> did you did out of fear of ostracism: those 4 rules again. Your reason
for
> *wanting* SRS would be the same as a Wintke's reason for *rejecting* it
and
> that is a reaction to the society around you!
Other than that you are an invincible bigot, not much/
> But the influence doesn't end there... Society and life experience also
> informs our decision making processes, our self-perception, our
> understanding of the world around us... It has a finger in every last part
> of our lives. We ignore this at our own peril.
>
> It is entirely likely, as I pointed out above, that your own fear of
> ostracism, based upon the expectations learned from society, is what
fueled
> you to have SRS... "People will hate me, I hate me, I have to fix THIS!!!"
>
> In reality, it's all about transphobia, internalized and directed inward
> upon your own circumstance. It has little, if anything to do with
biology,
> genitalia or some pressing inner issue... it's all about those 4 stupid
> rules.
Yes, Lyle, this argument is about transphobia, YOUR TRANSPHOBIA.
> >Care to reconsider your position in light of the above?
>
> Your presented arguments are where I was with this stuff 25 years ago.
> I really don't intend to turn back time just to make you happy.
I guess that was before you became the bigot you are today. Try not hating
yourself.
Sandra
rationale between our two opposing viewpoints. It does seem
that we disagree on a hinge point issue. From the point that
either of us see "internal" or "external" as a defining
factor, the resultant conclusion could vary wildly.
The motivation "to fit" for me was important. But the
motivation to be whole was actually more important. I wanted
to be a part of society and not an outsider as I had felt all
my life. I felt split up the middle. I knew beyond certainty
of doubt that I should be a girl (female) and yet my body went
in a totally different direction. I could change me but the
battle to change society to fit me was not one I could see as
either viable or achievable. And, to tell the truth, I felt as
though even if I could have changed society overnight to
accept me as I was, I still wouldn't have felt complete
because my body didn't match me as I know should have been.
Sandra
yoo...@localhost.com wrote in news:420a3...@127.0.0.1:
Sandra
as yvette has observed. It's futile to attempt to show her a
different perspective on the issue because she rejects it out of
hand. It was a good presentation though. :D
Sandra
Sandra
Works for politicians and those with something to hide, right?
Sandra
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:1ogl01tdophp072je...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:58:31 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com
> wrote:
>
>>On 9-Feb-2005, L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote:
>
>>perhaps it's you that ought take that READING class.
>
>
> There's nothing sadder than a flame queen who's just had
> the props kicked out from under her. You flounder so
> ungracefully, honey.
>
>
> =====
> Laura
>
diane...@yahoo.com
L D Blake wrote:
> There's nothing sadder than a flame queen who's just had the props
kicked
> out from under her. You flounder so ungracefully, honey.
> =====
> Laura
No, you're wrong. There is something sadder.
Namely a 55 year old gay man calling other women "honey" whilst
pretending to be female himself.
Lancy
"If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?"
diane...@yahoo.com
L D Blake wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2005 16:12:06 -0800, diane...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Course that doesn't explain why you only lasted 30 days on the
Delphi
> >newsgroup before being found out as a fraud and simpleton.
>
> running me down before the other members. You put it in their heads
that I
> was playing some kind of game with them and it all went south from
there.
>
> Proud of yourself?
>
> =====
> Laura
I seem to have an enormous amount of power in your life Lyle. Every
thing you do or don't do appears to be related to me.
OK.... now write me a check. Make it a big one.
Sandra
Sandra
"Lancy" <la...@charter.net> wrote in
news:1108005884.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Sandra
Sandra
diane...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1108005960....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
cat-o-matic
> Damn! Now why didn't I think of that! :(
> Sandra
>
It'd just bounce anyway.
c-o-m
yoo...@localhost.com
> Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw years ago:
>
> "If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?"
that's good! i'm going to look for that one.
my fave is: "Illiterate? WRITE FOR FREE INFO!"
yoo...@localhost.com
> Thank you, yvette, for such a perceptive analysis of the
> rationale between our two opposing viewpoints.
you are most welcome!
Amanda Angelika
yoo...@localhost.com <yoo...@localhost.com> typed:
> On 9-Feb-2005, "Lancy" <la...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw years ago:
>>
>> "If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?"
>
> that's good! i'm going to look for that one.
>
> my fave is: "Illiterate? WRITE FOR FREE INFO!"
>
It always puzzles me why opticians always seem to have their surgeries in
first floor offices above shops, with very small writing painted on the
window LOL I mean they really should employ a graphic designer who knows how
to communicate with the target audience :)
--
Amanda
---
Outgoing mail is certified Free of all known Germs and Viruses :)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
news:i4lk01l5gqqqp792p...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:46:00 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com wrote:
>
> >your "positions", such as they are, would be much easier to understand if
> >you had the precision of, say, a good programmer.
>
> Sweety, I've been programming in Pascal, C and Basic for nearly 30 years.
She meant competently.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
news:1ogl01tdophp072je...@4ax.com...
> There's nothing sadder than a flame queen who's just had the props kicked
> out from under her. You flounder so ungracefully, honey.
Nope Lyle. I suspect you are like a lot of "programmers" I worked with in
the past. There really is a difference between being able to come up with
something that sort of works, and being a skilled programmer.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> > Some have perhaps jokingly commented that if trans people can be called
> > trannies for short, then cisgender people can be called "cissies".
>
> I like that.
>
> It won't work. :)
>
> But I like it.
It reminds me of the time a rather unitelligent bully threatened to pound me
because I called him a "homo sapien." He screamed at me to take it back,
and I did....then I told him what it really meant. The bad part is, he
still didn't get it.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
I know, but sometimes I just feel like trying anyway. It confirms my faith
in the invincibilty of Blake's ignorance and bigotry.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
> >Thanks, Jennifer, but Laura's position is in fact non-negotiable
> >as yvette has observed.
>
> Not at all... you show me a complete package, one not rife with unasked
> questions and half-traveled lines of inquiry and I will be happy to
consider
> it. As it is, what you presented was interesting but hardly compelling.
Yep, invincible ignorance and bigotry. Just pretend the arguments were not
there.
--
Jennifer Usher
Doc Font
> > discontent with one's body as if it were imposed from outside
> > then internalized. The pressure is innate and internal from the
> > beginning of life
>
> i see this as the basic difference in your two arguments. Laura believes
> that the pressure to live in one's "other" gender role comes from outside.
> Sandra feels that the same pressure comes from within.
>
Hi Yvette, nice to meet you
I take a slightly different perspective on this issue. We are born as
what we are. For the first year or two we grow and develop freely. The
pressure begins when external forces try to stop a little boy from being
too sissy. Often the first step is the dolls/stuffed animals disappear
to be replaced by trucks and boy toys. Boy play is approved and
rewarded. Sissy play is discouraged. The child is still in a stage where
there are no defenses to protect the emerging personality. Approval is
necessary even at the expense of sacrificing the sense of self. Society
adds it own layer of mental barriers depending on how we've adapted to
the pressure from home during the most formative years.
Eventually the internal conflict must be dealt with. Unfortunately in
the majority of cases this means self destruction. Not hard to see that
this would happen if the child was taught from the earliest age that
self expression is wrong and doing what other people want is good. The
survivors are often handicapped by never socializing naturally. They are
not equiped with the tools needed to remove the mental barriers.
I think this is the missing perspective in this argument. Two factors
much be deal with. Expression of self and confirmation of identity.
"I'm a woman with a male body and male lifestyle", is an expression of
self. But there is nothing external to confirm the identity. If the
expression without action is enough for that individual, it is still
internallized truth to them. Any statement in disagreement is viewed
with the same validity as any TS has gotten when going against a
lifetime of society telling them they are something they know they are
not.
If the TS is not so "self contained and self centered", confirmation
comes from one or both of two factors. There is social feedback. There
is physical evidence.
Social feedback is the reaction from anyone and everyone we deal with in
the world at large. For most TS this is the major factor in confirmation
of identity. When they live, dress, socialize and function as a female,
they get feedback by being called "she, her, maam, etc" in external
interaction with others. The society that rejected them as female
growing up is now confirming them in the same way. Note that this is
enough for 80% or more of transsexuals. Once in the social role of
female with or without hormones, only about 10% actually go on to have
SRS. Transgenerist is a male living as a female without hormones or
surgery but they confirm a female identity by lifestyle alone.
Note that in some cases a pre-op will validate their identity with a
statement like, "My boyfriend sees me as female even if I still have my
penis." This says a lot about the power of external feedback in relation
to physical reality." It is about emotions not logic.
Harder to achieve, but equally valid IMHO, are those who confirm
identity by achieving a female body with or without the lifestyle. Why
they are disconnected from societal feedback to the extent that social
feedback is less important than personal, objective observation is a
matter of further research. What it means is they confirm identity by
self confirmation instead of societal feedback. My theory on this is
that sometime in the past the parents tried to change behavior through
logic, "You can't act or dress like a girl because you are a boy. You
have a boy's body." The parent's did not realize there was a loophole to
this argument. In the child's mind it realizes, "If I can get the body,
I can dress and act like I want." The proof is what they see in the
mirror. It is logical not emotional. They are not a woman as long as
they see a male body in the mirror.
Most TS seem to know this is an inherent loophole to achieving self. As
children that they don't wish on a star, wish while blowing out birthday
candles, tossing coins in wishing wells or pray to God to wake up in a
dress with a changed lifestyle. They wish and pray to wake up with a
changed body.
I think this was the observation made that led to a misunderstanding in
the autogynophilia theory. Most TS came in and talked about their
changed life, living as a female, being seen as female, etc. A smaller
portion would come in and talk about developing breasts, getting curves
and wanting surgery to get female genitalia. Since those changes are the
sexual characteristics, the pshrink got the wrong impression that this
type of TS was motivated by a sexual fixation. I think the TS was
telling the therapist that they needed physical reality to break down
the mental barriers and confirm identity. When they can have the body,
they have no more restrictions. Feminization of the body is serving the
same purpose as socialization in other TS's. If you read Anne Lawrence's
research on SRS after a short, or no, real life test, all those cases
were professionals. TS who had been relying on logic, intelligence and
training in a male lifestyle.
You can see the difference in web pages describing post op reactions.
For a social TS, they wake up after SRS and say, "It was no big deal. I
already knew I was a woman because I have been living as one for the
last few years." A logic based based TS wakes up, looks down and sees
female genitalia and says, "I felt reborn at that moment." Reborn is
another way of saying all the mental barriers blocking them from
expression of self were removed for the first time.
Hope this explains my postion. I see mental barriers and what it takes
to remove them as the issue in both these arguments. The difference is
what the individual needs to remove them is different for different
people. It can be either lifestyle, physical body, both or neither. In
some cases it is still not enough at our current technology level. Some
TS cannot get past the barriers since it would take pregnancy, periods
or changing the genes to get past the mental barriers that confirm
identity.
Thanks for the discussion
Bernadette
Jennifer Usher
> The motivation "to fit" for me was important. But the
> motivation to be whole was actually more important. I wanted
> to be a part of society and not an outsider as I had felt all
> my life. I felt split up the middle. I knew beyond certainty
> of doubt that I should be a girl (female) and yet my body went
> in a totally different direction. I could change me but the
> battle to change society to fit me was not one I could see as
> either viable or achievable. And, to tell the truth, I felt as
> though even if I could have changed society overnight to
> accept me as I was, I still wouldn't have felt complete
> because my body didn't match me as I know should have been.
That is part of the whole issue. Blake seems to take a view that we should
all "rebel" against society, and "go against the flow." That is certainly a
valid choice for some people, but others are just not that masochistic. He
seems to object to the idea that someone might just want to be a normal,
productive, and non-controversial member of society. Or more simply, just
be a woman. Unlike Blake, and some others, some of us do not consider
transgender to be our primary identity.
--
Jennifer Usher
Sandra
Thank you for expressing your views regarding a different
approach to the Rationale of SRS. It would seem that we all
have slightly different viewpoints and yours is sufficiently
well developed to be a definite expansion of the others. It
would seem from your presentation that yes, there is
definitely some social pressure to conform and I don't believe
that any ts who has survived to transition can discount that.
However, I still see the child's internal force to express
their gender identity as the precipitating factor for
society's (and the family's) insistance on stereotypical
gender roles. I feel the degree of intensity of that internal
force -- the pressure of that dichotomy between body and mind
-- is what drives some to cross live without srs, and others
to seek SRS. The social factors and constraints imposed by
society certainly do have an effect but from what I've
observed more in the realm of attempting to prevent or to
delay transition. That kind of external pressure can only
serve to mask the underlying cause. I know I would have
transitioned much sooner if I'd had that social acceptance,
but the fact is I *would* have transitioned eventually. The
degree of my own internal pressure to transition and get SRS
was too compelling to ignore. But what you've presented on the
social aspect of transition and SRS vs the logical aspect
deserves serious consideration.
Thanks again.
Sandra
Sandra
Maybe that's me, but I don't see anything wrong with a certain
level of social conformity. I'm not willing to give up my
individuality, but there is something to be said for being
able to move in society without generating waves of
controversy with everyone I encounter. I guess I'm more like a
paddle boat than a speedboat going flat out. I don't like
making too many waves -- they tend to be counter-productive.
I'd rather choose my fights other than having the fights
choose me.
Sandra
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:371q0rF...@individual.net:
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
news:78ll01plgfsrs71t3...@4ax.com...
> In fact, I agree largely with your analysis **as far as it went**. Like
you
> I believe there is a biological underpinning to gender identity. I also
> agree that gender is often in place before birth. What I don't buy, is
that
> the simple fact of being woman-male mandates SRS... there are too many
> people in that very situation who don't elect SRS for it to hold much
> credence.
The problem is very obvious. First off, you are a man who likes to
crossdress. That does not make you a woman. Second, you are a man who
likes to crossdress, who is ashamed. That does not make you a woman.
Finally, you are a man who likes to crossdress, who thinks that calling
himself a "woman-male" and trashing transsexuals will somehow justify his
behavior, and that most certainly does not make you a woman. Yes, there are
a lot of people who like to crossdress. Of course they don't want SRS.
They want to be MEN wearing WOMEN'S clothes. They want to be CROSS
dressing. Transsexuals, on the other hand, want to stop crossdressing. I
haven't worn men's clothes in over five years. Okay, there were those few
times I wore a guy's night shirt because I didn't have a night gown with me,
but it certainly wasn't erotic. <g>
> But you are doing a social thing, trying to fit in, you cannot discount
the
> influence of social mores and standards in such an activity. To examine a
> socially motivated activity outside the realm of society will lead you to
> incomplete or faulty insight. It precludes discovery of how social
> experience and teachings inform your decision making process.
You know Lyle, there is nothing wrong with wanting to fit in. While it is
NOT the primary motivation for transsexuals, it is something that many
people desire.
> Had you gone the extra step I'd bet we would find ourselves more or less
in
> agreement... I can't declare your view to be wrong, simply incomplete.
Oh good grief, what a load of New Lyle crap. There is simply no chance in
the bad place of any transsexual, or any other person who is not an
invincibly ignorant bigot, actually coming to agreement with you.
> >The motivation "to fit" for me was important. But the
> >motivation to be whole was actually more important.
>
> See, this is where your analysis leaves unanswered questions.
No it doesn't.
> Why did you feel there was something wrong with you?
Well, let's see. We have a brain that is programmed for a body with a
vagina. It is inside of a body with a penis. Do you just possibly think
that brain MIGHT notice that something is amiss?
> Why did you think you had to fit in this way?
Why shouldn't she?
> Why did you think you would end up an outsider if you didn't?
Because Lyle, that is how society tends to work. There are varying degrees
of tolerance out there. For example, there is pretty much no where that a
pedophile can not end up being an outsider. A former murderer might be
accepted,
> These things are all *social*, the result of absorbed morality and custom,
> not biological.
So? Some people choose to follow social morals and customs. You seem to
have a problem with this.
> And exactly how did you know that?
Already answered.
> Was it magic? Was it some godly bestowment? Or, far more likely, was it
an
> emotional reaction to information absorbed from a transphobic society?
Or is it just possible that you don't have a female gender, and therefore
cannot understand the feelings of those who really do?
> See this is what I've been trying to impress upon your for the last couple
> of years... we do agree on the underpinnings of the situation... however,
> like most transsexuals I've met, you analysis is incomplete, permeated
> through and through with unquestioned assumptions that cannot and do not
> originate intrinsically.
No we don't. You are a bigot. That is clear from your remarks above.
> Once again... if you do not remove yourself from society, putting yourself
> under a magnifier, instead examining your situation within the context of
> the society that trained you, you would discover that a LOT of what you
> thought --the underlying assumptions-- are considerably more influential
> than the minor underpinnings of Gender and Sex... But, by examining
yourself
> outside society, as the researchers and shrinks do, you simply don't have
> access to this additional information.
>
> Your insight is correct *as far as it went*... but the answer is actually
in
> the unasked questions...
And you are STILL full of crap, even when you try to fake it, and play
nicely.
--
Jennifer Usher
Sugir
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:371p81F...@individual.net...
>
> "Sugir" <Su...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:420a5837$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
>> > Some have perhaps jokingly commented that if trans people can be called
>> > trannies for short, then cisgender people can be called "cissies".
>>
>> I like that.
>>
>> It won't work. :)
>>
>> But I like it.
>
> It reminds me of the time a rather unitelligent bully threatened to pound me
> because I called him a "homo sapien."
See Jenn, you can't always assume.
> He screamed at me to take it back,
> and I did....then I told him what it really meant. The bad part is, he
> still didn't get it.
Prolly better to just let him be right. :)
Sugir
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Sandra
The minute a person starts taking cross-sex hormones they ARE
dealing with a medical issue. SRS is one (surgical) solution
for those who need a more complete congruity. Taking hormones
is considered hormonal sex reassignment by the medical
community. You can call a transgenderist on hormones anything
you want but when you start dealing with hormone
supplementation, or even surgical breast augmentation, you're
in a whole different ballgame than simple crossliving. Where
in the heck do you think the common phrase "non-op
transsexual" comes from?
Sandra
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:g8gn011ri15ur7rjq...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Doc Font
> <doc...@voyager.net> wrote:
>
>>I take a slightly different perspective on this issue. We
>>are born as what we are. For the first year or two we grow
>>and develop freely. The pressure begins when external
>>forces try to stop a little boy from being too sissy.
>>Often the first step is the dolls/stuffed animals disappear
>>to be replaced by trucks and boy toys. Boy play is approved
>>and rewarded. Sissy play is discouraged. The child is still
>>in a stage where there are no defenses to protect the
>>emerging personality. Approval is necessary even at the
>>expense of sacrificing the sense of self. Society adds it
>>own layer of mental barriers depending on how we've adapted
>>to the pressure from home during the most formative years.
>
> This is indeed a major fact or in it Bernadette. Those
> early life lessons set the stage for profound angst and
> internalization of transphobia as one matures and gains
> increasing freedoms. By the time we hit adulthood we are
> pretty much playing the fiddler's tune for them.
>
>
>>Transgenerist is a male living as a female without hormones
>>or surgery but they confirm a female identity by lifestyle
>>alone.
>
> Actually, from a mailing list consisting almost entirely of
> transgenderists *most* (danmed near all, in fact) are on
> hormones and the majority of them would reject the
> transsexual label. The reasoning is simple..."Transsexual"
> is a medical term, defined by the request for surgery...
> transgenderism is neither medical nor a desire for surgery,
> the label simply doesn't fit.
>
> Other than that, I find myself largely in agreement with
> your post.
>
>
> =====
> Laura
>
Amanda Angelika
Jennifer Usher <jenni...@hotpop.com> typed:
I dare say they are useful languages to know as a basis for learning more
up-to-date stuff which is more suited to the 486DX math co-processor and
beyond like who knows 32 bit operating systems! The sky's the limit LOL
Sugir
"Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:372285F...@individual.net...
> In news:371ou8F...@individual.net,
> Jennifer Usher <jenni...@hotpop.com> typed:
>> "L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
>> news:i4lk01l5gqqqp792p...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:46:00 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> your "positions", such as they are, would be much easier to
>>>> understand if you had the precision of, say, a good programmer.
>>>
>>> Sweety, I've been programming in Pascal, C and Basic for nearly 30
>>> years.
>>
>> She meant competently.
>
> I dare say they are useful languages to know as a basis for learning more
> up-to-date stuff which is more suited to the 486DX math co-processor and
> beyond like who knows 32 bit operating systems! The sky's the limit LOL
My first 'C' programming was with "BDS 'C'" an old product
for CP/M that was integer only.
The compiles were blindingly fast. :)
Sugir
>
> --
> Amanda
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Free of all known Germs and Viruses :)
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004
>
>
Jennifer Usher
> > It reminds me of the time a rather unitelligent bully threatened to
pound me
> > because I called him a "homo sapien."
>
> See Jenn, you can't always assume.
Very true.
> > He screamed at me to take it back,
> > and I did....then I told him what it really meant. The bad part is, he
> > still didn't get it.
>
> Prolly better to just let him be right. :)
I'm not sure he wasn't.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> >> Sweety, I've been programming in Pascal, C and Basic for nearly 30
> >> years.
> >
> > She meant competently.
>
> I dare say they are useful languages to know as a basis for learning more
> up-to-date stuff which is more suited to the 486DX math co-processor and
> beyond like who knows 32 bit operating systems! The sky's the limit LOL
Well, actually, hardly anyone programs in any of those languages. Pascal
never caught on, except in the form of Delphi. C has been replaced by C++,
and BASIC (it IS an acronym), well BASIC is largely a joke. Visual Basic
(Microsoft's spelling) is relatively okay, but not great.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> My first 'C' programming was with "BDS 'C'" an old product
> for CP/M that was integer only.
>
> The compiles were blindingly fast. :)
I vaguely remember that name. BDS...do you remember what it stood for? It
seems like it was something of a humorous name. CP/M, as I have said, I
knew well. And who needs real numbers anyway?
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Maybe that's me, but I don't see anything wrong with a certain
> level of social conformity. I'm not willing to give up my
> individuality, but there is something to be said for being
> able to move in society without generating waves of
> controversy with everyone I encounter. I guess I'm more like a
> paddle boat than a speedboat going flat out. I don't like
> making too many waves -- they tend to be counter-productive.
> I'd rather choose my fights other than having the fights
> choose me.
Exactly. There is a difference between being an individual, and being a
"rebel." I agree completely.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> The minute a person starts taking cross-sex hormones they ARE
> dealing with a medical issue. SRS is one (surgical) solution
> for those who need a more complete congruity. Taking hormones
> is considered hormonal sex reassignment by the medical
> community. You can call a transgenderist on hormones anything
> you want but when you start dealing with hormone
> supplementation, or even surgical breast augmentation, you're
> in a whole different ballgame than simple crossliving. Where
> in the heck do you think the common phrase "non-op
> transsexual" comes from?
Well, I don't really care for the term "non-op." I think anyone who is
really female in gender will desire SRS, and anyone who not interested in
SRS is not truly female in gender.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
> Up to date like Delphi, C# or C++? Anything you can do in a meg and a
half
> in Delphi I can do in under 200k in Pascal or C.
Okay, that settles it. Blake is most definitely lying. I mean, really.
That is the most bogus statement I have heard in a long time.
> Really... newer isn't always better.
How would you know?
--
Jennifer Usher
yoo...@localhost.com
> Well, I don't really care for the term "non-op." I think anyone who is
> really female in gender will desire SRS, and anyone who not interested in
> SRS is not truly female in gender.
yes, for 90% of the T* population that is probably true. however, there is
that small minority, many (most?) of whom have "external pressures".
i know of one woman that truly is a woman and has not had the surgery,
because if she did, her wife would divorce her. she does truly desire the
surgery, but holds off because she values her marriage more than the
surgery.
her wife isn't too happy about being in a relationship with another woman,
but deals with it because she loves her partner.
as the transwoman told me, "as long as each of us meets the other half-way,
we can make it work".
so sometimes not having the surgery is a compromise.
Sugir
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:372ireF...@individual.net...
Do hit this one: :)
http://www.bdsoft.com/about.html
Sugir
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
Leor Zolman
"BDS" == "Brain Damage Software"... and I agree, we don't need no
stinkin' floating point, lol...
(I must say, this is not the typical flavor of newsgroup where mentions
of BDS C crop up...)
-leor
Amanda Angelika
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> typed:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:42:08 -0000, "Amanda Angelika"
> <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Sweety, I've been programming in Pascal, C and Basic for nearly 30
>>>> years.
>>> She meant competently.
>> I dare say they are useful languages to know as a basis for learning
>> more up-to-date stuff which is more suited to the 486DX math
>> co-processor and beyond like who knows 32 bit operating systems! The
>> sky's the limit LOL
>
> a half in Delphi I can do in under 200k in Pascal or C.
Well I wouln't claim to be a programmer. But I am aware that older languages
can have their technolgical limitations
> Really... newer isn't always better.
I agree, but sometimes you have to move on because older things become
obsolete.
--
Amanda
---
Outgoing mail is certified Free of all known Germs and Viruses :)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 14/11/2004
Sugir
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:372jmoF...@individual.net...
>
> "L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
> news:cc1o011jb552vtctu...@4ax.com...
>
>> Up to date like Delphi, C# or C++? Anything you can do in a meg and a
> half
>> in Delphi I can do in under 200k in Pascal or C.
>
> Okay, that settles it. Blake is most definitely lying. I mean, really.
> That is the most bogus statement I have heard in a long time.
C# (as in .NET) is IL coded, and so it would have a disk footprint far smaller
than anything blake could contrive with machine generated code
from whatever language compiler/linker.
.NET compiles the IL code (or P-code, generally) into machine code (on the flay)
based on the runtime environment, and applies optimizations unattainable in develop-
time machine code generations. From an architecture perspective
.NET is without peer.
C# was designed by some of the best language minds on the planet.
Only MS can afford /those/.
MS describes all this on their site, of course.
Eventually, MS will port the .NET kernel to other machines.
>
>> Really... newer isn't always better.
>
> How would you know?
There are many ancient inventions.
The ancient world had not a few brilliant minds,
that we can sift and sip. :)
Sugir
"Leor Zolman" <le...@bdsoft.com> wrote in message news:1108095105....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jennifer Usher wrote:
>> "Sugir" <Su...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:420bdb51$1...@127.0.0.1...
>>
>> > My first 'C' programming was with "BDS 'C'" an old product
>> > for CP/M that was integer only.
>> >
>> > The compiles were blindingly fast. :)
>>
>> I vaguely remember that name. BDS...do you remember what it stood
> for? It
>> seems like it was something of a humorous name. CP/M, as I have
> said, I
>> knew well. And who needs real numbers anyway?
>>
>> --
>> Jennifer Usher
>
> "BDS" == "Brain Damage Software"... and I agree, we don't need no
> stinkin' floating point, lol...
Oh yes. I remember now. You are a GOD. :)
Transition to Aztec C was a relative bummer, but one of the
few options of the day. Remember?
I'll email you my copious accolades.
>
> (I must say, this is not the typical flavor of newsgroup where mentions
> of BDS C crop up...)
You really dreg deeply. :)
Sugir
> -leor
cat-o-matic
"Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree, but sometimes you have to move on because older things become
> obsolete.
>
I agree, but feel I should point out that C is hardly obsolete.
Try these, just 2 of many I find extremely useful & efficient
written in C.
:)
Sugir
"cat-o-matic" <cat-o...@nospamfor.me> wrote in message news:20050210233444.05...@nospamfor.me...
Hubba... <gag>
Here's an open source, 'C' package that can be useful to programmers
on numerous OSs:
http://www.graphicsmagick.org/
...not that the language it is written in is relevant..
One lone moron is programming a 'C' browser.
Too fucken funny.
What century will she catch up to IE 4.0.
HA!
Kat-o-flatulent, you are a true moron.
Just an honest Usenet opinion.
Sugir
cat-o-matic
>
>
> One lone moron is programming a 'C' browser.
> Too fucken funny.
>
Actually it's quite fast, light & efficient.
You just like to ridicule me because I clocked
you for what you are. Frustrating, isn't it?
>
> What century will she catch up to IE 4.0.
>
The point isn't to replace mozilla or firefox (ie is obsolete, as
anyone who lives in present time knows) but to be able to get
information from the internet quickly.One doesn't always need all
the bells & whistles tying up one's time & system resources to
read simple html documents. You probably wouldn't understand since
I'm sure your computer is primarily used as a porn viewer when
it's not serving as the trollmobile.
>
> HA!
>
> Kat-o-flatulent, you are a true moron.
>
> Just an honest Usenet opinion.
>
> Sugir
>
Ooooh, a tranny-chasing troll with a urine fetish
doesn't think I'm smart.
I am *so* devastated...
Listen, weirdo:
I've already got you filtered in sylpheed, after I post this I'll
filter you in thunderbird as well (I only recently installed it).
So g'bye troll. To address me further is futile, yet somehow I
just know you will. It's the way of trolls.
Maybe if you stick around you'll get *really* lucky
& diane arons will get serious about playing with you.
I do believe even I would be tempted to cheer her on.
c-o-m
Sugir
"cat-o-matic" <cat-o...@nothankyouplea.se> wrote in message news:zb2Pd.191619$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Sugir wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> One lone moron is programming a 'C' browser.
>> Too fucken funny.
>>
>
>
> Actually it's quite fast, light & efficient.
> You just like to ridicule me because I clocked
> you for what you are. Frustrating, isn't it?
You clocked nothing, and you /still/ know little even
though it has been explained to you several times.
You ridicule yourself.
>
>
>
> >
>> What century will she catch up to IE 4.0.
>>
>
>
> The point isn't to replace mozilla or firefox (ie is obsolete, as anyone who lives in present time knows)
IE isn't going anywhere, and MS will spend any amount of money
to make sure.
> but to be able to get information from the internet quickly.One doesn't always need all the bells & whistles tying up one's time &
> system resources to read simple html documents. You probably wouldn't understand since I'm sure your computer is primarily used as
> a porn viewer when it's not serving as the trollmobile.
Gee, I used to employ a fellow that wrote a browser in Java
that was as fast as IE and Moz. So?
And porn viewer, yes, to a degree, and a better porn viewer
than you can imagine, but again, So?
Are you jealous of the women in the pictures. <g>
>
>
> >
>> HA!
>>
>> Kat-o-flatulent, you are a true moron.
>>
>> Just an honest Usenet opinion.
>>
>> Sugir
>>
>
> Ooooh, a tranny-chasing troll with a urine fetish
> doesn't think I'm smart.
> I am *so* devastated...
Once again you are acting out.
Please issue another *final farewell*
and fug off for a while, OK?
>
> Listen, weirdo:
> I've already got you filtered in sylpheed, after I post this I'll
> filter you in thunderbird as well (I only recently installed it).
>
> So g'bye troll. To address me further is futile, yet somehow I just know you will. It's the way of trolls.
Thank you. :)
I never had any need for you to read me.
Could you make it retroactive? :)
>
> Maybe if you stick around you'll get *really* lucky
> & diane arons will get serious about playing with you.
> I do believe even I would be tempted to cheer her on.
No one here has bothered me in the least.
Amanda just sent a cool picture for my coffee cup and shared
her artwork.
I'm friendly as hell to the friendly, but I'm willing to mix it up
if people continue to call me names.
I would suggest that "tranny basher" would be more appropriate
than "transfan" but whatever. :)
Sugir
>
> c-o-m
Sugir
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message news:jp2p01pes4t15humu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:27:51 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com wrote:
>>On 10-Feb-2005, "Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I don't really care for the term "non-op." I think anyone who is
>>> really female in gender will desire SRS, and anyone who not interested in
>>> SRS is not truly female in gender.
>>
>>yes, for 90% of the T* population that is probably true.
>
> how it would help the TS position if it were true, but it isn't.
>
> Those who crosslive completely in the woman's role (i.e. males who live as
> women, females who live as men... transgenderists) outnumber transsexuals by
> several orders of magnitude: something in the order of 10 or 15 to 1.
Each "order" represents a power of ten.
Several orders of magnitude is at least 2 orders or 100 times.
> These
> are people who are every bit as transgender identified as any post-op ts.
> The males are just as feminine as any cisgendered women, the females tend to
> be rather macho, in appearance and demeanor they are largely
> indistinguishable from their cisgendered counterparts. The only real
> difference between them and a TS is they elect not to have the surgery.
>
> Crossdressers, some of whom are profoundly feminine in deportment, are often
> no less transgender identified than either TSs or TGists... yet they elect
> to sustain their lifestyles mostly as-is.
>
> It really isn't about who's more or less transgendered... it's a LOT more
> about who is and isn't freaked out by it.
Being stupid doesn't help you, does it?
Sugir
>
>
>>however, there is
>>that small minority, many (most?) of whom have "external pressures".
>
>>i know of one woman that truly is a woman and has not had the surgery,
>>because if she did, her wife would divorce her. she does truly desire the
>>surgery, but holds off because she values her marriage more than the
>>surgery.
>
> Exactly... that happens a LOT.
>
>
>>so sometimes not having the surgery is a compromise.
>
> And sometimes it's the smartest choice you can make.
>
>
> =====
> Laura
Lancy
> Sorry... but this is a totally false assumption. I can certainly
understand
> how it would help the TS position if it were true, but it isn't.
>
> Those who crosslive completely in the woman's role (i.e. males who
live as
> women, females who live as men... transgenderists) outnumber
transsexuals by
> several orders of magnitude: something in the order of 10 or 15 to 1.
"several orders of magnitude" means numbers like 1000 or 10,000, not
10.
You exagerate to make your point.
10 or 15 to 1 is a single order of magnitude.
Also, you state this as fact. Can you provide any real references or
is it just your opinion/WAG/hope?
from
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci527311,00.html
An order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1 in
the value of a quantity or unit. The term is generally used in
conjunction with power-of-10 scientific notation.
In base 10, the most common numeration scheme worldwide, an increase of
one order of magnitude is the same as multiplying a quantity by 10. An
increase of two orders of magnitude is the equivalent of multiplying by
100, or 10^(2). In general, an increase of n orders of magnitude is the
equivalent of multiplying a quantity by 10^(n). Thus, 2315 is one order
of magnitude larger than 231.5, which in turn is is one order of
magnitude larger than 23.15.
Sugir
> Also, you state this as fact. Can you provide any real references or
> is it just your opinion/WAG/hope?
1 male in 30,000 (of the general population) requests SRS according
to one study.
Given blakes numbers that would mean that one
person in 3000 are cross dressers.
I highly doubt that, but maybe?
Sugir
Jennifer Usher
<yoo...@localhost.com> wrote in message news:420c26cf$1...@127.0.0.1...
> yes, for 90% of the T* population that is probably true. however, there
is
> that small minority, many (most?) of whom have "external pressures".
>
> i know of one woman that truly is a woman and has not had the surgery,
> because if she did, her wife would divorce her. she does truly desire the
> surgery, but holds off because she values her marriage more than the
> surgery.
I made that mistake. I ended my first transition because I wanted to "save
my marriage." I was miserable, and so was my spouse. By the time I finally
transitioned again, it was actually a relief for both of us.
> her wife isn't too happy about being in a relationship with another woman,
> but deals with it because she loves her partner.
I know exactly what they are going through.
> as the transwoman told me, "as long as each of us meets the other
half-way,
> we can make it work".
Perhaps, but my experience says it won't work out in the long run.
> so sometimes not having the surgery is a compromise.
For a while, maybe. I know one person who waited until her wife died. But
if the marriage won't survive SRS, it probably won't survive not having it
either.
--
Jennifer Usher
Sandra
-------------------------------------------------
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:jp2p01pes4t15humu...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:27:51 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com
> wrote:
>>On 10-Feb-2005, "Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I don't really care for the term "non-op." I think
>>> anyone who is really female in gender will desire SRS,
>>> and anyone who not interested in SRS is not truly female
>>> in gender.
>>
>>yes, for 90% of the T* population that is probably true.
>
> Sorry... but this is a totally false assumption. I can
> certainly understand how it would help the TS position if
> it were true, but it isn't.
>
> Those who crosslive completely in the woman's role (i.e.
> males who live as women, females who live as men...
> transgenderists) outnumber transsexuals by several orders
> of magnitude: something in the order of 10 or 15 to 1.
> These are people who are every bit as transgender
> identified as any post-op ts. The males are just as
> feminine as any cisgendered women, the females tend to be
> rather macho, in appearance and demeanor they are largely
> indistinguishable from their cisgendered counterparts. The
> only real difference between them and a TS is they elect
> not to have the surgery.
Please, Laura, explain just what the term "transgender
identified" means? Because as far as I know post-op ts's don't
generally identify themselves as "transgender-identitified".
Of course there are those transgenderists who are "feminine"
and those who are "masculine" but the whole point of becoming
post op is to become "as female as possible" given the state
of current medical science. It's all about becoming oneself
and dropping the transgendered state. Anything else would be
generally considered less than satisfactory for a ts. Of
course there are exceptions to any rule.
-------------------------------------------------
>
> Crossdressers, some of whom are profoundly feminine in
> deportment, are often no less transgender identified than
> either TSs or TGists... yet they elect to sustain their
> lifestyles mostly as-is.
>
> It really isn't about who's more or less transgendered...
> it's a LOT more about who is and isn't freaked out by it.
>
Why do you bother bringing this junk up, Laura? This isn't
about who's freaked out about being transgendered, as you put
it. This thread was originally started (by me as you well
know) to show my rationale of the motivations behind SRS, and
the pressure that is produced *inside* the individual to
achieve congruity. Being transgendered is not the goal or the
reason for this thread, it is simply the starting point. The
issue was why people even have SRS in the first place. You
chose not to have it. Fine! Enjoy your non-hormonal, non-
surgical, out transgender lifestyle. Others, like me, desire
more than just the "appearance" of being a woman. We want the
whole bag of candy, so to speak.
-------------------------------------------------
>
>>however, there is
>>that small minority, many (most?) of whom have "external
>>pressures".
>
>>i know of one woman that truly is a woman and has not had
>>the surgery, because if she did, her wife would divorce
>>her. she does truly desire the surgery, but holds off
>>because she values her marriage more than the surgery.
>
> Exactly... that happens a LOT.
It has been said that about 10% of those who transition
actually have surgery. Have you ever asked yourself why that
is? Could it be because the quality of life that those people
want cannot be achieved any other way?
-------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>so sometimes not having the surgery is a compromise.
>
> And sometimes it's the smartest choice you can make.
>
>
> =====
> Laura
>
And sometimes it's just settling for less than what you truly
need.
Sandra
Sandra
-------------------------------------------------
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:jp2p01pes4t15humu...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:27:51 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com
> wrote:
>>On 10-Feb-2005, "Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I don't really care for the term "non-op." I think
>>> anyone who is really female in gender will desire SRS,
>>> and anyone who not interested in SRS is not truly female
>>> in gender.
>>
>>yes, for 90% of the T* population that is probably true.
>
it. Fine! Enjoy your non-hormonal, non-surgical, out transgender
lifestyle. Others, like me, desire more than just the
"appearance" of being a woman. We want the whole bag of candy,
so to speak.
-------------------------------------------------
>
>>however, there is
>>that small minority, many (most?) of whom have "external
>>pressures".
>
>>i know of one woman that truly is a woman and has not had
>>the surgery, because if she did, her wife would divorce
>>her. she does truly desire the surgery, but holds off
>>because she values her marriage more than the surgery.
>
> Exactly... that happens a LOT.
It has been said that about 10% of those who transition actually
have surgery. Have you ever asked yourself why that is? Could it
be because the quality of life that those people want cannot be
achieved any other way?
-------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>so sometimes not having the surgery is a compromise.
>
Sandra
-------------------------------------------------
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:jp2p01pes4t15humu...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:27:51 GMT, yoo...@localhost.com
> wrote:
>>On 10-Feb-2005, "Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I don't really care for the term "non-op." I think
>>> anyone who is really female in gender will desire SRS,
>>> and anyone who not interested in SRS is not truly female
>>> in gender.
>>
>>yes, for 90% of the T* population that is probably true.
>
-------------------------------------------------
>
>>however, there is
>>that small minority, many (most?) of whom have "external
>>pressures".
>
>>i know of one woman that truly is a woman and has not had
>>the surgery, because if she did, her wife would divorce
>>her. she does truly desire the surgery, but holds off
>>because she values her marriage more than the surgery.
>
> Exactly... that happens a LOT.
It has been said that about 10% of those who transition
actually have surgery. Have you ever asked yourself why that
is? Could it be because the quality of life that those people
want cannot be achieved any other way?
-------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>so sometimes not having the surgery is a compromise.
>
Sandra
news:Xns95FA72331...@151.164.30.93:
Sorry about the triplicate posting. Seems like my newsreader
got confused and sent the same one out three times. I had to
reboot to get control of it again. :D
whoops.
Sandra
Sandra
support....
Sandra
cat-o-matic <cat-o...@nothankyouplea.se> wrote in
news:zb2Pd.191619$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
t:
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
news:jp2p01pes4t15humu...@4ax.com...
> Sorry... but this is a totally false assumption. I can certainly
understand
> how it would help the TS position if it were true, but it isn't.
And now we hear from the "I am so ashamed to be a crossdresser," position.
> Those who crosslive completely in the woman's role (i.e. males who live as
> women, females who live as men... transgenderists) outnumber transsexuals
by
> several orders of magnitude: something in the order of 10 or 15 to 1.
These
> are people who are every bit as transgender identified as any post-op ts.
Transsexuals are not "transgender identified." They are person who were
born with a body and a gender that do not match. They have no desire to be
men dressing as women.
> The males are just as feminine as any cisgendered women, the females tend
to
> be rather macho, in appearance and demeanor they are largely
> indistinguishable from their cisgendered counterparts. The only real
> difference between them and a TS is they elect not to have the surgery.
Now that is laughable. Blake is hardly an example of feminity. And no,
that is not the ONLY difference.
> Crossdressers, some of whom are profoundly feminine in deportment, are
often
> no less transgender identified than either TSs or TGists... yet they elect
> to sustain their lifestyles mostly as-is.
ROTFL! Well, one thing is certain. My theory about Blake is dead on. He
is a transhobic and shamed crossdresser trying to excuse his behavior.
> It really isn't about who's more or less transgendered... it's a LOT more
> about who is and isn't freaked out by it.
This from someone who is totally freaked out over being a crossdresser.
> >however, there is
> >that small minority, many (most?) of whom have "external pressures".
>
> >i know of one woman that truly is a woman and has not had the surgery,
> >because if she did, her wife would divorce her. she does truly desire
the
> >surgery, but holds off because she values her marriage more than the
> >surgery.
>
> Exactly... that happens a LOT.
And it rarely works out, if at all, if the person is really a transsexual.
> >so sometimes not having the surgery is a compromise.
>
> And sometimes it's the smartest choice you can make.
If one is not transsexual, it is.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> > Those who crosslive completely in the woman's role (i.e. males who live
as
> > women, females who live as men... transgenderists) outnumber
transsexuals by
> > several orders of magnitude: something in the order of 10 or 15 to 1.
>
> Each "order" represents a power of ten.
> Several orders of magnitude is at least 2 orders or 100 times.
Yeah, Blake is most definitely NOT a programmer of any sort.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
>
> > Also, you state this as fact. Can you provide any real references or
> > is it just your opinion/WAG/hope?
>
> 1 male in 30,000 (of the general population) requests SRS according
> to one study.
>
> Given blakes numbers that would mean that one
> person in 3000 are cross dressers.
>
> I highly doubt that, but maybe?
Actually, crossdressers are pretty common. One in 3000 might even be a bit
low. Most are very secretive about it.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"L D Blake" <n...@any.adr> wrote in message
> On 11 Feb 2005 07:35:04 -0800, "Lancy" <la...@charter.net> wrote:
> >"several orders of magnitude" means numbers like 1000 or 10,000, not
> >10. You exagerate to make your point.
> >10 or 15 to 1 is a single order of magnitude.
>
Lyle, given your claims of how you are such a great programmer, it just
shows how really lame YOU are.
> >Also, you state this as fact. Can you provide any real references or
> >is it just your opinion/WAG/hope?
>
> It's an observation taken from 20 years of experience in the
transcommunity
> as an openly transgendered person.
Translation, he's just making it up.
--
Jennifer Usher
Sandra
of "semantic bickering", Laura. That's why you often get
called on your over-hyped pronouncements.
As a stealth transperson, I've met, in person, maybe 3 full
time cd's and one person who claimed to be a transgenderist. I
honestly don't believe the numbers you propose. Most of the
rest of those who still had their "boy parts" were TS's on
their way to surgery. Although there were some TS's who
couldn't go for SRS due to medical conditions beyond their
control and those who wouldn't because of family pressures. So
I don't believe that the numbers you cite are anywhere within
the realm of reality.
Sandra
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:kmrp01tufcjagrctc...@4ax.com:
> On 11 Feb 2005 07:35:04 -0800, "Lancy" <la...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>>"several orders of magnitude" means numbers like 1000 or
>>10,000, not 10. You exagerate to make your point.
>>10 or 15 to 1 is a single order of magnitude.
>
> [yawn] Semantic bickering? How totally lame!
>
>
>>Also, you state this as fact. Can you provide any real
>>references or is it just your opinion/WAG/hope?
>
> It's an observation taken from 20 years of experience in
> the transcommunity as an openly transgendered person.
>
>
>
> =====
> Laura
>
Jennifer Usher
> >
> >> My first 'C' programming was with "BDS 'C'" an old product
> >> for CP/M that was integer only.
> >>
> >> The compiles were blindingly fast. :)
> >
> > I vaguely remember that name. BDS...do you remember what it stood for?
It
> > seems like it was something of a humorous name. CP/M, as I have said, I
> > knew well. And who needs real numbers anyway?
>
> http://www.bdsoft.com/about.html
Fascinating....
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Leor Zolman" <le...@bdsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1108095105....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> "BDS" == "Brain Damage Software"... and I agree, we don't need no
> stinkin' floating point, lol...
That's what I was thinking... Ah, those were the good old days. <g>
> (I must say, this is not the typical flavor of newsgroup where mentions
> of BDS C crop up...)
Well, my SO has quite a history in programming, and I go back a ways myself.
I actually remember things like CP/M, UCSD p-System, and punch cards.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> > "BDS" == "Brain Damage Software"... and I agree, we don't need no
> > stinkin' floating point, lol...
>
> Oh yes. I remember now. You are a GOD. :)
That's my Sugir! <g>
> Transition to Aztec C was a relative bummer, but one of the
> few options of the day. Remember?
>
> I'll email you my copious accolades.
Of course...
--
Jennifer Usher
qwertyuiop
news:Xns95F7C4AFF...@151.164.30.93...
> This is in response to a request for a justification and
> rationale for SRS.
>
> Laura, I will explain it one more time for you although I
> doubt you're even remotely interested in the truth this
> article exposes.
>
> In as simple a set of terms as I can manage for you:
>
> The body and brain/nervous system have been shown to be sexed
> at different times during the process of human gestation. If
> the timing is off or the hormonal wash is of reduced potency
> or absent the brain/nervous system does not become sexed to
> the same degree, or even in the same vector, as the remainder
> of the body. Since it is axiomatic that gender-identity is a
> psychological self-identification, it follows that the
> brain/nervous system plays a predominant part in the formation
> of one's sense of gender duality or integration. Studies of
> different reaction mechanisms such as staring, voice
> recognition, and cuddling behaviors between baby boys and
> girls show internal gender identity markers exist as early as
> 6 months of age. The degree of gender duality or integration
> can then be rationally attributed to the degree of difference
> in the sexing of the brain.
>
> With that said, SRS may be viewed as an attempt by an
> individual exhibiting a body/mind sexual dichotomy to achieve
> a relative degree of fusion between the way one's body sex has
> developed and the way one's brain development mandates their
> brain's gender identity. People with this condition are
> typically classified as "transsexual", although other
> classifications of gender dichotomy do exist, some of which
> are social and some of which are not. All of them can be
> mediated to some degree using methods derived on a case-by-
> case basis. Case studies have also shown that purely psycho-
> emotive or psychiatric attempts to re-adjust the mind to the
> body have been notoriously ill fitting to the individual and
> the person's true gender identity, although submerged, often
> re-surfaces even after prolonged psychotherapy.
>
> The only other treatment that provides relief for this
> condition, in a majority of cases of polar opposite gender-sex
> dichotomy, has been shown to be surgical. The rate of
> satisfaction among carefully selected study groups who have
> participated in a surgical SRS solution is generally in the
> 80-90 percent range with some recidivism in a limited small
> number of samples.
>
> Does that explain it to your satisfaction, Laura? Or did I use
> too many big words?
>
> Sandra
Does any of this include any of the rest of us? I didn't think so. GOLLY!
Moving on...
--
Jess
Sandra
Laura, could you please keep on topic?. If you'd like to
discuss programming and programming languages, I'm sure there
are newsgroups where this would be more appropriate.
Thanks
Sandra
L D Blake <n...@any.adr> wrote in
news:kb3p0159lkie9b0sb...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:22:49 -0000, "Amanda Angelika"
> <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Well I wouln't claim to be a programmer. But I am aware
>>that older languages can have their technolgical
>>limitations
>
> Just because a language *began* a long time ago doesn't
> mean it's obsolete or limited. Pascal and C are both in
> continuous active development, and both are completely
> useable languages on modern machines. They have floating
> point support, handle terrabyte file sizes, etc. and new
> features are added on a near daily basis.
>
> The idea that just because some golly gee wiz-bang new
> language has a ton of fancy shit attached to it, it has to
> be more powerful is a terrible misconception. The real
> power still lies with the oldest language of all...
> Assembler... the language in which languages are written!
>
> High level stuff like .NET and Delphi are *programmer's
> convenience* items, not powerful programming languages.
> Just because you can visually design a dialog box or have
> the language emit huge blocks of code for you doesn't mean
> it's more powerful... in fact it is often necessary to give
> up considerable specificity of code (and thus power) in
> order to make these things work. Then, of course, there's
> the bloating effect of all that extra code needed to make
> the visual design thing work at all...
>
> In C or PAS I can do the "hello world" thing in 10 lines
> (or less) of code typed into notepad. One line in Basic.
> To do the same thing in Delphi you have to create a new
> project, create a dialog box, drop on controls to display
> the text, close the dialog etc. The whole thing then spits
> out *thousands* (no joke) of lines of code which in turn
> compile to about a 330k EXE file... in C or Pas less than
> 10k... most of which is the required startup code for
> windows executables.
>
> For large projects there is an advantage to what they call
> "Rapid Application Design" and as long as you don't care
> about your code sucking up half a megabyte of memory to
> display a dialog box, you do get off the hook for wasting
> time in software development. The problem with RAD and
> Visual methods --and I'm seeing it more and more all the
> time-- is the people using these visual design tools don't
> actually understand the code they're creating... and often
> software goes out the door with serious bugs and very
> little testing.
>
> No thanks... I'll stay with the "old" ways...
> I like to write code that actually works.
>
>
> =====
> Laura
>
Jennifer Usher
"Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:372pnfF...@individual.net...
> > Up to date like Delphi, C# or C++? Anything you can do in a meg and
> > a half in Delphi I can do in under 200k in Pascal or C.
>
> Well I wouln't claim to be a programmer. But I am aware that older
languages
> can have their technolgical limitations
Well, Blake is making a ridiculous claim. In fact, I am not aware, right
off the top of my head, of a Pascal compiler that would produce a Windows
program other than Delphi. So what he is claiming is that he can produce a
full featured Windows program in Pascal or C, and in under 200K. I mean, he
really is full of crap on this as well as on transsexuals.
> > Really... newer isn't always better.
>
> I agree, but sometimes you have to move on because older things become
> obsolete.
Like Blake's brain? <g>
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"cat-o-matic" <cat-o...@nospamfor.me> wrote in message
news:20050210233444.05...@nospamfor.me...
> I agree, but feel I should point out that C is hardly obsolete.
> Try these, just 2 of many I find extremely useful & efficient
> written in C.
Personally, I much prefer C to C++.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"cat-o-matic" <cat-o...@nothankyouplea.se> wrote in message
news:zb2Pd.191619$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Actually it's quite fast, light & efficient.
> You just like to ridicule me because I clocked
> you for what you are. Frustrating, isn't it?
No, in all honesty, he likes to ridicule you because you have completely
misjudged him. He has a strong aversion to that sort of thing.
--
Jennifer Usher
Sandra
the base explanation were the non-trans and IS people. And IS
could be accomodated fairly easily. If you read my response to
Laura regarding the degree of pressure as motivation, you'll see
that I've tried to factor in all forms of transgenderism. So
that kind of includes everyone else. So, where do you fit, Jess?
Sandra
"qwertyuiop" <idontt...@noway.com> wrote in
news:7R7Pd.15$vK5...@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
qwertyuiop8th
generations of our FUTURE rather than our past, for without a future, there
won't BE another past.
--
Jess
"Sandra" <Sand...@notmyrealaddy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95FA794D3...@151.164.30.93...
Sugir
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:374ghpF...@individual.net...
Not to mention my obsession with reality.
People can create subset-browsers all they want.
None of it will affect the fact that IE will dominate.
Think about it: The richest corporation in the world,
with the dominant browser now, and every intention
of staying dominant. It is
Learning to live with the world as it is can reduce some
amount of writhing around.
I personally don't like big corporations, but I have to respect
MS for the way they organize technical talent, and continue
to push forward on so many codebases. Their tech support
is very well trained.
http://gatesfoundation.org speaks for itself.
Bill Gates is my hero, and if I say it enough maybe he will
have me up for badminton.
Sugir
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
Sugir
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:374fh3F...@individual.net...
OK, if you won't tell, I'll try it just once. :)
Sugir
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
Sandra
possibly learn to understand and accept those who come after us.
We don't even seem to know our own motivations well. Can we
expect to somehow know the motivations of others without that?
Sandra
"qwertyuiop8th" <idontt...@noway.com> wrote in
news:rr8Pd.153$H05...@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
qwertyuiop8th
news:rr8Pd.153$H05...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I fit in right where abouts we push ourselves aside and worry about the
> generations of our FUTURE rather than our past, for without a future,
there
> won't BE another past.
>
> --
> Jess
*anymore. And, how about you, Sandy? Where do you fit into all this?
Pressure? Transgenderism? Well, if it weren't for you know-nothings, we
wouldn't have to worry about that, anymore, would we? But, I suppose
everybody knows-nothing, of course you couldn't think anybody at all
actually knew something, not this day and age, the 21st century, 1.8 million
years after we figured how to stand on our own two feet, could you? I know
all those of you who still believe in Santa Claus most likely DO think
people still know things, but, that's only because that's what they want you
to think, don't ask me WHY- I mean, who have you got for us to instill our
faith in when the most-educated of us passes on? Anybody? Probably not.
Atleast, that's what it's like everywhere I've ever been, and that's quite a
few places! And you ask me where I fit in, HEH! I thought I was posed to fit
in any and everywhere, but it doesn't seem like every or anywhere IS a place
like I used to think it was. Just forget I even mentioned it, thanks and
you're welcome for the support.
Sandra
programming stuff. You realize that? What does computer
language, etc have to do with SRS? Come on folks. We complain
when other usurp our threads what's the difference here?
Sandra
"Sugir" <Su...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:420d143f$1...@127.0.0.1:
qwertyuiop8th
> And yet, if we can't understand and accept ourselves, how can we
> possibly learn to understand and accept those who come after us.
> We don't even seem to know our own motivations well. Can we
> expect to somehow know the motivations of others without that?
> Sandra
>
>
What makes you think you're supposed to know anothers' motivations or
inclinations? If you guys'd lay off the crack (smoke, toxins, etc., etc.)
and start self-medicating, you would be able to breathe freely knowing
you'll wind up reproducing a race free of handicaps, disorders, etc., et
NEVER... cetera. But, you probably you already knew that's not going to
happen!
--
Jess
Sandra
learned that the older I get the less I seem to know for sure.
But one thing I *have* learned from my gender journey -- I've
learned to trust myself and that I'm never the same from one
day to the next. Maybe that's where our survival lies. Not so
much in understanding but in simple acceptance of our
differences? But still we try to understand -- ourselves and
others -- to some degree.
As to where I fit, I always thought of myself as a kind of
chameleon. I fit in where I need to fit in at the time. A sort
of protective coloration born of a survival instinct.
And just for the record, I believe that education is what's
left after you've forgotten everything you learned in school.
Sandra
-------------------------------------------------
"qwertyuiop8th" <idontt...@noway.com> wrote in
news:lD8Pd.158$H05...@twister.nyroc.rr.com: