What Changing One's Sex Really Means....
Diane
or two self-proclaimed "non-op transexuals" are still flailing
about, proudly proclaiming their status. Of course it's all
very, very irrelevant. Here's why.....
While was ranting continued I was in my (soon to be) new
hometown taking care of arrangements that had to be made for a
new job and looking for a place to live.
One of the things I had to do was take a company physical. Not
only did I not have the least bit of anxiety about it there were
no "nasty" explanations needed. Someone like LoreeTV is going to
raise a few eyebrows.
I met some other women in the personnel department and we chatted
about this and that for a while. There was never any question
about me being any thing other then I appear to be because that
is exactly who I am accepted as: just another woman working for
the company. Someone like LoreeTV, who has not even really
started electrolysis, has not integrated themselves into the
society of women, has not done anything, save some mail-order
hormones, to change their appearance or demeanor is not going to
find quite that kind of acceptance.
Because of the nature of my job I had to register with the
Sheriff's department and they did a background check on me.
Guess what ? My record came back all under Diane - no surprise
to me. Didn't even think twice about it. Once again no nasty
explanations needed. This is because over 12 years ago I changed
all my identification to support my new identity as the woman
that I am. Someone like LoreeTV, who has not even bothered to
change her state driver's license is likely going to have to have
a little talk with Andy and Barney in the back office.
I put in an application and obtained a townhouse in a somewhat
conservative area. No fuss, no muss - why? Once again: because
of the commitment that I made over a decade ago I have no
problems with things like ID contradicting my appearance. No
worry's from the community about what may be trying to move into
their neighborhood. No nasty underground prejudices to contend
with. I'm accepted for exactly who I appear to be because that's
exactly who I am when I made that commitment over a dozen years
ago. No mixed messages, no hidden meanings. Is someone like
LoreeTV, who claims she doesn't care whether she gets viewed as a
women or a man, going to find things that easy save in certain
ghettoes of our community?
And so it goes: What's the difference between someone who
changes their gender and someone claiming to be a "non-op
transexual"? Well hey - after these past four days I can tell
you that right now: It's the difference between getting along in
real life and playing word games on Usenet. It's the difference
between making a commitment to a way of life and playing Hamlet
with your gender.
It's the difference between moving on in life or getting stuck in
a groove like some old-time record, repeating over and over, "I'm
a non-op transexual-please accept me...click!...I'm a non-op
transexual-please accept me..click!..I'm a non-op transexual...."
The real life test never ends.
----------------
Diane
wheniw...@tg.com
<notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
SNIP!
> a non-op transexual-please accept me...click!...I'm a non-op
> transexual-please accept me..click!..I'm a non-op transexual...."
>
> The real life test never ends.
>
>
>
> ----------------
> Diane
**************
Dear Diane:
Thank you for the honest and open post! I must admit that I somewhat
aided the ferocious discussion on nonop-ts stuff by blithely putting a
tongue in cheek subject (..".non-op ts talking from a lurked position"...
geez I dread seeing that turn up once again! lol). But in spite of that,
I have learned more in the past few weeks as a result of ALL the
discussion and I just want to thank you for helping me see myself in a
clearer light. Your comments fit what Dani said re seeing how one feels
after several months of electrolysis... :)
and you state it so nicely as "The real life test never ends"
I don't know if I'll ever actually take "the test" but I'm certainly glad
to begin to get a feel for the questions that will be on it! Thank you!
Teri-tg
Psycho Chic
<snip>
>One of the things I had to do was take a company physical. Not
>only did I not have the least bit of anxiety about it there were
>no "nasty" explanations needed. Someone like LoreeTV is going to
>raise a few eyebrows.
>I met some other women in the personnel department and we chatted
>about this and that for a while. There was never any question
>about me being any thing other then I appear to be because that
>is exactly who I am accepted as: just another woman working for
>the company. Someone like LoreeTV, who has not even really
>started electrolysis, has not integrated themselves into the
>society of women, has not done anything, save some mail-order
>hormones, to change their appearance or demeanor is not going to
>find quite that kind of acceptance.
<snip>
>I put in an application and obtained a townhouse in a somewhat
>conservative area. No fuss, no muss - why? Once again: because
>of the commitment that I made over a decade ago I have no
>problems with things like ID contradicting my appearance. No
>worry's from the community about what may be trying to move into
>their neighborhood. No nasty underground prejudices to contend
>with. I'm accepted for exactly who I appear to be because that's
>exactly who I am when I made that commitment over a dozen years
>ago. No mixed messages, no hidden meanings. Is someone like
>LoreeTV, who claims she doesn't care whether she gets viewed as a
>women or a man, going to find things that easy save in certain
>ghettoes of our community?
<snip>
What exactly are you trying to say? If it's "I fit in like all the other
people who fit in and we all do the things we're supposed to do and we
aren't like those *weird* people who do *different* things because we're
normal and they're not"...which, incidentally, it sure sounds like
you're saying, then you're prejudiced and I'm calling you out on it. You
should know better.
I don't know what you meant by "ghettoes of our community", but I sure
the hell don't live in *anyone's* ghetto, b*tch !!! You come off
sounding like an ignorant redneck who doesn't value diversity.
Get a clue.
Diane
<dact...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>What exactly are you trying to say? If it's "I fit in like all the other
>people who fit in and we all do the things we're supposed to do and we
>aren't like those *weird* people who do *different* things because we're
>normal and they're not"...which, incidentally, it sure sounds like
>you're saying, then you're prejudiced and I'm calling you out on it. You
>should know better.
What am I saying? Just that one can spend one's life whining
about "how it's so so unfair and just don't fit in and no one
will accept me boo hoo hoo...." *or* one can get with the program
and stop trying to pull a gender fuck on people and then
complaining when people understandably withdraw.
That's what I'm trying to say and my guess is that it was pretty
obvious to most if not to yourself.
>I don't know what you meant by "ghettoes of our community", but I sure
>the hell don't live in *anyone's* ghetto, b*tch !!! You come off
>sounding like an ignorant redneck who doesn't value diversity.
And you sound like someone who would rather pick a fight then
talk about an issue. Lot's of luck to you and I really would
rather talk with someone else.
----------------
Diane
LoreeTG
>Been away for a few days and I see that the debate rages on. One
>or two self-proclaimed "non-op transexuals" are still flailing
>about, proudly proclaiming their status. Of course it's all
>very, very irrelevant. Here's why.....
>
>While was ranting continued I was in my (soon to be) new
>hometown taking care of arrangements that had to be made for a
>new job and looking for a place to live.
>
LoreeTV is going
>to raise a few eyebrows.
Still stuck on using an email handle rather than my name, I see. Nothing
quite like displaying prejudice and ignorance openly and proudly to lend an
air of credence to what you write<G>
And there is something wrong with raising a few eyebrows? Not that I can
see... unless your goal is to be totally stealth... in which case, you
shouldn't be posting to a transgendered news group... If you get caught,
THAT might raise a few eyebrows.
>Someone like LoreeTV, who has not even really
>started electrolysis, has not integrated themselves into the
>society of women, has not done anything, save some mail-order
>hormones, to change their appearance or demeanor is not going to
>find quite that kind of acceptance.
Lol... you are so full of...
My hormones are prescribed by my family MD. My women friends see me as a
woman... so do my male friends. Why? Because that's my demeanor.. and
appearance!
>Because of the nature of my job I had to register with the
>Sheriff's department and they did a background check on me.
>Guess what ? My record came back all under Diane - no surprise
>to me. Didn't even think twice about it. Once again no nasty
>explanations needed. This is because over 12 years ago I changed
>all my identification to support my new identity as the woman
>that I am.
So you are DEEP stealth... I'm glad Andy and Barney are computer
illiterates, or you might have had some explaning to do in the back office!
>Someone like LoreeTV, who has not even bothered to
>change her state driver's license is likely going to have to have
>a little talk with Andy and Barney in the back office.
On the other hand, since I'm not pretending to be a born female and am
completely open and honest about who and what I am, back rooms aren't
anywhere in my future. Those red neck cops sure get upset when somebody
fools them... they think it makes them look foolish. If I were you, I'd
avoid dating any of the local sherrif's department.
>I put in an application and obtained a townhouse in a somewhat
>conservative area. No fuss, no muss - why? Once again: because
>of the commitment that I made over a decade ago I have no
>problems with things like ID contradicting my appearance. No
>worry's from the community about what may be trying to move into
>their neighborhood.
Communities vary, but there are very few who will be happy about opening
their arms to a woman only to find out later that she was born male. That's
a scary way to live... the subtext of this post is frightening... I
sincerely hope you cover your tracks well enough never to be caught out. A
TS Mathew Shepard is something I'd rather not see.
>No nasty underground prejudices to contend
>with. I'm accepted for exactly who I appear to be because that's
>exactly who I am when I made that commitment over a dozen years
>ago. No mixed messages, no hidden meanings.
Until your past comes out... then any initial pejudice that might have
occured will be magnafied a hundred-fold... people DON"T like being fooled.
>Is someone like
>LoreeTV, who claims she doesn't care whether she gets viewed as a
>women or a man, going to find things that easy save in certain
>ghettoes of our community?
You've made this misstatement (about what I think about how people view me)
so often, I think you are begining to believe your own lies. Be that as it
may, by being open and honest about who and what I am, I might have to deal
with prejudice upfront, but I'll never have to worry about some crazy TS
outing me... I'll never have to worry that someone might get suspicious and
do a little digging... I will never have to use an anonomous re-mailer or
any other tactics to hide my past from people... I have a hard time
imagining living that way. To replace one closet for another doesn't seem
to me to be the healthiest of choices that can be made.
Don't get me wrong... I have no bone to pick with TS women who opt for a
stealth life. I just don't want it for myself. I worked hard to get myself
in a position where I DON"T have to hide any part of myself or my background
and I'm not about to give up the total relief from fear that I've gained.
>And so it goes: What's the difference between someone who
>changes their gender and someone claiming to be a "non-op
>transexual"? Well hey - after these past four days I can tell
>you that right now: It's the difference between getting along in
>real life and playing word games on Usenet.
Real life is what we live. I'm getting along splendidly, thank you!
>It's the difference
>between making a commitment to a way of life and playing Hamlet
>with your gender.
Hmm... you commited to a life of hiding, lying and protecting your secret
past from others. A tragedy...
I commited to living life as myself, no excuses, no appologies, no secrets.
A triumph of freedom and self expression.
Seems to me, the only thing you've revealed in THIS post is a bigoted
attitude (but we already knew that) and the difference between being "out"
and being "stealth".
>The real life test never ends.
The only indicator of doing well in your RLT that matters is "are you
happy?". If you are, good! Me too!
Hugs,
Loree Thomas
Seattle
lor...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/4958
Diane
>I don't know if I'll ever actually take "the test" but I'm certainly glad
>to begin to get a feel for the questions that will be on it! Thank you!
You're very welcome. Whether one is transsexual, transgendered
or just plain vanilla, life's always a test. "Passing" such a
test for transgendered people has less to do with what you look
like then how well you've prepared beforehand.
If I hadn't changed my IDs, if I hadn't bothered with
electrolysis, if I hadn't worked to get myself into a place where
I could be accepted by mainstream society then I wouldn't have
got that job, or that townhouse or damn little else of what I
worked for this past decade.
We're pistachios living in a vanilla society. Deal with it. We
can spend our energies trying to change several billion on the
planet to meet our needs - or we can meet them half way and reap
the benefits of living along with our peers.
All of us *need* diversity to thrive as a society and I never
ever would want the wonderful diversity our community offers to
fade. To those out there, however, trying to pull off a gender
fuck and demand that the rest of us accept it as a normal
behavior - well it ain't gonna happen. Not this decade baby and
likely not the next.
There are differences in how transsexuals approach the issue and
how someone wanting to just call themselves a transsexual
approaches things. What I had to do this week is just what
anyone living in the real world faces.
As you say - knowing the questions that are going to be on the
test helps a whole heck of a lot towards the preparation.
----------------
Diane
gee...@my-dejanews.com
> changes their gender and someone claiming to be a "non-op
> transexual"? Well hey - after these past four days I can tell
> you that right now: It's the difference between getting along in
> between making a commitment to a way of life and playing Hamlet
> with your gender.
>
> a non-op transexual-please accept me...click!...I'm a non-op
> transexual-please accept me..click!..I'm a non-op transexual...."
Thanks for a great post, Diane. I think you really have captured the
difference between a =commitment= to living as your chosen gender and
a something else.
As someone who's only been at this business of "life as a woman" for
not quite yet two years, I can tell you (and the lurkers) that being
"complete" is the best way to get on with your life. I =hate= that
I have a "too short credit history", but at least I don't have to use
some other name when I do look at applying for credit. No problems
with ID, no having to worry about the neighbors, no hassles other than
the ones any other 30-something woman would have to face.
Moving on with life -- getting out of the support groups, leaving the
"community" behind, being "just another woman" is great. Sure, lurking
on USENET is a tie to the community, but it's one I can do in relative
safety. It's something I can do without wearing my transsexualism on
my forehead at the grocery, or the car dealership, or the apartment
leasing office. People accept me as a woman because that's all they
can accept me as. No need to explain "transgenderism" to them, or
"educate" them about "non-op transsexuals". No inconsistent ID, no
shying away from activities because of my body. In short, I live the
same life any other woman my age and in my situation would live.
Slowly but surely, as issues are resolved -- like the new passport I
recently received -- the need to explain my past gradually diminishes.
Two months ago my singing voice stopped at middle C -- hardly a place
for a woman to top out. Today I have a range an octave and a half
higher than that -- yet another little thing that allows me to be the
woman that I am.
Transition is a process which we should allow to move forward, rather
than allow to get stuck in one place. If SRS isn't something you need,
don't have it -- but do allow the rest of your life to progress towards
normalcy. Anything else is depriving =you= of what you have wanted
your entire life.
-- Geena.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gee...@my-dejanews.com
wheniw...@tg.com wrote:
> I don't know if I'll ever actually take "the test" but I'm certainly glad
> to begin to get a feel for the questions that will be on it! Thank you!
There is only one question on the test -- "Do you wish to live out the rest
of your life as a woman or a man?" The quiet spaces in your heart know the
answer to that question, even if the loud and noisy spaces on USENET don't
quite seem to make sense.
Cassandra E Phillips
had to classify me, I would fit under the pre-op transgendered category) -
but what I don't understand is this -
Everyday I read all the t* related newsgroups. Everyday I hear people
coming on and saying, "oooh I did this" or "oooh I wore that" or crap like
"I'm a TG so look at me!" I don't see real (and I mean genetic) girls do
this crap! It's like, "'m a TG/TS so I'm special so I deserve special
rights or crap..."
I mean, come on! If you are going to be a woman - act like one! Geez! I
don't see what the big deal is - they want to be normal and fit in, yet they
don't act like it... Why don't some of these TG/TS people study other women
and see what they do? I can assure you, it sure in the hell ain't what the
people on these newsgroups do... (when was the last time you heard a woman
get excited because a man called her "ma'am"... I mean, what the hell?!?!)
I mean, people think they can just do what ever and they are going to fit
in... sorry - it ain't gonna happen if you don't TRY! Don't complain if
you aren't accepted as a woman if you don't look & act like one!
I hope I have somewhat made my point clear - as I have trouble expressing my
ideas on here... and if I did offend anyone, please accept my apologies...
I am only exercising my right to free speech...
And Diane - don't be dissin' my Andy & Barney - I'm a North Carolina
native... :-)
Later,
Cassie
Dani Richard
>
><snip>
>
> The real life test never ends.
Best quote in a long time....
Thank you.
>
>
>
> ----------------
> Diane
Dani
Scheherazade
<gee...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message 71daes$odf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
#SNIP#
>
>Thanks for a great post, Diane. I think you really have captured the
>difference between a =commitment= to living as your chosen gender and
>a something else.
Reminds me of the old joke.
What is the difference between committment and involvement?
Think of bacon and eggs.
The chicken is involved, the pig is committed.
>-- Geena.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Life is about growth. If you aren't growing and changing, you are not
alive. To find an automatic pilot in life is to fail.
Transition is just an arbitrary moment in a moving life. A freeze frame as
it were. To keep the VCR on pause is to stagnate and die. To mix a lot of
metaphors.
Robert Frost said that he could summarize everything he had learned about
life in three words: "It goes on."
Well, enough cheerleading, girls. Get out there and have fun!
--
Krystal
"We learn from history that we don't learn from history."
krys...@hotmail.com
Diane
<cassie...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>I hope I have somewhat made my point clear - as I have trouble expressing my
>ideas on here... and if I did offend anyone, please accept my apologies...
>I am only exercising my right to free speech...
Nope - you were pretty clear to me. I think you expressed
yourself well.
>And Diane - don't be dissin' my Andy & Barney - I'm a North Carolina
>native.
Yeah...yeah...tell it to Otis, lady.
<g>
----------------
Diane
Unknown
(Diane) wrote:
>And so it goes: What's the difference between someone who
>changes their gender and someone claiming to be a "non-op
>transexual"? Well hey - after these past four days I can tell
>you that right now: It's the difference between getting along in
>real life and playing word games on Usenet. It's the difference
>between making a commitment to a way of life and playing Hamlet
>with your gender.
>
>It's the difference between moving on in life or getting stuck in
>a groove like some old-time record, repeating over and over, "I'm
>a non-op transexual-please accept me...click!...I'm a non-op
>transexual-please accept me..click!..I'm a non-op transexual...."
I've begun to think of transition as a phased process. Unless you
pick and move to a new place and literally start from scratch, there's
initially going to be an "out" period. The further down the road of
life you are, the more complex that is likely to be. If you do it
young, there's just not as much history to deal with. But if you're
like me, and don't get started until your late thirties, odds are
you've accumulated a lot of ties to friends, family and career. Some
of us have had children and spouses. Those things aren't erased
overnight, and indeed some of it is essential to who we are and not
something we even want to remove from our history or our present
existence.
During that initial phase, mere survival is an issue. We struggle to
establish new identities within ourselves and within our social
context. Public opinion, the legal system, our work and family
environments may be against us, and sometimes there are specific
naysaysers in our lives who reflect back those negative influences to
us in personal ways. To combat those factors, we have to get our
courage up and find self-confidence. It's during this time that I
hear a lot of people talking about being out and proud. I've taken
this position myself -- since I was indubitably out, the alternative
seemed to be out and ashamed, and of course that's ridiculous.
I think it's reasonable to elect to stay in this mode if it suits you.
If you have an activist bent and want to speak out on transgender
issues, it's almost mandatory to acknowledge your status. Some may
weigh the considerations and conclude that it isn't feasible to cover
their tracks. Others may simply decide that they're comfortable with
a certain level of "outness", or not wish to risk the hazards of being
stealth and having their status involuntarily disclosed.
This is sort of where I've been for a while, and it's all right. Yet
while it gives you freedom of a sort, it also circumscribes your life
in some ways. As the years have passed, of course, I don't think my
transsexuality is much of an issue with other people anymore. Most of
my longtime friends, I think, have acclimated to the point where they
don't retain their old images of me, or at least don't find
significant emotional attachment to them.
As an example, last year I was with some colleagues reviewing the
research we'd accumulated on a case. One item was an article I'd
written ten years ago, and it had my old picture and name displayed at
the top. In the course of the discussion, I remarked that I'd changed
my views somewhat since I'd written the article. A couple of the
younger people who've only known me as Andrea didn't understand what I
was saying. Two of the older guys, who I've known for thirty years or
so, picked up the article and looked at the photo, and both basically
said, "Geez, was that you? Even looking at the picture I can't
remember you that way." Both said they didn't think they would have
made the connection if I hadn't mentioned it.
Some of my old pals who freaked out and nearly jumped off the bridge
when I started living as a woman have come around 180 degrees, too.
Nowadays their banter when they call is "Hey, gorgeous!" or "When are
you inviting me over for dinner again, beautiful?" Of course I love
it, not just for reasons of vanity but because I can hear the
acceptance and affirmation of my self-image in their voices. I feel
like my girlfriends have fully pulled me into the sisterhood as well,
and our relationships and conversations are very natural and unguarded
woman to woman connections.
Despite the recycling aspect of old relationships, and the fact that
new people continue to enter our lives without any real knowledge of
or concern for our pasts, there is nonetheless a sort of invisible
barrier that arises from being known as a transsexual. Or at least I
think there is, and maybe it is only my thoughts that create that
supposed limitation.
Do people "really" think of me as a woman, I wonder? I don't know if
I can ever truly know the answer to that question unless I live in an
environment that doesn't include my transsexuality. How much does it
matter to me to find out about that? All my life, my dream was to
simply become a woman, a female. I didn't dream of being a
transsexual, although that is what I am and, indeed, I am proud of who
I am and what I have accomplished.
Yet I cannot help but think that there is another phase to this
process, where the past is past, and we can be and live without
qualification as women. Those who transitioned years ago live lives
that seem subtly but qualitatively different from mine, and I am
fascinated by what they have achieved. In many ways, I feel I have
already crossed that line myself, and am perhaps on the brink of
moving on again.
I've written in the past about how life washes over us and erodes the
past, even when we think we don't want it to and are opposing it. I
wonder also if I'm just waiting for my own self-definition to catch up
with the way the rest of the world already defines me. Perhaps the
only change I need to make is to let go of old ideas, and accept the
reality of what has already transpired.
>The real life test never ends.
No, not if it's real life.
Quizzically,
Andrea B.
>
>
>
>----------------
>Diane
lafem...@my-dejanews.com
I find your post excellent. I am in the process of the real life test. I'm
still pre-op, but have managed to be very passable. It should be important to
all who choose this path to be the female they believe they are. Changing
one's sex means just that.
I'm new to the Usenet, and it seems to me the TG community needs to be united
rather than fighting among themselves.
Myra
In article <363af5f0...@news.sirius.com>,
Diane <notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
> Been away for a few days and I see that the debate rages on. One
> or two self-proclaimed "non-op transexuals" are still flailing
> about, proudly proclaiming their status. Of course it's all
> very, very irrelevant. Here's why.....
>
> While was ranting continued I was in my (soon to be) new
> hometown taking care of arrangements that had to be made for a
> new job and looking for a place to live.
>
> One of the things I had to do was take a company physical. Not
> only did I not have the least bit of anxiety about it there were
> no "nasty" explanations needed. Someone like LoreeTV is going to
> raise a few eyebrows.
>
> I met some other women in the personnel department and we chatted
> about this and that for a while. There was never any question
> about me being any thing other then I appear to be because that
> is exactly who I am accepted as: just another woman working for
> the company. Someone like LoreeTV, who has not even really
> started electrolysis, has not integrated themselves into the
> society of women, has not done anything, save some mail-order
> hormones, to change their appearance or demeanor is not going to
> find quite that kind of acceptance.
>
> Because of the nature of my job I had to register with the
> Sheriff's department and they did a background check on me.
> Guess what ? My record came back all under Diane - no surprise
> to me. Didn't even think twice about it. Once again no nasty
> explanations needed. This is because over 12 years ago I changed
> all my identification to support my new identity as the woman
> that I am. Someone like LoreeTV, who has not even bothered to
> change her state driver's license is likely going to have to have
> a little talk with Andy and Barney in the back office.
>
> I put in an application and obtained a townhouse in a somewhat
> conservative area. No fuss, no muss - why? Once again: because
> of the commitment that I made over a decade ago I have no
> problems with things like ID contradicting my appearance. No
> worry's from the community about what may be trying to move into
> their neighborhood. No nasty underground prejudices to contend
> with. I'm accepted for exactly who I appear to be because that's
> exactly who I am when I made that commitment over a dozen years
> ago. No mixed messages, no hidden meanings. Is someone like
> LoreeTV, who claims she doesn't care whether she gets viewed as a
> women or a man, going to find things that easy save in certain
> ghettoes of our community?
>
> And so it goes: What's the difference between someone who
> changes their gender and someone claiming to be a "non-op
> transexual"? Well hey - after these past four days I can tell
> you that right now: It's the difference between getting along in
> real life and playing word games on Usenet. It's the difference
> between making a commitment to a way of life and playing Hamlet
> with your gender.
>
> It's the difference between moving on in life or getting stuck in
> a groove like some old-time record, repeating over and over, "I'm
> a non-op transexual-please accept me...click!...I'm a non-op
> transexual-please accept me..click!..I'm a non-op transexual...."
>
> The real life test never ends.
>
> ----------------
> Diane
Diane
wrote:
>I find your post excellent. I am in the process of the real life test. I'm
>still pre-op, but have managed to be very passable. It should be important to
>all who choose this path to be the female they believe they are. Changing
>one's sex means just that.
I'm glad you found my point of view of some interest. I wish you
the best of luck on your journey.
>I'm new to the Usenet, and it seems to me the TG community needs to be united
>rather than fighting among themselves.
Well I am afraid that you will find us as divisive as any other
group of people. One of the reasons may be that the TG community
may well be more of a fiction then a fact. Much of this is due
to our very different natures and needs. The needs and desires
of a transsexual are quite different from those of a cross
dresser for example.
What we all have in common is our need to live our lives without
hinderance or hate directed towards us.
----------------
Diane
Diane
>Diversity is a fine ideal, but often as not carries its own prejudices
>in practice. Too often it's used as a mantra by those who wish to
>give their own views preeminence, characterizing any contrary view as
>recidivist.
Yeah!
What she said!
<g>
----------------
Diane
Marlene
>It's the difference between moving on in life or getting stuck in a groove
like some old-time record, repeating over and over, "I'm a non-op
transexual-please accept me...click!...I'm a non-op transexual-please
accept me..click!..I'm a non-op transexual...."
>The real life test never ends.
Well, Diane, just remember not all TSs are geniuses with high IQs and
college degrees!!!!!!! There's alot of us with little education and low pay
to show for it who can't afford name changes, hormones and surgery, let
alone townhouses, BMWs, etcetera! So get off the non-ops case, dearie.
I came out early in life and have paid for it dearly.
Marlene (marl...@wcnet.org)
Doing my best to piss off the religious reicht.....
Being both lesbians AND transsexual is just *two* of them!!!!
Diane
wrote:
> Well, Diane, just remember not all TSs are geniuses with high IQs and
>college degrees!!!!!!!
persistent and consistent. Sometimes that's all it takes. Well
that and one other thing that I learned while in the military: No
excuses.
>There's alot of us with little education and low pay
>to show for it who can't afford name changes, hormones and surgery, let
>alone townhouses, BMWs, etcetera! So get off the non-ops case, dearie.
of this has anything to do with the ridiculous assertion that
someone who wants to live as a cross dresser should be called a
transexual does it?
> I came out early in life and have paid for it dearly.
And who didn't?
----------------
Diane
Karen Ross
> Well, Diane, just remember not all TSs are geniuses with high IQs and
>college degrees!!!!!!! There's alot of us with little education and low pay
>to show for it who can't afford name changes, hormones and surgery, let
>alone townhouses, BMWs, etcetera! So get off the non-ops case, dearie.
>
> I came out early in life and have paid for it dearly.
When I GID crashed and transitioned at 25, I was broke. I had no money for
food, let alone rent. My liberal arts degree was in an inappropriate name
so I couldn't reference my education. My only friends were street
trannies - four to seven years younger, but they'd been around. We all went
on to make good lives for ourselves. One friend, dropped-out of high school
at 16 and turned tricks on the street until she realized she was TS rather
than gay. When we met she was 18 and she'd just started hormones. She was
a nice kid from the wrong side of the tracks with a very ordinary IQ, at
best. She was young and the last of us to get surgery. Yet she
buckled-down and earned her SRS in three years. She went on to marry a
couple of times and raise her first husband's children to adulthood. Last
I hear she was and doing quite well.
In my experience hard work and discipline are better predictors of success
that a genius IQ or even a college degree, as such.
-- Kare
Psycho Chic
line. I suppose the point I'd like to make is that one doesn't need to be a
Stepford Wife to be integrated into society...even a "conservative" one. I
know stone butch dykes who live in lilly-white soccer mom communities who get
on just fine...perhaps they don't get invited to the same dinner parties, but
who would want to hang out with really boring people anyway?
che...@nowhere.com wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:37:50 GMT, Psycho Chic <dact...@2xtreme.net>
> wrote:
>
> >What exactly are you trying to say? If it's "I fit in like all the other
> >people who fit in and we all do the things we're supposed to do and we
> >aren't like those *weird* people who do *different* things because we're
> >normal and they're not"...which, incidentally, it sure sounds like
> >you're saying, then you're prejudiced and I'm calling you out on it. You
> >should know better.
>
> Is it prejudice to want to have a private life? To be free of the
> subtle and not-so-subtle prejudices, to live the American dream? To
> claim the right to live as we choose is not prejudice.
>
> >I don't know what you meant by "ghettoes of our community", but I sure
> >the hell don't live in *anyone's* ghetto, b*tch !!! You come off
> >sounding like an ignorant redneck who doesn't value diversity.
> >
> >Get a clue.
>
> I was unaware that transgendered people constituted a separate race.
> What are its salient characteristics?
>
> Ghetto refers to where a minority group is forced to live. There are
> ghettoes of place, and ghettoes of mind. If a person lives more
> within a transgendered comunity, and less within the real world as a
> woman, she has ghettoized herself, at least from the viewpoint of
> those who want to live in the mainstream rather than on the fringes.
Diane
<dact...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>Fair enough! Points well taken...sorry for my earlier tone, it was out of
>line. I suppose the point I'd like to make is that one doesn't need to be a
>Stepford Wife to be integrated into society
indicating, at any rate, was that there's a lot more to life then
wearing a dress and thinking that alone gives one the right to
believe society will accept you as member. If one wants to get
the job, pass the physical, get past the security check and rent
the townhouse one has to meet the rest of society half way at
least.
Calling ones self a transexual, let alone a woman without
changing the ID or doing the other work involved is an exercise
in futility - or will be as soon as one attempts to live in the
mainstream of society.
>.perhaps they don't get invited to the same dinner parties, but
>who would want to hang out with really boring people anyway?
You don't always get what you want -
but sometimes, sometimes...
----------------
Diane
Technoid
> Well, Diane, just remember not all TSs are geniuses with high IQs and
> college degrees!!!!!!! There's alot of us with little education and low pay
> to show for it who can't afford name changes, hormones and surgery, let
> alone townhouses, BMWs, etcetera! So get off the non-ops case, dearie.
Even though the lines drawn in the sand have taken on the look of trenches in
a war, the original discussion was about the difference between 'non-op TS' by
_choice_ and 'non-op TS' by _circumstance_.
If one is in circumstances that preclude SRS (medical, economic, etc.) but
still wishes for it (desires it strongly) that is one thing, and is to most a
reasonable [partial] definition of TS.
If one, however, does not desire SRS simply because they prefer to keep their
male genitals, the more commonly accepted term is TG simply because to refer
to a person who has no wish for SRS as a 'TS' seriously dilutes (and possibly
distorts) the meaning of the term.
TS folks who strongly desire SRS actually do have a vested interest in keeping
the term as clear as possible. Allowing anyone who does not desire SRS, be
they CD, TV, TG or whatever, to proclaim to the world that they are 'TS' but
don't want or need surgery MAY indeed make it more difficult for those who
need and desire SRS to convince others that it is the only avenue for them.
Also, if the term 'non-op TS' becomes widespread enough in referring to people
who do not need/desire SRS, the general public will lose the focus of what it
really means to be TS and to need the surgery to continue on with any sort of
decent quality of life.
The trench warfare that has broken out over this merely shows how deeply felt
this issue is to many. The mode of battle is deplorable, but nevertheless
understandable. *sigh*
Tom
--
| Tom Losh <man...@tech-center.com> |
| PGP 5 fingerprint: |
| 3E2E 6143 393D 872B CB0E |
| 88E2 CA28 25BA 69B9 32EA |
LoreeTG
From: Cassandra Kitsune Foxx <skunk...@one.net.au>
>Loree, I'd like to ask you something......
>
>What is wrong with Diana living the way she does?
Absolutly nothing. I am not attacking her life or lifestyle... she IS
attacking mine.. along with Cheryl and Geena... Three posts-ops
concentrating on one self declared non-op...
The ONLY problem I have with Diane is that I self id as a non-op TS... and
she doesn't want me to do that. She makes all kindas of assumptions about
who and what I am and staes the online as "truth".
>Why do you object to that?
I don't.
Why do you object to me defending myself? Wouldn't you defend yourself if a
group of people claimed to know all about your life and started posting lies
about you in the newsgroup? People who had never met you... people that
were trying to intimidate you into changing your self declared ID?
>And Diane, I'd like to ask you something....
>
>What's wrong with Loree living her life as she wants to?
>
>If Loree is happy living as a TG rather than a full-time female, then
that's her
>right.
What's wrong with you that you post THEIR lies about me? I live as female
FULL TIME... as I've posted on numerous occasions.
The ONLY real problem Cheryl, Geena and Diane have is that I call myself a
non-op TS. Every one of those three has but one objective in this... to
FORCE me to stop calling myself a TS.
>She obviously is comfortable with the way others see her and doesn't care
>about their opinions of her, else she wouldn't live that way.
>Can't you see that everyone will do things differently? You both have some
very
>good points about living the way we do, and I have found some things to
take
>note of in my own transition, but you're not helping yourselves tearing
each
>other to shreds the way you do. Can't you respect each other's position and
just
>leave it at that?
Well now and that's the problem isn't it? Cheryl vowed to flame me until I
stopped calling myself a non-op TS. Diane and Geena have joined her in this
quest.
I would be happy to drop it completely! I have no interest at all in
keeping a flame war going... but read this thread again... All I have done
is defend my own right to self ID... not attack anybody else.
Technoid
[CLIP]
> The ONLY real problem Cheryl, Geena and Diane have is that I call myself a
> non-op TS. Every one of those three has but one objective in this... to
> FORCE me to stop calling myself a TS.
[CLIP]
> I would be happy to drop it completely! I have no interest at all in
> keeping a flame war going... but read this thread again... All I have done
> is defend my own right to self ID... not attack anybody else.
If I were to 'self-ID' myself a Native American (I'm Polish/Swedish), and went
so far as to publish and insist on my right to do so I would fully expect
actual Native Americans to make a strong effort to dissuade from that, and to
just as publicly state that I am not.
The argument is not over the right to 'self-ID' but over the possibly
inappropriate assumption of an ID that is not correct. I 'self-ID' as a number
of things, but I DO endevour not to 'mis-ID' myself. When one does claim an ID
that changes, damages, dilutes, or otherwise causes confusion in others for
those who _correctly_ have that ID, they are well within bounds to challenge
and try to correct that misassumption of their collective ID.
What is sad here is that when the group challenged and attempted correction it
was met with total unacceptance by the one claiming to be a part of that
group. Many posts on both sides were made in an attempt to clarify both the
claim and the percieved errors in the claim. Technical corrections were also
made in an attempt to educate various folks as to what both medicine and human
biology consider the 'Primary Sexual Characteristics,' etc.
While I personally strongly support one's right to self identify, I also MUST
support the rights of those in the identified group to challenge that ID if it
is questionable.
If this had stayed on the level of honest dialog, and if there had been any
willingness to accept inputs rather than rapidly devolving to "AM TOO!" - "ARE
NOT!" - "AM TOO!" - "ARE NOT!" - "AM TOO!" - "ARE NOT!" - "AM TOO!" - "ARE
NOT!" we could all have learned something and been wiser and richer for it.
As it is now, it appears that possibility is lost.
So, while I agree with and support anyone's right to self identify, I do not
and can not support anyone's right to mis-identify, especially when such is
continued blindly.
For myself, I'm going to try to ignore this entire squabble after this post,
since behavoirs on BOTH sides of the dispute are beginning to anger me. It's
sounding more and more like a second grade arguement at the schoolyard. (I'm
being generous in that...)
It's not what's being argued (though there is ample evidence that some have
totally lost site of what this is about), but the incredibly childish way it
is being carried out.
Peace, girls, and let's move ON!
Tom
(A blue Martian even though every Martian KNOWS Martians must all be green...)
Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
What is wrong with Diana living the way she does?
She sees herself as female, and lives that way full-time, more than some I know.
She's meticulously prepared for this over a long period of time, and it is
working well for her. She is presumably heading for SRS or has been through it,
and feels comfortable with her new self.
Why do you object to that?
And Diane, I'd like to ask you something....
What's wrong with Loree living her life as she wants to?
If Loree is happy living as a TG rather than a full-time female, then that's her
right. She obviously is comfortable with the way others see her and doesn't care
about their opinions of her, else she wouldn't live that way.
Why do you object to that?
You both seem to me to be standing on either side of a brick wall you have both
erected and are bashing your heads agianst it, verbally challenging each other
to prove you wrong. Why? I can't see it doing either of you any good, and you're
just inflaming the other to retaliate verbally.
Can't you see that everyone will do things differently? You both have some very
good points about living the way we do, and I have found some things to take
note of in my own transition, but you're not helping yourselves tearing each
other to shreds the way you do. Can't you respect each other's position and just
leave it at that?
From someone who's learned that no-one is right or wrong 100% of the time.
Cassie Foxx
Diane
<skunk...@one.net.au> wrote:
>>And Diane, I'd like to ask you something....
>What's wrong with Loree living her life as she wants to?
Heck! Nothing at all! My only beef is in the presentation
rather then the implementation. LoreeT? can live her life any
darn way she pleases and it's not for me to say.
What I *do* believe is for me to speak out against is her
attempts to persuade people that she is some variant of TS when
it just ain't so. I would like people to have a clear idea of
what it means, physically, socially - whatever - when a person
changes sex. I don't want others to be drawn into someone
else's confusion.
>If Loree is happy living as a TG rather than a full-time female, then that's her
>right. She obviously is comfortable with the way others see her and doesn't care
>about their opinions of her, else she wouldn't live that way.
I agree with you there 100% actually.
>From someone who's learned that no-one is right or wrong 100% of the time.
Also agree with you 100% there too. I'm just maintaining that
there's a big difference in how a TS approaches the issue and how
LoreeT? is doing so. I want to make that difference clear and I
think that people will draw their own conclusions as to the
validity of her TS assertions.
----------------
Diane
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Diane <notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:02:10 +1000, Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
> <skunk...@one.net.au> wrote:
> >If Loree is happy living as a TG rather than a full-time female, then that's
her
> >right. She obviously is comfortable with the way others see her and doesn't
care
> >about their opinions of her, else she wouldn't live that way.
> I agree with you there 100% actually.
Hmmmm. I have a problem with a "woman" who doesn't care to present to
society as a woman. TG or TS, "she" is representative of what "transwomen"
are supposed to be all about. When someone decides to present as "gender
fuck", I think it is more that acceptable to say "That isn't a woman, that
is something entirely different."
> >From someone who's learned that no-one is right or wrong 100% of the time.
>
> Also agree with you 100% there too. I'm just maintaining that
> there's a big difference in how a TS approaches the issue and how
> LoreeT? is doing so. I want to make that difference clear and I
> think that people will draw their own conclusions as to the
> validity of her TS assertions.
I do agree with this position. "Non-op transsexual" should be reserved for
those people who cannot have SRS, not for those who freely choose never to
have SRS. And while many of the F2M guys "choose" not to have SRS, having
seen photographs of man-made phallii, I don't think "choice" is so much the
issue as "There are two options, both equally bad." =Waiting= for better
medical technology is prolonging the only one of two bad choices which has
the potential for becoming a better choice in the future.
-- Geena.
Diane
<man...@tech-center.com> wrote:
>TS folks who strongly desire SRS actually do have a vested interest in keeping
>the term as clear as possible. Allowing anyone who does not desire SRS, be
>they CD, TV, TG or whatever, to proclaim to the world that they are 'TS' but
>don't want or need surgery MAY indeed make it more difficult for those who
>need and desire SRS to convince others that it is the only avenue for them.
I don't know who you are but may I bear your love child?
You r're right on target.
----------------
Diane
Technoid
> I don't know who you are but may I bear your love child?
>
> You're right on target.
Heheheheh... Thanks for the sentiment, Diane, but... :o)
Take care!
Tom
(I'd explain that cryptic answer in e-mail, but...)
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> The ONLY real problem Cheryl, Geena and Diane have is that I call myself a
> non-op TS. Every one of those three has but one objective in this... to
> FORCE me to stop calling myself a TS.
Which explains why Laura thinks you shouldn't call yourself a transsexual
either.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Diane <notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:35:15 -0800, Technoid
> <man...@tech-center.com> wrote:
> >TS folks who strongly desire SRS actually do have a vested interest in
keeping
> >the term as clear as possible. Allowing anyone who does not desire SRS, be
> >they CD, TV, TG or whatever, to proclaim to the world that they are 'TS' but
> >don't want or need surgery MAY indeed make it more difficult for those who
> >need and desire SRS to convince others that it is the only avenue for them.
>
Hey! What are you doing stealing my lines? I have "May I bear your love
child" copyrighted -- you owe me $0.37.
> You r're right on target.
And now LoreeT? is going to accuse Technoid of being an evil Post-Op who is
trying to forcibly silence her.
Diane
>Hey! What are you doing stealing my lines? I have "May I bear your love
>child" copyrighted -- you owe me $0.37.
Good artists create....great artists steal.....
----------------
Diane
Diane
>Which explains why Laura thinks you shouldn't call yourself a transsexual
>either.
Wait a minute.... she agrees with us!??
Maybe we should rethink this....
----------------
Diane
Sean and Lawrance
> What I *do* believe is for me to speak out against is her
> attempts to persuade people that she is some variant of TS when
> it just ain't so. I would like people to have a clear idea of
> what it means, physically, socially - whatever - when a person
> changes sex. I don't want others to be drawn into someone
> else's confusion.
>
> I'm just maintaining that
> there's a big difference in how a TS approaches the issue and how
> LoreeT? is doing so. I want to make that difference clear and I
> think that people will draw their own conclusions as to the
> validity of her TS assertions.
Diane, from what you worte earlier about the job, townhouse,
etc. you are a stealth TS. How does that educate anyone? I
think some of this gets down to a difference in defenition
of TS. I id as TS and firmly believe it is an appropriate
and accurate id. I am non-op for both circumstantial and
personal preference reasons.
I also am in seminary. I am out as a TS man to pretty much
everyone. (i don't choose to out myself to every person I
meet...the clerk at the grocery store doesn't want or need
my story.) I also teach, preach, and live my life in a way
that openly challenges the idea that there are only two
genders and that everyone needs to stick themselves in one
category or the other. Still, I don't necessarily define as
TG. I will always have my female history. I will always
have memories, experiences, and a body that are marked by my
birth sex. And I am now male. I crossed genders, I
transgressed the boundaries, I found a new home in my
maleness. But I keep ahold of all of myself. I remember the
things I learned as a woman. I bring all of that to my
parenting, my loving, my preaching...
These categories are not clear. I think Loree may be doing
more to help people get over their assumptions about gender
than someone (like you? I don't know, but it sounded like
it) who lives a completely stealth life as a woman. Why not
appreciate her courage? Why not hope that people who meet
her will learn something that will help them learn to
respect people like you?
Why assume that she will leave them confused? She seems
clear about what she is and what she is not. She certainly
knows all the arguments if she has hung around here very
long. If you are afraid she will misrepresent you then get
out there and represent yourself. Or ask her what she does
tell people. Loree--Do you represent yourself as a "typical"
TS? Do you let people know that there are a lot of different
kinds of TS/TG/TV/CD, etc. folks?
Maybe we can try a conversation based on listening and
respect...
Ever optimistic,
Sean Parker
Trina
>male genitals, the more commonly accepted term is TG simply because to refer
>to a person who has no wish for SRS as a 'TS' seriously dilutes (and possibly
>distorts) the meaning of the term.
The label "non-op TS" was in general use amongst T*s *long*
before the label "TG" came into use. In fact, as far as I could ever
tell the switch to TG was mostly a reaction to the perception that
non-op TS was a derisive term - much as many use the term CD because
of perceived negative connotations associated with TV.
>TS folks who strongly desire SRS actually do have a vested interest in keeping
>the term as clear as possible. Allowing anyone who does not desire SRS, be
>they CD, TV, TG or whatever, to proclaim to the world that they are 'TS' but
>don't want or need surgery MAY indeed make it more difficult for those who
>need and desire SRS to convince others that it is the only avenue for them.
Out of curiosity, how? The shrinkologists are well aware that
there is a class of individuals that follow the standard TS path up
to, but no further than, SRS. This isn't any grand secret and whether
said persons call themselves "TG" or "Non-op TS" it adds up to the
same thing. Who else do you have to convince? Well, the skin cutters,
but they don't see a lot of TG/non-op TSs - kinda by definition.
>Also, if the term 'non-op TS' becomes widespread enough in referring to people
>who do not need/desire SRS, the general public will lose the focus of what it
>really means to be TS and to need the surgery to continue on with any sort of
>decent quality of life.
The general public doesn't have any focus where we're
concerned, nor do they wish to, and nor, quite frankly, do I think it
would be good if they did. TS/TG/TV/CD, same shit, different day as
far as most of the great unwashed are concerned.
>The trench warfare that has broken out over this merely shows how deeply felt
>this issue is to many. The mode of battle is deplorable, but nevertheless
>understandable. *sigh*
I'd agree with the former, but definitely not with the latter.
Trina
Diane
> The label "non-op TS" was in general use amongst T*s *long*
>before the label "TG" came into use. In fact, as far as I could ever
>tell the switch to TG was mostly a reaction to the perception that
>non-op TS was a derisive term - much as many use the term CD because
>of perceived negative connotations associated with TV.
In point of fact the misnomer "non-op ts" only showed up here on
the west coast some 10years ago and is used very infrequently if
at all. None of the SOC providers on the west or east coasts
recognize the term in any case.
> The general public doesn't have any focus where we're
>concerned, nor do they wish to, and nor, quite frankly, do I think it
>would be good if they did. TS/TG/TV/CD, same shit, different day as
>far as most of the great unwashed are concerned.
Much nonsense - all of the above. Anyone watching daytime TV can
see the evidence of general public interest in the transgendered.
Your equating transsexuality with cross dressing (" TS/TG/TV/CD,
same shit") indicates both your agenda and your level of
"expertise" in the matter.
----------------
Diane
Diane
<spd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Diane, from what you worte earlier about the job, townhouse,
>etc. you are a stealth TS. How does that educate anyone?
The matters under discussion have nothing to do with how I choose
to live my private life. The have to do with pointing out what
it means to change one's sex in our society rather then simply
pretending to do so.
>think some of this gets down to a difference in defenition
>of TS.
There is only one generally accepted definition of transexuality
- the desire and follow-through when at all able to change one's
physical sex. The "confusion" is from those who cannot accept
their own cross dressing or transgendered behaviors and feel the
need to call it something else.
>These categories are not clear. I think Loree may be doing
>more to help people get over their assumptions about gender
>than someone (like you? I don't know, but it sounded like
>it)
There are no "assumptions" about gender. Only facts. Currently
there are two sexes - and only two. Some people desire to blur
the gender role lines between the two- that is their right.
> who lives a completely stealth life as a woman. Why not
>appreciate her courage?
Courage to me takes commitment.
> Why not hope that people who meet
>her will learn something that will help them learn to
>respect people like you?
Because there is no - *no* - similarity between someone who
changes their gender and LoreeTV. I do not desire to be compared
to her and if you had been listening to what I had been saying
then this point alone should have been obvious. I suggest that
you do not understand my viewpoint in any way.
----------------
Diane
LoreeTG
>In article <36414e7...@news.sirius.com>,
>> <skunk...@one.net.au> wrote:
>> >If Loree is happy living as a TG rather than a full-time female, then
that's
>her
>> >right. She obviously is comfortable with the way others see her and
doesn't
>care
>> >about their opinions of her, else she wouldn't live that way.
>> I agree with you there 100% actually.
>
>Hmmmm. I have a problem with a "woman" who doesn't care to present to
>society as a woman. TG or TS, "she" is representative of what "transwomen"
>are supposed to be all about. When someone decides to present as "gender
>fuck", I think it is more that acceptable to say "That isn't a woman, that
>is something entirely different."
Geena, we already know that you are a trans snob... So enamored of passing
that you look down upon those that don't proclaim it's wonders with the same
enthusiasm.
I've explained over and over that I present as a woman. My concept of
"gender fuck" is a guy with a beard in a dress. Doesn't describe me at all.
I'm very much more female than male in appearance and definitely woman in
presentation.
You keep displaying your ignorance... you haven't met me and know nothing
about how I live.
LoreeTG
>The argument is not over the right to 'self-ID' but over the possibly
>inappropriate assumption of an ID that is not correct. I 'self-ID' as a
number
>of things, but I DO endevour not to 'mis-ID' myself.
I haven't mis-id'd myself... and it's obvious that you disagree. So what?
I am a non-op TS. If it was such a mis-id, how come everyone knows exactly
what I mean as soon as I say it? Sounds like a pretty correct id to me.
That IS why I use it.
>When one does claim an ID
>that changes, damages, dilutes, or otherwise causes confusion in others for
>those who _correctly_ have that ID, they are well within bounds to
challenge
>and try to correct that misassumption of their collective ID.
If I said I'm a pre-op ts who doesn't want surgery... now that would cause
confusion. I don't. There is no confusion except that being created ON
PURPOSE by you... and Geena, Diane and Cheryl.
Besides... just WHO determines "those who _correctly_ have that ID"? You?
The medical community? Society? a pshrink?... no no no and no... the ONLY
person who can determine your id is you.
>
>What is sad here is that when the group challenged and attempted correction
it
>was met with total unacceptance by the one claiming to be a part of that
>group.
I do NOT belong to the group that challenged me. They are all post-op TS...
I'm a non-op TS. NOT THE SAME THING... I DON"T want to be part of that
group. I am just me.. not a group member.
The group I am in... that of the non-op TS.. accepts me, and I they, just
fine... thank you very much.
>While I personally strongly support one's right to self identify, I also
MUST
>support the rights of those in the identified group to challenge that ID if
it
>is questionable.
So you support ones right to self id... unless you don't happen to agree
with their self id! You will take upon yourself the right to make the
determination of who is questionable?
>If this had stayed on the level of honest dialog, and if there had been any
>willingness to accept inputs rather than rapidly devolving to "AM TOO!" -
"ARE
>NOT!" - "AM TOO!" - "ARE NOT!" - "AM TOO!" - "ARE NOT!" - "AM TOO!" - "ARE
>NOT!" we could all have learned something and been wiser and richer for it.
I kept it there as much as possible... but my opponents choose to attack ME
rather than my ideas... and stated so publicly. I haven't sunk down to
their level just yet... and I won't. Their own words show what they are...
I don't need to dig in dejanews or personal websites in an effort to
discredit them. I don't need to invent lies, or pretend to knowledge about
how they live their lives.
I don't even use the personal knowledge I DO have about people that attack
me. All those things have been and ARE being done by the others in this
debate.
>As it is now, it appears that possibility is lost.
>
>So, while I agree with and support anyone's right to self identify, I do
not
>and can not support anyone's right to mis-identify, especially when such is
>continued blindly.
And again, who is to determine mis-identity? And doesn't that then negate
the right to self-id?
Any right that can be taken away by the personal whim of another is no
right... it is a concession... and a conditional one at that.
You'd have made a wonderful political speech writer in the former Soviet
Union. They espoused exactly these kinds of "rights".
>For myself, I'm going to try to ignore this entire squabble after this
post,
Hmm.. you certainly have that right... and it would have been better I think
if you had.. instead of jumping in on the other side with both feet.
BTW.. while you are decrying the lack of anything more than "is not" "is
too" type arguing... your whole post boils down to just another "is not".
Kind of ironic.
>It's not what's being argued (though there is ample evidence that some have
>totally lost site of what this is about), but the incredibly childish way
it
>is being carried out.
As evidenced by your own post?
>Peace, girls, and let's move ON!
And you think this post of yours helped with that goal?
The post-ops have declared war... as long as I self id as a non-op TS they
will continue to flame me.
Cheryl said so, explicitly. Not discuss with me, not argue with me... FLAME
me... as in personal attacks. Diane and Geena have carried it out.
I'm supposed to simply acquiesce to these intimidation tactics?
Is that what you are suggesting?
Are you nuts?
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Diane <notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:22:31 GMT, gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >Which explains why Laura thinks you shouldn't call yourself a transsexual
> >either.
>
> Wait a minute.... she agrees with us!??
Yup. She stated rather clearly that LoreeT? wasn't transsexual because
LoreeT? had rejected SRS.
> Maybe we should rethink this....
Why? There is no better indicator of "rightness" than Laura agreeing with
someone you find reasonable. And since she has agreed with moi, moi _must_
be right ;-)
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Sean and Lawrance <spd...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Diane, from what you worte earlier about the job, townhouse,
> think some of this gets down to a difference in defenition
> and accurate id. I am non-op for both circumstantial and
> personal preference reasons.
>
> I also am in seminary. I am out as a TS man to pretty much
> everyone. (i don't choose to out myself to every person I
> meet...the clerk at the grocery store doesn't want or need
> my story.)
Then you are judging Diane on a difference in degrees. LoreeT? is
out to =everyone= because sie makes no effort at living as anything
other than a gender-bender. Women's clothes, man's voice, man's
ID, man's facial hair, who knows what else of a man's.
So how can you say you are "out" unless you bare your breasts,
hide your beard and speak in a femine voice? It's just a difference
in degrees.
The answer to your question for me, since I also don't volunteer
the info to strangers, is that I'm out when needed.
> These categories are not clear. I think Loree may be doing
> more to help people get over their assumptions about gender
> than someone (like you? I don't know, but it sounded like
> it) who lives a completely stealth life as a woman. Why not
> appreciate her courage? Why not hope that people who meet
> her will learn something that will help them learn to
> respect people like you?
And I feel that sie is doing considerable harm by appropriating a
term which does not apply to hir. Diane is pretty typical of
transsexual woman. The people -- as small a number as it is --
who work at her company and know her past will see her as a role
model for what a transsexual is. The next time they encounter a
transsexual woman, they will have a certain image which is mostly
very "normal" for women.
LoreeTG
>In article <363faab3...@news.sirius.com>,
> Diane <notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:35:15 -0800, Technoid
>> <man...@tech-center.com> wrote:
>> >TS folks who strongly desire SRS actually do have a vested interest in
>keeping
>> >the term as clear as possible. Allowing anyone who does not desire SRS,
be
>> >they CD, TV, TG or whatever, to proclaim to the world that they are 'TS'
but
>> >don't want or need surgery MAY indeed make it more difficult for those
who
>> >need and desire SRS to convince others that it is the only avenue for
them.
>>
>
>child" copyrighted -- you owe me $0.37.
>
>
>And now LoreeT? is going to accuse Technoid of being an evil Post-Op who is
>trying to forcibly silence her.
No... I actually know exactly what Technoid's status is... and if he is
smart, he will NOT be sharing that with you, Diane or Cheryl.. as he values
his privacy and for you three everything is simply weapons to be used
online.
Technoid has an opinion.. it mirrors yours pretty closely. Am I supposed to
be surprised that you agree with him?
What he hasn't done is make up lies about me. He hasn't twisted my words to
suit his view... he simply stated his view. I state my view and life goes
on. Easy. No fuss, no muss, no flames.
My id-ing as a non-op TS certainly can't make SRS any more difficult for any
of you.. you've already had it.
As for making it more difficult for other TS.. I don't agree. I don't see
how. Your ONE example was limited to people who lied about being
"pre-op"... they lied about their intentions.
I'm certainly not doing that. Even the very term "non-op TS" implies the
existence of other TS that aren't non-op... that have a need or desire for
SRS.
LoreeTG
>In article <71lqjh$ohr$1...@slave3.aa.net>,
> "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>> The ONLY real problem Cheryl, Geena and Diane have is that I call myself
a
>> non-op TS. Every one of those three has but one objective in this... to
>> FORCE me to stop calling myself a TS.
>
>either.
Laura is pretty clear why she has her opinion... and she isn't flaming me...
beating on me, to try and force me to change my opinion. You are.
I am not saying you have to accept my self ID... you don't. You cannot
force me to change it, however.
LoreeTG
>Loree--Do you represent yourself as a "typical"
>TS?
No.
>Do you let people know that there are a lot of different
>kinds of TS/TG/TV/CD, etc. folks?
Yes.
>Maybe we can try a conversation based on listening and
>respect...
I try. It would be nice.
>Ever optimistic,
Optimism is good...
LoreeTG
>On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 16:27:29 GMT, n...@this.time (Trina) wrote:
>
>> The label "non-op TS" was in general use amongst T*s *long*
>>before the label "TG" came into use. In fact, as far as I could ever
>>tell the switch to TG was mostly a reaction to the perception that
>>non-op TS was a derisive term - much as many use the term CD because
>>of perceived negative connotations associated with TV.
>
>In point of fact the misnomer "non-op ts" only showed up here on
>the west coast some 10years ago and is used very infrequently if
>at all. None of the SOC providers on the west or east coasts
>recognize the term in any case.
In point of fact "Type IV Transsexual Non-surgical" showed up in the
Benjamin SOS in the 1950's.
As pre-op and post -op came into common usage, so did the term non-op. It's
not new... it's not an '80s term... the idea was there since the '50s
What my opponents are trying to claim the intent of "non-op ts" (desire SRS
but can't, due to circumstances) is actually "Type V True Transsexual
(Medium Intensity). A "Type VI True Transsexual (High Intensity) won't
accept any excuses... it's SRS or suicide.
For anybody that missed it earlier, here's the URL:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/4088/benjaminscale.htm
>> The general public doesn't have any focus where we're
>>concerned, nor do they wish to, and nor, quite frankly, do I think it
>>would be good if they did. TS/TG/TV/CD, same shit, different day as
>>far as most of the great unwashed are concerned.
>
>Much nonsense - all of the above. Anyone watching daytime TV can
>see the evidence of general public interest in the transgendered.
>Your equating transsexuality with cross dressing (" TS/TG/TV/CD,
>same shit") indicates both your agenda and your level of
>"expertise" in the matter.
Ahh.. another "pronouncement" from Diane. Still showing off her TS snobbery
proudly!
Hugs,
Sean and Lawrance
> The matters under discussion have nothing to do with how I choose
> to live my private life. The have to do with pointing out what
> it means to change one's sex in our society rather then simply
> pretending to do so.
>
If what you object to is that Loree may be miseducating or
confusing the masses then it begs the question of you. How
are you educating the masses? By disappearing into the
mainstream? Changing one's sex is *not* limited to genital
surgery at any cost. That is as narrow-minded a definition
as the "freak" label all the bigots love to stick to us. I
have changed my sex and I will probably never have surgery.
Maybe Loree is TG or maybe she is TS and you and I neither
one will ever know. The doctors and the therapists won't
know either. You have bought into a very commodified and
controlled definition of transsexuality. Maybe you had to to
get what you needed, but I do not. And I will not let this
one go. You have no right to define Loree's gender. When I
tried to do it a long time ago on this ng I learned
something very valuable. We are not here to define the
terms. We are not here to defend our territory. At best, we
are here to support each other as we question the constructs
of sex and gender. And to fight to make it safe "out there"
for us to do so.
> There is only one generally accepted definition of transexuality
> - the desire and follow-through when at all able to change one's
> physical sex.
This is crap. Every professional I have talked to says that
there is a marked and incredible difficulty in defining this
term. Every one says that there is no single,
widely-accepted definition. The doctors at San Francisco
General Hospital recently did a "grand rounds" for their
staff in which they told the medical staff that the only
valid definition is a self-identification as a transsexual.
(as long as the "patient" suffers from no major psychoses.)
> There are no "assumptions" about gender. Only facts. Currently
> there are two sexes - and only two. Some people desire to blur
> the gender role lines between the two- that is their right.
Do your homework, Diane. There are now 12
medically-recognized variations of sex that happen
frequently enough that even the medical community can't
ignore them. There are literally hundreds of articles on
this topic. Maybe those of us who change sex are a form of
intersexuals with no external "symptoms." You cannot cling
to the notion of two immutable, essential sexes (and
especially not genders which are as socially constructed as
any other identity!) any longer without showing us only your
stubborness beyond reason.
> Courage to me takes commitment.
Yes it does, and there are commitments other than to SRS. I
am committed to living my life with integrity.
> Because there is no - *no* - similarity between someone who
> changes their gender and LoreeTV. I do not desire to be compared
> to her and if you had been listening to what I had been saying
> then this point alone should have been obvious. I suggest that
> you do not understand my viewpoint in any way.
You indicate that the only way to learn is by comparing.
Come on, Diane. If they can learn from Loree or me that
gender is fluid and people deserve to be treated with
respect no matter what gender journey they have made--that
won't help you? Fine. I'll be sure to mention that they need
not transfer any respect they may find for me on to you.
I'll be sure to let them know that you don't need any
respect that may involve being seen to be "like" me or
Loree.
That's what you really want. To distance yourself from
"people like us."
If that isn't the very definition of bigotry, I don't know
what is.
Sean Parker
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Diane <notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
> On 03 Nov 1998 08:00:37 PST, Sean and Lawrance
> <spd...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > who lives a completely stealth life as a woman. Why not
> >appreciate her courage?
Commitment takes commitment. Courage and commitment are orthogonal.
LoreeT? has the commitment to live as a transvestite. That sie is
able to get away with it in the safety of Seattle says nothing about
hir courage. It only says that sie wakes up in the morning and
presents to the world as a transvestite.
> > Why not hope that people who meet
> >her will learn something that will help them learn to
> >respect people like you?
>
> Because there is no - *no* - similarity between someone who
> changes their gender and LoreeTV. I do not desire to be compared
> to her and if you had been listening to what I had been saying
> then this point alone should have been obvious. I suggest that
> you do not understand my viewpoint in any way.
More to the point, I believe that tolerating LoreeTV's misappropriation
of the word "transsexual" will lead others to believe that woman who
come from a transsexual experience are somehow little more than men
who doff and don women's clothing with no other action required.
This really is about the chicken and pig analogy -- the chicken was
involved; the pig was committed. LoreeTV dabbles around the edges.
It's all gender blur for hir. For us, it is real life.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
n...@this.time (Trina) wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:35:15 -0800, Technoid <man...@tech-center.com>
> wrote:
people
> >who do not need/desire SRS, the general public will lose the focus of what it
> >really means to be TS and to need the surgery to continue on with any sort of
> >decent quality of life.
>
> concerned, nor do they wish to, and nor, quite frankly, do I think it
> would be good if they did. TS/TG/TV/CD, same shit, different day as
> far as most of the great unwashed are concerned.
To some this is true -- we're all gender trash. It's "in the middle", where
the bulk of people are, that the difference has the greatest impact. There
will be those who despise us regardless of label and those who accept us
regardless of label. This is a fight for the people who understand that
"transsexual" means "has a desire to be a member of the opposite sex to the
greatest extent possible".
Diane
<spd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>If what you object to is that Loree may be miseducating or
>confusing the masses then it begs the question of you.
No it doesn't - they are neither logically nor sensibly related
thoughts. As I've said before, and as you have ignored before,
the item under discussion is the difference between someone who
changes sex (a transsexual) and someone who only makes the claim.
Neither LoreeTV's nor my own history at public education really
have anything to do with such a discussion.
>> There is only one generally accepted definition of transexuality
>> - the desire and follow-through when at all able to change one's
>> physical sex.
>
>This is crap.
No it's reality. It's the essence of every medically and
socially acceptable use of the term. You're free to create your
own dictionary of course but you'll sound like babble to the rest
of us.
> Every professional I have talked to says that
>there is a marked and incredible difficulty in defining this
>term. Every one says that there is no single,
>widely-accepted definition.
Nonsense. What more can I say?
> The doctors at San Francisco
>General Hospital recently did a "grand rounds" for their
>staff in which they told the medical staff that the only
>valid definition is a self-identification as a transsexual.
>(as long as the "patient" suffers from no major psychoses.)
Anyone who's been around the genre more then a few months knows
that there are a multitude of crossdressers who call themselves
transexuals. That doesn't make it so. You're saying so doesn't
make it so. Even should your story be accurate that doesn't make
it so.
What makes it's so is the desire and motivation towards changing
one's physical gender.
But <yawn> we've all been over this before. Speaking as a
transsexual myself - and I believe you have stated that you are
not such - it's likely obvious to anyone who matters which of us
has the greater experience in this matter.
----------------
Diane
Diane
(Diane) wrote:
>But <yawn> we've all been over this before. Speaking as a
>transsexual myself - and I believe you have stated that you are
>not such - it's likely obvious to anyone who matters which of us
>has the greater experience in this matter.
Actually I seem to have made a mistake and confused you (Sean)
with someone else. Looking back through your posts apparently
you do say that you are a transexual - sort of. I am unclear as
to how you identify. It seems more as a transgenderist as
anything else.
The accepted definitions still stand and are quite simple. A
transsexual is someone who desires to change their physical
gender- a transgenderist is someone who does not desire to change
their physical gender but chooses to live the role of the
opposite gender regardless.
----------------
Diane
Theoni
> On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:26:41 GMT, gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >child" copyrighted -- you owe me $0.37.
> Good artists create....great artists steal.....
"One man deservers the credit,
One man deserves the blame.
And Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky
Is his name."
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
A dozen, a gross, a score, Plus three times the square root of four,
Divided by seven plus five times eleven, Equals nine squared plus zero, no more.
http://www.maximumaccess.com/~tk329 http://www.khayward.com/~jott
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71m61u$19r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >society as a woman. TG or TS, "she" is representative of what "transwomen"
> >are supposed to be all about. When someone decides to present as "gender
> >fuck", I think it is more that acceptable to say "That isn't a woman, that
> >is something entirely different."
>
> Geena, we already know that you are a trans snob... So enamored of passing
> that you look down upon those that don't proclaim it's wonders with the same
> enthusiasm.
No, I only care that women who assert that they are "transsexual" live as
role models -- and "community spokescritters" -- for others. You do neither.
You live as "Gender Fuck" -- not as a man or as a woman.
> I've explained over and over that I present as a woman. My concept of
> "gender fuck" is a guy with a beard in a dress. Doesn't describe me at all.
> I'm very much more female than male in appearance and definitely woman in
> presentation.
No, you wear women's clothes. That is it. Presentation as a woman means
that people either "don't know" or they know that you are taking this pretty
damned seriously. By your own admissions you DO NOT make the effort -- you
either can't be bothered with the effort, or you think it is deceptive. By
your other own admissions, you are read as trans the moment you start to
interact with someone. That is =not= "definitely woman in presentation."
> You keep displaying your ignorance... you haven't met me and know nothing
> about how I live.
I have taken your words at face value. If you are lying that is =your=
problem.
But so we are clear -- if you were working as a clerk in a grocery store
and you had to greet each customer, tell them their total, take their money,
give them their change, then load their groceries into their car (it's a
very full service grocery ;-), out of 100 customers, how many of those
would believe that you are other than a genetic female? Assume that each
interaction lasts 5 minutes and that 100 customers is about an 8 hour day
for you.
Taking the list of people from the description above, would you care to
estimate what aspects of your overall presentation would be responsible
for people concluding that you are not a genetic female.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71n3j7$4uk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >Which explains why Laura thinks you shouldn't call yourself a transsexual
> >either.
>
> Laura is pretty clear why she has her opinion... and she isn't flaming me...
> beating on me, to try and force me to change my opinion. You are.
I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I'm very clear in my life
that when I try to force a person to do something I pick the appropriate
means of exercising that force. Short of going to Seattle or figuring
out some means of financial extortion, I don't see a way to force you to
do a damned thing.
What you are doing is called "Intellectual Dishonesty". You are calling
a =disagreement= over terminology "force" and "beating on me" and "flaming".
Just because you want to use the word "transsexual" to describe yourself
DOES NOT give you Carte Blanche to express that opinion completely
uncontested. You don't like me opposing your opinion -- tough shit. I
will continue to oppose that opinion so long as there are people out there
who believe that "transvestite" equates to "non-op transsexual".
> I am not saying you have to accept my self ID... you don't. You cannot
> force me to change it, however.
No, I cannot, short of flying to Seattle and holding a gun to your head,
force you to change. However, I can repeatedly (and will do so prolly for
the balance of my life ...) point out that you are being deceptive and
injurious to true transsexuals by proclaiming your "identity" to be that
of a transsexual woman.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71n3r0$5iu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >And now LoreeT? is going to accuse Technoid of being an evil Post-Op who is
> >trying to forcibly silence her.
>
> No... I actually know exactly what Technoid's status is... and if he is
> smart, he will NOT be sharing that with you, Diane or Cheryl.. as he values
> his privacy and for you three everything is simply weapons to be used
> online.
In other words "The only people who aren't allowed to point out that I'm
misidentifying me are those three evil post-SRS women. I don't care if
Technoid, who isn't a post-SRS woman, or Laura, who is a transgenderist,
point out that I'm wrong, because those two people aren't evil post-SRS
women."
Actually, I view personal information as supporting or invalidating a
claimed self-identity. I don't view it as a "weapon". A weapon would be
something like a conviction for pedophilia or a Browning Hi-Power 9mm
semi-automatic pistol. Relevant facts are, well, relevant facts.
> Technoid has an opinion.. it mirrors yours pretty closely. Am I supposed to
> be surprised that you agree with him?
No. But it would be nice if you acknowledged that it is just us 3 evil
post-op women out here invalidating your self-id.
> What he hasn't done is make up lies about me. He hasn't twisted my words to
> suit his view... he simply stated his view. I state my view and life goes
> on. Easy. No fuss, no muss, no flames.
Uh, I've not made up lies about you, Loree. The problem with you is that you
say something -- like admitting that people read you as trans when you start
to interact with them -- and then don't like the consequences of being
truthful.
> My id-ing as a non-op TS certainly can't make SRS any more difficult for any
> of you.. you've already had it.
Irrelevant. There is more to life than SRS. Your continued insistence that
you are transsexual mis-educates others about what a transsexual is. They
see you doing "gender fuck", hear you identify as "transsexual", form mental
images of other transsexuals, and then act accordingly. You =defame= what it
means to be a transsexual woman. You essentially misrepresent how transwomen
are and seem to think the damage you do is perfectly okie-dokie.
> As for making it more difficult for other TS.. I don't agree. I don't see
> how. Your ONE example was limited to people who lied about being
> "pre-op"... they lied about their intentions.
And it was but =one= example of how what you do is harmful. Businesses are
social experimentation labs. My employer exists to bring value to the
shareholders and continue to provide employment to its employees. If I ran
around doing "gender fuck", do you believe that my employer is going to
suffer? Would an employer who has so suffered be inclined or disinclined
towards supporting an employee in a gender transition?
And yes, I can do more examples.
> I'm certainly not doing that. Even the very term "non-op TS" implies the
> existence of other TS that aren't non-op... that have a need or desire for
> SRS.
I don't much care about the SRS biz. I do happen to think that alone is
disqualification for the term "transsexual". I am much more concerned with
your belief that "gender fuck" makes you both a woman and a transsexual. It
does =neither= and so extreme disrespect for all members of both groups.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71n3j7$4uk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >Which explains why Laura thinks you shouldn't call yourself a transsexual
> >either.
>
> Laura is pretty clear why she has her opinion... and she isn't flaming me...
> beating on me, to try and force me to change my opinion. You are.
How am I trying to force you to do anything? Trust me, I know how to
apply force. If I were truly motivated to force you to change your opinion,
you =would= change your opinion.
> I am not saying you have to accept my self ID... you don't. You cannot
> force me to change it, however.
That's right. Short of flying to Seattle and holding a gun to your head,
I can't force you to do anything. I =can=, however, point out that I believe
you are wrong. And I am no less "valid" in my expressing a contradictory
opinion that you are in stating what I believe is an absurd opinion.
It takes two sides to make an argument. You persist in claiming you are a
non-op, I persist in claiming you are an exhibitionistic transvestite.
Neither of us has more or less "right" to express that opinion. Neither
of us is more or less "valid". You may not LIKE that I believe you to be a
transvestite, but that doesn't mean I suddenly have to stop believing it.
I am under no obligation to cater to your, or anyone elses, delusions.
Diane
>> No... I actually know exactly what Technoid's status is... and if he is
>> smart, he will NOT be sharing that with you, Diane or Cheryl.. as he values
>> his privacy and for you three everything is simply weapons to be used
>> online.
quotes....
Loree - facts are not weapons. The facts as you yourself stated
are simply that
1. You do not desire to change your physical gender
2. You have no desire to change your state (or presumably any
other) ID to that of female.
3. You are not undergoing electrolysis
4. You are not undergoing any sort treatment or therapy regime
wit regards to transsexuality and in fact just black market your
hormones so you don't have to see a Doc.
Now those are the facts and the facts say clearly that you are
not a transsexual of any variant and in fact it is clear that you
do not live full time in the gender role of a woman as you
haven't even changed your ID. Now if those facts hurt dear well -
too bad. It's your decision and you're welcome to it and have
every right to live that way. But you're certainly not a
transsexual honey.
Any TS or transgendered has seen dozens upon dozens of
transvestites and crossdressers who cannot accept themselves and
need to be something they think is better (so silly). Just look
at any TG personals ads and- whoop-de-do- the columns are filled
with people calling themselves transexuals. Happens all the time
and Loree - you're nothing new. Been there- seen that <yawn>.
I'd like to suggest that those listening in just ignore Loree as
I am (mostly ) doing myself. When s/he rants to the occasional
new person then we can set things straight. In essence she's a
threat to no-one but hirself.
----------------
Diane
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Diane <notr...@sirius.com> (Diane) wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 22:32:28 GMT, Diane <notr...@sirius.com>
> (Diane) wrote:
> >But <yawn> we've all been over this before. Speaking as a
> >transsexual myself - and I believe you have stated that you are
> >not such - it's likely obvious to anyone who matters which of us
> >has the greater experience in this matter.
>
> Actually I seem to have made a mistake and confused you (Sean)
> with someone else. Looking back through your posts apparently
> you do say that you are a transexual - sort of. I am unclear as
> to how you identify. It seems more as a transgenderist as
> anything else.
F2M's are hard to "place". Many of them are more "non-op" than M2Fs
because the number of required surgeries is higher. It takes 3 or 4
surgeries to be "completely transsexual" for an F2M as compared to 1
for an M2F. With the failure and complication rates being higher as
well, I'd say it's easily 8 or 10 times "harder" to be F2M and have
a "complete" gender reassignment.
> The accepted definitions still stand and are quite simple. A
> transsexual is someone who desires to change their physical
> gender- a transgenderist is someone who does not desire to change
> their physical gender but chooses to live the role of the
> opposite gender regardless.
In the specific case of Sean, my recollections from before he
transitioned was the he'd pretty much transitioned. Again, this is
a major difference for transmen than transwomen -- many more women
pass for men with little or no effort than the other way around.
Getting all the way back to Loree, I don't see a transition from
"man" to "woman", but rather from "man" to "full-time transvestite".
A prior regular poster once wrote that she wanted people to at
least take her seriously -- that she =had= made the effort to
present as a woman. To me that "seriousness" is the dividing line
between transvestite and transgenderist, while some form of surgical
sexual reassignment -- be it vaginoplasty, bilateral mastectomy,
oophrectomy, or orchiectomy -- is the dividing line between the
transgenderist and the transsexual. It's the getting from "I wear
women's clothes" to "I live as a woman" that seems at issue.
Having to tell people that you are a "non-op transsexual" says you
either can't live unambiguously as a woman because of a physical
limitation (large frame, uncorrectible masculine/feminine features)
or simply a lack of _desire_. "Desire" is one of those thingies
that the anti-SOC crowd don't seem to grasp -- the "desire" to live
as or be the other sex is internal. The SOC presents no obstacle
to the true transsexual because the motivation to "conform" to the
SOC is satisfied by the pre-existing motivation to be the other
sex. Loree has rejected "living as a woman" and thereby demonstrated
no =desire= to be a woman.
Sean and Lawrance
> > I also am in seminary. I am out as a TS man to pretty much
> > everyone. (i don't choose to out myself to every person I
> > meet...the clerk at the grocery store doesn't want or need
> > my story.)
Geena replied:
> Then you are judging Diane on a difference in degrees.
LoreeT? is
> out to =everyone= because sie makes no effort at living as anything
> other than a gender-bender. Women's clothes, man's voice, man's
> ID, man's facial hair, who knows what else of a man's.
>
> So how can you say you are "out" unless you bare your breasts,
> hide your beard and speak in a femine voice? It's just a difference
> in degrees.
A huge difference, in my book. Diane, if I understand her
from her posts, does nothing to educate, nothing to change
anyone's mind about transfolks, yet insists on dissing Loree
repeatedly for doing just that. (yes, I get it that Diane
doens't believe that Loree is educating "rightly" according
to Diane's standards.)
Loree risks a lot by living her life with integrity and
facing the prejudice that Diane ducks from by very carefully
covering her tracks and disappearing. I don't challenge her
right to do that, but I did ask her if she might not try to
see that Loree's choice is also valid, brave, and at very
least seems to get the gender conversation on the table.
I make choices about who I am out to. I base those choices
on a lot of things. The clerk at the grocery store has no
time to deal with gender issues in the few minutes he or she
is trying to get me through the line and out the door. But
every time I give a speech or a sermon or sit in class with
my peers I insist on telling the truth of who I am. I am a
man who was born in a female body. I am a mother and a
father to my kids. I have broken the rules of this society
to follow my own truth about who I am. I insist that people
rent to me, give me jobs, etc. ***knowing who I am***. I am
honest and open with them and almost every time they meet me
with respect.
A difference of degrees is still a difference and still
worth talking about. Diane seems to be in total hiding.
Loree seems to *be* a gender confrontation. Both are valid
and both deserve respecct. That is all I am asking.
Sean Parker
>
> The answer to your question for me, since I also don't volunteer
> the info to strangers, is that I'm out when needed.
>
> > These categories are not clear. I think Loree may be doing
> > more to help people get over their assumptions about gender
> > than someone (like you? I don't know, but it sounded like
> > it) who lives a completely stealth life as a woman. Why not
> > appreciate her courage? Why not hope that people who meet
> > her will learn something that will help them learn to
> > respect people like you?
>
> And I feel that sie is doing considerable harm by appropriating a
> term which does not apply to hir. Diane is pretty typical of
> transsexual woman. The people -- as small a number as it is --
> who work at her company and know her past will see her as a role
> model for what a transsexual is. The next time they encounter a
> transsexual woman, they will have a certain image which is mostly
> very "normal" for women.
>
Sean and Lawrance
> No it doesn't - they are neither logically nor sensibly related
> thoughts.
I guess that depends on what logic and sense mean to you
Diane, since you seem to believe you control the content of
discussions, as you indicate here:
As I've said before, and as you have ignored before,
> the item under discussion is the difference between someone who
> changes sex (a transsexual) and someone who only makes the claim.
The item under discussion *as well* is how you treat someone
whose definitions differ from your own and by what right you
flame her and deny she is who she says she is.
> Neither LoreeTV's nor my own history at public education really
> have anything to do with such a discussion.
Except that what you base your entire argument on is that
she is miseducating or confusing the public. So you
introduced the topic as the very foundation of your
argument. You can't call it irrelevant a few posts later and
still claim logic and sense.
> No it's reality. It's the essence of every medically and
> socially acceptable use of the term. You're free to create your
> own dictionary of course but you'll sound like babble to the rest
> of us.
Notice, I am not creating a dictionary. Gender theory and
the interstitiality of identities is my field! I refer to
the current conversation I am privy to among professionals,
care providers, the medical establishment, and gender
theorists. I was at the meeting at SF General where the
doctors insisted that gender is a construct and even
physical sex is too complicated to conform to the old,
simplistic dichotomy. I was there when they insisted that
SRS need not be guarded any more by unnecessarily rigid
definitions. I was there to hear them advocate for any
person's right to choose their physical body configuration
and their gender presentation!
You cling to the old definition b/c you fear that other TS
women won't be taken seriously enough to "earn" their
surgery
from the medical establishment. Why not accept that what
really
needs to change is the Benjamin Standards and the
commodification
of medical care?
> Anyone who's been around the genre more then a few months knows
> that there are a multitude of crossdressers who call themselves
> transexuals. That doesn't make it so. You're saying so doesn't
> make it so. Even should your story be accurate that doesn't make
> it so.
I don't need to make it so. I don't care how they id. I care
that they are met with respect, aren't murdered on the
street, and can get SRS if that is what they feel is best.
> What makes it's so is the desire and motivation towards changing
> one's physical gender.
>
> But <yawn> we've all been over this before. Speaking as a
> transsexual myself - and I believe you have stated that you are
> not such - it's likely obvious to anyone who matters which of us
> has the greater experience in this matter.
I'm glad you corrected yourself in a later post on my
self-id. (well, sort of, since you couldn't manage to keep
yourself from mocking it.) I am a female-to-male transsexual
who for both circumstantial and personal preference reasons
is choosing not to have genital surgery. (I may have a
mastectomy, I may not.)
I have been on hormones long enough that I am a man.
I live as a man. I id as a man. It is not a
real life test for me, it is real life. And what is under my
clothes does not change that.
You may think that I am inaccurate if I claim the label
"TS." You may worry that I am misrepresenting what
transsexuality really is. But what your argument really gets
down to is that you are guarding a term by standards that
are outmoded and based on your own anti-TG prejudice. Not
facts. Not logic. And not sense.
Sean Parker
gee...@my-dejanews.com
> > Then you are judging Diane on a difference in degrees.
> LoreeT? is
> > out to =everyone= because sie makes no effort at living as anything
> > other than a gender-bender. Women's clothes, man's voice, man's
> > ID, man's facial hair, who knows what else of a man's.
> >
> > So how can you say you are "out" unless you bare your breasts,
> > hide your beard and speak in a femine voice? It's just a difference
> > in degrees.
>
> A huge difference, in my book. Diane, if I understand her
> from her posts, does nothing to educate, nothing to change
> anyone's mind about transfolks, yet insists on dissing Loree
> repeatedly for doing just that. (yes, I get it that Diane
> doens't believe that Loree is educating "rightly" according
> to Diane's standards.)
Living a normal woman's life does a =lot= to educate people. Diane acts as a
role model for what a transsexual woman is like. I'm sure that she, as do I,
interacts with people who come to know of her transsexual past. They see
that transsexual men and women are just normal men and women -- not the Jerry
Springer caricatures of women that many see. What Loree does is perpetuate
the "Man in a dress" image that others get from the media. Here is this big
tall "person" running around in women's clothing, speaking in a male voice,
having male facial hair buried under some amount of makeup, and so on,
passing "herself" off as a woman. I would hope that your experience dating
A.J. would have taught you that transsexual women aspire to lead relatively
normal women's lives -- even if, as is the case with A.J., its a normal
lesbian's life.
> Loree risks a lot by living her life with integrity and
> facing the prejudice that Diane ducks from by very carefully
> covering her tracks and disappearing. I don't challenge her
> right to do that, but I did ask her if she might not try to
> see that Loree's choice is also valid, brave, and at very
> least seems to get the gender conversation on the table.
Loree risks a hell of a lot less than a transsexual who is passable, in terms
of violence and discrimination. I think that Laura Blake understands this
very well and has put it in pretty simple terms -- if you pass, and if you are
attractive to a man, and if he discovers "too late", you risk being murdered.
By presenting as a "man in a dress" Loree is at no greater risk than an
effeminate male homosexual who doesn't make sexual advances towards a straight
man. Rather, when you are pretty and passable and men are "deceived" and then
become aroused, men will more than gladly assault you because they believe
that you "tricked them" into being attracted to a "man". You have basically
called into question =their= sexuality -- and the male ego is simply too
damned fragile to undergo that sort of psychic abuse.
> I make choices about who I am out to. I base those choices
> on a lot of things. The clerk at the grocery store has no
> time to deal with gender issues in the few minutes he or she
> is trying to get me through the line and out the door. But
> every time I give a speech or a sermon or sit in class with
> my peers I insist on telling the truth of who I am. I am a
> man who was born in a female body. I am a mother and a
> father to my kids. I have broken the rules of this society
> to follow my own truth about who I am. I insist that people
> rent to me, give me jobs, etc. ***knowing who I am***. I am
> honest and open with them and almost every time they meet me
> with respect.
I'm about the same way. I don't give sermons (though I have been known to
preach ;-), but when the circumstances are appropriate I will say "Yes, I
understand the pain of being gay-bashed because I was gay-bashed as a young
boy because I was too feminine." But in =that= revelation is the "education".
The people I disclose to had (usually) no clue that I was other than a
fairly straight-acting (I'm bi, but femme enough that I "pass" for straight
to most people's gaydar) woman. Gays and lesbians come to understand the
path that I've taken -- but again they have already come to know me, if thru
my relationships with women, as just another lesbian. Straights likewise see
me as just another woman.
Like you, I am met with respect and admiration. But I believe that a large
part of the respect and admiration I receive is because I strive to be just
another woman. "Normal" is how most people describe me.
> A difference of degrees is still a difference and still
> worth talking about. Diane seems to be in total hiding.
> Loree seems to *be* a gender confrontation. Both are valid
> and both deserve respecct. That is all I am asking.
Sorry, but I see Loree as a "Jerry Springer Stereotype" and not at all a
woman. If sie wants to claim sie is education people about transvestites,
more power to hir. But for hir to claim that sie is performing "transsexual
education", thanks, but no thanks -- I will stand up and say "That is not
what a transsexual is like."
LoreeTG
>On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:42:48 -0800, "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>It's not snobbery to point out the truth. "Passing" is not the issue.
You girls made it an issue. It is snobbery when the "truth" you are
pointing out is such self serving cr*p.
>Integration into one's proper sex is, a concept that seems to elude
>you.
Integration in to my proper sex is exactly what makes me a non-op TS. My
proper sex is just different from yours.
>>I've explained over and over that I present as a woman. My concept of
>>"gender fuck" is a guy with a beard in a dress. Doesn't describe me at
all.
>>I'm very much more female than male in appearance and definitely woman in
>>presentation.
>
>Do you?
Yes.
>I thought you said you were unpassable as a woman in a
>supermarket, and liked it when people read you as a man.
You thought wrong. Just because you and Diane and Geena keep posting those
lies about me doesn't make them true.
>You speak like a man,
And just when have you ever heard me speak? More lies.
>you refuse to change your identification or do any of the
>work,
What am I supposed to change it to? There is no "other" sex identifier.
What I refuse to do is reject my own self id just to fit the cisgendered
ideal.
>how can you claim that you present as "definitely woman"?
It's easy... because it's true.
LoreeTG
>On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:21:09 -0800, "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>>I am a non-op TS. If it was such a mis-id, how come everyone knows
exactly
>>what I mean as soon as I say it? Sounds like a pretty correct id to me.
>>That IS why I use it.
>
>comes to mind when you say it. You have no desire to change your sex,
We've both posted our views on this. I have changed my sex, from male to
not male. Same arguments, nothing new.
>and prefer genderfucking to living as a woman.
We did this already too. I do live as a woman. You think if you repeat a
lie often enough you can MAKE it true?
>You _prefer_ to be
>seen as a man in a dress, rather than as a woman.
We went through this already several times as well. Again it's just your
lie, not anything I ever said.
>That sounds like a
>pretty incorrect identification to me, for a transsexual.
It sounds like a bunch of lies (because it is) that you insist on repeating
at every opportunity... You can't prove anything by lying... except that you
lie.
>>
>>If I said I'm a pre-op ts who doesn't want surgery... now that would cause
>>confusion. I don't. There is no confusion except that being created ON
>>PURPOSE by you... and Geena, Diane and Cheryl.
>
>The main confusion is being sowed by you, a classic transvestite who
>is so ashamed of her own identity that she finds it necessary to steal
>someone else's.
"Classic Transvestite"... lol. If you had a single clue about how I live,
you might be able to post something realistic. Thinking that you are
somehow hurting me by calling me a TV is silly. Your opinion doesn't matter
at all to me. The only reason I even respond to you is your vow to flame me
until I stop ID-ing as a non-op TS.
I won't be intimidated. It is very obvious to most that you are engaging in
flames... that you are trying to use lies and personal attacks to FORCE your
opinions on me. It isn't going to work.
>>Besides... just WHO determines "those who _correctly_ have that ID"? You?
>>The medical community? Society? a pshrink?... no no no and no... the ONLY
>>person who can determine your id is you.
>
>Forgive us for pointing out that you are distorting the meaning of
>"transsexual" out of all bounds. Yes, the medical and therapeutic
>community, society, and the people who are and were transsexuals do
>have a large say to what it means. Other women determine if you're a
>woman or not. You can claim anything you like in fantasyland, but
>when you make outrageous and ridiculous claims in the real world,
>expect to be called on it.
A) Usenet is NOT the real world.
B) In the real world, woman accept me as a woman just fine. Nobody accepts
me as a man.
C) I haven't changed or distorted the meaning of transsexual at all. All
that I have done is use the pre-existing label "non-op TS" to describe
myself... because I fit that label close enough that it conveys real
information about my status as far as transition, gender, and sex are
concerned.
>>I do NOT belong to the group that challenged me. They are all post-op
TS...
>>I'm a non-op TS. NOT THE SAME THING... I DON"T want to be part of that
>>group. I am just me.. not a group member.
>>
>>The group I am in... that of the non-op TS.. accepts me, and I they, just
>>fine... thank you very much.
>
>All two or three of you locked in the same idee fixe might believe it,
>but the rest of us don't. Please don't steal my identity just because
>you don't like your own, thankyouverymuch.
I didn't realize YOU id'd as a non-op TS... I was sure you were id-ing as
woman/female most of the time and post-op TS when convenient politically or
rhetorically.
There are more than two or three non-ops. There are lots and lots. Each
and every one has a different reason for not pursuing SRS and still
transitioning anyway. Keep up that particular line of argument and you'll
piss off a BUNCH of people.
>>And again, who is to determine miss-identity? And doesn't that then
negate
>>the right to self-id?
>>
>>Any right that can be taken away by the personal whim of another is no
>>right... it is a concession... and a conditional one at that.
>
>And your attempt to steal the identity of others is your "right"? By
>your own words you do not fit any definition of transsexual, yet you
>claim to be one.
By my own words, I fit the de of a Type IV Transsexual (non-surgical) almost
exactly... with only a few traits in the Type V category.
>It is only natural to speculate why that may be so.
There is nothing at all natural about the hate, lies and disinformation
campaign you've embarked on here, Cheryl.
>
>And you're a wonderful example of a transvestite who masquerades as a
>transsexual, because it sounds so much more respectable.
TS snobbery... not my viewpoint at all. It takes a REAL snob to believe
they are so special that others will try and identify with them for
"respectability". Besides which.. I am a non-op TS. If I wanted your
"respectability" it would be very easy to claim "pre-op"... and even live as
one without ever quite getting around to SRS. The only difference it would
make in my life would be a gender therapist sucking up part of my income.
>
>The "other side" is reality, Loree. Your side is pure fantasy.
>
Your every post is filled with fantasy about me.. who I am, how I live, what
I believe. I'm honest and open about myself.
Your problem is you don't like my reality... and are attempting to change
it. It won't work.
>>The post-ops have declared war... as long as I self id as a non-op TS they
>>will continue to flame me.
>>
>>Cheryl said so, explicitly. Not discuss with me, not argue with me...
FLAME
>>me... as in personal attacks. Diane and Geena have carried it out.
>
>There is nothing to discuss. I'm not interested in ridiculous
>arguments about loopholes you claim to find to validate your absurd
>claims. You do not wish to change your sex. You make no serious
>attempt to live as a woman. What is there to discuss? You are not a
>transsexual. The only thing left is to denounce your pretensions for
>what they are.
And there you have it. Obviously there can be no dialogue where that
attitude exists.
Ignoring my posts and insisting on your own lies instead, doesn't do
anything for you.. it just makes you look petty and silly.
>>I'm supposed to simply acquiesce to these intimidation tactics?
>>Is that what you are suggesting?
>>Are you nuts?
>
>That probably would be your wisest course. Is it intimidation to
>denounce a mountebank?
Shall I quote back your words to you yet again? You vowed to flame me until
I no longer self ID as a non-op TS. That is itself an attempt at
intimidation. That you've now carried out that threat by posting the same
lies and distortions over and over just proves to all exactly how silly and
petty you are. Intimidation isn't going to work.
I can agree to disagree, why can't you?
LoreeTG
>In article <71npgp$lpf$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
>How am I trying to force you to do anything? Trust me, I know how to
>apply force. If I were truly motivated to force you to change your
opinion,
>you =would= change your opinion.
LOL.... Can you say "inflated sense of self importance"...or maybe
"egomaniacal".... whatever... if you actually BELIEVE that last statement,
you are completely delusional, my dear.
>> I am not saying you have to accept my self ID... you don't. You cannot
>> force me to change it, however.
>
>That's right. Short of flying to Seattle and holding a gun to your head,
>I can't force you to do anything. I =can=, however, point out that I
believe
>you are wrong. And I am no less "valid" in my expressing a contradictory
>opinion that you are in stating what I believe is an absurd opinion.
Cheryl stated, in plain English, that I would be subject to a flame war
until I stopped saying I'm a non-op TS. She has kept that promise. You and
Diane have aided and abetted her in this.
Your actions speak louder than your words.
>It takes two sides to make an argument. You persist in claiming you are a
>non-op, I persist in claiming you are an exhibitionistic transvestite.
Hmm you persist in saying you're working at IBM as a security specialist.. I
say you're just a cleaning lady... Do I have the right to post that
opinion? Is it just as valid as your opinion?
>Neither of us has more or less "right" to express that opinion. Neither
>of us is more or less "valid".
Of course, my opinion about my life is based on firsthand knowledge, your
opinion is based on an inflated sense of self importance.
I believe that when it comes to personal id, a person has information that
know one else can have.. what they feel.. how they live. and somebody in
Austin has nothing but imagination to base their opinion of my life in
Seattle on. Especially when it directly contradicts my own statements.
>You may not LIKE that I believe you to be a
>transvestite, but that doesn't mean I suddenly have to stop believing it.
True... but to continually harp on it... to try and persuade others to your
view by lying about me, by pretending to be in possession of "facts" about
me that simply aren't true.. you are showing an intellectual dishonesty and
egomaniacal personality of tremendous proportions.
There is no way you can make any credible claim you know more about my life
and how I live than I do. In all areas of disagreement, it is obvious you
are making things up to "prove" your point.
I say I live as a woman. You say I live as a man?
I say I present as a woman. You say I do "gender fuck"?
I say I don't want people to see me as a "man in a dress". You say I do?
There is a definite difference in the information our opinions are based on.
My information is all first hand (it is =me= we are disagreeing about!)
yours is all guesses, distortions, misunderstandings and out right lies.
>I am under no obligation to cater to your, or anyone elses, delusions.
>
And I am under no obligation to cater to your delusions about me.
LoreeTG
>I have LoreeTV killfiled but these gems get through to me via
>quotes....
Ok... now let's take a look at Diane's list of lies that she posts as
"facts"
>Loree - facts are not weapons. The facts as you yourself stated
>are simply that
>1. You do not desire to change your physical gender
This one is a little puzzling... "physical gender" IS an oxymoron.
"sex=physical" "gender=mental" is pretty standard thinking in this group.
Lets cover both sex and gender.. either way it's a lie. I desired to change
my physical sex enough that I asked my family doctor for hormones... and got
them. I've been doing HRT for 10 months now... and it's working just fine.
My physical body is changing. Exactly what I wanted from the HRT.
I can understand the argument that HRT doesn't change sex, I just don't
agree with it. My sex is no longer male. It is not female either... but
something between... My sex is different than it was. I changed sex.
I desired to change my gender presentation enough that I live full time as a
woman. I never present as a man, ever.
No matter how you look at it... #1 isn't a fact. At best, it's a distortion
based on Diane's belief that genitals determine sex and ONLY genitals
determine sex.
>2. You have no desire to change your state (or presumably any
>other) ID to that of female.
Almost true, but not exactly. The truth is that I have no recourse to
changing my ID. I would have to lie about who and what I am in order to get
the required therapists letter. I'm not willing to do that. "F" is a lot
closer to what I am, but it doesn't fit exactly.
>3. You are not undergoing electrolysis
The only way she knows this is that I've stated my desire to go to E2000...
so using it as a "fact" against me is disingenuous at best.
>4. You are not undergoing any sort treatment or therapy regime
>wit regards to transsexuality and in fact just black market your
>hormones so you don't have to see a Doc.
I've already transitioned. I did a one year RLT before starting HRT. My
hormones are prescribed by my family Dr.. I don't like the SOCs.. they were
not designed with me in mind. I don't need a therapist as I don't plan on
SRS.
>Now those are the facts and the facts say clearly that you are
>not a transsexual of any variant and in fact it is clear that you
>do not live full time in the gender role of a woman as you
>haven't even changed your ID. Now if those facts hurt dear well -
>too bad. It's your decision and you're welcome to it and have
>every right to live that way. But you're certainly not a
>transsexual honey.
See how this works? She can say anything... even the most outlandish things
like "in fact it is clear that you do not live full time in the gender role
of a woman" and those lies somehow "prove" her right.
>Any TS or transgendered has seen dozens upon dozens of
>transvestites and crossdressers who cannot accept themselves and
>need to be something they think is better (so silly). Just look
>at any TG personals ads and- whoop-de-do- the columns are filled
>with people calling themselves transexuals. Happens all the time
>and Loree - you're nothing new. Been there- seen that <yawn>.
Displaying her bigotry again.... most people represent themselves as
accurately in TG personals as they do in any personals. Lots and lots of
TV's, a few pre-ops, a rare non-op or two and no post-ops.
In reality VERY few CD/TV claim to be TS. I resisted the idea I was
anything other than TV until just recently. A TV does NOT use hormones or
live full time as a woman. I tried being a full time TV... and discovered
that that wasn't quite enough... HRT has made the difference for me.
>I'd like to suggest that those listening in just ignore Loree as
>I am (mostly ) doing myself. When s/he rants to the occasional
>new person then we can set things straight. In essence she's a
>threat to no-one but hirself.
:) oh, if only this were true! Diane NEVER misses an opportunity to flame
me... Even in threads that have nothing to do with me...
I don't rant to anybody... I defend myself when attacked.. and the attacks
aren't coming from new people...
LoreeTG
>On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 22:16:25 -0800, Technoid <man...@tech-center.com>
>wrote:
>
>A succinct summary of what has transpired here. Thank you.
>
>>If I were to 'self-ID' myself a Native American (I'm Polish/Swedish), and
went
>>so far as to publish and insist on my right to do so I would fully expect
>>actual Native Americans to make a strong effort to dissuade from that, and
to
>>just as publicly state that I am not.
>
>A good analogy. If the person in question were to put on warpaint and
A bad analogy. Closer would be if I were 7/8ths European and 1/8 Black and
had the audacity to claim Caucasian as a racial label. If fact, the bigots
in that case would be almost indistinguishable from the bigots in this
thread.
--
LoreeTG
>In article <71npac$le8$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
>> >And now LoreeT? is going to accuse Technoid of being an evil Post-Op who
is
>> >trying to forcibly silence her.
>>
>> smart, he will NOT be sharing that with you, Diane or Cheryl.. as he
values
>> his privacy and for you three everything is simply weapons to be used
>> online.
>
>misidentifying me are those three evil post-SRS women. I don't care if
>Technoid, who isn't a post-SRS woman, or Laura, who is a transgenderist,
>point out that I'm wrong, because those two people aren't evil post-SRS
>women."
You can post your viewpoint... if that's all you were doing I'd have no
problem at all. BTW, you don't know that Technoid isn't a post SRS woman.
There have been several post-op women who have posted a view opposite of
mine. They did it without the lies, distortions and misinformation that you
use. It's only you three that feel flaming me into submission is a noble
goal.
>Actually, I view personal information as supporting or invalidating a
>claimed self-identity. I don't view it as a "weapon".
LOL... "LoreeT?" isn't an attempt at using my personal info as a weapon? I
sign every post as "Loree Thomas". Now you've picked up on Dianes petty
little invalidation tactic. You went to my website and quoted a section of
my cover letter out of context, ridiculing me about it, in an effort to
destroy my creadibility.
The other thing you've done is purposefully extracted isolated statements I
made, interpreted them in the worst possible light, and then ignored the
many other statements I made that directly contradict your
misinterpretations.
If Technoid were to share anything personal with you and later you got into
a heated disagreement, you would do the same with his info.
It's a pretty constant pattern with you. Any person you identify as an
enemy is subject to this treatment.
>A weapon would be
>something like a conviction for pedophilia or a Browning Hi-Power 9mm
>semi-automatic pistol. Relevant facts are, well, relevant facts.
"Facts" as posted by you and Cheryl and Diane, bear no relation at all to
truth. Also, it was your penchant for using personal "facts" as weapons
that I was talking about to begin with. Sharing ANYTHING personal with you
is just plain dangerous.
>> Technoid has an opinion.. it mirrors yours pretty closely. Am I supposed
to
>> be surprised that you agree with him?
>
>No. But it would be nice if you acknowledged that it is just us 3 evil
>post-op women out here invalidating your self-id.
It IS just you three evil people who are engaged in a flame campaign in
order to force me to stop using the label non-op TS.
>> What he hasn't done is make up lies about me. He hasn't twisted my words
to
>> suit his view... he simply stated his view. I state my view and life
goes
>> on. Easy. No fuss, no muss, no flames.
>
>Uh, I've not made up lies about you, Loree. The problem with you is that
you
>say something -- like admitting that people read you as trans when you
start
>to interact with them -- and then don't like the consequences of being
>truthful.
The problem is you take the above statement(which is close enough to true)
and turn it into a lie... like your repeated statement "You don't mind
people reading you as a MAN."
You do lie. You have through out this thread purposefully distorted what I
said, ignoring anything I said that contradicted your distortions, and then
presented those distortions as "facts".
That IS lying.
>> My id-ing as a non-op TS certainly can't make SRS any more difficult for
any
>> of you.. you've already had it.
>
>Irrelevant. There is more to life than SRS. Your continued insistence
that
>you are transsexual mis-educates others about what a transsexual is.
I'm a non-op TS. The only thing I am representing is me. Nobody is told by
me that I am a transsexual, that I represent any other transsexual. If the
topic comes up at all, I do educate about the difference between what I am
(a non-op TS) and other TS.
Yours is a bogus argument.
>They
>see you doing "gender fuck", hear you identify as "transsexual", form
mental
>images of other transsexuals, and then act accordingly.
Again, you have no clue as to how I present... "gender fuck" is just another
attempt at a pejorative term. That you state it as a "fact" is an example
of exactly how you lie.
>You =defame= what it
>means to be a transsexual woman. You essentially misrepresent how
transwomen
>are and seem to think the damage you do is perfectly okie-dokie.
I don't defame or misrepresent. You make lots of assumptions that simply
aren't true.
>> As for making it more difficult for other TS.. I don't agree. I don't
see
>> how. Your ONE example was limited to people who lied about being
>> "pre-op"... they lied about their intentions.
>
>And it was but =one= example of how what you do is harmful.
The POINT is I didn't do it. It can't be an example... I don't do it!
>Businesses are
>social experimentation labs. My employer exists to bring value to the
>shareholders and continue to provide employment to its employees. If I ran
>around doing "gender fuck", do you believe that my employer is going to
>suffer? Would an employer who has so suffered be inclined or disinclined
>towards supporting an employee in a gender transition?
My living is dependant upon how I present and represent my self to my
clients. I get contracts... I get repeat clients.. and I work as Loree
Thomas.
If I was even close to being the way you want to describe me, you would have
some validity to your objections...
The real point of this is that I'm NOT. What you describe is an invented
person that has no relationship to me except that you've given it my name..
and then used your imaginary persons made up characteristics to "prove" I'm
not a non-op TS.
>
>And yes, I can do more examples.
You have yet to do one that applies to me...
>> I'm certainly not doing that. Even the very term "non-op TS" implies the
>> existence of other TS that aren't non-op... that have a need or desire
for
>> SRS.
>
>I don't much care about the SRS biz. I do happen to think that alone is
>disqualification for the term "transsexual".
>I am much more concerned with
>your belief that "gender fuck" makes you both a woman and a transsexual.
It
>does =neither= and so extreme disrespect for all members of both groups.
Ah... now I get it!!! This is all just to get the idea that I do "gender
fuck" firmly implanted in peoples minds.
It might even work for some of the less perceptive types who haven't given
up reading this flame crap yet.
Again.. repeating a lie (and you said you don't lie!) over and over doesn't
make it true.
LoreeTG
>According to Laura's Grand Unified Transgendered theory, though,
>shouldn't we be actively recruiting Loree for the transsexual
>industry? This is all so confusing. Something has gone awry.
WTF do you think the effect of your flames will be? Someone who is non-op
like me could very well be influenced by the level of vitriol that has been
displayed into thinking that they HAVE to desire SRS to be "real".
You have ridiculed the very concept of non-op TS... Reduced the choices to
TV or post-op.
You've clearly demonstrated the validity of some of Laura's wilder claims...
at least for your selves.
LoreeTG
>In article <71nofs$jss$2...@slave1.aa.net>,<71m61u$19r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>No, I only care that women who assert that they are "transsexual" live as
>role models -- and "community spokescritters" -- for others. You do
neither.
I assert that I am a non-op TS, I do not claim to represent or be a role
model for anybody.
If people see me as a community spokescritter for non-ops... that's fine.
I'm a nice, friendly, personable individual, with an obvious intelligence,
sense of humor and personal integrity. Oh.. I left out modest!
>You live as "Gender Fuck" -- not as a man or as a woman.
You are claiming knowledge that you not only don't have, but isn't true.
This is called a LIE!
I live as a woman.
>> I've explained over and over that I present as a woman. My concept of
>> "gender fuck" is a guy with a beard in a dress. Doesn't describe me at
all.
>> I'm very much more female than male in appearance and definitely woman in
>> presentation.
>No, you wear women's clothes. That is it. Presentation as a woman means
>that people either "don't know" or they know that you are taking this
pretty
>damned seriously.
Ah... and here is the first thing on this subject that you've said that
shows any kind of sense. Presenting as a woman means presenting as a
woman... whether you pass or not.
I would have to go to extraordinary measures to ensure that most people
"don't know". The very effort at completely passing would likely give me
away even faster in normal situations like grocery shopping.
The way I present, they way I live, leaves no question in anybody's mind
that I am serious about this being a woman. It does leave some questions at
times about whether I was born female. I don't see anyway to avoid that...
and so I live with it... even turn it to my advantage. This is wrong?
Tell me Geena, do you think it's possible that you might have misunderstood
my intentions in some of the things I posted earlier in this thread?
>By your own admissions you DO NOT make the effort -- you
>either can't be bothered with the effort, or you think it is deceptive.
A slight exaggeration... Yes, there are things I could do that might make it
more difficult to detect my birth sex... or they might not as well. The
effort required isn't worth the dubious results. I have no shame about
being a non-op TS. I'm not scared about being read (which, paradoxically,
means I actually get read LESS). I am what I am.
>By
>your other own admissions, you are read as trans the moment you start to
>interact with someone. That is =not= "definitely woman in presentation."
My size and voice do cause people to question (though my voice is very fem
in all but frequency)... Most likely to happen if I'm in the gay district,
where there is more awareness of T*s... Still likely in almost anyplace in
Seattle... not very likely at all in the outlying rural areas. Most are not
sure even after talking to me. Those that are bold enough to ask, generally
get a straight answer... not always.
>> You keep displaying your ignorance... you haven't met me and know nothing
>> about how I live.
>
>I have taken your words at face value. If you are lying that is =your=
>problem.
No... you've misunderstood some of my words and then dismissed any others
that don't fit your misunderstandings out of hand... even when they were
posted specifically as clarifications.
You've done everything BUT take my words at face value. You have taken some
isolated phrases out of context and forced them to fit your preconceptions,
while ignoring sentences both directly before and after those phrases...
sometimes even phrases within the same sentence. You have been so intent on
proving I'm not a non-op TS you've let it get in the way of your ability to
read... and that's being charitable. Other explanations actually seem much
more likely.
You've made statements about how I live, how I present, how I think, how I
feel... all based on nothing but your imagination. You present as "facts"
things that you not only have no knowledge about, but there is no way you
CAN have knowledge about.
>But so we are clear -- if you were working as a clerk in a grocery store
>and you had to greet each customer, tell them their total, take their
money,
>give them their change, then load their groceries into their car (it's a
>very full service grocery ;-), out of 100 customers, how many of those
>would believe that you are other than a genetic female? Assume that each
>interaction lasts 5 minutes and that 100 customers is about an 8 hour day
>for you.
I don't know... kind of depends on the trans-awareness of the clientele.
But passing ISN"T a valid indication of self id. If it was, young, slim,
short drag queens would have the best claim to the label TS.
(BTW, I do take occasional retail jobs between projects... and I have never
had any problem at all,)
>Taking the list of people from the description above, would you care to
>estimate what aspects of your overall presentation would be responsible
>for people concluding that you are not a genetic female.
Mostly shoulder size, height, and vocal range. Late in the day, there might
be a faint 5 o'clock shadow as well. Mannerisms, tone and expressiveness of
voice, thin wrists and ankles, slender hands and fingers, no adams apple,
feminine facial features, no beard shadow (unless very late in the day),
obvious breasts (natural, not padded), wide hips (for a guy) and high waist
would all work against such a conclusion. As would my clothes, make-up and
hair.
In truth, I am very lucky genetically speaking... except for my height. It
still doesn't make any difference in my self id. I passed quite nicely when
I was id-ing as a TV... even though it meant wearing a wig and fake breasts.
Passability and degree or type of T-ness aren't related.
And once again, dear. I don't do gender fuck, I don't do drag. I dress in
women's clothes, I have female mannerisms and in general act pretty much
like any woman my age... maybe slightly more out going than most is all.
I just don't freak out if I get read... I generally take it as somebody
seeing what's there. I am not ashamed to be a non-op TS. I simply don't
have the same attitude about being read as you do.
<-|spunky|+>
> If I were to 'self-ID' myself a Native American (I'm Polish/Swedish),
> and went so far as to publish and insist on my right to do so I would
> fully expect actual Native Americans to make a strong effort to dissuade
> from that, and to just as publicly state that I am not.
Reminds me of a guy who used to post here last year. He claimed to be a
"woman" solely on the basis of his involvement in highly stereotypical
activities such as belly dancing and going to Glamour Shots at the mall.
Whenever those of us who live as women took issue with this he would
accuse us of "invalidating" him, being "bigotted", and (this is really
rich) referred to us as being "part of the patriarchy" because we refused
to play along with his little charade.
LoreeTG, you are a transgenderist, a TG, *not* a TS.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Give it a rest, huh?
spunky
**
You made my day, now you have to sleep in it
Now you have to sleep in it
I love the world and if I have to sue for custody,
I will sue for custody
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
LoreeTG
<364c1b84...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:42:24 -0800, "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>
>>>A good analogy. If the person in question were to put on warpaint and
>>
>>A bad analogy. Closer would be if I were 7/8ths European and 1/8 Black
and
>>had the audacity to claim Caucasian as a racial label. If fact, the
bigots
>>in that case would be almost indistinguishable from the bigots in this
>>thread.
>
>analogy would be even closer yet.
How 'bout if I was 100% non-op TS? That would be as close as you could
get... Oh... wait a sec... I AM 100% non-op TS.
<G>
LoreeTG
>In article <71qnec$81m$6...@slave2.aa.net>,
Arrrrrrrggggggggg. What a load of cr*p.
You just keep posting the same lies over and over and ignore everything I
post to contradict them.
Grow up.
LoreeTG
>LoreeTG, you are a transgenderist, a TG, *not* a TS.
I'm a non-op TS.
>There's nothing wrong with that.
And there's nothing wrong with that either.
>Give it a rest, huh?
Sorry spunky... of couse you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't
happen to agree with it.
I refuse to be intimidated... by anybody. I'm sorry if my self id offends
you, but it IS my self ID.
And BTW, my name is Loree.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71obbd$vsk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <71npgp$lpf$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
>
> >How am I trying to force you to do anything? Trust me, I know how to
> >apply force. If I were truly motivated to force you to change your
> opinion,
> >you =would= change your opinion.
>
> LOL.... Can you say "inflated sense of self importance"...or maybe
> "egomaniacal".... whatever... if you actually BELIEVE that last statement,
> you are completely delusional, my dear.
No, I actually am incapable of saying "inflated sense of self-importance".
However, believe me when I tell you that I am more than capable of applying
sufficient force to do anything I deem possible. If I believed that changing
your opinion were possible =and= I decided it was something I was going to
do, it =would= happen.
Since I don't particularly care to change your opinion, your original
statement (my, I've noticed that you are very good at removing context and
then arguing against it -- part of your continued pattern of lies and
deception ...) is false.
> Cheryl stated, in plain English, that I would be subject to a flame war
> until I stopped saying I'm a non-op TS. She has kept that promise. You and
> Diane have aided and abetted her in this.
I really don't care what Cheryl says. As for Diane, she and I have
differing views about you. She believes you aren't transsexual because
you don't care to change sex. I believe you aren't a woman because you
refuse to live as one.
> Your actions speak louder than your words.
Which actions? Refusing to allow you to silence me?
> >It takes two sides to make an argument. You persist in claiming you are a
> >non-op, I persist in claiming you are an exhibitionistic transvestite.
>
> Hmm you persist in saying you're working at IBM as a security specialist.. I
> say you're just a cleaning lady... Do I have the right to post that
> opinion? Is it just as valid as your opinion?
It isn't an opinion, but if you'd like to believe that I'm a cleaning lady
at IBM, I'm not going to argue against you. Unlike =your= belief that you
are a "non-op transsexual", I have no ego invested in =your= belief that I
am a security specialist (actually, I'm just a lowly programmer -- we don't
have "security specialist" as a job description).
> >Neither of us has more or less "right" to express that opinion. Neither
> >of us is more or less "valid".
>
> Of course, my opinion about my life is based on firsthand knowledge, your
> opinion is based on an inflated sense of self importance.
My opinion about your life is based on your self-reports. I've asked you
the pointy headed questions needed to refute your assertions. You refused
to answer them, then turned around and accused me of not knowing how you
live your life. That is intellectual dishonesty. Either answer the questions
or concede the points.
> I believe that when it comes to personal id, a person has information that
> know one else can have.. what they feel.. how they live. and somebody in
> Austin has nothing but imagination to base their opinion of my life in
> Seattle on. Especially when it directly contradicts my own statements.
No, my statements are perfectly in line with =your= statements -- after all,
they are based directly on your statements. You stated that you are read
the instant you start an interaction with someone. You stated that you
cannot be bothered to present in a feminine manner. These are =your=
statements, Loree.
> >You may not LIKE that I believe you to be a
> >transvestite, but that doesn't mean I suddenly have to stop believing it.
>
> True... but to continually harp on it... to try and persuade others to your
> view by lying about me, by pretending to be in possession of "facts" about
> me that simply aren't true.. you are showing an intellectual dishonesty and
> egomaniacal personality of tremendous proportions.
I'm not lying about you. I'm just repeating =your= statements.
> There is no way you can make any credible claim you know more about my life
> and how I live than I do. In all areas of disagreement, it is obvious you
> are making things up to "prove" your point.
No, I'm simply repeating your statements back to you with the only
interpretation that society consistently gives.
> I say I live as a woman. You say I live as a man?
Actually I say you live as a transvestite.
> I say I present as a woman. You say I do "gender fuck"?
That's correct. You make no effort to convince, other than your informing
them that you are a "non-op transsexual", that you are a woman. You
present, essentially, as a man who wears women's clothing.
> I say I don't want people to see me as a "man in a dress". You say I do?
Your actions -- the lack of desire to be perceived as lying within the
bounds of "normal" women -- speak directly to that desire.
> There is a definite difference in the information our opinions are based on.
> My information is all first hand (it is =me= we are disagreeing about!)
> yours is all guesses, distortions, misunderstandings and out right lies.
No, it is all based on your statements. You can admit that you were lying
for some reason, or you can clarify your remarks. The last time you
clarified your remarks you admitted that people read you the instant you
open your mouth.
> >I am under no obligation to cater to your, or anyone elses, delusions.
> >
> And I am under no obligation to cater to your delusions about me.
Then admit that you've lied about how you live your life. Convince me that
the people who meet you believe from beginning to end that they are dealing
with a woman and not a transvestite.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> >You speak like a man,
>
> And just when have you ever heard me speak? More lies.
Uh, I =have= heard you speak. You speak with a man's voice.
> >you refuse to change your identification or do any of the
> >work,
>
> What am I supposed to change it to? There is no "other" sex identifier.
> What I refuse to do is reject my own self id just to fit the cisgendered
> ideal.
As far as the State of Washington is concerned, what is your legal name?
> >how can you claim that you present as "definitely woman"?
>
> It's easy... because it's true.
You speak in a man's voice, have ID which says "Male name" and a sex
designator of "male".
You call that "definitely woman"? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
gee...@my-dejanews.com
>
> The only way she knows this is that I've stated my desire to go to E2000...
> so using it as a "fact" against me is disingenuous at best.
If you can afford to smoke, drink and go clubbing, you can afford
electrolysis. Which is more important? Cigs, booze and bars, or
getting rid of the beard?
Okay, different, but related question -- which is more important,
cigs, booze and bars or living as a woman? Hmmm.
> >4. You are not undergoing any sort treatment or therapy regime
> >wit regards to transsexuality and in fact just black market your
> >hormones so you don't have to see a Doc.
>
> I've already transitioned. I did a one year RLT before starting HRT. My
> hormones are prescribed by my family Dr.. I don't like the SOCs.. they were
> not designed with me in mind. I don't need a therapist as I don't plan on
> SRS.
The SOC is neither designed with or without you in mind. When it comes
to issues such as HRT, it doesn't require that you pre-commit to SRS.
> >Now those are the facts and the facts say clearly that you are
> >not a transsexual of any variant and in fact it is clear that you
> >do not live full time in the gender role of a woman as you
> >haven't even changed your ID. Now if those facts hurt dear well -
> >too bad. It's your decision and you're welcome to it and have
> >every right to live that way. But you're certainly not a
> >transsexual honey.
>
> See how this works? She can say anything... even the most outlandish things
> like "in fact it is clear that you do not live full time in the gender role
> of a woman" and those lies somehow "prove" her right.
I think the facts that you =do= admit speak for themselves. All of the
"How to transition successfully" books and notes I've read stress the
importance of electrolysis, voice, etc. You've not had electrolysis and
you don't bother with your voice.
> >Any TS or transgendered has seen dozens upon dozens of
> >transvestites and crossdressers who cannot accept themselves and
> >need to be something they think is better (so silly). Just look
> >at any TG personals ads and- whoop-de-do- the columns are filled
> >with people calling themselves transexuals. Happens all the time
> >and Loree - you're nothing new. Been there- seen that <yawn>.
>
> Displaying her bigotry again.... most people represent themselves as
> accurately in TG personals as they do in any personals. Lots and lots of
> TV's, a few pre-ops, a rare non-op or two and no post-ops.
Back when "www.tgforum.com" was all free I made quite a few trips through
it. Most of the ads were inaccurate. "TS" was snuck in wherever it could
be snuck. "And she's on hormones!" seemed like some great validator of
gender identity.
> In reality VERY few CD/TV claim to be TS. I resisted the idea I was
> anything other than TV until just recently. A TV does NOT use hormones or
> live full time as a woman. I tried being a full time TV... and discovered
> that that wasn't quite enough... HRT has made the difference for me.
That's JUST NOT TRUE. If I had a dollar for every TV or CD I knew who'd
been on 'mones, well, I'd have enough money for a couple of nice outfits.
Trying hormones, or even sticking with them, isn't uncommon. And full-time
TVes are just another category of TV. In fact, it's a term -- "Full-time
transvestite." Virginia Prince is one. One of the beefs Dallas Denny had
with TRI-Ess had to do with trans-exclusion and that fact that they turned
a blind eye to CDers on black market 'mones.
> I don't rant to anybody... I defend myself when attacked.. and the attacks
> aren't coming from new people...
You mean like when Technoid recently took you to task for mis-identifying
yourself as a TS?
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71ob2q$voj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In other words "The only people who aren't allowed to point out that I'm
> >misidentifying me are those three evil post-SRS women. I don't care if
> >Technoid, who isn't a post-SRS woman, or Laura, who is a transgenderist,
> >point out that I'm wrong, because those two people aren't evil post-SRS
> >women."
>
> You can post your viewpoint... if that's all you were doing I'd have no
> problem at all. BTW, you don't know that Technoid isn't a post SRS woman.
Technoid posts using a man's name. If he, and you call him "he" as well,
is a post-SRS woman, more power to him (or her).
> There have been several post-op women who have posted a view opposite of
> mine. They did it without the lies, distortions and misinformation that you
> use. It's only you three that feel flaming me into submission is a noble
> goal.
I started in with some pretty basic statements. =You= demanded proof and
I changed my approach. Sorry that you feel that repeating =your= statements
back to you is an "attack". As for "flaming", I don't view any of this as
"flaming".
> >Actually, I view personal information as supporting or invalidating a
> >claimed self-identity. I don't view it as a "weapon".
>
> LOL... "LoreeT?" isn't an attempt at using my personal info as a weapon? I
> sign every post as "Loree Thomas". Now you've picked up on Dianes petty
> little invalidation tactic. You went to my website and quoted a section of
> my cover letter out of context, ridiculing me about it, in an effort to
> destroy my creadibility.
Loree, you view yourself as this incredible "expert". The cover letter of
your resume, which is public info, makes that rather clear. I've been a
programmer since before you were old enough to drink (and yes, I'm younger
than you -- I've been a programmer for more than half my life) and I'm not
so brash as to assert that I can become an "expert" in the length of time
you claim. When I review resumes I take ones like yours and discard them.
> The other thing you've done is purposefully extracted isolated statements I
> made, interpreted them in the worst possible light, and then ignored the
> many other statements I made that directly contradict your
> misinterpretations.
Actually, I try interpreting in a fairly positive light. I =do= ask you
questions about why you can't/won't pass. Your answer is always the same.
You don't want to.
> If Technoid were to share anything personal with you and later you got into
> a heated disagreement, you would do the same with his info.
If Technoid made statements which contracted his personal information, yes,
I'd use it against him. Your statements contradict your assertion that you
live as a woman.
> It's a pretty constant pattern with you. Any person you identify as an
> enemy is subject to this treatment.
Actually, it's a pretty common pattern with people who understand the nature
of debate. You make a statement, I counter it. There is no "and then we
play real nice so that Loree can lie in public" rule.
> >A weapon would be
> >something like a conviction for pedophilia or a Browning Hi-Power 9mm
> >semi-automatic pistol. Relevant facts are, well, relevant facts.
>
> "Facts" as posted by you and Cheryl and Diane, bear no relation at all to
> truth. Also, it was your penchant for using personal "facts" as weapons
> that I was talking about to begin with. Sharing ANYTHING personal with you
> is just plain dangerous.
No, the "facts" that we are using are =your= words. As for sharing anything
personal, well, not sharing personal stuff is kinda dumb.
> >Uh, I've not made up lies about you, Loree. The problem with you is that
> you
> >say something -- like admitting that people read you as trans when you
> start
> >to interact with them -- and then don't like the consequences of being
> >truthful.
>
> The problem is you take the above statement(which is close enough to true)
> and turn it into a lie... like your repeated statement "You don't mind
> people reading you as a MAN."
Loree -- what you are being told is that based on 20+ years of experience
by people who've lived without being detected as "trans-whatever", that if
you must =explain= what you are, or if people leave =questioning= what you
are, their perception is "Man in a dress."
> You do lie. You have through out this thread purposefully distorted what I
> said, ignoring anything I said that contradicted your distortions, and then
> presented those distortions as "facts".
No, I have taken the statements you make which contract your positive
assertions and used them as evidence that you don't do what you claim to do.
> >Businesses are
> >social experimentation labs. My employer exists to bring value to the
> >shareholders and continue to provide employment to its employees. If I ran
> >around doing "gender fuck", do you believe that my employer is going to
> >suffer? Would an employer who has so suffered be inclined or disinclined
> >towards supporting an employee in a gender transition?
>
> My living is dependant upon how I present and represent my self to my
> clients. I get contracts... I get repeat clients.. and I work as Loree
> Thomas.
Yes, and Karen -- who admits to having passability problems -- got a raise.
Your comment proves nothing.
> >I am much more concerned with
> >your belief that "gender fuck" makes you both a woman and a transsexual.
> It
> >does =neither= and so extreme disrespect for all members of both groups.
>
> Ah... now I get it!!! This is all just to get the idea that I do "gender
> fuck" firmly implanted in peoples minds.
No, it's not my wish to convince others that you do "gender fuck". You pretty
much have done that on your own.
> Again.. repeating a lie (and you said you don't lie!) over and over doesn't
> make it true.
Loree, you've stated that you get read on a regular basis. You've stated
that you don't care to put in the effort to fix that problem. THAT is
"gender fuck". It doesn't matter if it's a fully beard that gets you clocked,
or a hairy chest, or =whatever=. If you go out intentionally presenting as
mixed gender, =that= is gender fuck.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71ra6s$vtr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <71qnec$81m$6...@slave2.aa.net>,
>
> Arrrrrrrggggggggg. What a load of cr*p.
>
> You just keep posting the same lies over and over and ignore everything I
> post to contradict them.
Lies? WHAT lies? You keep posting the same justifications over and over
again. Justifications aren't a sign of self-acceptance. Claiming that
being on HRT "proves" you are TS proves nothing. Running around in women's
clothes proves nothing. What =does= prove something is your admission that
you don't try to pass.
Technoid
I wasn't going to respond to any of this, but it's the 'only game in town'
right now (no other posts in the NG).
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> That's JUST NOT TRUE. If I had a dollar for every TV or CD I knew who'd
> been on 'mones, well, I'd have enough money for a couple of nice outfits.
> Trying hormones, or even sticking with them, isn't uncommon. And full-time
> TVes are just another category of TV. In fact, it's a term -- "Full-time
> transvestite." Virginia Prince is one. One of the beefs Dallas Denny had
> with TRI-Ess had to do with trans-exclusion and that fact that they turned
> a blind eye to CDers on black market 'mones.
Even in Seattle (yes, Loree and I are both in the Seattle area, and even have
the same small local ISP) I've run into a goodly number of _self-identified_
TV's/CD's on 'mones (on Belmont St., just blocks from where I worked as an
engineer at U S WEST, and elsewhere).
Tom
--
| Tom Losh <man...@tech-center.com> |
| PGP 5 fingerprint: |
| 3E2E 6143 393D 872B CB0E |
| 88E2 CA28 25BA 69B9 32EA |
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> <-|spunky|+> wrote in message <71r57t$nkj$1...@twwells.com>...
>
> >LoreeTG, you are a transgenderist, a TG, *not* a TS.
>
Yup, and Mark Baldwin was a woman.
> >There's nothing wrong with that.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with that either.
Yes there is. Try actually =living= as a woman, not as some "out"
transvestite.
> And BTW, my name is Loree.
Is that the first name listed on your driver's license?
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Technoid <man...@tech-center.com> wrote:
> Damnit! :o)
>
> I wasn't going to respond to any of this, but it's the 'only game in town'
> right now (no other posts in the NG).
>
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > That's JUST NOT TRUE. If I had a dollar for every TV or CD I knew who'd
> > been on 'mones, well, I'd have enough money for a couple of nice outfits.
> > Trying hormones, or even sticking with them, isn't uncommon. And full-time
> > TVes are just another category of TV. In fact, it's a term -- "Full-time
> > transvestite." Virginia Prince is one. One of the beefs Dallas Denny had
> > with TRI-Ess had to do with trans-exclusion and that fact that they turned
> > a blind eye to CDers on black market 'mones.
>
> Even in Seattle (yes, Loree and I are both in the Seattle area, and even have
> the same small local ISP) I've run into a goodly number of _self-identified_
> TV's/CD's on 'mones (on Belmont St., just blocks from where I worked as an
> engineer at U S WEST, and elsewhere).
Thanks for backing me up on that, Tom. I've already seen where LoreeTV claims
you might be a post-SRS woman. If you keep agreeing with me, sie might start
asserting that you really have had SRS ;-)
One of the "things" I do for the local TV/CD/DQ crowd is "hormone education".
I talk about the realities of HRT, the importance of seeing a doctor, the
various negative side-effects of HRT, etc. Over the last two years or so I've
probably talked half a dozen or so TV/CD/DQ people off of 'mones and a few
others into seeing a doctor for regular blood work (the two I can think of
right now are both transsexual women who can't afford to see a therapist and
therefore haven't had access to our local trannie endoc).
Most of the TVes and CDers who I've known who start HRT are =seriously=
messed up because of the "behavior" and desparately want some form of
validation. They look to hormones as a way to justify their "realness".
After all, if they are taking hormones -- no matter how ineffectual the dose,
or how irregularly they take them -- they must be "transsexual" and, well,
being TS is =so= much better in their minds than just being a cross-dresser.
The single worst example I can think of is a local CDer who cannot bring
himself to dress AT ALL and has spent most of the three years I've known him
desparately trying to hook up with the local TS crowd. His fixation on
hormones is absolutely frightening and if I thought you could OD on 'mones,
I'd be worried that he might do that by accident.
LoreeTG
>Damnit! :o)
>
>I wasn't going to respond to any of this, but it's the 'only game in town'
>right now (no other posts in the NG).
Well... when your name is being tossed around... it'd be pretty hard to
resist.<G>
>Even in Seattle (yes, Loree and I are both in the Seattle area, and even
have
>the same small local ISP) I've run into a goodly number of
_self-identified_
>TV's/CD's on 'mones (on Belmont St., just blocks from where I worked as an
>engineer at U S WEST, and elsewhere).
Cool. Remember EVERYBODY has the right to self ID. Their self id in no way
invalidates my own.
Plus I think that it's possible you haven't been up to Belmont St. recently.
I've never seen you in the area. The Tacky Tavern is closed... As I think
you found out for the first time when I told you about it a couple of months
ago. Most of the girls hanging there (and now hanging at Foxes or the
Crescent) weren't self id-ing as T anything. They were gay men who did
drag.... They were also what's commonly referred to as "street queens" i.e.
half of them make their living in prostitution.. and not a very good living
at that. Some of those girls are on black market hormones. Some used to be
and stopped when their dicks no longer functioned well. In truth, I never
met a self ID'd TV on hormones. And I've been on Belmont more than a few
times in the past couple of years (some of my friends do drag shows at
Foxes). I've also been to several Emerald City meetings. Emerald City is a
crossdresser social club.. and has a huge membership. They tolerate other
types of T*s... but are predominately crossdressers. The only people at
Emerald City on hormones DO NOT Id as TV/CD. They are all pre, post or
non-op TS.
I am also involved with Ingersoll Gender Center, and have been for the past
2+ years. There are hundreds of T*s of all types there.... not one of them
is self id-ing as TV/CD and on hormones.
I'm very involved in the trans community in Seattle... My personal
experience with this is it would be very uncommon indeed for a CD to claim a
TS label of any type... or use hormones for longer than it took to find out
that HRT affects sexual function.
Hugs,
LoreeTG
X-No-Archive: YES
I wrote:
>> Passability and degree or type of T-ness aren't related.
>
>Uhmmmm. They =are=. "Really".
And you said you weren't a snob!
>Can you
>propose a reasonable explanation for the difference in successful
presentation
>as our chosen gender?
Sure.. this one is easy:
You're delusional, I'm not.
I'm a non-op TS. I realise that people do read me at times and don't get
bothered by it at all (and THAT took lots of work on self esteem) You are a
post op TS who lies to hirself about how well you pass... and are scared to
death someone is gonna call you a "man in a dress".
<-|spunky|+>
> I'm a non-op TS.
That is a self contradictory statement.
> And there's nothing wrong with that either
You can call yourself a non-swimming dolphin for all I care. Doesn't make
it true.
> I refuse to be intimidated... by anybody. I'm sorry if my self id offends
> you, but it IS my self ID.
I'm not "intimidating" you or even trying to. The *fact* is that you are a
transgenderist and not a TS. "Loree" you can "self ID", or jump up and
down, or even scream "I am I am I am" and stomp your feet all day long
for all I care. but saying you are something that you are not will never
make it so.
Grow up, OK
spunky
**
Your money talks but my genius walks
Morticians wait with a shovel and a fork
As detectives trace my hands with chalk
Your money talks but my genius walks
Technoid
distinct change from most of the thread... :o)
LoreeTG wrote:
>
> Technoid wrote in message <3641B679...@tech-center.com>...
> >Damnit! :o)
> >
> >I wasn't going to respond to any of this, but it's the 'only game in town'
> >right now (no other posts in the NG).
>
> Well... when your name is being tossed around... it'd be pretty hard to
> resist.<G>
Yeah, I do keep seeing my name in here. What's amusung is seeing me quoted by
both 'sides' and being used to support and slam in both directions.
Interesting. :o)
> Plus I think that it's possible you haven't been up to Belmont St. recently.
True, it has been a few years since I worked in Seattle and had very easy
access to just dropping in.
> I've never seen you in the area.
You really wouldn't have recognized me, Loree. ;o)
> The Tacky Tavern is closed... As I think
> you found out for the first time when I told you about it a couple of months
> ago.
Yup, as I said at that time I _used_ to stop in at the 'Tacky Tav' and
'Changes Too' because I liked the folks and atmosphere there. Since I don't
'hang out' with any T* group simply because they are a T* group, I really
don't make the 36 mile roundtrip just to grab a beer. :o)
> Most of the girls hanging there (and now hanging at Foxes or the
> Crescent) weren't self id-ing as T anything. They were gay men who did
> drag.... They were also what's commonly referred to as "street queens" i.e.
> half of them make their living in prostitution.. and not a very good living
> at that.
Yeah, the Tacky Tavern was, uh, aptly named... Still, it was very easy to
strike up conversations there and to talk to very interesting people. The
nicest thing about it was that nobody really gave a shit about who or what you
were. Non-judgemental would be the term I'd use. Heck, my wife even liked the
place. (Hmmmm... Wonder what ever became of Boomer [the pyrotechnics guy in
the fishnets] he made a good 'beer buddy' in that he was interesting, offbeat,
and had a pretty sharp technical mind.)
> I am also involved with Ingersoll Gender Center, and have been for the past
> 2+ years. There are hundreds of T*s of all types there.... not one of them
> is self id-ing as TV/CD and on hormones.
I understand that Ingersoll has changed a lot in the past few years, but when
I used to wander in there on occasion it was, at the very least, a very
depressing place. Marsha and Jude were really nice folks, and very dedicated,
but the entire ambience was a real drag (no pun intended). ('Fact I still have
a buisness card from Marsha from about 1980... I'm a packrat.)
> I'm very involved in the trans community in Seattle... My personal
> experience with this is it would be very uncommon indeed for a CD to claim a
> TS label of any type... or use hormones for longer than it took to find out
> that HRT affects sexual function.
Hmmmmm... Well, I'm not very involved in the trans community in Seattle.
Really never have been 'cause I'm not transgendered (using that as the blanket
term meaning one who is changing _genders_, etc.). I'm also not a 'joiner' and
tend not to become a member of any 'group' just 'cause we might share one
interest or whatever. About the only groups I've ever really joined were IEEE
and the Masons, and I dumped the Masons. :o)
LoreeTG
>On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:14:04 -0800, Loree TG wrote:
>> I'm a non-op TS.
>
>That is a self contradictory statement.
Ok.. that's your opinion and you're entiltled to it. Kind of makes further
discussion pointless.
But you do it anyway<sigh>.
>The *fact* is that you are a
>transgenderist and not a TS. "Loree" you can "self ID", or jump up and
>down, or even scream "I am I am I am" and stomp your feet all day long
>for all I care. but saying you are something that you are not will never
>make it so.
Facts are slippery things aren't they... People seem to confuse facts with
opinions here on a regular basis.
spunky, my opinion (and mine is the only one that counts when referring to
my self id) is that I'm a non-op TS. You can jump up and down or even
scream "you're not, you're not" and stomp your feet all day long for all I
care, but saying I'm not something that I am will never make it so.
>Grow up, OK
Good advice... use it!
Hugs,
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71reb2$4gp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I wrote:
> >> Passability and degree or type of T-ness aren't related.
> >
>
> And you said you weren't a snob!
The best indicator of transsexuality -- real transsexuality, not "I can't
accept myself as a transvestite" -- is the desire one has to be perceived as
a member of the genetically opposite sex. You don't have that desire -- you
are more than content to be treated like a man in a dress. No desire, no
transsexuality. The End.
Next time you are at Ingersoll ask if someone would be considered to be in RLT
if they made =zero= effort at presenting as a woman. If you push the
discussion to its logical conclusion, you'll find that therapists use your
commitment to life as the opposite sex as part of the diagnostic criteria.
> >Can you
> >propose a reasonable explanation for the difference in successful
> presentation
> >as our chosen gender?
>
> Sure.. this one is easy:
>
> You're delusional, I'm not.
I'm delusional? Why? I have the same discussions, including ones about my
non-existent periods, as any other woman my age.
> I'm a non-op TS. I realise that people do read me at times and don't get
> bothered by it at all (and THAT took lots of work on self esteem) You are a
> post op TS who lies to hirself about how well you pass... and are scared to
> death someone is gonna call you a "man in a dress".
So when are you going to continue to work on that self-esteem thing and stop
trying to jack yourself up to "transsexual" just so "transvestite" isn't how
you identify?
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> <-|spunky|+> wrote in message <71sts6$pc3$1...@twwells.com>...
> >On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:14:04 -0800, Loree TG wrote:
> >
>
> Ok.. that's your opinion and you're entiltled to it. Kind of makes further
> discussion pointless.
No, it's a =fact=. You've done nothing to change your sex. Breasts aren't
"sex" -- or else there are men with gynecomastia who would be alarmed to
discover that they've had a sex change.
> But you do it anyway<sigh>.
Yup, just as you do. Hell, just as =I= do!
> >The *fact* is that you are a
> >transgenderist and not a TS. "Loree" you can "self ID", or jump up and
> >down, or even scream "I am I am I am" and stomp your feet all day long
> >for all I care. but saying you are something that you are not will never
> >make it so.
>
> Facts are slippery things aren't they... People seem to confuse facts with
> opinions here on a regular basis.
Saying you are a transsexual of any sort is a statement of fact. You might
=think= you are a transsexual, but that doesn't make it so. Hell, you might
even think that you are the Queen of England -- and again, that doesn't make
it so.
> spunky, my opinion (and mine is the only one that counts when referring to
> my self id) is that I'm a non-op TS. You can jump up and down or even
> scream "you're not, you're not" and stomp your feet all day long for all I
> care, but saying I'm not something that I am will never make it so.
"Non-op transsexual" isn't a self-ID. It's a diagnosis. It's a statement of
a condition which you don't satisfy. Plenty of men like their dicks -- you
just happen to be one of them.
Trina
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm a non-op TS.
<-|spunky|+> wrote:
>>>That is a self contradictory statement.
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>> Ok.. that's your opinion and you're entiltled to it. Kind of makes further
>> discussion pointless.
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>No, it's a =fact=. You've done nothing to change your sex. Breasts aren't
>"sex" -- or else there are men with gynecomastia who would be alarmed to
>discover that they've had a sex change.
Are you so blinded by your Jihad - an appropriate term, given
the almost religious nature of the assertions being made and the
declared nature of this war - that you've forgotten that the world is
rarely as black and white as people would like? That human beings
generally don't fit nicely into one category or the other? Or did you
never learn that basic, simple truth? Do you honestly believe that you
can use some sort of checklist to categorize someone and if they fit
these items then they're this and not that and that makes it a fact?
No, it is *not* a fact, it is an opinion. You are as entitled
to you opinion as anyone but it is disingenuous at best and outright
arrogant at worst to continuously claim it as a fact.
Facts are objective things. They are measurable, they are
demonstrable, they are externally verifiable, they are reproducible.
When I say that I was born in Japan that is a fact. It is
easily externally verifiable. When I say that the Concord River
empties into the Atlantic that is a fact - you can go have a look for
yourself.
Some things are considered facts by definition. A calorie is
the amount of energy it take to raise one square centimeter of water
at sea level one degree centigrade. This definition is based on a
number of other interlocking definitions, but it leads to facts that
are objective, demonstrable, verifiable, and reproducible. If someone
claims their chicken parmesan contains 150 calories per serving I can
sit down and measure that for myself if I like.
For better or ill, however, the world is rarely so precise.
Language is inherently and necessarily imprecise, people are
inherently and necessarily imprecise. Much of what we call fact is
anything but, look at how often "facts" change. Most "facts" are a
matter of opinion, generally strongly held opinion. Even science, a
supposed bastion of fact, is based mostly on opinion - in the end,
basically little different from any other religion.
You and a few others want to say that it is a *fact* that
Loree is not a transsexual. That's flawed from the get-go because she
never said she was a transsexual, she said she was a non-op
transsexual - modifiers in language are hardly anything new, nor is
the term "non-op" anything new or anything Loree made up. You say
"non-op transsexual" is oxymoronic. So what? There are lots of
oxymoronic terms in general use. You say the term doesn't exist. Most
obviously and demonstrably it does, you wouldn't even be having the
argument if it didn't.
You say Loree is not any kind of transsexual and that is a
*fact*, apparently somehow believing that should end the discussion.
Everyone will see the light, go their way, and sin no more. But upon
what do you base that claim of fact?
Loree is not a transsexual by definition. Your definition,
which is universally held. Wait a minute, universally held? That's
obviously and demonstrably not the case. Okay, so generally held.
Generally held? What does generally mean here and upon what do you
base that assertion? More importantly, haven't you entered the grey
area here tossing out all claim to fact?
You say that a transsexual is someone who has or is in the
process of changing their sex to match their gender. Not a bad
definition, one I wouldn't necessarily disagree with except to say
that it focuses on the wrong end of the equation - the treatment
rather than the syndrome itself.
The problem is that you want to be able to apply this
definition to everybody, use it as some sort of metric to declare
facts. To, in essence, determine who is a "real transsexual". But it
doesn't meet any of the criteria necessary for application to
determining fact. In fact, if you'll excuse the pun, it's quite vague
and easily open to any number of interpretations.
Lets take the last part first - to match their gender. Define
gender. Is it precise? Does it have measurable and reproducible
parameters? Can you take a subject and determine their gender through
any objective and reproducible blind test?
No, of course not. Gender is a vague concept. We mostly all
agree it's there, it's real, but there's lots of disagreement about
exactly what it is, what it's origins are, whether or not it's an
immutable, whether it has its roots in physiology, psychology,
sociology, or some combination thereof. There is no test for gender,
no way of objectively and reproducibly measuring it - Measure it?
Hell, we can't even decently define it!. Like many things when it
comes to human beings, it's a vague and imprecise matter of pattern
recognition. In the end analysis, the only one who can be sure about
what someone's gender might be is the person themselves and even that
can be iffy.
So much for precision and fact.
Okay, going backwards, what about the next part - "changing
their sex". Define sex. Your definition of sex is based on genital
status. Certainly that's something that's objectively verifiable -
everyone drop their drawers, please - but is that the only definition
of sex? Hardly. In fact there isn't any universally accepted
definition of sex. It's another of those inconvenient vague concepts.
You say that changing your genital status from penis to
neo-vagina changed your sex from male to female. But there are many
people who would just as sincerely say that you are delusional and in
fact all you did was have a surgeon mutilate you - that thing between
your legs isn't any kind of vagina. They would say that sex is an
immutable. Still others would say that sex is a sociological concept
irrespective of genitalia and it might or might not be immutable or
even exist independently in the real world at all. Some would say that
sex is defined by your chromosomes, regardless of genital status.
Others, that it's based on reproductive capacity.
Are any of these based on fact? No, of course not. We can't
agree on what exactly sex is, obviously we can't have an objective
test for it. All are a matter of opinion.
Generally strongly held opinion, for those who hold any
opinion on the subject at all. For all that you want to use your
definition as a club against others there are far, far more people out
there who would happily use their definition as a club to beat all of
us. You tell me, what's the difference? They would claim *fact* just
as vehemently. "You aren't any kind of transsexual, by definition
(mine)" sounds a whole lot to me like "I don't care if you've got a
surgically created vagina, you aren't any kind of woman, by definition
(mine)".
And it would be one thing if y'all stuck to just genitalia
when it came to the "changing one's sex" part of the equation, but you
don't. Even the definition you use to "prove" that Loree isn't a
transsexual is itself fluid.
"You have a masculine sounding voice", someone has claimed
about her. Oh really? Is that an objective measure? Does that mean
that Tracy Champman, who has an extremely masculine voice as far as
I'm concerned, is a man?
"You haven't changed your sex on your driver's license". This
one is particularly funny since the person making the charge managed
to get the state Loree lives in wrong by several hundred miles. But,
more importantly, how doesn't this fit into changing one's sex? Does
an 'F' or 'M' on one's D/L have any effect on one's genitalia? In
fact, does whether there's an 'F' or 'M' on your D/L even say anything
about your genitalia? Do they look between your legs before they issue
a D/L?
I find this one particularly irksome from a personal
perspective. As if a piece of plastic stamped by some moron at the
DMV/Registry really says diddly about you. I don't have a D/L, nor do
I particularly want one or plan on getting one any time soon or ever.
Does that say *anything* whatsoever about whether I'm a transsexual or
not? No, it says that I don't drive and I don't really think "Papers,
please!" is a good way to sort things out. The very idea that what it
says on your D/L or your tax return says anything much about who you
really are is a very nice illusion. Easy proof of this is the fact
that so many manage to get around them or get them changed any number
of ways.
The list of modifiers that have been applied to the original
definition in this discussion is rather long. "You obviously aren't a
trasnssexual because you don't meet X". Wait a minute, I thought it
all came back to whether or not you have or intend to change your sex?
And that the only thing that changed your sex was SRS? If she met all
of these other condition but still didn't have SRS would that
constitute changing her sex? Obviously y'all don't believe so, so why
are you even bringing them up?
This precise definition that leads to the "fact" that Loree is
in fact no kind of transsexual gets vaguer and vaguer by the moment.
Okay, for the next part - "is in the process of", I'll call
this the pre-op clause. This clause is particularly problematic for
your claim to fact because it depends on intentions and those are
notoriously hard things to measure externally. All of those above
modifiers exist because of this clause, and I suspect that there are
several of you who wish you didn't feel compelled to include it
because it makes things messy. So messy, in fact, that even if you had
a universal definition for sex, changing sex, and gender, this clause
alone would be enough to toss any claims of being able to use your
definition to determine "fact" right out the window.
Define what it means to be "in the process of". You can't,
it's a matter of opinion. You can create a checklist, mostly based on
what you yourself did, but what one does in this process varies quite
a bit depending on one's timetable, situation, monetary condition,
lifestyle, and any number of other factors. Your checklist doesn't
mean diddly to anyone but you.
Take the above example. Someone in the process of changing
their sex to match their gender would, naturally, change the
designation on their driver's license, right? That I haven't and have
no intention to - Because I don't even have a D/L! - means I'm not in
the process? That I couldn't even care less what it says on someone's
D/L, that means what exactly? You see sex designation on a D/L as
universal, it's anything but. Before I quit my job four people who
worked for me - all were female, but then it was an all-femal plant -
didn't have a D/L. Does that mean that they weren't female? Does that
mean that someone might have a question concerning their sex or gender
because they don't have a D/L with 'F' on it to show them? Do you
honestly think that if someone thinks you aren't really a woman
because you're a post-op the little 'F' on your D/L is going to have
any effect whatsoever on their opinion? To you this is important, and
maybe in your life it is. To me it doesn't mean diddly. You're right,
I'm wrong, and that's a fact? Hardly.
You can't apply timetables, lists, or arbitrary conditions on
what someone does and then claim to have a universal fact. You haven't
done 'X', therefore you aren't a transsexual. As if everyone is
compelled to do the same things, as if all of the things that are
important to you, your life, and where you live are equally important
and relevant to someone else.
Okay, now for the last part - "someone who has", the post-op
clause. Translated, what you mean is that someone who has had SRS is a
transsexual by definition. That would seem to be self-evident, if it
weren't for a few inconvenient facts. Fact, some people who have had
SRS question whether or not they were or are in fact transsexuals -
obviously they don't believe in your universal definition. Karen has
raised the question herself right her in this newsgroup. I can name
several MtF post-ops who have gone back to living as male - are they
still transsexuals by definition no matter what they have to say on
the subject?
Your universal definition is anything but. It is also anything
but objective. It is filled with vague concepts that carry multiple
interpretations and possible conditions. It is not something upon
which one can reasonably expect to base facts.
What you are espousing is opinion. That you turn it into dogma
and repeat it endlessly changes nothing, it is still opinion and will
continue to be until there is some objective and measurable definition
for transsexualism. And that will not happen until we manage to figure
out what exactly it is that causes us to feel the way we do and do
some of the things we do that differ so markedly from the vast bulk of
the great unwashed. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that and,
frankly, I'm by no means convinced that it will be a Good Thing (tm)
when they do figure it out. But until then this is all just a matter
of opinion.
Loree says that she is a non-op transsexual and that too is
opinion. The difference here, what you people can't seem to wrap your
head around when it comes to self-identification, is that her opinion
is about herself. Your opinion is about her, you claim to know what's
in her head and in her heart and in her life when, quite frankly,
she's the only one with the knowledge available to be able to evaluate
these things.
The entirety of the acceptance, on any level, of
transsexualism is the basic notion that only we know what is truly in
our heads. Without that none of this means anything. If others are
qualified to judge us by their rules, as you want to do with Loree,
then do you accept Janice Raymond's definition of you as not really
being a woman by definition? Why not? What's the difference?
This is the moral high ground you and a few others are so
eager to throw away. For reasons that escape me you cannot see that
your Jihad against Loree is no different than Raymond's Jihad against
you. Your preaching of universal definitions, "facts", and your
insistence on your right to define anyone you please is no different
from the Preacher who stands at the alter and declares you, by
definition, to be an abomination - at least the preacher claims god is
on their side, you don't even have "god made me do it" as an excuse.
You want to claim "facts", but your facts are no more facts than those
sited by Lesbian Separatists, R^3 types, or any number of other groups
who also claim to have the "facts" - ones they would happily use
against you.
You know what? By my definition *you* aren't a transsexual! My
definition is that transsexualism is a condition whereby one's sex,
what is between one's legs, and one's gender, what's between one's
ears, are opposite. That's a simpler definition than yours and, I
think, a better one because it describes the condition without trying
to define the solution - you have to figure out what a problem is
before you can solve it and almost all problems have more than one
solution. By my definition your sex and your gender now match so you
are no longer a transsexual - the condition has been "cured" and you
no longer meet the criteria. How dare you go around calling yourself a
transsexual! "Post-op transsexual"? An oxymoron, the term doesn't even
exist! You're damaging all of us who have the right to call ourselves
transsexuals - cease and desist IMMEDIATELY!
But I know my definition is not universal. I know my
definition includes a lot of vagueness and has room for many different
interpretations. And, frankly, I have no particular desire to impose
my definition on anyone else. Like most things in life, the very terms
involved are not precise, do not lead themselves easily to facts, and
mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
Why do you insist on trying to impose your definition on
everyone here? Why this Jihad? I keep asking myself that and, frankly,
I don't think you'd much like the answers that obviously come to mind
if anyone really gives this any thought.
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>> Facts are slippery things aren't they... People seem to confuse facts with
>> opinions here on a regular basis.
That is absolutely and demonstrably the case.
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Saying you are a transsexual of any sort is a statement of fact.
Not it isn't, it's an opinion. For it to be a fact you would
have to be able to *prove* you're a transsexual and none of us -
Including you! - can do that. If it was a *fact*, if you could *prove*
that you were a transsexual, if you could indeed even *prove* that
transsexualism even exists as anything but a psychological delusion,
then you'd have the means to shut up all of the critics who say that
transsexuals are nothing but confused gays once and for all. If you
had the means to *prove* that you were a transsexual then the
insurance companies wouldn't be able to claim that SRS is
"experimental surgery" that they don't have to cover. If you could
*prove* you were a transsexual there wouldn't be any need for the SOC
or any of the rest of that BS. There is *no* objective measure, no
objective test, no objective way to *prove* you are a transsexual.
This is *all* a matter of opinion.
So are most things in life.
>You might =think= you are a transsexual, but that doesn't make it so. Hell,
>you might even think that you are the Queen of England -- and again, that
>doesn't make it so.
How is this any different from someone saying "You might
=think= you are a woman, but that doesn't make it so."? The statement
is self-evident on its face, but is also wholly irrelevant.
>"Non-op transsexual" isn't a self-ID. It's a diagnosis.
No it isn't, there isn't any real way to diagnose
transsexualism in any form, it's all opinion.
I had skin cancer, that was a diagnosis. Objective tests were
run showing I had that condition. I saw three different doctors before
undergoing surgery, they all agreed on that diagnosis. Why? Because it
was based on objective tests with observable and easily interpretable
results - even then it's possible the condition was diagnosed
incorrectly but the probability was way low. It was a real and
relevant diagnosis because it was based on real and relevant tests.
I say I'm a transsexual, is that a diagnosis? We call it that,
but really that's a joke. What tests are involved? How do you
*objectively* determine whether I'm right or not? You can't see it,
you can't measure it, we're not even sure what it is. One shrink might
say that I am indeed a transsexual, another might say that I was potty
trained too early, and still another might say that I've objectified
my mother and that's my problem. There is no damn test so at the end
of the day it's *ALL* opinion and mine is the only one that really
counts because it's my life, my body, and I'm the only one has more
than a minor clue concerning what's going on in my noggin.
>It's a statement of a condition which you don't satisfy.
By your definition. But guess what, you don't get to set the
definitions and conditions from on high. You're not Moses coming down
with tablets in your hand. Much as you seem to find this hard to
understand, you don't have any particular access to the one, the only,
the *real truth* - you've got tons of competition for that title.
No matter how many times you proclaim that you have the one
and only facts, that just doesn't make it so.
>Plenty of men like their dicks -- you just happen to be one of them.
And I ask you, what makes this any different from the myriad
forces out there who would say "Plenty of men cut their dicks off and
like to pretend to be women - you just happen to be one of them."?
I'll tell you the answer, since none of you want to face that
very simple question. The answer is simple - Nothing makes you any
different, not a damn thing.
And that is pretty sad...
Trina
Famvieths
a no opp or non-opp would still give ther left nut for womanhood. they have
personal reasons to not have surgery. a loved one or some other problem. most I
have know were so broke they could not get surgery. simple, they self discribe
as no or non becouse it makes them feel you will believe it is a choice.
there are more poor Ts's than rich ones. and it bankrupts almost all of us.
PAULA
DJMAHAR
>Date: Fri, Nov 6, 1998 12:39 EST
>Message-id:
.....
>Are you so blinded by your Jihad - an appropriate term, given
>the almost religious nature of the assertions being made and the
Dear Trina,
Very eloquently and insightfully stated from beginning to end!
Thank you for this wonderful post.
D.J.M.
Diane
(Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>Secondly, I disagree with Geena, Diane, and Cheryl about the validity of
>non-op TSs; I believe that it is a valid path, although a very rare one.
Michelle, I think that there may be a misunderstanding between us
here. I do not debate the legitimacy of someone living their
lives as a TG. I just debate the legitimacy of referring to them
as some variant of transsexual. I think that another term is
needed - and indeed has been in common use for some time - the
term being Transgenderist or "TG".
I believe that when we start to acknowledge those that do not
desire to change their physical gender as transsexual then we're
led down that slippery slope which inevitably leads to those like
Loree who do not even bother to change their legal ID and such.
So my point all along here is not whether a TG lifestyle is in
any way more or less "valid" then any other but rather that a TG
is something other then what we think of as TS. The "non-op"
nomenclature is not acceptable to me because it leads people to
expect TS when in fact what we have is a horse of another color.
>I do not consider them transgenderists because they fully accept that the
>majority of transsexuals have a need for SRS, and they have no problem with
>that, just that SRS is not for themselves.
I would have to say that, not a majority of, but rather *all*
transsexuals have a need for SRS.
> As I see it, the difference
>between a transgenderist and a non-op TS is that a transgenderist believes
>that SRS is not necessary for anyone, not just for herself, whereas a
>non-OP TS completely accepts that others have a need for SRS.
Though your definitions seem to be based on internalized beliefs
mine are based on externalized behaviors - the specific behavior
being whether someone has or is in the process of changing their
physical gender. I will of course grant that there is so so much
gray area here that definitions are difficult.
My rather rigid (yet widely accepted) definition of transsexual
as being only someone who wants to change their physical gender
I think is necessary because otherwise what is to prevent someone
who has deluded themselves into thinking that they're a
transsexual, when in fact they only engage in cross dressing
behaviors, from claiming their self-identification as valid?
Here Loree makes my point in so many ways for me - she honestly
believes that the is some variant of transsexual when clearly her
behaviors and own statements indicate otherwise. Internally she
fully believes she is transsexual even though she meets none of
the diagnostic criteria. Since she "completely accepts that
others have a need for SRS" she meets your criteria for a non-op
transexual above but yet you have already acknowledged that she
is not any type of transsexual. Do you see the conflict here?
When we say that a transsexual self-identifies we don't mean that
just mouthing the words makes one a transsexual. Behaviors are
also necessary - in this case the behavior of striving towards
the changing of one's physical gender.
If there is such a thing as a non-op transsexual then I think
that the term would be better applied to someone like a FtM who
might not be able to afford the lower genital surgery. There are
gray areas on both sides of course but unless we define
transsexualism with behaviors in addition to thoughts or words
we end up on the slippery slope which inevitably leads towards
Loree.
>I do not consider Loree to be a non-OP transsexual, though, after plowing
>through what seems to be a zillion messages in these threads. She is not a
>woman, and does not try to be, look, or act as a woman.
Well even the most cursory glance at
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4958/personal.html
pretty much confirms that <g>.
----------------
Diane
LoreeTG
>I started lurking here yesterday because someone suggested that I read this
>and related threads.
Ah... I see. The old flamers ran out of gas and are recruiting new ones.
So nice of you to oblige them Michelle.
>First of all, my following comments are about MTF's only; the situation for
>FTM's, IMO, is different because of the woeful state of genital
>reconstructive surgery for FTMs.
I didn't see generalized comments about anybody... I did see a direct attack
at me based upon what others have said about me rather than what I say about
myself or any first hand knowledge on your part of me or my life.
>Secondly, I disagree with Geena, Diane, and Cheryl about the validity of
>non-op TSs; I believe that it is a valid path, although a very rare one.
<snip>
>I do not consider Loree to be a non-OP transsexual, though, after plowing
>through what seems to be a zillion messages in these threads.
Wow... and you started out so promising. My only question is: Why do you
believe the lies posted about me rather than my own statements?
I am a woman. I do look like a woman. I do act like a woman.
You have never met me, never seen me. How can you make the statement "She
is not a
woman, and does not try to be, look, or act as a woman" as if it is an
objective fact that you have observed personally?
>but when confronted
>with someone like Loree attempting to educate people with false
>information, we will often take the effort to present the correct
>information.
False information... hmmm. Exactly what false info am I spreading?
That I'm a non-op TS? That's my own opinion.. and while it is possible that
I may personally misunderstand what a non-op TS is (given that there have
been several defs.. ranging from "oxymoron" on...), stating that it is my
opinion that I'm a non-op TS is still a true statement.
If I'm putting forth any OTHER info you think is false, let me know... I'm
always willing to learn.
>I do not even consider Loree to be a transgenderist; Laura Blake and
>Virginia Prince are transgenderists.
And you base your opinion on what? My opinion is based on my own
observations of me...
Puzzled, but not pissed...
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
one, I guess it's time for me to put in my two cents' worth.
First of all, I'm probably the person who "suggested" to Michelle that
she take a look at this thread. More accurately, I mentioned it in
passing on a list we're both on as an example of a flame war that's so
ugly that it almost makes me ashamed to be a member of this...
community, as it's often called, though it is so sparse and
heterogeneous that I personally consider the term a misnomer.
Second, to the matter of definitions: I consider TS to be the state of
desiring to be physically as much like a member of the opposite sex as
possible. Usually, but not always, the desire to present socially as a
member of the gender opposite one's birth sex goes along with the wish
for physical transformation. Note that it is the desire that counts in
my definition: the completely closeted individual living as a male who
pines away for womanhood but hasn't the courage to take the necessary
steps to realise the dream is every bit as much a TS as any surgically
tracked pre-op on this group. I don't pass judgement on people's
reasons for foregoing SRS; this is a matter of decision, whereas being
TS is first and foremost a *condition*, albeit one that can only be
diagnosed by the person with the condition.
I have no problem accepting the adjective "non-op" as something more
than a simple modifier. The common usage of "non-op TS" seems to be to
describe someone who tries to present as the opposite sex and for whom
SRS is attractive but who has decided, for whatever reason, not to
have the surgery. If "non-op" were just a modifier to "TS" then the
completely closeted individual described above would qualify, but I
think the common usage excludes such a person because they are not
actively trying to present as the opposite sex. This definition
overlaps to a large degree with that of "transgenderist". The latter
term is murkier still, but the common usage seems to emphasize the
"living as the gender opposite one's birth sex" part over everything
else, so that I would say that a person could be a transgenderist
without *any* desire for SRS.
So which category does Loree fit into? The bottom line is that I don't
know, and I don't think anyone else here does either, except Loree
herself. We can only go by her writings and the contents of her web
page. The web page, I have to agree, suggests a fetishistic TV with a
sexualised view of women. As a rule, such people are plainly men who
have no desire to be physically female, except perhaps in fantasies.
*However*, Loree claims that the pictures are old, and her recent
writings paint her in a completely different light. She now presents
essentially as a woman 24/7 and is taking hormones to change her
secondary sex characteristics into those of a female, is attracted to
SRS and has seriously considered it but decided that it isn't really
necessary for her. Her comfort level is at the "almost female" stage.
So what does that make her? If we take her at her word, probably
neither a TS nor a non-op TS by the definitions above. But it's a
close call and really depends on whether she's being 100% candid in
saying that she's comfortable with being physically intersexual. I
know someone locally who identifies as a TS who has had an orchiectomy
but who decided after much soul-searching that she doesn't really need
a vagina. She doesn't like being a woman with a penis, but she
considers vaginoplasty too risky when weighed against the dubious
benefits. In Loree's case, I get enough of a sense that she is still
in the process of working this out that I wouldn't presume to
second-guess her. Maybe in a couple of years she will say "I realised
I was a TV after all", or maybe she will be on Meltzer's waiting list.
Or maybe she will still be comfortable as an "almost female" and
identify as a transgenderist. Only time will tell.
Now to the flame war aspect of all this: I don't have a problem with a
civilised discussion of categories or even how they apply to specific
people. "A TS is X, Y, and Z, and you're not Y, therefore you're not
TS *by this definition*" is one thing. "You're not a TS of any stripe,
your web page proves you're just a TV and I'll flame your ass off
until you admit it or slink off with your tail between your legs" is
quite another. The latter is no better than schoolyard bullying, and
shows a similar level of maturity. Calling someone "gendertrash" is
even worse in my book; it's sheer transphobic bigotry, as obvious and
undisguised as any I've seen.
The old saying about people in glass houses not throwing stones comes
to mind here. This not only serves no purpose and makes *you* look
like an ugly person, it also (as Trina pointed out so well) lends
legitimacy to the kind of thinking that leads the bigots to insist
that we're *all* gendertrash.
- Dale Elisabeth
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote in message ...
>
> >I started lurking here yesterday because someone suggested that I read this
> >and related threads.
>
> Ah... I see. The old flamers ran out of gas and are recruiting new ones.
> So nice of you to oblige them Michelle.
How incredibly blind are you? How much intellectual dishonesty can you
possibly muster? People disagree with you and you go cranking up the
paranoia to full blast.
> I am a woman. I do look like a woman. I do act like a woman.
>
> You have never met me, never seen me. How can you make the statement "She
> is not a
> woman, and does not try to be, look, or act as a woman" as if it is an
> objective fact that you have observed personally?
What you repeatedly fail to grasp is that we've heard what you have said
about yourself all too many times before. And what you equally fail to
grasp is that as transsexual women who are able to go for incredibly long
periods of time without ever being read -- and without fretting and fussing
and expending any effort doing so -- we know the difference between "living
as a woman" and "living as this really peculiar guy who wears women's
clothing."
When children ask you your sex, you aren't passing. And you may not like
it, but "passing" is absolutely essential to the experience people describe
as "living as a woman".
I know TS women who don't pass well, or at all. They don't have the same
experiences as born women. They don't have the same interactions. They
don't have any of what separates a "woman" from a "transvestite". It just
isn't there.
The difference between you (who claims to be transsexual) and them (who seem
to be transsexual) is that they try very hard to do something about it. In
some instances there is nothing they can do and they simply move on with life
understanding that they aren't experiencing "living as a woman". In other
instances they begin to thing/realize that they are simply living as "men in
a dress" and decide to end their own lives.
You flunk the most basic diagnostic criteria of being transsexual -- a desire
to live as the opposite sex. You can =think= you do all you want, but your
experiences are the same as others who have the same problem with "life as a
woman" that you do.
I'm not writing this stuff to attack you. If I wanted to attack you I
wouldn't say things like "if you want to be a woman, try working on being
perceived by all as one." As for refusing to chat with you via e-mail, there
have been other people who wanted me to buy into their delusions. After a
while I find them tiring and give up on them as well. In your case, deciding
that it is time to actually start living as a woman would go a long ways
towards ending the hostility between us. But I suspect that like the others
I've given up on, you have some emotional investment I simply fail to grasp.
Linda Elan
What changing your sex really means is you get to hear all the same
arguments in the transgender community over and over..
Sometimes the players change but the arguments stay the same..
I used to argue alot too but I just don't care anymore what people
say they are...they will say it anyhow.
How can you control other people? It's not possible...and boring.
(Actually it seems some people have mellowed a bit...no..I must be crazy)
;-)
Gee, can't there be a discussion without it getting personal? Maybe?
I see a sign here saying this newsgroup belongs to all transgendered people
and it's a support group..so I'd guess discussion is good and personal
battles can be taken elsewhere.....
Don't be totally sweet though..it's boring also..;-)
Linda
PS- Not to be rude...but I have my own idea of who/what I am....what name I
use...what I think is important....and what my plans may be.
I'd like to talk about what may join us.....if you have some test for me
I'll
probably fail because hey...conditional love isn't so hard to get that I
really
need it. Ah..well..I probably said it badly...
I used to be here before..and so again..hello.