I'm not a woman
Kate Jane
Why to lie to anyone?
I don't mean only myself, I mean all mtf transsexuals.
I don't think anyone who's transgendered should say a sentence
"Biologically I'm a man, but inside I'm a woman".
I would rather say "Biologically I'm a man and I hate it. But I don't care
who am I inside."
I've met a homosexual girl five years ago. She wanted to be a man. But she
behaved just like other girls. She was laughing, picking up flowers, was
wearing girls clothes (well, she didn't wear a dress or a skirt, but a boy
usually wouldn't put on some of her clothes), she was wearing a silver
bracelet, she had long hair etc.
She wanted to be a man, and you could see that she really wanted it.
And if I meet her again I won't be surprised if it turns out she's
transsexual.
Why?
Because I think transsexualism is not a personality disorder. It's not a
hormonal disorder.
It's a sexual deviation.
Why did all the people forget what's it really all about.
It's not about "I am a woman so I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my
nails, and have a boyfriend". No.
It's about "I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my nails, and have a
boyfriend, because I want to feel like a woman". And this feeling is just
sexually arousing and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
This girl I've mentioned was always saying "I want to be a man", not "I am
a man".
And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
Can someone explain to me how is it possible? Because I don't believe that
a person who lives as a man for 40 years, is married, have children, is a
father and a husband, can actually be a woman trapped in a man's body. If I
were a woman trapped in a man's body I would never get married ! I couldn't
be a father and a husband !
I think we're all pretending. We have to. Because if anyone of us says "I
want to be a woman, but in any way I'm not a woman yet", other will answer
"So, get lost. You're just a stupid transvestite."
So we say "Oh, I am a woman, I do so many things these stupid males don't
understand. I'm so sensitive. I'm so emotional. I understand other women."
etc.
It's not about personality.
It's about an obsession to change your sex.
Rikki
Kate Jane wrote in message <01bd7096$3171f880$LocalHost@Drewnowski>...
>Why to lie to anyone?
>I don't mean only myself, I mean all mtf transsexuals.
Don't speak for me !!! I have been trapped for many years.
>It's a sexual deviation.
No it isn't !!! I am not doing this for sex. I am doing it for me. I have
alot of
goals to meet to get there. AND SEX ISN'T ONE OF THEM !!!
>It's about "I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my nails, and have a
>boyfriend, because I want to feel like a woman". And this feeling is just
>sexually arousing and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe for you. However, for me its inner peace of mind and sprit. To
be in the right alienment with my inner self.
>
>>
>Because I don't believe that a person who lives as a man for 40 years, is
married
, have children, is a father and a husband, can actually be a woman trapped
in a man's body. If I
>were a woman trapped in a man's body I would never get married ! I couldn't
>be a father and a husband !
This I must agree with. I am 39 not married, no children so not all TS fit
into this catagory.
>I think we're all pretending. We have to. Because if anyone of us says "I
>want to be a woman, but in any way I'm not a woman yet", other will answer
>"So, get lost. You're just a stupid transvestite."
Seek help for you need it. I am a women that is trying hard to be complete
as possible through medical science. I am not a TV are you?
>So we say "Oh, I am a woman, I do so many things these stupid males don't
>understand. I'm so sensitive. I'm so emotional. I understand other women."
>etc.
>It's not about personality.
>It's about an obsession to change your sex.
Bull it is evident that if I was obsessed I would not have planned my goals
so well over the years. Nor would I be able to enjoy the many things I do in
life. Be a sucessful professional. Live the standard for which both male and
female strive for. I also have a male lover of 13 happy years and we plan to
have many more. Retirement, Travel, etc.
Do not put you personal feelings as if we should all suffer. You are you.
I am I. Good Luck I hope you can find happiness.
Love Rikki
>
>
Psycho Chic
This isn't meant to be serious, izzit ???
My "clue-meter" is pegged low when I scan this shlock.
...sorry 2 hear u feel this way, Kate...I hope you get your head screwed on
straight someday.
Kate Jane wrote:
> Why to lie to anyone?
> I don't mean only myself, I mean all mtf transsexuals.
> I don't think anyone who's transgendered should say a sentence
> "Biologically I'm a man, but inside I'm a woman".
> I would rather say "Biologically I'm a man and I hate it. But I don't care
> who am I inside."
>
> I've met a homosexual girl five years ago. She wanted to be a man. But she
> behaved just like other girls. She was laughing, picking up flowers, was
> wearing girls clothes (well, she didn't wear a dress or a skirt, but a boy
> usually wouldn't put on some of her clothes), she was wearing a silver
> bracelet, she had long hair etc.
> She wanted to be a man, and you could see that she really wanted it.
> And if I meet her again I won't be surprised if it turns out she's
> transsexual.
> Why?
> Because I think transsexualism is not a personality disorder. It's not a
> hormonal disorder.
> It's a sexual deviation.
> Why did all the people forget what's it really all about.
> It's not about "I am a woman so I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my
> nails, and have a boyfriend". No.
> It's about "I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my nails, and have a
> boyfriend, because I want to feel like a woman". And this feeling is just
> sexually arousing and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> This girl I've mentioned was always saying "I want to be a man", not "I am
> a man".
>
> And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
> Can someone explain to me how is it possible? Because I don't believe that
> a person who lives as a man for 40 years, is married, have children, is a
> father and a husband, can actually be a woman trapped in a man's body. If I
> were a woman trapped in a man's body I would never get married ! I couldn't
> be a father and a husband !
> I think we're all pretending. We have to. Because if anyone of us says "I
> want to be a woman, but in any way I'm not a woman yet", other will answer
> "So, get lost. You're just a stupid transvestite."
Kristine W. Holt
Kate Jane (kate...@friko2.onet.pl) wrote:
:
: And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
: Can someone explain to me how is it possible?
See, what happens is that late one night, sometime around three or four
years old, a teeny-tiny woman crawls up your ass and gets stuck there.
Because she's trapped, she slowly takes over your mind and makes your body
her own. Viola! M2F transsexual!
Lisa00919
Well I usually don't say much but I have to jump in on this one. We act like
men the first X number of years in our lives because society expects it, our
parents demand it and to have a feeling or normalcy we go along with the
program. I say program because we are programmed from birth to reflect our
birth sex.
The pressures are great from family and friends to conform and in order to
belong we go along with the whole thing reather than act on what we KNOW to be
true of ourselves. You say this is a sexual thing. Honey I would be happy to
never have sex again if I could reach a little inner peace and be done with
this whole thing quicker.
OK. I'm done. :-)
Lisa
Kate Jane
Kristine W. Holt <kh...@tornado.temple.edu> wrote
<6hubuk$4cs$1...@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>...
Yes and I agree. If we speak about some double personality problem here, I
was even forced by her to start to like other men, despite I am
heterosexual. She took over my mind step by step. Yes, yes she's here.
Inside me. I like what she's making from me. I am becoming her more and
more. He he he ...
Kate Jane
Psycho Chic <dact...@2xtreme.net> wroter
<3542B85B...@2xtreme.net>...
> This isn't meant to be serious, izzit ???
Of course it's not really serious serious. But there is some truth in it
too.
> ...sorry 2 hear u feel this way, Kate...I hope you get your head screwed
> on straight someday.
Oh God, it's not so bad with me. I just don't like to pretend I'm someone
else, and I like to break every cage other people lock me in.
Kate Jane
Diane <as...@slip.net> wrote <35445f24...@news.slip.net>...
> On 25 Apr 1998 22:01:30 GMT, "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl>
> wrote:
>>
>>And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
>>Can someone explain to me how is it possible?
>
>
> Because your mind is closed.
No, Diane my mind is not closed. If you know the answer, please tell me. I
think it's a myth, stereotype sentence, which is just repeated over and
over again, but it really means nothing in most cases. I agree that there
are people who can say so, but there are many more who are just pretending.
> And I agree with you - you are not a woman. See? We *can* agree on
> something
We can agree on anything you want, if our opinions are similar. Unless you
just want to bite everyone around.
- huh guy?
You may call my guy if you want. When I tried to be a guy people called me
girl. Now it's the opposite. I don't care. I am who I am. That's the
difference between us.
Kate Jane
Daria <dariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6htsoh$1ba$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
> You clearly know nothing about us. I don't wear earrings but on
> special occasions, nor do I polish my nails - I don't have a
> boyfriend, I date a lesbian. I do not define myself by my clothes.
> Do you think that makes me less of a womyn?
God, it was just examples, sure clothes are not the only things that makes
you more or less of a woman. You can have a boyfriend, you can have a
girlfriend.Your choice.
Kate Jane
Lisa00919 lisa...@aol.com> wrote
<199804261100...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
I find nothing here I couldn't agree with. If there was a pill to cancel
your sexual drive I would definitely take it to remove this animal instinct
from my mind.
Kate Jane
Rikki rikki...@hotmail.com> wrote
<gWt01.2683$RP3.3...@news2.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> Don't speak for me !!! I have been trapped for many years.
Ok, sorry. I admit it's a little bit to much my personal opinion, and it
doesn't have to be like that with others.
>>It's a sexual deviation.
> No it isn't !!! I am not doing this for sex. I am doing it for me. I have
> alot of goals to meet to get there. AND SEX ISN'T ONE OF THEM !!!
That's transsexualism by a definition. It's not my opinion. Read in any
book that transsexualism is caused by getting sexual arousal from
identifying yourself with the opposite sex.
> Seek help for you need it. I am a women that is trying hard to be
> complete as possible through medical science. I am not a TV are you?
I am a TV. Well at least I've been a TV for 15 years. Now it's maybe a
little bit different.
> Do not put you personal feelings as if we should all suffer.
Sorry, now I realize it. I really didn't mean it.
> You are you. I am I. Good Luck I hope you can find happiness.
Thanks.
Kate Jane
Diane <as...@slip.net> wrote <35433c72...@news.slip.net>...
> On 26 Apr 1998 11:46:11 GMT, "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl>
> wrote:
>
>>I am a TV. Well at least I've been a TV for 15 years.
>
> way people like yourself can get attention is by doing something they
> know will upset people just so they can be looked at.
Okay, I'm just fetish male.
> Not wasting too much of my time thinking about it though because you'r
> just not that interesting or important - but then you knew that
> You're killfiltered.
AAAAAGHHH!
OH NO!
THERE'S BLOOD HERE ! I'M BLEEDING !
No, it's just a tomato juice I have spilled on my t-shirt.
Kate Jane
Daria <DariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6hvd24$si5$4...@gte2.gte.net>...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Kate Jane wrote:
>>
>>> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
>>
>> Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
>
> better things to do than listen to you deride me and my family.
>
Well, I didn't expect such answers yesterday when I was writing my message.
Do what you want: you may throw knifes at me, bite me, spit on me, kick me
out, but I won't change my mind. It's all fake, artificial, unnatural. I
think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
aggresive.
Karen Elizabeth A.
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
> I
> think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
> aggresive.
What world do yoy you live in? While style may be different, women can
be just as agressive as men. The woman who is the CEO of the company I
work for did not get there by being passive!
Think with your head and not steriotypes for goodness sakes!
As for sexual arousal being important... I felt this way before I was 5
years old when I had no connection between what body parts looked like
and sexual arousal.
Ts'ism is NOT a *sexual* deviation. It has been labeled as such in the
past by ingnorant people - including profesionals in the mental health
field who had no experience in this area, but it simply is not so.
You really have no clue as to what it means to be TS and it is obvious
you are not a woman no matter how well you pass.
Make sure yiyr fantasies are not getting out of control and leading you
down a path that you will regret deeply. From everything you say, it's
definetly not for you.
-Karen A.
kd
Kate Jane wrote:
>
> Daria <DariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6hvd24$si5$4...@gte2.gte.net>...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > Kate Jane wrote:
> >>
> >>> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
> >>
> >> Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
> >
> > It is not classified as such - but then, you are a Troll, and I have
> > better things to do than listen to you deride me and my family.
> >
>
> Well, I didn't expect such answers yesterday when I was writing my message.
> Do what you want: you may throw knifes at me, bite me, spit on me, kick me
> think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
> aggresive.
You've obviously never worked with my old team in Credit at the
power company I used to be with. They are to this day, the most
aggressive, vicious, back-stabbing group of gals in South Florida.
Of course, this is only my opinion.
You also didn't dispute that TS is not classified as such. Check
out GID in DSM-IV if you want classifications that are accepted by
the medical community.
kd
Kate Jane wrote:
>
>
> That's transsexualism by a definition. It's not my opinion. Read in any
> book that transsexualism is caused by getting sexual arousal from
> identifying yourself with the opposite sex.
"No one knows what causes transsexualism. Transsexuals show no
abnormalities in their sex organs or hormone levels, and no
biological explanation for their desire to change their sex has been
found. Psychological theories, such as an unusually intense
identification with the opposite-sex parent have been put forth but
are hotly disputed and not well grounded in research. So far, there
is no conclusive evidence in support of any such theories." Rubin &
McNeil, Psychology - Being Human, 4th Ed.
I love it when they are honest in psychology books, rather than
trying to sound like a know-it-all. They simply do not know what
the cause is - but given that most TS report gender issues at a very
early age, long before any sexual feelings arise, perhaps you are
relating this to your own personal experience as a transvestite.
Because you feel sexual pleasure from wearing Opposite sex clothes,
you assume therefore all people who wear them must also feel
aroused. It's simply not the case. TV's crossdress, TS's do not.
This is because our gender identity is not based on our clothes.
> I am a TV. Well at least I've been a TV for 15 years. Now it's maybe a
> little bit different.
But first you are human - we all are. If you don't want to be
called a troll, then don't go around making ignorant generalizations
about a group of which you know nothing.
I can love you as fellow human - you don't need to try to one-up me
or become me by thinking we are alike. The way you described
transsexualism is in error - the tendencies of sexual arousal are
relevant only with Transvestic Fetishism, by the old definition at
least. There is no relation of TS to TV, and yet I have a lot of
friends who are TV and I think they are all great guys, lots of fun.
Mikbrownj
I am not sure where to catagorize myself.
I love my wife I do not find men attractive, though I suck dick when I can. I
like dicks they are very arrousing. I hate men though. I talk to mostly
woman. I avoid men except gay men.
I am a farther an excellent farther. A loving, caring husband.
I shave, wax, or whatever my entire body
I love the feel of sheer fabric against my skin
Skirts are wonderfull, I prefer a skirt ro pants
I do not wear t-shirts I wear camisoles
I do not wear socks I wear stockings, pantyhoseetc.
All myt life I wanted to be a woman and considered getting the operation many
times. I was fearfull and was afraid to own up to it. My wife loves and
accepts this. When we are alone my wifes calls me by Mellisa (Missy if I am
being winer).
What am I?
Am I transgendered?
Just a guy who wears womans clothes and makeup?
A womyn trapped in a mans body?
At times I consider myself a extreme feminist. I hate men, would love to spend
my life haveing nothing to do with man (family members not included). I have
never felt comfordable among men.
If some caring person could help me I would appreciate it. Flamers I will ask
the Goddess to make your dicks fall off
Kate Jane
Karen Elizabeth A. k...@world.std.com> wrtoe
<1998042611...@ppp0a028.std.com>...
> Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>
>> I
>> think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
> What world do yoy you live in? While style may be different, women can
> be just as agressive as men. The woman who is the CEO of the company I
> work for did not get there by being passive!
You talk about genetic women. Some of them think like men.
> As for sexual arousal being important... I felt this way before I was 5
> years old when I had no connection between what body parts looked like
> and sexual arousal.
Funny. I don't really remember anything from that age. And I'm only 24.
> Ts'ism is NOT a *sexual* deviation. It has been labeled as such in the
> past by ingnorant people - including profesionals in the mental health
> field who had no experience in this area, but it simply is not so.
So, how is it. Are you a professional? Can you give me any definition taken
from any serious book?
> You really have no clue as to what it means to be TS and it is obvious
> you are not a woman no matter how well you pass.
So what? You thought I wouldn't agree with you? I'm not a TS, at least I
was always questioning that. To be a real woman you have to be raised as
girl, and have female hormones from the very beginning.
> Make sure yiyr fantasies are not getting out of control and leading you
Oh, my fantasies are always getting out of control, that's what the
fantasies are for.
> down a path that you will regret deeply. From everything you say, it's
> definetly not for you.
SRS? No. It's an imitation of sex change. I don't want any imitation. I
hate everything what is not real.
Kate Jane
kd <nospam...@gte.net> wrote<6hvm66$r1n$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
> You also didn't dispute that TS is not classified as such. Check
> out GID in DSM-IV if you want classifications that are accepted by
> the medical community.
Okay where I can find it?
Excuse me but is DSM-IV not classifying TSism as a mental disorder? I've
always thought that you all hate DSM-IV. Well, maybe not. I just want to
say that I have some mental disorder for sure.
@#$@#)(@#$()!IWEOL!@khhbrssssssssss.
Kate Jane
kd <nospam...@gte.net> wrote <6hvnk1$ljq$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
> Kate Jane wrote:
>>
>> That's transsexualism by a definition. It's not my opinion. Read in any
>> book that transsexualism is caused by getting sexual arousal from
>> identifying yourself with the opposite sex.
> ... So far, there
> is no conclusive evidence in support of any such theories." Rubin &
> McNeil, Psychology - Being Human, 4th Ed.
> I love it when they are honest in psychology books, rather than
> trying to sound like a know-it-all.
Okay people have different view on it. I just have always thought that it's
a sexual deviation. Maybe it's not !!!! (?) All books I have read, all
articles about sexual deviations said that there is homosexaulism,
fetishism, transvestitsm, transsexualism etc. In fact some said that
transvestism belongs to a group of deviations called transsexualism. Some
said that transsexualism develops from transvestism. Believe me, I've read
something about it. I've read many biographies written by people who were
first transvestites and only after 20 years became transsexuals. Besides
not only transsexual people can transition, so can also some transvestites
and feminine homosexuals (as far as I know).
> Because you feel sexual pleasure from wearing Opposite sex clothes,
> you assume therefore all people who wear them must also feel
> aroused.
No. It's not my opinion. I told you. You don't pay any attention to what I
write.
> It's simply not the case. TV's crossdress, TS's do not.
I don't crossdress now.
> This is because our gender identity is not based on our clothes.
Sure. I didn't say anything like TV's crossdress, Ts's crossdress more. Not
only crossdressing is sexually arousing. You may identify with women in
many ways.
I was identifying with some actress imagining that I was her, was wearing
her clothes, had her memory, and personality, and kissed her husband,
despite I
am heterosexual. I didn't like her husband at all, but I wanted so hard to
fully identify with her that I was forcing myself to homosexuality. Do you
call it transvestism?
> The way you described
> transsexualism is in error - the tendencies of sexual arousal are
> relevant only with Transvestic Fetishism, by the old definition at
> least. There is no relation of TS to TV
Oh, you're such an expert!
>, and yet I have a lot of
> friends who are TV and I think they are all great guys, lots of fun.
I don't hate anyone here. I just have a problem and want to discuss it with
you.
Karen Elizabeth A.
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
> > As for sexual arousal being important... I felt this way before I was 5
> > years old when I had no connection between what body parts looked like
> > and sexual arousal.
>
> Funny. I don't really remember anything from that age. And I'm only 24.
Obviously nothing made enough of an impression on you. The only reason I
can place the age is because of where we were living at the time and I
know I had not started school yet. When something is very wrong you *DO*
remember it.
> > Ts'ism is NOT a *sexual* deviation. It has been labeled as such in the
> > past by ingnorant people - including profesionals in the mental health
> > field who had no experience in this area, but it simply is not so.
>
> So, how is it. Are you a professional? Can you give me any definition taken
> from any serious book?
I am a scientist but not in that field so I don't have a stack of
reference books handy. What I do have handy is "True Selves" by Dr,
Mildred Browwn - PHD Sexoologist.
Pg 6:
"Transsexuals are individuals who who strongly feel that they are, or
ought to be, the opposite sex. The body they were born with does not
match their inner conviction an mental image of who the are or want to
be"
pg 20:
"Transsexuallism is not about sex, sexual behavior, or sexual
orientation - it'a about gender, or more specifically, gender identity."
From DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
Physchiatric Association) criteria for diagnosing TSism:
* A strong and persistant cross-gender idedentification, manifested by a
repeated stated desire to be. live as, or be treated as the other sex or
as the other sex or by the conviction that the person has the typical
feelings or reactions of the other sex. Children may insist they *are*
the opposite sex and exhibit a strong prfference for clothing, games abd
pastimes that are stereotypical of the other sex.
* A persistant discomfort with their bodies, with boys often feeling
disgust for their penis abd expressing a desire for it to disappear and
girls rjecting urinating in the sitting position, not wanting to grow
breasts or menstruate, and asserting that they will grow a penis.
Adolecents and adults exhibit a preoccupation with physically altering
bodies through hormones and surgery to simulate the other sex, usually
bevause they believe that they were born the wrong sex.
* The disturbance causes significant distress in social, occupational,
or other important areas of functioning.
From a OLD texbook : "Abnormal Phychology and Modern life" 4th edition
copyright 1972 pg 493:
"Transsexuals, unlike transvestites, usually feel relaxed rather then
sexually aroused when dressed in the clothing of the opposite sex"
Point is it's not about sexual gratification or stimulation for a TS.
> So what? You thought I wouldn't agree with you? I'm not a TS, at least I
> was always questioning that. To be a real woman you have to be raised as
> girl, and have female hormones from the very beginning.
Only to ae dgree. So women with hormonal problems and tom boys are not
woman?
There is nothing wrong with being TV, It's a whole lot different from
being TS though
Unless you have something intellegent to say on this matter I won't both
to respond any futher obn this matter.
> SRS? No. It's an imitation of sex change. I don't want any imitation. I
> hate everything what is not real.
Hmm, I think maybe you should be seeing a therapist, That dynamic within
you is rather interesting...
-Karen A.
Kate Jane
Karen Elizabeth A. <k...@world.std.com> wrote
<1998042616...@ppp0a004.std.com>...
> Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>
> Pg 6:
> "Transsexuals are individuals who who strongly feel that they are, or
> ought to be, the opposite sex. The body they were born with does not
> match their inner conviction an mental image of who the are or want to
> be"
That's me. And they still call me fetish male here.
(Notice what is written there: who they are OR WANT TO BE)
>
> pg 20:
> "Transsexuallism is not about sex, sexual behavior, or sexual
> orientation - it'a about gender, or more specifically, gender identity."
How can they be so sure? I don't agree. Most of transsexuals are
homosexual, right?
> From DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
> Physchiatric Association) criteria for diagnosing TSism:
>
> * A strong and persistant cross-gender idedentification, manifested by a
> repeated stated desire
cannot be a desire connected to a sexual instinct?
> to be. live as, or be treated as the other sex or
> as the other sex or by the conviction that the person has the typical
> feelings or reactions of the other sex.
I have the same conviction but I'm not a woman. Neither biologically, nor
hormonally, nor sexually, nor socially.
> * A persistant discomfort with their bodies, with boys often feeling
> disgust for their penis abd expressing a desire for it to disappear
I had disgust for my penis, I hid it between my legs. I was even at the
edge of self mutilation. Don't ask for details. And they still call me
fetish male here.
> and girls rjecting urinating in the sitting position,
I remember I always preferred sitting position.
> not wanting to grow
> breasts or menstruate, and asserting that they will grow a penis.
> Adolecents and adults exhibit a preoccupation with physically altering
> bodies through hormones and surgery to simulate the other sex, usually
> bevause they believe that they were born the wrong sex.
Ha ha ha. Almost all transvestites believe they were born with the wrong
sex.
> * The disturbance causes significant distress in social, occupational,
> or other important areas of functioning.
Yes it causes some distress. Yes.
> From a OLD texbook : "Abnormal Phychology and Modern life" 4th edition
> copyright 1972 pg 493:
>
> "Transsexuals, unlike transvestites, usually feel relaxed rather then
> sexually aroused when dressed in the clothing of the opposite sex"
>
I very rarely have any erection or masturbate when crossdressed.
> Hmm, I think maybe you should be seeing a therapist, That dynamic within
> you is rather interesting...
>
I am seeing a therapist already.
Kate Jane
Amy_w <Am...@gmx.net> wrote <6i07a0$88t$2...@news.metronet.de>...
> Of course, a TS (MtF) is not a woman, but wants to be
> percerived as one.
At last someone agrees with me here.
>>And this feeling is just
>>sexually arousing and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> But why is this feeling there? There is no real good reason for any man
> to think 'I want to be a woman', unless something is wrong. Biologically,
> it doesn't make sense. It does not help an individual or help the
> existance of a race or anything. Actually, the individual will have less
> chances to reproduce (talking about biology and evolution here...).
?
God's mistake?
>>And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
>>Can someone explain to me how is it possible?
> This sentence is not quite true, I believe. Nobody is trapped or
> everybody is trapped. A lot of people would like to have a different body
> to get more muscles or bigger breasts or a slim waist or whatever else.
> Why do they want that? Because society reacts positive on these features
> and the individual wants to be seen in a differnt way. But most of these
> things are not bad enough to talk about beeing trapped in a wrong body.
> But with TS, the difference between the 'want' and the 'is' is just
> really big and socially unacceptable, so they have to emphasize the
> problem (esp. to convince others about the need for a change).
Again, you said just what I wanted to tell you all. I realize there are
some TS's who say this sentence and are true. But many more exaggerate.
>>It's not about personality.
>>It's about an obsession to change your sex.
>
> Does that contradict?
No. But your personality is not important here. However usually it matches
the opposite sex as far as I know. But if this personality is a "typical
male" personality, it doesn't mean one cannot change his sex.
> Can't it be about personality and still lead to an obsession to change
> sex in order to deal with personality?
>
Who knows. Maybe it can be like that too. But still personality is not
important here.
That's what I tried to tell you. See this example with a homosexual girl I
wrote in the first message.
L.Deerfield
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>Daria <DariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6hvd24$si5$4...@gte2.gte.net>...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Kate Jane wrote:
>>>
>>>> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
>>>
>>> Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
>>
>> It is not classified as such - but then, you are a Troll, and I have
>> better things to do than listen to you deride me and my family.
>>
>
>Well, I didn't expect such answers yesterday when I was writing my message.
>Do what you want: you may throw knifes at me, bite me, spit on me, kick me
>think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
>
Dude, you really need to go out and meet some people.
They aren't *even* being -aggressive-, they're being bitchy.
And if you think *women* "are not so aggressive," then you
don't know the same women I do. If we were in a room together
I might dump a drink in your lap. I might even deck you.
Naaaah, but I might drop my pants and piss on your shoes.
How's that for acting like a woman?
Get a life.
-Sved (a biological female)
http://www.best.com/~svedeka
Karen Elizabeth A.
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
> > pg 20:
> > "Transsexuallism is not about sex, sexual behavior, or sexual
> > orientation - it'a about gender, or more specifically, gender identity."
>
> How can they be so sure? I don't agree. Most of transsexuals are
> homosexual, right?
to female TS would be attracted to another woman or a man???
Botth happen and are common. Who one knows oeself to be has nothing tyo
do with whom one wants to sleep with.
Homosexuals who want to change sex because they can't stand the idea f
being gay are definety *not* TS by definition.
> > From DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
> > Physchiatric Association) criteria for diagnosing TSism:
> >
> > * A strong and persistant cross-gender idedentification, manifested by a
> > repeated stated desire
>
> cannot be a desire connected to a sexual instinct?
It's the identification that is the important part of that statement -
not how it's manifested. It's the why not the desire per say.
> I have the same conviction but I'm not a woman. Neither biologically, nor
> hormonally, nor sexually, nor socially.
Is that an intellectual conviction based on the belief that you would
not be genuine - or is it a deep seated feeling from within... the brain
can mislead one as to their true nature - but the heart does not.
> Ha ha ha. Almost all transvestites believe they were born with the wrong
> sex.
Not the one's I've met. Mostly they were happy to be men most of the
time. Some very nice people but few regreted being born male.
Overall it sounds like you are either pulling our collective chains here
or you are a TS in denial.
If you are TV get on with your life.
If you are TS then don't waste anymore precious time. At your age
hromones can make a HUGE diffeence.
If you are not sure do whatever you have to to clarify who you are ASAP
- even if that means seeing another therapist do it. There are an awful
lot of therapist out there who don't know anything about this issue and
believe it can be "cured". Look into your heart and not your head and
find out who you truely are. It can save your life.
If you are for real, you truely sound confused...
-Karen A.
Kate Jane
L.Deerfield <sve...@best.com> wrote <6i16bp$ru2$1...@shell15.ba.best.com>...
> Dude, you really need to go out and meet some people.
> They aren't *even* being -aggressive-, they're being bitchy.
> And if you think *women* "are not so aggressive," then you
> don't know the same women I do. If we were in a room together
> I might dump a drink in your lap. I might even deck you.
> Naaaah, but I might drop my pants and piss on your shoes.
> How's that for acting like a woman?
Beautiful. Really beautiful. And you think I would consider you a woman
after that?
Believe me I've met many more genetic women like you. There always can be a
mutation in your genes. There are for instance mothers who throw their
newborn babies away (and kill them or not there are different stories). I
hope you're not that kind of mother.
> Get a life.
> -Sved (a biological female)
> http://www.best.com/~svedeka
>
If you're a biological female, what are you doing here?
Kate Jane
> as the other sex or by the conviction that the person has the typical
> feelings or reactions of the other sex.
>> I have the same conviction but I'm not a woman. Neither biologically,
>> nor hormonally, nor sexually, nor socially.
> Is that an intellectual conviction based on the belief that you would
> not be genuine - or is it a deep seated feeling from within... the brain
> can mislead one as to their true nature - but the heart does not.
I hate sweet words like deep seated feeling from within, your heart does
not lie, etc. I doesn't mean anything to me. These are phrases which are a
disease of our modern culture. Most of the people say them, and still the
same people do not know what they mean. You may use them to write a poem,
but not to define transsexualism.
Of course my conviction is intellectual. I just can see that people doubt
that I'm a man. Sometimes I just act like a girl. I can see it and other
people can see it.
But still I don't care. You may call me "typical male" if you want. It only
makes me laugh.
Jennifer Corley
Kate Jane wrote:
> Daria <DariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6hvd24$si5$4...@gte2.gte.net>...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > Kate Jane wrote:
> >>
> >>> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
> >>
> >> Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
> >
> > It is not classified as such - but then, you are a Troll, and I have
> > better things to do than listen to you deride me and my family.
> >
>
> Well, I didn't expect such answers yesterday when I was writing my message.
> Do what you want: you may throw knifes at me, bite me, spit on me, kick me
> out, but I won't change my mind. It's all fake, artificial, unnatural. I
> think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
> aggresive.
Ha! Being aggressive is a personality trait, not a gender trait. Obviously, you
have not been around women socially enough, or you've just been seeing what you
want to see. Women are just as aggressive, confrontational, stubborn, and wrong
as men. Being a woman has much more to do with self-identification than
emotions, personality traits, or genitalia.
Jennifer Corley
http://members.tripod.com/~EJCorley
Jennifer Corley
Kate Jane wrote:
> L.Deerfield <sve...@best.com> wrote <6i16bp$ru2$1...@shell15.ba.best.com>...
> > Dude, you really need to go out and meet some people.
> > They aren't *even* being -aggressive-, they're being bitchy.
> > And if you think *women* "are not so aggressive," then you
> > don't know the same women I do. If we were in a room together
> > I might dump a drink in your lap. I might even deck you.
> > Naaaah, but I might drop my pants and piss on your shoes.
> > How's that for acting like a woman?
>
> Beautiful. Really beautiful. And you think I would consider you a woman
> after that?
> Believe me I've met many more genetic women like you. There always can be a
> mutation in your genes. There are for instance mothers who throw their
> newborn babies away (and kill them or not there are different stories). I
> hope you're not that kind of mother.
Dear. You really need to broaden your horizons and give up all the steretypes
and ideas about women that society has been feeding you. As another genetic
woman, and I am a woman, I would feel no qualms what so ever with getting in
your face and arguing with you for hours if you ever made such an uneducated
statement like that in front of me. What in the world are you trying to say? If
women, genetic or otherwise, do not act according to those lovely stereotypes
on MTV or whatever you're watching, we're obviously genetic freaks?
If you think being a woman only means being demure, quiet, submissive, etc.
etc. etc., you need to rethink your definitions.
Jennifer Corley
http://members.tripod.com/~EJCorley
Karen A.
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
> I hate sweet words like deep seated feeling from within, your heart does
> not lie, etc. I doesn't mean anything to me. These are phrases which are a
> disease of our modern culture.
But they are human reality... we are not just pure intellect. Rare is
the person who is truely happy based on following the intellect alone.
I'm a physical scientist (chemist) yet I find that facts and data do not
define how I feel about myself and who I am. Physically I'm about as far
from the female norns as one can get, in terms of mannerism and speech
patterns I've been pretty much normal male yet I've always known I
should have been born female. There is no externally verifiable data to
support that belief yet it has had a huge effct on my entire life.
> Most of the people say them, and still the
> same people do not know what they mean. You may use them to write a poem,
> but not to define transsexualism.
Actually transsexualism is a self diagnosed condition and thus those
words are completely appropriate IMO.
> Of course my conviction is intellectual. I just can see that people doubt
> that I'm a man. Sometimes I just act like a girl. I can see it and other
> people can see it.
> But still I don't care. You may call me "typical male" if you want. It only
> makes me laugh.
I'm calling you confused , hurt, resentful and frustrated. I'm making no
judgemnt about your gender - only you can do that.
Until you make contact with your emotional self and learn to respect it
you will not find any satisfing answers to you questions of who and what
your are. That's not poetic rhetoric (belive me I'm not given to poetic
flights of fancy) but simply human reality.
Good luck. You either have a whole lot simmering inside or are a troll.
Even if you are a troll you are expressing feelings and attitudes that
others, for those who are really in that position are feeling and need
to deal with.
If they are real I hope you come to understand your feekings and anger.
-Karen A.
Bill Stuart
"Kate Jane" (kate...@friko2.onet.pl) writes:
> Daria <dariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6htsoh$1ba$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
>> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
>
> Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
Ketchup is classified as a vegetable.
Pia Zadora is classified as an actress.
Yoko Ono is classified as a singer.
--
"What kind of rides would Fabioland have?" -Pinky
Kate Jane
Diane <as...@slip.net> wrote <35489933...@news.slip.net>...
> No you are confusing the blurring the genres based on the one fact
> that at some point both Ts's and TVs cross dress. Their reasons are
> completely different.
>
> 1. TS's absolutely want and seek to change their genitalia to those of
> the opposite sex. Tvs do not want to nor do the seek to do this.
>
> 2. TS's absolutely want to and seek to live full time as the opposite
> gender - TV's do not want to nor do they seek to do this.
>
> They two points above - with the emphasis on #1 represent, in a
> nutshell, the differences between TS's and TVs
Okay Diane, I've got just one question.
Do you think a transvestite absolutely can change his sex?
(Call me a transvestite at least for a moment. You know and I know that I'm
just fetishist, but shhh ... Have you tried that urine?)
Kris
In article <01bd7096$3171f880$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>This girl I've mentioned was always saying "I want to be a man", not "I am
>a man".
Sometimes that is the first step to realizing one is a guy, but mostly, FTMs
know without a doubt that they ARE guys, inside. Many, prob. most, are
masculine in personality and most typically in dress as well; I was an
exception becasue of my upbringing and the way my peculiar brain reacted to it
(my sense of 'duty' to others led me to deny the truth).
There is a big difference between 'wanting to be" and "being".
>And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
>Can someone explain to me how is it possible? Because I don't believe that
>a person who lives as a man for 40 years, is married, have children, is a
>father and a husband, can actually be a woman trapped in a man's body. If I
>were a woman trapped in a man's body I would never get married ! I couldn't
>be a father and a husband !
If someone has a maternal instinct, and can only satisfy it through
fatherhood, so what? If one wants a child, the mechanism is often secondary -
after all, people also adopt, etc. None of what you say precludes on being
T*.
>I think we're all pretending. We have to. Because if anyone of us says "I
>want to be a woman, but in any way I'm not a woman yet", other will answer
>"So, get lost. You're just a stupid transvestite."
This is an error in social response, not an error in identity. Also, not all
people would respond that way.
>So we say "Oh, I am a woman, I do so many things these stupid males don't
>understand. I'm so sensitive. I'm so emotional. I understand other women."
>etc.
Part of this is an attempt to solidify the identity in the face of social
opposition by divorcing oneself from one's past (in the MTF case, man's) life.
Many people become much more relaxed once they've transitioned and are living
as the people they feel they were meant to be (I say "feel" only because T*ism
isn't something that can be scientifically measured - it's about how one
feels, who one is, as an individual).
>It's not about personality.
No, it isn't - it's about -identity-.
>It's about an obsession to change your sex.
This is only the outward manefestation of an internal process - the internal
process is the realization of one's identity and the attempt to project the
self; the outward manefestation is the strong, and sometimes overwhelming,
desire to have one's body match the self in a fundamental way.
- K.
Kris
In article <01bd7103$ef17d900$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Diane <as...@slip.net> wrote <35445f24...@news.slip.net>...
>> On 25 Apr 1998 22:01:30 GMT, "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
>>>Can someone explain to me how is it possible?
>>
>>
>> Because your mind is closed.
>
>No, Diane my mind is not closed. If you know the answer, please tell me. I
>think it's a myth, stereotype sentence, which is just repeated over and
>over again, but it really means nothing in most cases. I agree that there
>are people who can say so, but there are many more who are just pretending.
Pretending? Why on earth would a person subject hirself to ostracism,
harassment, prejudice/bigotry, injustice, and a whole lot of other negatives
(like lower salary) just to pretend? YOur statement makes no sense
whatsoever. Granted there is a small proportion (I think someone else
mentioned 2% but I've really no idea) of people who have other problems, such
as coming to terms with childhood sexual abuse or psychosis, who mistakenly
grasp at T*ism as a "solution", but the vast majority of T*s are basically as
sane as anyone else, and things such as depression occur as they would occur
in anyone who was forced to live in opposition to their nature and who was
treated like crap most of hit life. (I say hit because this forum is also
open to us FTMs.)
>You may call my guy if you want. When I tried to be a guy people called me
>girl. Now it's the opposite. I don't care. I am who I am. That's the
>difference between us.
So you are more TG than TS. You're not alone in that. But that still does
not mean that TS is "just pretending".
- K.
Kris
In article <01bd7108$cf3b77e0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>> No it isn't !!! I am not doing this for sex. I am doing it for me. I have
>> alot of goals to meet to get there. AND SEX ISN'T ONE OF THEM !!!
>
>That's transsexualism by a definition. It's not my opinion. Read in any
>book that transsexualism is caused by getting sexual arousal from
>identifying yourself with the opposite sex.
You need to re-read the texts. "Fetishistic transvesticism" is WAY different
from Gender Identity Disorder, which is also not the same as simply being T*.
A T* person usually feels simply comfortable in day-in, day-out clothing that
is appropriate for the Self. This is opposite from a fetishistic TV, who
does not want to dress - and =live= - day-to-day in the clothing and role of
the opposite sex (remember that sex is different from gender); there is
instead an erotic charge from the occasional donning of "forbidden" attire.
Not all TVs are fetishistic, though, either.
>> Seek help for you need it. I am a women that is trying hard to be
>> complete as possible through medical science. I am not a TV are you?
>
>I am a TV. Well at least I've been a TV for 15 years. Now it's maybe a
>little bit different.
You betcha it's different.
- K.
Kris
In article <01bd711f$6f5e0740$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Diane <as...@slip.net> wrote <35433c72...@news.slip.net>...
>> On 26 Apr 1998 11:46:11 GMT, "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I am a TV. Well at least I've been a TV for 15 years.
>>
>> way people like yourself can get attention is by doing something they
>> know will upset people just so they can be looked at.
>
>Okay, I'm just fetish male.
WHich is fine. IF you enjoy it, and it harms nobody, well, it's your business
what you do - we each have to live our own lives. Just recognize, tho', tht
there is a big difference between that and being T*.
>
>> Not wasting too much of my time thinking about it though because you'r
>> just not that interesting or important - but then you knew that
>> You're killfiltered.
>
>AAAAAGHHH!
>
>OH NO!
>
>THERE'S BLOOD HERE ! I'M BLEEDING !
>No, it's just a tomato juice I have spilled on my t-shirt.
I have the same reaction to killfile threats.
- K.
Kate Jane
Jennifer Corley <jlco...@ou.edu> wrote <3544AA2A...@ou.edu>...
> Ha! Being aggressive is a personality trait, not a gender trait.
> Obviously, you have not been around women socially enough, or you've just
> been seeing what you want to see. Women are just as aggressive,
> confrontational, stubborn, and wrong as men.
Of course there are some aggressive women. But most of girls I knew were
gentle, understanding, full of joy and love.
> Being a woman has much more
> to do with self- identification than emotions, personality traits, or
> genitalia.
Exactly! So: Why do TS's change their genitalia?
......
Because our society force them to do it. (?)
For most of the people being a woman is first to have female genitalia,
then personality, then emotions. And self-identification doesn't really
matter. It's always questionable.
Kris
In article <01bd7149$1a67bf40$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>> Kate Jane wrote:
>> ... So far, there
>> is no conclusive evidence in support of any such theories." Rubin &
>> McNeil, Psychology - Being Human, 4th Ed.
>
>> I love it when they are honest in psychology books, rather than
>> trying to sound like a know-it-all.
>
>Okay people have different view on it. I just have always thought that it's
>a sexual deviation. Maybe it's not !!!! (?) All books I have read, all
>articles about sexual deviations said that there is homosexaulism,
>fetishism, transvestitsm, transsexualism etc. In fact some said that
>transvestism belongs to a group of deviations called transsexualism. Some
>said that transsexualism develops from transvestism. Believe me, I've read
>something about it. I've read many biographies written by people who were
>first transvestites and only after 20 years became transsexuals. Besides
>not only transsexual people can transition, so can also some transvestites
>and feminine homosexuals (as far as I know).
There is one problem with any literatuer, and this is: the author always
writes from hir own biases, and sees the world through their lens. No, some
people recognize that these biases exist, and they try to neutralize them as
much as possible. Sadly, many "experts" are the opposite, and =revel= in
their biases, even when they are proven wrong.
Sex is charged to an absurd degree; to many people, anything that is even
remotely tied either to the act of biological reproduction or the organs used
therein becomes a matter of "sex", IOW a matter of "fvcking", and they can
only think in terms of "man fvcks, woman gets fvcked". Some people seem to be
incapable of seeing others without thinking of them in these terms. Some of
the people who think this way are "experts". Thus, one always has to analyse
what one hears and reads and sees. The "experts", quite simply, are not
always correct - one becomes an "expert" simply by publishing one's ideas and
convincing others that these ideas are Truth.
A transsexual (or even a transgenderist) is not "simply a crossdresser"
before/without SRS. The person has a specific and strong identity regardless
of what xe feels compelled to project to the outside world. T* is usually far
from fun, and is far from 'erotic' for many people - for some of us, sexual
response can often be downright impossible, because we feel like a soul
trapped inside an inflatable doll, like the person isn't making love to us
but is merely fvcking the body. Not at all 'erotically stimulating' - more
like 'depressing'.
>> Because you feel sexual pleasure from wearing Opposite sex clothes,
>> you assume therefore all people who wear them must also feel
>> aroused.
>
>No. It's not my opinion. I told you. You don't pay any attention to what I
>write.
I suggest you be more skeptical of some of these books. There is a lot of not
only misinformation, but IMO deliberate DISinformation (as in dezinformatsiya)
about TS/TG precisely becasue some people refuse to accept T* people as human
beings, much as some people refuse to accept any other specific group of
people. There is no law barring ignoramouses, bigots, or people who willfully
refuse to consider alternate ideas, from publishing books and magazine
articles. The biggest problem with the Information Age is that much of the
"information" is baloney.
>Sure. I didn't say anything like TV's crossdress, Ts's crossdress more. Not
>only crossdressing is sexually arousing. You may identify with women in
>many ways.
Sorry but you missed the point. A TS (or TG) dresses in accordance with hir
=internal identity=. This superficially =appears= to be crossdressing, but
the motivations and emotional responses are, in reality, very different from
those of a TV/CD.
Most people are, of course, unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, that this
difference exists, and again, some of these people are "experts".
Again, there is also a difference between "wanting to be closer to" or
"wanting to identify with" the opposite sex, and feeling a one-ness with those
whose sex matches one's internal identity.
>I was identifying with some actress imagining that I was her, was wearing
>her clothes, had her memory, and personality, and kissed her husband,
>despite I
>am heterosexual. I didn't like her husband at all, but I wanted so hard to
>fully identify with her that I was forcing myself to homosexuality. Do you
>call it transvestism?
I don't know what I would call it (I'd prefer to ask a psychiatrist whom I
trust as being reasonable), but I would not call it T*ism.
>> The way you described
>> transsexualism is in error - the tendencies of sexual arousal are
>> relevant only with Transvestic Fetishism, by the old definition at
>> least. There is no relation of TS to TV
>
>Oh, you're such an expert!
Sorry, but her statement is support by much of what is in US
research-based literature on the topic (at least what I've seen, and heard of,
this literature). Check out the DSM-IV online at:
http://www.twentyclub.org/documents/
>>, and yet I have a lot of
>> friends who are TV and I think they are all great guys, lots of fun.
>
>I don't hate anyone here. I just have a problem and want to discuss it with
>you.
Are you questioning whether you are TS rather than TV?
- K.
Kate Jane
> Dear. You really need to broaden your horizons and give up all the
> steretypes and ideas about women that society has been feeding you. As
> ever with getting in your face and arguing with you for hours if you ever
> made such an uneducated statement like that in front of me. What in the
> world are you trying to say? If women, genetic or otherwise, do not act
> according to those lovely stereotypes on MTV or whatever you're watching,
Yeah MTV. Lovely stereotypes. I talk about senseless aggression here! See
that example with mother killing her own baby. It really happens! Can you
call her a mother or a woman?
No.
> we're obviously genetic freaks?
I didn't mean you.
> If you think being a woman only means being demure, quiet, submissive,
etc.
I don't think so!
> etc. etc., you need to rethink your definitions.
I've got no definitions. I can see that you're a woman, like some of
transgendered who answered me. In your message there is no "fuck you, guy",
"I pie on your shoes", or any other phrases like these. Of course you may
use these words if someone makes you really mad. But I just wanted to argue
with you all on some topic I don't understand. That's it. Most of the
people didn't explain me anything, just wanted to spit, vomit, kick, flame
etc. See for yourself.
Kris
In article <35489933...@news.slip.net>, as...@slip.net says...
>
>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:17:56 +0200, "Amy_w" <Am...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>So we have people, who have a certain
>>desire to be of different sex. Some have sexual pleasure when
>>dreaming about that, some don't. Does it matter?
>No you are confusing the blurring the genres based on the one fact
>that at some point both Ts's and TVs cross dress. Their reasons are
>completely different.
>
>1. TS's absolutely want and seek to change their genitalia to those of
>the opposite sex. Tvs do not want to nor do the seek to do this.
And TG's may only change partially, or they may forgo alterations, for various
reasons.
>2. TS's absolutely want to and seek to live full time as the opposite
>gender - TV's do not want to nor do they seek to do this.
And TGs also want to do this.
Then there are the both/neither gendered person, ambigendered as some people
are ambidexterous or equally left-brained/right-brained.
>They two points above - with the emphasis on #1 represent, in a
>nutshell, the differences between TS's and TVs
I keep forgetting that most people do not acknowledge the existence of TG or
ambi-G people.
Kris
In article <01bd7120$a00646e0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Well, I didn't expect such answers yesterday when I was writing my message.
>Do what you want: you may throw knifes at me, bite me, spit on me, kick me
>out, but I won't change my mind. It's all fake, artificial, unnatural. I
>think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
>aggresive.
I am assuming that your anger inspired most of this statement (I do generally
try to give the benefit of the doubt).
You say it is fake, artificial, unnatural. In essence, that we who are T* are
these things. I am not unnatural - I'm exceedingly unusual (and not just
becasue of my T*ness), but not unnatural - there was no human intervention
that played with my DNA to give me the abilities that I have, or that made me
whole brained and mostly ambidexterous, and there was no human intervention
that diddled with my gender or my body (which ain't "normal" but it's sure
natural). Far from fake, I make a true effort to be as honest, as open, as
"real" if you like, as is possible. T*ism is just one facet of who I am; I am
a complex human being.
We are all complex human beings. Throwing around such generalized epithets
as you did in response to a couple of irritating responses is
counterproductive - too many other people get scooped in. You ought to
provide a "turtle door" in that verbal shrimp net.
- K.
Kris
In article <6i2474$cmf$2...@news.metronet.de>, Am...@gmx.net says...
>Definitions seem to be really blurry when it comes to these things.
>I've found some really old definitions and they call transsexualism
>a sexual disorder and don't make a difference between TS and TV.
Please disregard old literature on this topic - much of that literature was
based only on "normal belief", NOT on anything even resembling research. This
old stuff was the same nonsense that advocated electroshock as a treatment for
not only homosexuality but a lot of other "behavioral disorders" as well. It
used to be that there was no such thing as patient consent when it came to
getting one's brains fried, or to being tied to a bed in a small, dingy room
and kept doped up on a constant basis.
>I think this is, because when you think about it, it is a matter of
>sexuality - both, TV and TS (which I consider to be different expressions
>of the same 'problem').
I think "sexuality" is a bad term, because it usually implies little more than
sexual intercourse. TS/TG is far more complex than that. It is also about
one's entire world-view and one's entire sense of self. To say it is simply a
matter of "sexuality" is to demean humans by reducing them to little more than
walking sets of genitals.
>Of course, nowadays people prefer to talk
>about 'gender identity' and 'transgenderism', but I guess, some of
>the old, original definitions are still based on different words.
No, not simply different words - different philosophies, including a heavy
dose of bigotry. Be very, very circumspect when reading old texts on
psychological/psychiatric topics. One really has to take into account the
social climate that was operative when those texts were written. After all,
look at what was considered "normal" for women in the 50's and 60's - my oen
mother becamse a valium addict because teh psychiatric/psychological belief
was that when women had problems with stress or moods, it was nothing more
than "some female thing", and thousands upon thousands of women were denied
proper treatment and instead kept doped up on valium. My mother ought to have
been treated for probably manic depression adn other problems - instead, the
medical profession just doped her up, and let her go on being abusive to her
children, and steeped in paranoid delusions that have kept her miserable and
unhappy and unproductive all her life (not to mention what this did to us
kids).
So please don't treat "old literature" so reverently. Much of it was just BS.
>So we have people, who have a certain
>desire to be of different sex. Some have sexual pleasure when
>dreaming about that, some don't. Does it matter? They both want
>the same thing and everybody has a way to deal with it, crossdressing
>beeing probably the most common one.
No, they do not want the same thing and yes, it does matter when social policy
oppresses groups of people by reducing their complex needs to simplistic
one-tiered formulae. If you take all of this discussion, and substitute race,
religion, or other things in the place of sex or TS and TV etc., you begin to
recognize more of the truth.
Thought Experiment:
AJ was born green, and this was merely a natural, if rather unusual, result of
AJ's genetic code. THe parents were deeply ashamed and wouldn't let AJ step
out of the house unless xe was heavily disguised so as to hide hir greenness.
AJ, originally bright and outgoing, became introverted, shy, depressed, even
sullen. So of course, students and teachers began to pick on AJ, calling hir
stupid and weird and basically ostracisizing hir and constantly finding fault
in everything xe did. After a suicide attempt, AJ finally found a support
group for green people. AJ suddenly realized that xe was not all the negative
things xe had been raised to think xe was - xe was jsut different, one among
thousands of green people, who xe had never heard about because society didn't
want to publicize such 'deviants'; they were feared and looked down upon -
after all, imagine one's own child 'taking up with' a greenie? But more and
more green people began to communicate, and gather in groups. Many
didn't relate to being green, they related to being like others, and ways were
found to meet their needs. Other green people decided against this, because
they didn't feel like others, they wanted to just be able to be themselves.
ANd, as more green people began to communicate, more also became invloved with
seeking equal rights, simple human rights, for green people - since green
people were still people. Slowly, laws and attitudes began to loosen up, and
things got a bit better - but there is still much work to be done because many
people still thing green people are deviant freaks and would rather kill a
green than let hir move into their town; also many of the laws still offer
loopholes for those people who would refuse work or shelter or to even sell
goods to someone simply because xe is green. Many former-greens were happy in
their new lives and didn't want to stir the soup, because they were afraid
what would happen to them if their new friends and coworkers discovered they'd
been born green; others declared their former greenness to the world and
militated for the human rights they deserved - they were also joined by people
who remained proudly green, some who were still recognizable as green wven
though they'd tried to change. and also by somew who simulated greenness for
their own varios reasons. But much remains to be done.
Take the abouve paragraph and substitute T* for "green".
- K.
Kris
In article <01bd7145$3bcfd400$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Karen Elizabeth A. k...@world.std.com> wrtoe
><1998042611...@ppp0a028.std.com>...
>> Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> I
>>> think neither Diane nor you can be called a woman. Women are not so
>
>> What world do yoy you live in? While style may be different, women can
>> be just as agressive as men. The woman who is the CEO of the company I
>> work for did not get there by being passive!
>
>You talk about genetic women. Some of them think like men.
Now -there- is a really interesting statement. Talk about stereotypical
thinking. You now sound like most of the women I grew up with - I keep
wondering whether I'm really T*, or whether hearing all of this negative BS
about who I am (girls don't do this, girls don't think that, girls aren't good
at such-and-such so we're punishing you for cheating even tho' there is no
earthly way you could have, and do on ad nauseum) convinced me that, since
everyone was telling me I "was too much like a man" I must therefore really be
a man. I always thought I was really a boy and all this negativism merely
convinced me that I sure as heck wasn't, and didn't want to be, a girl.
I wish people would quite with the stereotyping. I mean, what next, am I
going to have to hear that "I must be stupid because I'm a Polak", the way I
had to listen to it from the teachers in my school (and after all, the
teachers there were the experts on stupid)? They refused to look at facts as
well (i.e. the fact of my IQ and aptitude test scores).
>> As for sexual arousal being important... I felt this way before I was 5
>> years old when I had no connection between what body parts looked like
>> and sexual arousal.
>
>Funny. I don't really remember anything from that age. And I'm only 24.
Most TS/TGs remember these feelings back to the age of 4-5 (there's lit. about
emerging body awareness etc. so I'm not going to repeat it).
But not all do.
It isn't "funny" or "odd" or "strange" if you don't recall such feelings.
Some people just don't. Others simply don't remember their childhood much at
all.
>> Ts'ism is NOT a *sexual* deviation. It has been labeled as such in the
>> past by ingnorant people - including profesionals in the mental health
>> field who had no experience in this area, but it simply is not so.
>
>So, how is it. Are you a professional? Can you give me any definition taken
>from any serious book?
Since you don't believe the people who are living this reality, you can check
the literature. Some of it is online. I posted the www address for one
presentation of the DSM-IV in another reply. Try an AltaVista search on
"gender". Try a MedLine search. Go to the library. Do some research into
the newer literature, rather than depending on the old stuff.
>> You really have no clue as to what it means to be TS and it is obvious
>> you are not a woman no matter how well you pass.
>
>So what? You thought I wouldn't agree with you? I'm not a TS, at least I
>was always questioning that. To be a real woman you have to be raised as
>girl, and have female hormones from the very beginning.
No. The definition of "real woman" varies too much. Also, not all "real
women" have anywhere near the same upbringing and background. There is more
to identity than one's body and how one is reared.
What is silly is that this tenet is accepted in all other areas -except-
gender. One is born wioth artistic or mathematical talent - sure, anyone can
learn to make a basic sketch or do some basic math, but talent is inborn, not
taught. Similarly, one can learn the mannerisms and whatnot that let one
"pass", but identity is inborn.
>> Make sure yiyr fantasies are not getting out of control and leading you
>
>Oh, my fantasies are always getting out of control, that's what the
>fantasies are for.
>SRS? No. It's an imitation of sex change. I don't want any imitation. I
>hate everything what is not real.
Oh good grief. I see. So you really have no question, and no 'problem you
want to discuss' - you simply wanted to come here, bitch a bit, and holler
your opinion around the town square.
Tell ya what, you go live your life, and other people will go live theirs.
- K.
Kate Jane
Karen A. <k...@world.std.com> wrote
<1998042712...@ppp0a022.std.com>...
> Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
> I'm calling you confused , hurt, resentful and frustrated. I'm making no
> judgemnt about your gender - only you can do that.
The point is I can't.
> Until you make contact with your emotional self and learn to respect it
I've got no emotional self, I've got no intellectual self. I've got just
one self.
All is mixing inside me, and I can't tell what is emotional, and what is
intellectual. Maybe. Never mind. It's not so bad with me anyway! I'm not
really so much hurt and frustrated. I just don't like to pretend. I hate
anything what's not real. That's why I said "I'm not a woman". Of course
it's a catchy subject (...), but I didn't really expect so many answers.
Unfortunately many of them are useless. Most of them concentrate on me. And
I wanted to hear what do you think about yourselves!
Are you women or not. In what sense. I think that if someone pretends being
a woman it's very hard for her/him to answer such question. Of course the
simplest answer is I AM A WOMAN !!!! GET OUT YOU TROLL !!! And that's the
most of the answers you gave me. And it's the most suspicious answer anyone
can give.
Another strange answer is "I just identify with a woman, so I am a woman".
It's just much more complicated. I would ask "If you are a woman, why do
you change anything? HRT, SRS, name change. What for?"
Kris
In article <01bd7162$58d91f80$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Karen Elizabeth A. <k...@world.std.com> wrote
><1998042616...@ppp0a004.std.com>...
>> Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>>
>> Pg 6:
>> "Transsexuals are individuals who who strongly feel that they are, or
>> ought to be, the opposite sex. The body they were born with does not
>> match their inner conviction an mental image of who the are or want to
>> be"
>
>That's me. And they still call me fetish male here.
>(Notice what is written there: who they are OR WANT TO BE)
Since everything you've written projects yourself to be just that, a
fetishistic TV, and since you say you aren't a woman (not even inside), and
since the only thing your projected sounded more like an obsession with an
actress, and since you refute each and every point that has been made
regarding TS/TGism:
why do you have a problem with the abovementioned diagnosis?
>> pg 20:
>> "Transsexuallism is not about sex, sexual behavior, or sexual
>> orientation - it'a about gender, or more specifically, gender identity."
>
>How can they be so sure? I don't agree. Most of transsexuals are
>homosexual, right?
Fine, you don't agree. You don't agree with the people who are TS/TG and you
don't agree with the literature. What do you you expect, that we're all going
to deny our own experiences, the observations of our friends/family, the ideas
of our counsellors, simply because =you= don't happen to "agree" that T*ism is
"real", or simply because you can't see beyond the purely sexual (as in
screwing)?
>> From DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
>> Physchiatric Association) criteria for diagnosing TSism:
>>
>> * A strong and persistant cross-gender idedentification, manifested by a
>> repeated stated desire
>
>cannot be a desire connected to a sexual instinct?
What, every time you want to eat a bonbon "just because you desire to", it's
sexual???
Or if an artist desires to paint a subject (be it a human or a tree), it's
sexual? Or that it's just sex for a composer to desire whatever it takes to
take what is in the mind and turn it into music?!
>> to be. live as, or be treated as the other sex or
>> as the other sex or by the conviction that the person has the typical
>> feelings or reactions of the other sex.
>
>I have the same conviction but I'm not a woman. Neither biologically, nor
>hormonally, nor sexually, nor socially.
Then sorry but you don't have the same conviction. Your supposed excluders
are mostly irrelevant:
1) biology is far more capricious than most people are willing to accept,
merely because their simple minds cannot cope with anything that is
either black or white - there are people who are born genetically M or F, but
outwardly the opposite;
2) hormonally - irrelevant because this can easily be reversed
3) sexually - irrelevant if one has SRS, because an MTF -can- function
sexually as a woman after SRS - and from what I've heard, many are so perfect
that a lover would scarcely know any difference;
4) socially - also irrelevant, from what you describe as your life situation -
also because this is what transition is all about, living most of one's life
as one's Self.
Poeple who have "the same conviction" usually take steps to overcome your
"exclusions", and work towards INclusion.
>> * A persistant discomfort with their bodies, with boys often feeling
>> disgust for their penis abd expressing a desire for it to disappear
>
>I had disgust for my penis, I hid it between my legs. I was even at the
>edge of self mutilation. Don't ask for details. And they still call me
>fetish male here.
This is the first indication you've given that can truely relate to TS. But I
doubt it's anough to recommend a person for treatment (esp. when said person
denies treatment on the basis that it is "fake, artificial")
>> not wanting to grow
>> breasts or menstruate, and asserting that they will grow a penis.
>> Adolecents and adults exhibit a preoccupation with physically altering
>> bodies through hormones and surgery to simulate the other sex, usually
>> bevause they believe that they were born the wrong sex.
>
>Ha ha ha. Almost all transvestites believe they were born with the wrong
>sex.
Huh? Well if that is the case, why are they TV rather than transitioned??
What you say is illogical. It is common for people who don't fit social
stereotypes to -say- "oh I was born in the wrong sex", just as many people
-say- "oh I was born in the wrong era". Truely knowing that one really IS T*
is differnt. It isn't something one says, it is something one IS and it is
also the steps one takes to become one's Self.
>> From a OLD texbook : "Abnormal Phychology and Modern life" 4th edition
>> copyright 1972 pg 493:
>>
>> "Transsexuals, unlike transvestites, usually feel relaxed rather then
>> sexually aroused when dressed in the clothing of the opposite sex"
>
>I very rarely have any erection or masturbate when crossdressed.
One doesn't have to do those things to have the sensation be mainly erotic in
nature.
Kris
In article <01bd71b0$03cd2240$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>If you're a biological female, what are you doing here?
>
Like DUUUUH! Read the NAME of the dang newsgroup - it is
soc.support.transgendered, NOT soc.support.mtf!
Or do you refuse to believe (among you other refusals) that FTMs are somehow
even less "real" than MTFs?
Yeesh!!!!
Kris
In article <01bd71be$ea94ff00$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
><1998042623...@ppp0a004.std.com>...
>
>> as the other sex or by the conviction that the person has the typical
>> feelings or reactions of the other sex.
>
>>> I have the same conviction but I'm not a woman. Neither biologically,
>>> nor hormonally, nor sexually, nor socially.
>> not be genuine - or is it a deep seated feeling from within... the brain
>> can mislead one as to their true nature - but the heart does not.
>
>not lie, etc. I doesn't mean anything to me. These are phrases which are a
>same people do not know what they mean. You may use them to write a poem,
>but not to define transsexualism.
So then why should we heed your words about your"problem" and your
"discomfort" at all? After all, your "discomfort" is nothing more than a
feeling, just as your thoughts of self-mutilation were just feelings you had.
Do not deny the feelings of us all (as nothing more than empty "sweet words")
and then expect us to care one iota about what you -say- your own feelings
are.
>Of course my conviction is intellectual. I just can see that people doubt
>that I'm a man. Sometimes I just act like a girl. I can see it and other
>people can see it.
>But still I don't care. You may call me "typical male" if you want. It only
>makes me laugh.
Maybe you're just effiminate. Some guys are.
Kris
In article <6i29bd$b...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says...
>
>
>"Kate Jane" (kate...@friko2.onet.pl) writes:
>> Daria <dariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6htsoh$1ba$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
>>> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
>>
>> Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
>
> Ketchup is classified as a vegetable.
> Pia Zadora is classified as an actress.
> Yoko Ono is classified as a singer.
<LOL!!> That was a good one - thanks, I needed that!
- Kris
L.Deerfield
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>L.Deerfield <sve...@best.com> wrote <6i16bp$ru2$1...@shell15.ba.best.com>...
>> Dude, you really need to go out and meet some people.
>> They aren't *even* being -aggressive-, they're being bitchy.
>> And if you think *women* "are not so aggressive," then you
>> don't know the same women I do. If we were in a room together
>> I might dump a drink in your lap. I might even deck you.
>> Naaaah, but I might drop my pants and piss on your shoes.
>> How's that for acting like a woman?
>
>Beautiful. Really beautiful. And you think I would consider you a woman
>after that?
>Believe me I've met many more genetic women like you. There always can be a
>mutation in your genes. There are for instance mothers who throw their
>newborn babies away (and kill them or not there are different stories). I
>hope you're not that kind of mother.
So, I can not be a real woman based on my behavior, but transsexuals
are really men, despite anything they may feel or do?
I have no interest in being a mother. I also am generally considered
a sweet, loving, caring, and sensitive individual by anyone who knows me.
>
>> Get a life.
>> -Sved (a biological female)
>> http://www.best.com/~svedeka
>>
>
>If you're a biological female, what are you doing here?
>
What an ignoramus. Why do you think the term MtF, which
I think I've seen you use, exists? Why specify male to female?
Just think about it for a second. Then try actually reading
a few of the things that are posted on this newsgroup.
-Sved
Kris
In article <6i07a0$88t$2...@news.metronet.de>, Am...@gmx.net says...
>
>About sexual deviation. Well, sure it has something to do with sex, as it has
>to do with sexuality. It has to, because the thing we are talking about are
the
>human sexes.
Except that the term "sexuality" is not simply one realting to biological
differentialtion - it's implication weighs more heavily on the sexual act
itself. THis is why people are disuuting that T*ism is a "sexual disorder".
A "sexual disorder" is something that hinders the performance of the sex act.
A "sexual deviation" is an abnormal (and usually thought of as
hurtful/destructive) manner of performing the sex act.
>People came up with a lot of new words like gender identity to
>get rid of the bad tone of the word sex. To make it socially acceptable. But
>that's
>just playing with words.
Wrong. They come up with new words, well, like "adrenocortical hyperplasia",
or like "string theory", because our increased knowledge is allowing us to
recognize the multiplicative variety of the univers at large.
To say this is nothing more than "word games" is counterproductive and
downright dangerous. For example, "metastasis" is also a new word - and if
you have it, you shre as hell want different treatment than you'd want for
something that is "encysted".
By saying this is "just word games", you denegrate scientific enquiry and
discovery, and reduce people to generalized globs.
>Is it a personality disorder? Sure it is. It has to, because sex is a part of
>every
>personality - an important part.
Wrong again. Some people (more than we generally realize) are asexual - they
have littel or no sexual drive and hence sex, meaning the "natural" use of
their genitalia, is NOT a part of their personalities.
>A part, that is reflected on the personality
>every single day. Of course, a TS (MtF) is not a woman, but wants to be
>percerived as one.
So then, is someone withm what is it called, testosterone insensitivity,
"really" a man because the chromosomes say XY? If this person is a woman,
then why is not an MTF also a woman? Generalities are inaccurate in that
they give the dangerous illusion of simplicity to things that are in reality
more complex and wonderous than many people can cope with.
>>And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
>>Can someone explain to me how is it possible?
>This sentence is not quite true, I believe. Nobody is trapped or everybody
>is trapped.
It's a matter of perspective and forum. A person can be physically trapped
but spiritually free; or a person can be physically free yet spiritually
trapped. A person can be trapped by illness, family obligation, or force -
and so on. This is realyl too complex a notion to be dismissed so tersely.
>A lot of people would like to have a different body to get more
>muscles or bigger breasts or a slim waist or whatever else. Why do they
>want that? Because society reacts positive on these features and the
>individual wants to be seen in a differnt way.
So then, it should be abnormal or even disorder if other people do NOT want
these thungs...?
- K.
Kris
In article <01bd7167$df1afd20$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Amy_w <Am...@gmx.net> wrote <6i07a0$88t$2...@news.metronet.de>...
>
>> Of course, a TS (MtF) is not a woman, but wants to be
>> percerived as one.
>
Ah, so that is all you were after...
>> But why is this feeling there? There is no real good reason for any man
>> to think 'I want to be a woman', unless something is wrong. Biologically,
>> it doesn't make sense. It does not help an individual or help the
>> existance of a race or anything. Actually, the individual will have less
>> chances to reproduce (talking about biology and evolution here...).
>
>?
>God's mistake?
Both are errors. Biologically, T* makes perfect sense if one realizes that
biology, and especially development of complex systems/beings, is not
something that can be reduced to a few simplisic rules based upon the coarsest
of generalities.
And, if one does believe in G-d, then one is more likely to think that Xe made
one in a certain way for a reason. Our task would then be to discover that
reason. Belief in G-d does not really entertain the idea of a "mistake".
A mistake in society that simplifies everythign and ridicules any differences
in people is a more likely explanation for why T* people suffere socially.
Society is nothing more than a human construct - and all human constructs are
open to error.
>>>And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
>>>Can someone explain to me how is it possible?
>
>Again, you said just what I wanted to tell you all. I realize there are
>some TS's who say this sentence and are true. But many more exaggerate.
"Many"? How many, what percentage? In which area? Who sez?
>> Can't it be about personality and still lead to an obsession to change
>> sex in order to deal with personality?
>>
>
>Who knows. Maybe it can be like that too. But still personality is not
>important here.
So what is? Isn't an obsession part of one's personality. isn't a fetish also
part of ones personality? You're talking at cross-purposes.
>That's what I tried to tell you. See this example with a homosexual girl I
>wrote in the first message.
I found it irrelevant. There is a huge difference between playing with the
-idea- of -wanting- to be the opposite sex, and living as/being this, in
spirit, while one's body is not in synch with the brain. And I'd think very
few lesbians -actually- want to be men.
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <aq311.1101$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>This girl I've mentioned was always saying "I want to be a man", not "I
>> am a man".
>
> Sometimes that is the first step to realizing one is a guy, but mostly,
> FTMs know without a doubt that they ARE guys, inside.
I think she knew !
> Many, prob. most, are
> masculine in personality and most typically in dress as well; I was an
> exception becasue of my upbringing and the way my peculiar brain reacted
> to it
> (my sense of 'duty' to others led me to deny the truth).
>
> There is a big difference between 'wanting to be" and "being".
Right Kris, but both can mean you're transsexual. See Karen's definition
taken from some book. I think it's the message from 04-26 23:55.
> If someone has a maternal instinct, and can only satisfy it through
> fatherhood, so what?
Really. Maybe. I can't imagine myself as a husband and a father. How can
someone who say "I am a woman trapped in man's body" do it, I just don't
know. If it was so simple gays could have their own children. But they
cannot, though sometimes they want to have children so desperately!
> None of what you say precludes on being T*.
I meant TS. Never mind. I was only questioning that. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>So we say "Oh, I am a woman, I do so many things these stupid males don't
>>understand. I'm so sensitive. I'm so emotional. I understand other
>> women." etc.
>Part of this is an attempt to solidify the identity in the face of social
>opposition by divorcing oneself from one's past (in the MTF case, man's)
>life.
Tell me Kris, as an ftm, don't you feel that men dominate here too? Look
anywhere on the internet, on this newsgroup. Where are you? I don't see you
anywhere. I've found just one site something like www.ftm.international or
so.
What I see everywhere are aggressive males who just think "Yes! I will be a
lesbian!". Of course another exaggeration. Sorry.
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <1x311.1102$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
> So you are more TG than TS. You're not alone in that. But that still
> does not mean that TS is "just pretending".
Pretending what? Cannot TS just say "I'm not a woman"? (Of course I don't
talk about a post-op who's years after transition). He's not a woman!
That's why he makes all the changes! HRT, name change, SRS.
I think TS is pretending, because he's afraid he will be rejected. I am
already rejected by many of you. See all these messages. I hate to
pretend. I just said the truth.
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <C6411.1113$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>There is no relation of TS to TV
>
>>>Oh, you're such an expert!
>Sorry, but her statement is support by much of what is in US
>research-based literature on the topic (at least what I've seen, and heard
>of, this literature).
Yeah, really. I've heard of many TV's that became TS's.
> Are you questioning whether you are TS rather than TV?
I'm questioning everything I can. It's always a better way to understand
your own mind, than to know everything for sure.
Am I a TS? Please leave the answer to my therapist.
Am I a TV? You doubt it? If someone is homosexual doesn't (s)he know about
it?
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <Tx511.1134$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>
>>If you're a biological female, what are you doing here?
>>
>
> soc.support.transgendered, NOT soc.support.mtf!
???????????????????????????
She's transgendered???? What?
Then read her message again.
She says she's a woman!
She's a biological female, and she's proud of it!
> Or do you refuse to believe (among you other refusals) that FTMs are
> somehow even less "real" than MTFs?
No, it's the last thing I want to do! Quite the contrary! I think FTMs are
more real then MTFs.
Sorry Kris. I really didn't know she's ftm in any way. Maybe she's ftf ? Or
ftmtf?
I hate her anyway. Excuse me, I want to vomit.
Kris
In article <01bd7219$eb9b1500$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
MTF TS/TG people perceive that there is a difference between being "born
female" and "being a woman". A TS -must- be a woman, in terms of identity,
before having SRS. SRS stands for -sex- reassignment surgery.
The Gender is already "woman". A TG prefers either limited surgery or none; a
TS desires full SRS to reassign the sex to "female".
There is no "pretending" involved. You are passing judgement based on
semantics, and -that- is why so many of your comments are considered
unacceptable, NOT simply because you said that you personally don't like to
pretend. The effect you state is not due to the cause you state, but to other
causes which you are not giving recognition to.
Kris
In article <01bd721e$ca243dc0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <C6411.1113$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>
>>>There is no relation of TS to TV
>>
>>>>Oh, you're such an expert!
>
>>Sorry, but her statement is support by much of what is in US
>>research-based literature on the topic (at least what I've seen, and heard
>>of, this literature).
>
You are confusing the terminology then.
>> Are you questioning whether you are TS rather than TV?
>
>I'm questioning everything I can. It's always a better way to understand
>your own mind, than to know everything for sure.
>
>Am I a TS? Please leave the answer to my therapist.
It is not up to your therapist to answer this, but up to yourself. THe
abdication of responsibility regarding one's own identity is a dangerous path.
>Am I a TV? You doubt it? If someone is homosexual doesn't (s)he know about
>it?
I neither implied nor stated that I doubt you are a TV. I did state that
there is some confusion in your mind regarding the differences between what
makes a person TS/TG, and what makes another TV.
Kris
In article <01bd721e$db089500$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <Tx511.1134$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>>
>>>If you're a biological female, what are you doing here?
>>>
>>
>> Like DUUUUH! Read the NAME of the dang newsgroup - it is
>> soc.support.transgendered, NOT soc.support.mtf!
>
>Then read her message again.
>She says she's a woman!
>She's a biological female, and she's proud of it!
I think you'd best get clarification of that. Nor did I get the same sense
from the msg as you apparently got.
Also, there is no rule that non-T* people can't post here. SO's of T* people,
and orthogendered people who want to learn more about T*ism, also pop up here.
This is part of the charter, which I suggest you read.
>> Or do you refuse to believe (among you other refusals) that FTMs are
>> somehow even less "real" than MTFs?
>
>No, it's the last thing I want to do! Quite the contrary! I think FTMs are
>more real then MTFs.
Oddly enough, I come to no such conclusion. People are individuals.
>Sorry Kris. I really didn't know she's ftm in any way. Maybe she's ftf ? Or
>ftmtf?
>I hate her anyway. Excuse me, I want to vomit.
All the msg was doing was pointing out that tehr is no such thing as set/fixed
female behavior.
To harbour such a powerful emoption such as hate against someone on the basis
of one message is both unreasonable and unhealthy.
Karen A.
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
> ut I didn't really expect so many answers.
> Unfortunately many of them are useless. Most of them concentrate on me. And
> I wanted to hear what do you think about yourselves!
These are questions everyone has to answer for themselves.
> I would ask "If you are a woman, why do
> you change anything? HRT, SRS, name change. What for?"
Because, quite literally who I am does not match my physical makeup. I
can't change who I am but, to a degree, I can change my physical body to
match what i know it should have been, and if I'm lucky (does not look
that way) be able to live the rest of my life as who I should always
have been.
Yes, I am woman, one with physical problems and an atypical
socialization. Those things affect the type of woman I am but not the
fact of my womanhood which is inate. Believe me, if I could deny who I
was and continued to live as a man, given my body (can't pass for beans)
my life would be much simpler - but I simply could not.
As I keep telling you, you have to look deep into yourself to find out
who and what you are. If you are not sure, I can assure you, it's worth
putting the effort in to find out. *GOOD* therapy can help a lot to that
end.
It's easy to shoot down anything anyone says because when all is said
and done, this is about what we feel inside - nothing more and nothing
less. We know who we are and we do what we must to be true to that.
-Karen A.
Alyssa K. McLoney
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote in article
<01bd7096$3171f880$LocalHost@Drewnowski>...
> Why to lie to anyone?
> I don't mean only myself, I mean all mtf transsexuals.
> I don't think anyone who's transgendered should say a sentence
> "Biologically I'm a man, but inside I'm a woman".
> I would rather say "Biologically I'm a man and I hate it. But I don't
care
> who am I inside."
> And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
I think the author or authoress has some valid points. It is very
stereotypical to say I am a woman trapped in a man's body. Perhaps a more
accurate account of a a TS's feelings are best described by a "I have a
strong, almost debilitating envious desire to be wholly integrated into the
social fabric as female, with all its limitations, powers and vestures
wherewith."
> I think we're all pretending.
What is being pretended upon here? Is it the fact that some people embrace
another notion of what they are and are not limited to a linear perception.
OK, that may be too deep. So try this, pretend long enough and it appears
reality.. once it becomes reality who is to say it hasn't happend (read the
velveteen rabbit)
> So we say "Oh, I am a woman, I do so many things these stupid males don't
> understand. I'm so sensitive. I'm so emotional. I understand other
women."
> etc.
I aggree - women and men alike, genetic or not, cannot define themselves.
The best any group of people can do is to hold a person to the light, make
generalizations, and categorize. All groups do it. If self classification
aides one to find peace then so be it. I personally find titles appauling
but they are necessary because as a species we need to have a quick READ on
everything. From the dark parking lot at night to Sunday dinner at a new
friends house, quick classification is necessary. It is not deceit to self
classify if one truely believes it...is it? If it is then unpack thje
rosary because we all do it daily out of necessity.
Kris
In article <01bd721a$7de02680$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <aq311.1101$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>>This girl I've mentioned was always saying "I want to be a man", not "I
>>> am a man".
>>
>> Sometimes that is the first step to realizing one is a guy, but mostly,
>> FTMs know without a doubt that they ARE guys, inside.
>
>I think she knew !
If this person is FTM, use "he", not "she".
Xe is your friend - all we here can go on is evidence. From what you
presented, I simply could not conclude that FTM is an applicable term.
Perhaps others concluded differently. It's irrelevant - what is relevant is
whether this person can make reasonable decisions regarding how to live her
life. I just didn't find the anecdote to be particularly illustrative of your
point.
>> Many, prob. most, are
>> masculine in personality and most typically in dress as well; I was an
>> exception becasue of my upbringing and the way my peculiar brain reacted
>> to it
>> (my sense of 'duty' to others led me to deny the truth).
>>
>> There is a big difference between 'wanting to be" and "being".
>
>Right Kris, but both can mean you're transsexual. See Karen's definition
>taken from some book. I think it's the message from 04-26 23:55.
You're missing my point. A TS knows hir identity; it isn't a case of saying
now and again "I wish I could be a woman", rather, it's a case of knowing one
is a woman in identity if not in body (same in reverse for FTMs).
TGism works a bit differently - at least some TGs wish to have a body to match
the identity, but opt out of SRS for any variety of reasons ranging from
finances, a physical condition, a philosophy which places more importance on
one's identoty and life than on the bodily configuration, to any number of
other reasons. Benjamin referred to them as "low-intensity transsexuals".
>> If someone has a maternal instinct, and can only satisfy it through
>> fatherhood, so what?
>
>Really. Maybe. I can't imagine myself as a husband and a father. How can
>someone who say "I am a woman trapped in man's body" do it, I just don't
>know. If it was so simple gays could have their own children. But they
>cannot, though sometimes they want to have children so desperately!
I didn't say it was simple. And BTW gays DO have their own children. Gay men
donate sperm; lesbian mothers receive artificial imsemination. Why do you
insist that stereotypical sexual/gender roles MUST accompany a desire to have,
love, and raise a child? This desire for children - and for love - does
exist, even among TS/TGs, and people cope with as best they know how. FOr
many, esp. those of us who are older, this generally meant coping in the
traditional way, via traditional marriage and childbearing. I still say, So
What? Your personal incapacity for understanding why/how different people
fulfill it neither negates no invalidates its existence.
>>>So we say "Oh, I am a woman, I do so many things these stupid males don't
>>>understand. I'm so sensitive. I'm so emotional. I understand other
>>> women." etc.
>
>>Part of this is an attempt to solidify the identity in the face of social
>>opposition by divorcing oneself from one's past (in the MTF case, man's)
>>life.
>
>Tell me Kris, as an ftm, don't you feel that men dominate here too? Look
>anywhere on the internet, on this newsgroup. Where are you? I don't see you
>anywhere. I've found just one site something like www.ftm.international or
>so.
>What I see everywhere are aggressive males who just think "Yes! I will be a
>lesbian!". Of course another exaggeration. Sorry.
My perception of men and their position in society is not the same as a more
"normal" female's. I do not equate "high visibilty" with "dominate". There
are too many places where the stereotypes break down for me to try to shore
them up.
Re: numbers, it is still easier, in our society, to be a butch woman than it
is to be a feminine man; ergo, it makes sense that the MTF path would be more
of a jarring dislocation. Just think of the semantics involved in the terms
"sissy" and "tomboy" applied to kids - the latter are often given a pat on the
head, the former are more likely to get a fist in the face. Naturally, as the
Brandon Teena case proves, FTMs are not immune from violence, especially when
some macho asshole feels his "supremacy" being threatened. I'm simply
speaking about generalities.
FTMs also seem to be a bit more private, often sticking to mailing lists
rather than talking on the NG. Another factor, re: apparent numbers, is that
the FTM operations are still far more complex and still nowhere near as smooth
(in terms of procedure, healing, or usual results) as the MTF ops. It's only
quite recently that they began being done at all. So, FTMs either found ways
to cope, or they transitioned largely in secret.
So tehre are various differences between FTMs and MTF that account for the
apparent disparity in numbers. The rise in feminism might also be a factor, if
females are adapting to being T* in social ways not calling for SRS. This is
a guess but it makes some sense. There is no comparable movement asserting a
man's right to be more feminine in nature.
Ergo, to say that "men dominate" is an oversimplification of a complex
phemonenon.
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <e1511.1124$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
> I wish people would quite with the stereotyping. I mean, what next, am I
> going to have to hear that "I must be stupid because I'm a Polak"
Who?
>>SRS? No. It's an imitation of sex change. I don't want any imitation. I
>>hate everything what is not real.
>
> Oh good grief. I see. So you really have no question, and no 'problem
> you want to discuss'
Yeah, really. You simply don't think. Count all my replies, if you're so
sure. I try to answer EVERY letter. Do you still think I have no question
and no problem I want to discuss?
> - you simply wanted to come here, bitch a bit, and holler
> your opinion around the town square.
How could you come to such a statement ...
Kate Jane
Fiona Martin <fi...@cougar.las.ox.ac.uk> wrote
<6i2m5g$fbf$3...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
> Kate Jane (kate...@friko2.onet.pl) wrote:
> You may say that your wish was to engage in a discussion/argument but
> your initial post read like a statement of facts.
Sure.
Fact 1: I'm not a woman.
Fact 2: I've met a homosexual girl, who claimed she wanted to be a man
Fact 3: I don't really understand what does it mean "A woman trapped in a
man's body"
Believe me I didn't expect so many replies. When I was writing this message
on Sunday I just expected ... two, maybe three replies. But the river got
bigger and bigger and almost flood the whole newsgroup. Not my fault.
> There didn't seem
> to be any opening for discussion in the language you used. Perhaps a
> simple "This is my opinion, what do you all think?" would have helped.
Okay maybe. But there is "Can you explain me how is it possible". So in
fact I wanted to hear others opinion.
> Another possible problem with your original post was the overall
> impression that this was a topic you felt you knew a lot about.
NOOOO!!!
I've just read some articles and a few books, some biographies. I didn't
want to sound like an expert.
> Why
> didn't you say the bit above about not understanding the topic in the
> first place?
Because no one would answer?
> The other thing you should consider is that you are trying to discuss
> issues with a group of people who can be, diplomatically speaking, a
> little insecure. The first approach when one *perceives* an attack is
> often to attack back. I'm sorry tp break this to you but suggesting
> to a group of transsexual women that they are not *really* women is a
> major faux pas (to put it mildly).
FAUX PAS! Really. Read some of Diane's messages for instance. She didn't
even know me when she classified me as a fetishist and started to spit.
(Long before my Sunday's message).
> Stating that transsexualism is a
> sexual deviation is also likely to generate a few unpleasant
> responses. :)
I don't care about unpleasant responses. I want the truth!
I'm not as diplomatic as you are. People are different.
> Just be thankful you had the Atlantic ocean and a few
> thousand miles between you and most of the people who have given you a
> hard time. What you insinuated is perhaps similar to suggesting that
> black people are less intelligent than white people.
I don't say that anyone is less intelligent for God's sake.
Okay.
I think anyway I got some useful answers. Flamers started, but now they're
gone.
The more time passes the more normal replies I get.
It's seems to me that most of you agree.
Transsexualism is strictly connected to an opposite sex identification.
Transsexualism is strictly connected to changing your genitalia.
Transsexualism is not a sexual or a mental disorder.
I'm exactly the opposite.
No sex identification.
No change ... aaa ... anyway it's ambivalent for me
I am sexually deviated
I am mentally disorderrred.
(I am a bit schizophrenic)
In fact some think that most of TS's have schizophrenia.
(And vice versa)
Jennifer Corley
Kate Jane wrote:
> No sex identification.
> No change ... aaa ... anyway it's ambivalent for me
> I am sexually deviated
> I am mentally disorderrred.
> (I am a bit schizophrenic)
>
> In fact some think that most of TS's have schizophrenia.
> (And vice versa)
Schizophrenia has to do with hearing voices in your head, having psychotic
episodes, feeling detached from your emotions, having problems with language
usage.
If you're talking about having split identies, that is multiple personality
disorder. Not schizophrenia. I have never read any proof or statements that the
majority of TSs have either, and I've read Stoller and the gang
(unfortunately).
And if most schizophrenics are TSs, then I better be buying my homophobic dad
some dresses for Xmas.
---
Jennifer Corley, Psychology Junior at the University of Oklahoma
Your Local Friendly Neighborhood EvilJen
http://members.tripod.com/~EJCorley
"And I'll tell you something else too, the same thing goes for
Christmas! Now, how 'bout them apples?" - Michael Nesmith
Jennifer Corley
Kate Jane wrote:
> > Dear. You really need to broaden your horizons and give up all the
> > steretypes and ideas about women that society has been feeding you. As
> > another genetic woman, and I am a woman, I would feel no qualms what so
> > ever with getting in your face and arguing with you for hours if you ever
> > made such an uneducated statement like that in front of me. What in the
> > world are you trying to say? If women, genetic or otherwise, do not act
> > according to those lovely stereotypes on MTV or whatever you're watching,
>
> Yeah MTV. Lovely stereotypes. I talk about senseless aggression here! See
> that example with mother killing her own baby. It really happens! Can you
> call her a mother or a woman?
> No.
Actually, that makes her a deviant. The same thing goes with men. It's like
comparing apples and oranges here (acting like a woman vs. being a criminal)
> > we're obviously genetic freaks?
>
> I didn't mean you.
I realize that, but every time someone says, "well, you're not acting
feminine", or "that's not lady like", it sends a quiver down my spine. Being a
woman, whether you be passive or aggressive, empathetic or cold, submissive or
confrontational, all has to do with how you identify. With the question of "Why
have HRT, SRS, etc.", these people already have female identities. Whereever
gender may come from, these are women identified people, who want their bodies
to reflect their inner self. That's what we do everyday, when we speak, talk,
walk, etc. We usually identify ourselves by what's on the inside, or what we
feel.
Example: I identify as a woman, I say I am a woman, sometimes I wear the
clothes that women use, my look is congruent to what a woman is. Therefore, the
world knows I am a woman. However, if I had a beard, no breasts, and a penis,
it would be very hard for others to see that I identify as a woman. Sure, it's
superficial, but that's how our society uses identity. As a genetic woman, if I
grew a penis tomorrow, I would still be a woman, but I would have that sucker
removed ASAP, as it does not mesh with my identity.
However, my identity as a woman is not based on whether I walk with a swish, am
kind and gentle, if I have a pure heart, or empathize with those in pain. I am
a woman, whether I be promiscious, celibate, aggressive, passive, or otherwise.
None of these things make me or you a woman.
> I've got no definitions. I can see that you're a woman, like some of
> transgendered who answered me. In your message there is no "fuck you, guy",
> "I pie on your shoes", or any other phrases like these. Of course you may
> use these words if someone makes you really mad. But I just wanted to argue
> with you all on some topic I don't understand. That's it. Most of the
> people didn't explain me anything, just wanted to spit, vomit, kick, flame
> etc. See for yourself.
Being rude is gender neutral.
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <sl511.1130$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
> Since everything you've written projects yourself to be just that, a
> fetishistic TV,
fetishistic TV is a man, and I'm not. Anyway I don't care you may classify
me as you want. (I have been already classified by some of you as a
fetishistic TV ... God you're really amazing).
> and since you say you aren't a woman (not even inside), and
> since the only thing your projected sounded more like an obsession with
an
> actress
it was just one example
>, and since you refute each and every point that has been made
> regarding TS/TGism:
> why do you have a problem with the abovementioned diagnosis?
Kris don't waste your time on senseless disscussion. Read my original
message once again. There is really just one question: "Does everyone
really is true saying he's a woman trapped in a man's body?".
> Fine, you don't agree. You don't agree with the people who are TS/TG and
you
> don't agree with the literature.
I'm just arguing. I can change my mind, believe me.
>What do you you expect, that we're all going
> to deny our own experiences, the observations of our friends/family, the
ideas
> of our counsellors, simply because =you= don't happen to "agree" that
T*ism is
> "real", or simply because you can't see beyond the purely sexual (as in
> screwing)?
No.
> >cannot be a desire connected to a sexual instinct?
>
> What, every time you want to eat a bonbon "just because you desire to",
it's
> sexual???
>
> Or if an artist desires to paint a subject (be it a human or a tree),
it's
> sexual?
Freud believed everything is sexual. Especially art.
> 1) biology is far more capricious than most people are willing to accept,
> merely because their simple minds cannot cope with anything that is
> either black or white - there are people who are born genetically M or F,
but
> outwardly the opposite;
I agree. I wrote the same words like week ago.
> This is the first indication you've given that can truely relate to TS.
But I
> doubt it's anough to recommend a person for treatment (esp. when said
person
> denies treatment on the basis that it is "fake, artificial")
Do you really think treatment=SRS?
> Huh? Well if that is the case, why are they TV rather than
transitioned??
Ask them. Every people want to change sex. The difference between them and
TS's is that they want it once a year. If the sex change was 100%, I think
half a population would go through SRS.
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <Yc711.1154$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>Am I a TS? Please leave the answer to my therapist.
>
> It is not up to your therapist to answer this, but up to yourself.
Bullshit.
Sorry Kris, but this is really stupid. Don't exaggerate.
> THe
> abdication of responsibility regarding one's own identity is a dangerous
> path.
TS is not an identity, it's a diagnosis.
> I neither implied nor stated that I doubt you are a TV. I did state that
> there is some confusion in your mind regarding the differences between
> what makes a person TS/TG, and what makes another TV.
I wish you were not so smart, but as confused as I am.
Kate Jane
Jennifer Corley <jlco...@ou.edu> wrote <35452AE4...@ou.edu>...
>
>
> Kate Jane wrote:
>
> > No sex identification.
> > No change ... aaa ... anyway it's ambivalent for me
> > I am sexually deviated
> > I am mentally disorderrred.
> > (I am a bit schizophrenic)
> >
> > In fact some think that most of TS's have schizophrenia.
> > (And vice versa)
>
> Schizophrenia has to do with hearing voices in your head, having
> psychotic episodes, feeling detached from your emotions, having problems
> with language usage.
Jennifer I'm serious about it. I've read a book on schizophrenia 5 years
ago, and I know I'm a bit like that. Of course every intelligent people who
are a bit sensitive can say so, but I know that too many details are true.
There are different variants of this disease, hearing voices in your head
is connected to paranoid schizophrenics (as far as I remember).
Feeling detached from your emotions and having problems with language usage
applies to me perfectly.
> If you're talking about having split identies, that is multiple
> personality disorder.
No. Besides schizophrenics have multiple personalities too.
> Not schizophrenia. I have never read any proof or statements that the
> majority of TSs have either, and I've read Stoller and the gang
> (unfortunately).
I didn't talk about any proof. I just wanted to say that TSs are not so
clear, pretty and shining, like you all say to me. I see nothing wrong with
saying I have a mental or a sexual disorder. But everyone of you deny it.
If you claim everything's ok with you, how can anybody cure you?
> And if most schizophrenics are TSs
most schizophrenics have problems with sex identification. The have
ilusions of changing their sex. For example they imagine that their brests
grow, and penis shrinks and transforms itself into a vagina. (They don't
really imagine it, they think it really happens).
>, then I better be buying my homophobic dad
> some dresses for Xmas.
Buy him a dress anyway. (Oh, you don't like your dad do you?)
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <l3811.1164$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
> Gay men donate sperm; lesbian mothers receive artificial imsemination.
Why do
> you insist that stereotypical sexual/gender roles MUST accompany a desire
to
> have, love, and raise a child?
What? I didn't say anything like that.
> This desire for children - and for love - does
> exist, even among TS/TGs, and people cope with as best they know how.
Sure. I didn't talk about a desire. I talked about being a father and a
husband.
The one who do it force himself to a typical male social role.
L.Deerfield
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <Yc711.1154$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>>Am I a TS? Please leave the answer to my therapist.
>>
>> It is not up to your therapist to answer this, but up to yourself.
>
>Bullshit.
>Sorry Kris, but this is really stupid. Don't exaggerate.
>
Read the Standards of Care. They state pretty clearly that you are
supposed to -tell- your therapist that you need and are ready for
SRS...they are not supposed to tell you.
>> THe
>> abdication of responsibility regarding one's own identity is a dangerous
>> path.
>
>TS is not an identity, it's a diagnosis.
TS may be a diagnosis, but I think the identity referred to was
*gender* identity.
>
>> I neither implied nor stated that I doubt you are a TV. I did state that
>
>> there is some confusion in your mind regarding the differences between
>> what makes a person TS/TG, and what makes another TV.
>
>I wish you were not so smart, but as confused as I am.
It's not a question of smart, it's a question of doing a websearch,
and reading lots of relevant material. It's a question of talking
to LOTS of people of all sorts and finding out about them...
-Sved
http://www.best.com/~svedeka
L.Deerfield
Kate Jane <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>Jennifer Corley <jlco...@ou.edu> wrote <35452AE4...@ou.edu>...
>>
>>
>> psychotic episodes, feeling detached from your emotions, having problems
>> with language usage.
>
>Jennifer I'm serious about it. I've read a book on schizophrenia 5 years
>ago, and I know I'm a bit like that. Of course every intelligent people who
>are a bit sensitive can say so, but I know that too many details are true.
>There are different variants of this disease, hearing voices in your head
>is connected to paranoid schizophrenics (as far as I remember).
>Feeling detached from your emotions and having problems with language usage
>applies to me perfectly.
Has your therapist diagnosed you as Schizophrenic? It's not a
little thing, it's a big thing. Reading one book does -not-
qualify you to make a self-diagnosis. Matter of fact, reading
a dozen books on this particular matter does not qualify one for
self-diagnosis because it's not something one self-diagnoses.
Detachment is a part of the description for any number of
psychological problems, including depression. Problems with
language use can be education, dyslexia, unclear thinking...
You should bring this up with your therapist.
>
>> If you're talking about having split identies, that is multiple
>> personality disorder.
>
>No. Besides schizophrenics have multiple personalities too.
Wrong. They are different disorders.
>
>> Not schizophrenia. I have never read any proof or statements that the
>> majority of TSs have either, and I've read Stoller and the gang
>> (unfortunately).
>
>I didn't talk about any proof. I just wanted to say that TSs are not so
>clear, pretty and shining, like you all say to me. I see nothing wrong with
>saying I have a mental or a sexual disorder. But everyone of you deny it.
>If you claim everything's ok with you, how can anybody cure you?
>
Sure, just like any other group, TS's can have all kinds of problems.
But being a black person who has anemia is not saying that being
black is an illness. They may even be more genetically inclined to have
it because of their race, but it's neither the cause nor the disease.
>> And if most schizophrenics are TSs
>
>most schizophrenics have problems with sex identification. The have
>ilusions of changing their sex. For example they imagine that their brests
>grow, and penis shrinks and transforms itself into a vagina. (They don't
>really imagine it, they think it really happens).
>
Some, not most. And having illusions that the body is changing is
not the same as identifying as a gender that is different from the
one usually assigned to your sex. It's part of an overall tendency
to experience bizaare physical events, and is far more common with
hebephrenic Schizophrenics that with catatonic or paranoid...
-Sved
Kate Jane
Fiona Martin <fi...@cougar.las.ox.ac.uk> wrote
<6i4648$l08$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
> Diane may have overreacted under the circumstances.
What circumstances? There were no circumstances!
I talk about her first reply she wrote two weeks ago (or more).
(Subject "Where have all the Transvestites gone")
> : Transsexualism is strictly connected to changing your genitalia.
>
> Not necessarily but this is a point many others here will disagree
> with me on. I think this is a discussion for another day though. :)
So you agree with me.
kd
Kate Jane wrote:
> > Anyway I don't care you may classify
> me as you want. (I have been already classified by some of you as a
> fetishistic TV ...
You did that yourself but just are not savvy enough to realize it.
When you say you get sexual pleasure by "dressing up", you classify
yourself with other fetishists.
I doubt there's anyone here of substance who thinks any less of you
for it - if anything, I personally think more of you for being so
honest with us.
What I find objectionable is that you have this attitude that you
can reject all experiences outside your own understanding, and make
it sound as though you have been insulted. It's nothing short of
illogical, and quite possibly an indication of more deeply rooted
issues of acceptance.
I said it before, and you ignored it, but I wish you well with
whatever you decide.
As a fellow admired netizen is fond of saying "pursue happiness,
always"
kd
Kate Jane wrote:
> with you all on some topic I don't understand. That's it. Most of the
> people didn't explain me anything, just wanted to spit, vomit, kick, flame
> etc. See for yourself.
Kate, I just re-read most of these posts, and I think you might want
to take another look... it seems to start off with someone
explaining their perpective of your questions, and replies follow
with you rejecting all they say.
--
================================================================
"I have this theory that if we're told we're bad /
Then that's the only idea we'll ever have /
But maybe if we are surrounded in beauty /
Someday we will become what we see"
--Jewel Kilcher
=================================================================
Laura Blake
On 27 Apr 1998 23:41:50 GMT, "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
>Believe me I didn't expect so many replies. When I was writing this message
>on Sunday I just expected ... two, maybe three replies. But the river got
>bigger and bigger and almost flood the whole newsgroup. Not my fault.
On the contrary... I think you got exactly what you wanted.
You came into this newsgroup pounding out a bunch of BS that runs 100%
contrary to the general understanding of transsexualism, running off about
how transsexuals are just pretending and essentially attacking them for
their ways of understanding themselves. These people (stupidly) began
their oh-so-typical round of justifications and pro-SRS arguments
essentially flooding you with their insecurities, and trying to explain
themselves to you. The result: yet another big caffuffle over whether
transsexualism is real or not...
If you are, as you say, confused about these issues, why not just come here
ask a few direct questions without the attack dog approach?
For example: You want to know if there is anything to the transsexual's
statement that they are women trapped in men's bodies. Rather than
putting them down for it, ASK if there is anything to it. Phrase the thing
as a question, not an attack.
As it is, most of what you've heard is these people leaping to justify and
defend themselves. Not one bit of usefull information has come from any of
it! You now have placed yourself into the inenviable position of having to
sort through all these justifications and politically correct answers to
see if there is any kernel of truth in any of it, and doing that will
require you to sit in judgement of us all. Now, had you framed this up as
a series of questions, you would not have this problem... because most of
us would be more than happy to answer your questions.
You may or may not be a transsexual... but you sure as hell do have lousy
communications skills!
Alyssa K. McLoney
Actually Diane I was born "full time" - and the key word is wholly. I
quite clearly understand that TS-GID relates to the anatomic change. It is
just my beliefe that it is rather difficult to be wholly accepted without
GRS as so much of our activities require this simple, yet critical step. I
think if you could take a moment and reflect upon what SRS actually does,
you would see it is merely a stepping stone and not the final prize. All
too many people find that GRS is the great climax. Get a life and you'll
see that the snip and cut and tuck are only so one can use a bathing suite,
stand in front of a full length mirror comfortably, find a mate who may be
require the full body image of your desired gender, and go to a women's
gym. Diane, I think the person who isn't full time is you. Full time
doesn't start and stop with make-up, going to work or SRS. Full time is 90%
state of mind and 10% image. Ok I may be off on the %s but it is not all
about SRS
Diane <as...@slip.net> wrote in article <35457a6f...@news.slip.net>...
> On 27 Apr 1998 22:29:29 GMT, "Alyssa K. McLoney"
> <mcloney...@mayo.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps a more
> >accurate account of a a TS's feelings are best described by a "I have a
> >strong, almost debilitating envious desire to be wholly integrated into
the
> >social fabric as female, with all its limitations, powers and vestures
> >wherewith."
>
> Hello Alyssa. I take it you're not full time.
>
> Transexuality is as much to do with one's physical sex, specifically
> the desire to change it, as it does with the social fabric. A
> transexual would not be satisfied to be simply integrated into the
> social fabric without the physical change of sex.
>
>
>
>
> You can have a hot job, a hot lover and a hot apartment - but you only
get two of the three.
> A. Maupin (Mona's Law)
>
Kate Jane
Diane <as...@slip.net> wrote <3545ee07...@news.slip.net>...
> and/or one
> who has a deep need for attention.
I'm sorry Diane you're right. I've always been like that.
> The place is crawling with people, almost as insecure as the troll
> itself, who have an absurd need to defend themselves against the most
> ridiculous of attacks.
I didn't want to attack anyone (in my first message).
In fact I did.
I just identified myself with other TS's,
so I thought I was also attacking myself,
and other would forgive me and agree with me.
There are some people who did agree and I love them.
Just as much as I love you.
Kate
Kate Jane
kd <nospam...@gte.net> wrote <6i4ot5$3vm$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
> Kate Jane wrote:
>>> Anyway I don't care you may classify
>> me as you want. (I have been already classified by some of you as a
>> fetishistic TV ...
>
> You did that yourself but just are not savvy enough to realize it.
> When you say you get sexual pleasure by "dressing up", you classify
> yourself with other fetishists.
Okay enough is enough asshole.
Now where to hell did I say dressing up gives me sexual pleasure!
WHERE !!!!!!?????
You fucking stupid brainless idiot.
I wrote the contrary. Dressing up gives me no sexual pleasure!
Please, if you can be so kind show me, in what message I wrote about it.
I know that I didn't write anything like this!
Because I don't lie
neither to myself nor to anyone here in this newsgroup!
Kate Jane
Laura Blake <lbl...@ican.net> wrote <354600b8...@news.ican.net>...
> On 27 Apr 1998 23:41:50 GMT, "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> wrote:
> Not one bit of usefull information has come from any of
> it!
Oh, you're wrong. I appreciate your letter too.
> You may or may not be a transsexual... but you sure as hell do have
> lousy communications skills!
I R got big skills !
In fact that's me who started last three or four big discussions here.
So people listen to me.
Besides when people are entirely different it's always hard to communicate.
But I can accept any of your opinions here, in fact I think I've accepted
them all !!
No, maybe not.
Okay Laura, I say it again.
If anyone feels hurt by my words I apologize.
I didn't mean it.
Let's stop this senseless discussion, really.
Bye
Kris
In article <01bd727b$36084f20$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <Yc711.1154$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>>Am I a TS? Please leave the answer to my therapist.
>>
>> It is not up to your therapist to answer this, but up to yourself.
>
>Bullshit.
>Sorry Kris, but this is really stupid. Don't exaggerate.
I've read through the SOC and it is all about helping people who self-identify
as TS - as wanting either SRS or HRS (Hormonal Reassignment Therapy)
See: http://www.avitale.com/HBIGDASOC.html - this is the text of the SOC.
It is NOT up to the therapist to convince someone xe is T*, ot not T*. The
therapist is supposed to help a person realize hit identity and make
recommendations for treatment based upon this.
If you fins this "stupid", well, not much I can do about it. If you think it
"exaggeration", well, I guess you read the SOC differently from what I read.
>> THe
>> abdication of responsibility regarding one's own identity is a dangerous
>> path.
>
>TS is not an identity, it's a diagnosis.
Not correct. A person can be T* without the diagnosis. If one is T*, one
presents oneself for therapy is this T*ness is causing a problemm or if one
desires SRS or HRS.
>> I neither implied nor stated that I doubt you are a TV. I did state that
>
>> there is some confusion in your mind regarding the differences between
>> what makes a person TS/TG, and what makes another TV.
>
>I wish you were not so smart, but as confused as I am.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. All I'm trying to do id
figure things out is a reasonable way that takes both logic and feeling into
account.
- K.
Kris
In article <01bd7239$cade23a0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <sl511.1130$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>
>> Since everything you've written projects yourself to be just that, a
>> fetishistic TV,
>
>me as you want. (I have been already classified by some of you as a
You classified yourself. Now I'm just trying to figure out what you're
saying, because you seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. You are the one
who spoke of dressing for sexual arousal and of not being a woman and so on.
Don't blame me if I, and others, drew a certain conclusion from your
circumlocutions. If this is how people think you are describing yopurself,
maybe what you need to do is reexamine how you describe/project yourself,
rather than biting at others.
>> and since you say you aren't a woman (not even inside), and
>> since the only thing your projected sounded more like an obsession with
>an
>> actress
>
>it was just one example
>
>>, and since you refute each and every point that has been made
>> regarding TS/TGism:
>> why do you have a problem with the abovementioned diagnosis?
>
>Kris don't waste your time on senseless disscussion. Read my original
>message once again. There is really just one question: "Does everyone
>really is true saying he's a woman trapped in a man's body?".
The short answer: The phrase "a man trapped in a woman's body" (for FTMs) or
"A woman trapped in a man's body" (for MTFs) is accepted as a metaphor
accurately describing a TS person's perception of hirself, IOW, true for that
person.
>> Fine, you don't agree. You don't agree with the people who are TS/TG and
>you
>> don't agree with the literature.
>
>I'm just arguing. I can change my mind, believe me.
Sorry, I personall hate arguing. "Exchange of ideas with the goal of both
sides being better understanding", yes. Arguing, no.
>> >cannot be a desire connected to a sexual instinct?
>>
>> What, every time you want to eat a bonbon "just because you desire to",
>it's
>> sexual???
>>
>> Or if an artist desires to paint a subject (be it a human or a tree),
>it's
>> sexual?
>
>Freud believed everything is sexual. Especially art.
Freud was a nut and very few reputable psyche people take him as the Bible.
IMO his "theories" make about as much sense as a drunk's ramblings. Nothing
of what he wrote was beased on experimentation and his theories are not
predictive. All he did was focus the world through his (and Victorianism's)
sexual repression and perversity.
Freud believed what he believed, but I do not believe Freud.
>> This is the first indication you've given that can truely relate to TS.
>But I
>> doubt it's anough to recommend a person for treatment (esp. when said
>person
>> denies treatment on the basis that it is "fake, artificial")
>
>Do you really think treatment=SRS?
I am taking this from the statements of TSs, who feel that once they have SRS,
they are no longer at odds with their bodies and are thus cured. FOr me, the
cure (to my discomfort with society and myself) will have to be spiritual,
both because that is my choice and because of who I am.
At the same time, anything which can bring a person more in synch with hir
body is "treatment". Also, most T*s who go on HRT (and every FTM i know who
has had a total hysterectomy) tends to feel much more "sane" - and tehre is a
biological theory that this is because T*ism has a biological foundation and
that giving the brain the "right" hormones improves its function.
>> Huh? Well if that is the case, why are they TV rather than
>transitioned??
>Ask them. Every people want to change sex. The difference between them and
>TS's is that they want it once a year.
What makes a TS TS is that xe wants it every minute of every hour of every day
of every year, not just "once a year".
>If the sex change was 100%, I think
>half a population would go through SRS.
What on earth makes you think that? I have heard more people than I can count
say stuff like "If I could be a man/woman for just one day I'd...", but they
would NEVER actually follow through with something like SRS!!
- K.
Amy_w
And I thought this was going down . (Usually I skip threads with
more than 5 levels to get rid of flames ;-)
>> Of course, a TS (MtF) is not a woman, but wants to be
>> percerived as one.
>At last someone agrees with me here.
It's a matter on how you define 'woman'
I think, some define it as a personality thing and say 'I'm a woman',
meaning, 'I feel like I should be a woman' or 'I believe, to have a female
personality'.
(Of course, it doesn't matter much, regarding justification for SRS and stuff)
>>>And this feeling is just
>>>sexually arousing and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>> But why is this feeling there? There is no real good reason for any man
>> to think 'I want to be a woman', unless something is wrong. Biologically,
>> it doesn't make sense.
>?
>God's mistake?
That's the easy way out. But can god really make that many mistakes?
Shouldn't it go away after some generations - or is it not genetic?
Personally, I think, it is mainly a social problem. Someone feels really
uncomfortable with the role, society presses on that person. The
basis of this may be biological.
Another one: if it is just sexually arousing, why do people go and cut
off their genitals, making them unable to get aroused in the usual way?
I think, there is more to it, than just sexual pleasure.
Also, many TS report to have that wish longer, than they had a sex
drive worth mentioning (puberty ;-) )
Or do you think, they are all telling everybody just a story?
>> But with TS, the difference between the 'want' and the 'is' is just
>> really big and socially unacceptable, so they have to emphasize the
>> problem (esp. to convince others about the need for a change).
>Again, you said just what I wanted to tell you all. I realize there are
>some TS's who say this sentence and are true. But many more exaggerate.
I just think, that 'beeing trapped' is just a very strong way to tell everybody,
that that one is very uncomfortable with ones body. In TS, it is obviously
strong enough to drive that person to change this. There's nothing wrong
with that. Hey, woman go through surgery to get bigger breasts to feel
more comfortable. TS do surgery mostly for a similar reason, I think, but
there is a tabu involved here (gender/sex!), so society demands them
to prove, that they suffer, before they can do the surgery. Of course,
many of the TS-people really suffer, because this discomfort gets too
big (WAY bigger than in the woman, who wants to have bigger breasts).
Then, they say 'I'm trapped in the wrong body' and it is true - in a way.
>No. But your personality is not important here. However usually it matches
>the opposite sex as far as I know. But if this personality is a "typical
>male" personality, it doesn't mean one cannot change his sex.
Hmm. I'm not sure about that. I always thought, that personality was an
important factor (and the social pressure, that results from the mismatch
between personality and body).
Do you think, a 'typical male' person would seriously want to cut off his
'maleness' and go though all kinds of trouble just to get sexually aroused
(as long as this is possible in the usual way)????
What do you think about the posting from that guy, who wants to have SRS
without living as a woman???
Bye
Amy
Kris
In article <01bd72d2$76c718a0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>>> me as you want. (I have been already classified by some of you as a
>>> fetishistic TV ...
>>
>> When you say you get sexual pleasure by "dressing up", you classify
>> yourself with other fetishists.
>
>Okay enough is enough asshole.
>
>Now where to hell did I say dressing up gives me sexual pleasure!
>
>WHERE !!!!!!?????
<01bd7096$3171f880$LocalHost@Drewnowski>
<01bd7149$1a67bf40$LocalHost@Drewnowski>
<01bd71fa$0473c2e0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>
>Please, if you can be so kind show me, in what message I wrote about it.
>I know that I didn't write anything like this!
The above msgs are at lest some of the ones that gave people this idea. I
haven't time to go through the entire thread.
Kris
In article <01bd7235$d9e8fcc0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <e1511.1124$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>> I wish people would quite with the stereotyping. I mean, what next, am I
>
>> going to have to hear that "I must be stupid because I'm a Polak"
>
>Who?
"A dumb Polak". Another popular stereotype.
>>>SRS? No. It's an imitation of sex change. I don't want any imitation. I
>>>hate everything what is not real.
>>
>> Oh good grief. I see. So you really have no question, and no 'problem
>> you want to discuss'
>
>Yeah, really. You simply don't think.
Oh, so that's it. I simply don't think.
>Count all my replies, if you're so
>sure. I try to answer EVERY letter. Do you still think I have no question
>and no problem I want to discuss?
I'm not looking at the numbers, I'm looking at what you wrote and trying to
figure your responses out.
Please state the nature of your question, then, in a succinct manner. You
want to have been born female, and refuse SRS because it "ain't good enough?"
Such a statement merely projects the idea that the people who have had SRS,
and who are now happily living as the men and women they always knew they
were, are nothing more than fakes and pretenders - this is the kind of hurtful
and prejudicial thing that they already get from fundies and other bigots -
and of course they are going to respond to it in a negative way.
>> - you simply wanted to come here, bitch a bit, and holler
>> your opinion around the town square.
>
>How could you come to such a statement ...
Because of your replies to other people. SOme of them are really trying to
figure out what you're saying, but you tend to say things that contradict
yourself, and when people comment on it you yell at them. And because of the
above implication. Because you argue but seem to come to no resolution and no
question aside from more arguing. When people have tried to offer
explanations or definitions or advice, you've tended to argue with them. That
makes people think you're just trying to invalidate their experience and
knowledge. Maybe the next time someone offers an explanation, try saying "Oh
I hadn't looked at it that way", or "I didn't realize that", or <gasp!>
"thanks for your thoughts", instead of saying "no you're wrong" and arguing.
Kris
In article <01bd727b$445f92e0$LocalHost@Drewnowski>, kate...@friko2.onet.pl
says...
>
>Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <l3811.1164$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>> Gay men donate sperm; lesbian mothers receive artificial imsemination.
>Why do
>> you insist that stereotypical sexual/gender roles MUST accompany a desire
>to
>> have, love, and raise a child?
>
See your own statement below.
>> This desire for children - and for love - does
>> exist, even among TS/TGs, and people cope with as best they know how.
>
>Sure. I didn't talk about a desire. I talked about being a father and a
>husband.
>The one who do it force himself to a typical male social role.
This is a stereotyping, again. Just what is this "typical male social role"?
Really! There are as many ways of being a parent as there are parents, and
some fathers are more maternal than their wives. And some wives are more
macho than their husbands (*ahem*) in lots of ways. Look past the stereotypes
for once and realize that what is supposedly "typical" encompasses only a
small portion of what actually IS.
Also, anyone who "forces" hirself to have kids, shouldn't. Desire has nothing
to do with force in this case. Lots of FTMs have kids, wanted kids, and loved
the kids, but aren't "mothers" and aren't "wives", they're Dads. So why can't
a father be a "Mom"? Open you eyes to what is.
Kris
In article <6i4tbi$bsp$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, fi...@cougar.las.ox.ac.uk says...
>
>Diane (as...@slip.net) wrote:
[ stuff ]
>
>If you dont like flaming then why join in?
Hey, don't confuse the issue with logic <g>!
Jade
> {HUGE SNIP}
>
> So, I can not be a real woman based on my behavior, but transsexuals are
> really men, despite anything they may feel or do? I have no interest in being
> a mother. I also am generally considered a sweet, loving, caring, and
> sensitive individual by anyone who knows me.
>
> >
> >> Get a life.
> >> -Sved (a biological female)
> >> http://www.best.com/~svedeka
> >>
> >
> >If you're a biological female, what are you doing here?
> >
> What an ignoramus. Why do you think the term MtF, which I think I've
> seen you use, exists? Why specify male to female? Just think about it for a
> second. Then try actually reading a few of the things that are posted on this
> newsgroup.
>
> Sved
GO SVED!!! as a FtM you have every right to be here!!
Jade
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <Dqt11.1429$971.3...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
> You classified yourself.
I didn't. You classified me. I didn't classify myself because I don't know
how to classify myself. You don't know it too, but as many others you keep
doing it. I don't ask you for your diagnosis doctor. Leave me alone.
> Now I'm just trying to figure out what you're
> saying, because you seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. You are the
> one who spoke of dressing for sexual arousal
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !
WHERE ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Ah, so I see! That is what you all think!
Okay Kris show me in what message I told dressing is sexually arousing for
me. Because I don't remember. See my reply to Karen from 04-27 01:02:
"
> "Transsexuals, unlike transvestites, usually feel relaxed rather then
> sexually aroused when dressed in the clothing of the opposite sex"
>
I very rarely have any erection or masturbate when crossdressed.
"
> If this is how people think you are describing yopurself,
I'm not describing myself, you describe me. I asked you a question no one
really answered.
> The short answer: The phrase "a man trapped in a woman's body" (for FTMs)
or
> "A woman trapped in a man's body" (for MTFs) is accepted as a metaphor
> accurately describing a TS person's perception of hirself, IOW, true for
> that person.
Thanks.
> Sorry, I personall hate arguing. "Exchange of ideas with the goal of
> both sides being better understanding", yes. Arguing, no.
You're not exchanging ideas, you're arguing. What my idea did you take,
huh?
I have learnt a lot from you and many others.
> >Freud believed everything is sexual. Especially art.
> Freud was a nut
Your opinion
So, you don't like Freud huh? :)
> What makes a TS TS is that xe wants it every minute of every hour of
> every day of every year, not just "once a year".
Just like me.
>>If the sex change was 100%, I think
>>half a population would go through SRS.
>
> What on earth makes you think that?
Intuition
> I have heard more people than I can count
> say stuff like "If I could be a man/woman for just one day I'd...", but
> they would NEVER actually follow through with something like SRS!!
not "something like SRS", but total 100% sex change (of course biological,
you can't change your mind). I speak about the future, not today's SRS.
Kate Jane
Amy_w <Am...@gmx.net> wrote <6i5o48$4bv$3...@news.metronet.de>...
> It's a matter on how you define 'woman'
I don't define it.
> That's the easy way out. But can god really make that many mistakes?
> Shouldn't it go away after some generations
Ha! No, because transsexuals can have children. Why? Because not all
transsexuals must have 100% opposite sex idetification.
>- or is it not genetic?
> Personally, I think, it is mainly a social problem. Someone feels really
> uncomfortable with the role, society presses on that person. The
> basis of this may be biological.
> Another one: if it is just sexually arousing, why do people go and cut
> off their genitals, making them unable to get aroused in the usual way?
Sexual instinct doesn't think. It forces you to do many irrational things.
> I think, there is more to it, than just sexual pleasure.
Sure. I didn't say so.
> Do you think, a 'typical male' person would seriously want to cut off his
> 'maleness' and go though all kinds of trouble just to get sexually
aroused
> (as long as this is possible in the usual way)????
????
How did you come to such a statement
> What do you think about the posting from that guy, who wants to have SRS
> without living as a woman???
Everything's possible. Sorry I haven't read it, but it can be a sexual
deviation :)
There are people who want to amputate their leg because it makes them
sexually satisfied.
Amy_w
Hi, Kris.
(I slowly get to know all the names of frequent posting people ;-)
>>Definitions seem to be really blurry when it comes to these things.
>>I've found some really old definitions and they call transsexualism
>>a sexual disorder and don't make a difference between TS and TV.
>Please disregard old literature on this topic - much of that literature was
>based only on "normal belief", NOT on anything even resembling research. This
>old stuff was the same nonsense
Of course it was nonsense. But the thing is not, if something makes sense,
the thing is, how it is seen now by people. And even in these days, as the
original post stated, TS is defined as a sexual disorder. I don't know, if that
is true or not, but I was just replying to another post.
Actually, I disagree with that post in many places...
>>I think this is, because when you think about it, it is a matter of
>>sexuality - both, TV and TS (which I consider to be different expressions
>>of the same 'problem').
>I think "sexuality" is a bad term, because it usually implies little more than
>sexual intercourse. TS/TG is far more complex than that.
It may imply that, but that's not what I was talking about. You didn't
understand, what I meant to say.
What is sexuality?
Isn't it everything, that has to do with sex, the sexes, gender and all that?
(If not, please excuse - must have been the language barrier again...)
I just think, 'sexuality', as bad as it sounds, is still a description of the
concept,
that there are men and women.
>To say it is simply a
>matter of "sexuality" is to demean humans by reducing them to little more than
>walking sets of genitals.
Sorry, if you have that impression.
I didn't mean to say that! You should know from my other posts, that I didn't
mean it ;-)
>>Of course, nowadays people prefer to talk
>>about 'gender identity' and 'transgenderism',
>No, not simply different words - different philosophies,
The philosophy came first, then they used new words to
get away from the bad image, the old words have in public.
I think, you could describe everything in the old words, and
it would still be true, but would sound really dirty to the
public. Words like 'sex' and 'sexuality' are just not liked very
much in public, as people think of prostitution and other
'dirty things' when you mention it.
Hey - it's all public relations! :-)
>So please don't treat "old literature" so reverently. Much of it was just BS.
Oh, *I* know. Talk to the original poster about where the stuff came from...
I prefer the 'new philosophy', too, but I just think, that the old terms
could be used, if we give them a new meaning.
In german, we have trouble with that one, too. We don't have different
words for 'sex' and 'gender', so
"sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears"
doesn't work. People invented 'trans-identity' as a new word for
transsexuality to evade the dirt, that has accumulated to the word
transsexuality. But it still is the same thing...
>Thought Experiment:
> snipped all the stuff about green people :-)
>Take the abouve paragraph and substitute T* for "green".
Nice speech :-)
I hope, someone has learned something from it, but don't look at me.
I already knew about this. I'm really sorry, if I sounded that
intolerant in my post! I have never had any problems with green
people of any kind!!!! Please believe me!
Again - I'm sorry, if I messed up a little in my last reply...
Bye
Amy
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote<_xt11.1432$971.3...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
> The above msgs are at lest some of the ones that gave people this idea.
I
> haven't time to go through the entire thread.
Show me a sentence, not a whole message. I don't have a time to search for
whatever you think is written there.
I didn't give any people this idea. This idea was in their heads for a long
time, before they read my letter. They just saw words like "sexual
arousal", "TS", and boom.
I should ask some psychologist about that. Really funny. Maybe it is some
kind of mechanism of lying to yourself.
I am a TS -> but TS gets no sexual arousal from cd'sing -> I have no sexual
arousal
-> he gets a sexual arousal !!! -> ha ha he's not a TS
Freud called it projection or something like that.
As far as I remember more generalized version goes like this:
They hate me -> I hate myself -> I hate you
Kate Jane
Kris <syzygy@d.c> wrote <HIt11.1436$971.3...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
> "A dumb Polak". Another popular stereotype.
But what does it mean?
> Oh, so that's it. I simply don't think.
Okay, you don't want to think.
> Please state the nature of your question, then, in a succinct manner.
You
> want to have been born female, and refuse SRS because it "ain't good
enough?"
Yes and no. There are many reasons I refuse SRS. None of your business.
kd
Kate Jane wrote:
>
> kd <nospam...@gte.net> wrote <6i4ot5$3vm$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
> > Kate Jane wrote:
> >>> Anyway I don't care you may classify
> >> me as you want. (I have been already classified by some of you as a
> >> fetishistic TV ...
> >
> > You did that yourself but just are not savvy enough to realize it.
> > When you say you get sexual pleasure by "dressing up", you classify
> > yourself with other fetishists.
>
> Okay enough is enough asshole.
>
> Now where to hell did I say dressing up gives me sexual pleasure!
>
> WHERE !!!!!!?????
>
>
> I wrote the contrary. Dressing up gives me no sexual pleasure!
>
> I know that I didn't write anything like this!
> neither to myself nor to anyone here in this newsgroup!
Hey hey now, you did say it, and if here is the relevant quote from
Message #1 in this thread - you wrote, and I quote:
"It's about "I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my nails, and
have a
boyfriend, because I want to feel like a woman". And this feeling is
just
sexually arousing and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less."
Nothing more and nothing less.
Less I be also accused of taking you out of context, here is the
whole article:
> Path:
> news.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.232.20.2!malgudi.oar.net!news.apk.net!news.micro-net.net!news.icm.edu.pl!news.man.torun.pl!not-for-mail "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl>
soc.support.transgendered
Subject: I'm not a woman
25 Apr 1998 22:01:30 GMT
Organization: XX Lines: 45
Message-ID: <01bd7096$3171f880$LocalHost@Drewnowski>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp2-cst183.warszawa.tpnet.pl
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
Xref: news.gte.net soc.support.transgendered:23403
> Why to lie to anyone?
> I don't mean only myself, I mean all mtf transsexuals.
> I don't think anyone who's transgendered should say a sentence
> "Biologically I'm a man, but inside I'm a woman".
> I would rather say "Biologically I'm a man and I hate it. But I don't care
> who am I inside."
>
> I've met a homosexual girl five years ago. She wanted to be a man. But she
> behaved just like other girls. She was laughing, picking up flowers, was
> wearing girls clothes (well, she didn't wear a dress or a skirt, but a boy
> usually wouldn't put on some of her clothes), she was wearing a silver
> bracelet, she had long hair etc.
> She wanted to be a man, and you could see that she really wanted it.
> And if I meet her again I won't be surprised if it turns out she's
> transsexual.
> Why?
> Because I think transsexualism is not a personality disorder. It's not a
> hormonal disorder.
> It's a sexual deviation.
> Why did all the people forget what's it really all about.
> It's not about "I am a woman so I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my
> nails, and have a boyfriend". No.
...................................................................!
> It's about "I cross my legs, wear earrings, polish my nails, and have a
> boyfriend, because I want to feel like a woman". And this feeling is just
> sexually arousing and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
...................................................................!
>
> This girl I've mentioned was always saying "I want to be a man", not "I am
> a man".
>
> And all mtfs always say "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body".
> Can someone explain to me how is it possible? Because I don't believe that
> a person who lives as a man for 40 years, is married, have children, is a
> father and a husband, can actually be a woman trapped in a man's body. If I
> were a woman trapped in a man's body I would never get married ! I couldn't
> be a father and a husband !
> I think we're all pretending. We have to. Because if anyone of us says "I
> want to be a woman, but in any way I'm not a woman yet", other will answer
> "So, get lost. You're just a stupid transvestite."
> So we say "Oh, I am a woman, I do so many things these stupid males don't
> understand. I'm so sensitive. I'm so emotional. I understand other women."
> etc.
> It's not about personality.
> It's about an obsession to change your sex.
>
>
Don't bother apologizing - just get yourself well!
Deirdre M. Brooks
In <01bd7100$454f3740$LocalHost@Drewnowski> "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> writes:
>Daria <dariaHat...@gte.net> wrote <6htsoh$1ba$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
>> You find it "sexually arousing and that's it"??
>Then why is transsexualism classified as a sexual deviation.
As far as I know, it is not. It's certainly not a form of fetishism, like
transvestism. It's not defined by which gender you find attractive, it's
not something you do for thrills...It really doesn't fit into that box.
>> You clearly know nothing about us. I don't wear earrings but on
>> special occasions, nor do I polish my nails - I don't have a
>> boyfriend, I date a lesbian. I do not define myself by my clothes.
>> Do you think that makes me less of a womyn?
>God, it was just examples, sure clothes are not the only things that makes
>you more or less of a woman. You can have a boyfriend, you can have a
>girlfriend.Your choice.
Many things make a woman. I can't go down the list and say "why I am a
woman." I just am, and there's no changing *that* about me.
Deirdre M. Brooks
In <01bd7108$cf3b77e0$LocalHost@Drewnowski> "Kate Jane" <kate...@friko2.onet.pl> writes:
>>>It's a sexual deviation.
>> No it isn't !!! I am not doing this for sex. I am doing it for me. I have
>> alot of goals to meet to get there. AND SEX ISN'T ONE OF THEM !!!
>That's transsexualism by a definition. It's not my opinion. Read in any
>book that transsexualism is caused by getting sexual arousal from
>identifying yourself with the opposite sex.
That's transvestism or something like it. Transsexualism is the feeling
that you are born with the wrong sexual characteristics... That your body
is just not *right*. Arousal has nothing to do with it.
Damn, I'm starting to get repetitive. Better stop now.
>> Seek help for you need it. I am a women that is trying hard to be
>> complete as possible through medical science. I am not a TV are you?
>I am a TV. Well at least I've been a TV for 15 years. Now it's maybe a
>little bit different.
One thing I've noticed (don't get me wrong, this isn't a flame) is that
there is a certain lack of comprehension about what drives a transsexual
among the homosexual and CD "communities." Well, just about anyone who
isn't TS seems to be incapable of understanding what it is.
Of course, it looks like you're asking a question about what makes a TS,
or a woman, more than anything else... At first it looked like a troll,
now I'm not so sure.
>> Do not put you personal feelings as if we should all suffer.
>Sorry, now I realize it. I really didn't mean it.
>> You are you. I am I. Good Luck I hope you can find happiness.
>Thanks.