I don't get it
Chaundra Allen
and my therapist says if I keep it up I should get my surgery soon.
He won't say how long though :( but I know it should be not much
longer cause I'm passing like crazy.
Anyway there's one thing I don't get. I was reading all this stuff
and some of these people said they wanted to keep their penis. What I
don't get is why if you're want to be a woman you would want to keep
you penis? (Ick.) I just don't think most girls would want to do
that, it sounds more like a guy thing to me.
Anyway, I guess it takes all kinds.
Ciao!
Chaundra
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/2531/
@
Ciao back...... It's been a while, keeping busy?
@
Kynvelyn
chau...@geocities.com (Chaundra Allen) wrote:
>
>Anyway there's one thing I don't get. I was reading all this stuff
>and some of these people said they wanted to keep their penis. What I
>don't get is why if you're want to be a woman you would want to keep
>you penis? (Ick.) I just don't think most girls would want to do
>that, it sounds more like a guy thing to me.
>
I think that much of it relates back to how you integrate yourself into
your personal belief system and how you were raised.
There is a social and finacial cost to transitioning. The mental health
profession will give you guidance and assistance to figure out your own
problems. They cannot make up your mind for you. It is something inside
you. Everyone is different and the issues are complex. More complex
because you started by how society required you to act because of the
shape of certain body parts. Those parts did not mesh with what was
inside. Therefore your inner self could not mesh with society. Life has
never been smooth or easy for most of us.
In my case I gave up on society before I gave up on my self immage. I do
not have to change my body completely to fit into life. I am happy as a
bookworm, net geek and with my immediate family. If I have breasts and a
penis, that is between me and my wife. I do not have to carry beyond that
point to rectify my inner and outer life. A person who wants to fit into
society would need to be completely female to ever resolve the conflicts.
Some people might be happy to dress occasionaly and not worry about any
body modifications. They found their own comfort level to integrate their
inner self with their society.
Notice how many people put the emphasis on passing or not passing. They
look at how the public sees them as the point they have to pass to resolve
their inner conflict. The other end of the spectrum is the people who
don't care wether they pass or not. They find their comfort point inside
and not how others see them. For you, a person can not be a woman if they
have a penis. For others the requirement might be activities or role
rather than physical appearance. The solutions are a varied as the people
and their experiences.
Wendy when I want to be. Parts of me are Wendy all the time now.
ms_d...@geocities.com
Hi Chaundra, nice pic on your site. Let us know when the links are up.
> My transitions is going really great
> and my therapist says if I keep it up I should get my surgery soon.
> He won't say how long though :( but I know it should be not much
> longer cause I'm passing like crazy.
>
> Anyway there's one thing I don't get. I was reading all this stuff
> and some of these people said they wanted to keep their penis. What I
> don't get is why if you're want to be a woman you would want to keep
> you penis? (Ick.)
Now lets see... Being a woman with a penis... Hmmm...
The cisgendered ideal states that men have a penis, women have a vagina, and
thats all there is. This is the binary gender system and it is the popular
school of thought. It says that anyone who thinks otherwise is 'sick' or
'confused'. It allows for the existance of the transgendered by declaring us
as mentally ill. Problem here is that many (*very* many) of us know better.
We know that we are not 'sick', suffering from some mental illness. We
relize that we are as same and 'normal' as *anyone* else on this planet. We
recognize that the binary gender model simply does not work.
We realize that sex and gender are two entirely different things, and unlike
the cisgendered ideal, do not see a necessity in the alignment of the two. We
realize that the two need not be 'linked' or 'aligned', as sex is between
one's legs and gender is between one's ears. Gender amounts to how we are
perceived by others and how we perceive ourselves.
I'll assume that you have gendered yourself as a women regardless of your
sexual morphology and probably feel quite strongly that you need SRS to be
complete. All well and good, you are more than entitled to feel as you do.
But, there are many of us (yes many) who do not subscribe to the notion that
one need have a vagina in order to be a women, rejecting the 'biology as
destiny' argument making the genitals the locus of one's gender identity.
With 'womanhood' no longer based on morphology, there is no 'need' (as the
medical community would have us believe) to undergo surgery simply so one can
be a 'woman'. This position is not a drastically new one, as any TS in the
RLT is in basically the same place: a woman with a penis. The difference
here is that the TS has plans for its conversion, where as the transgenderist
is quite content to leave it as it is.
> I just don't think most girls would want to do that, it sounds more
> like a guy thing to me.
That, my dear, is very pejorative statement. You make the (incorrect)
assumption that *all* 'women' want to have a vagina. I know several
transgenderists who, unless they opted to tell you, you would never know still
had their penis. It has no effect, one way or the other, on their identity as
women.
> Anyway, I guess it takes all kinds.
That it does. The diversity in the transgendered community is quite often
ignored.
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Deborah
(Chaundra Allen) wrote:
>Anyway there's one thing I don't get. I was reading all this stuff
>and some of these people said they wanted to keep their penis. What I
>don't get is why if you're want to be a woman you would want to keep
>you penis? (Ick.)
I have to agree. Ick. I don't get it either.
I don't understand at all why some people want to keep their penis. I don't
loathe mine the way some people do, but it hasn't exactly been a popular
item with me and I sure don't want it as a long term house guest. My
self-concept of womanhood doesn't include having a penis.
However, just because I don't get it, and I don't feel the same way, doesn't
mean I think badly of people who do. I just don't understand them, but I
could say that about alot of people. If they're happy, good.
Deborah
deb...@ibm.net
gee...@my-dejanews.com
> and my therapist says if I keep it up I should get my surgery soon.
> He won't say how long though :( but I know it should be not much
> longer cause I'm passing like crazy.
Honey, you don't have to be passing like crazy. You just have to be
living the life of an incredibly beautiul young college girl who makes
the rest of us =sick= because you are so f'ing pretty and young and
everything else. Let us old hags fret about passing -- you just stay
nice and cute and all that other stuff that I hate you for.
> Anyway there's one thing I don't get. I was reading all this stuff
> and some of these people said they wanted to keep their penis. What I
> don't get is why if you're want to be a woman you would want to keep
> you penis? (Ick.) I just don't think most girls would want to do
> that, it sounds more like a guy thing to me.
For some people being a woman is about getting to play dress up games.
They don't much care to live their entire life like they are a woman. Just
some parts of their life. Some of those people like to work as men, and
as you'll never be so unfortunate to discover, they do it because they can
make more money that way. Others like to dress up like women every day
because maybe they are just gay men and their boyfriends like them to have
a penis.
That doesn't matter to you -- you just live your life and let those guys
live theirs.
-- Geena.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> In article <363e101e....@news.mindspring.com>,
> chau...@geocities.com (Chaundra Allen) wrote:
> > Hi everybody, just checkin' in!
>
She's a classic over-worked undergrad. Her site hasn't changed in years.
I don't even know what year she is in -- it would be nice if, like, she'd
say "Hi, I'm Chaundra and now I'm a junior."
> > Anyway there's one thing I don't get. I was reading all this stuff
> > and some of these people said they wanted to keep their penis. What I
> > don't get is why if you're want to be a woman you would want to keep
> > you penis? (Ick.)
>
> Now lets see... Being a woman with a penis... Hmmm...
Being a transgenderist with an agenda .... Hmmmm ....
> With 'womanhood' no longer based on morphology, there is no 'need' (as the
> medical community would have us believe) to undergo surgery simply so one can
> be a 'woman'. This position is not a drastically new one, as any TS in the
> RLT is in basically the same place: a woman with a penis. The difference
> here is that the TS has plans for its conversion, where as the transgenderist
> is quite content to leave it as it is.
With "womanhood' no longer based on morphology IN YOUR OPINION. The opinions
of you and countless other gender-benders doesn't make it so. A TS woman in
RLT is not in the same place as a transgenderist. A TS woman in RLT is a
woman working to have a serious problem fixed. A transgenderist is a horse of
a different color.
Instead, I ask this question -- what would the identity of a "woman" be that
"she" would want a penis?
> > I just don't think most girls would want to do that, it sounds more
> > like a guy thing to me.
>
> That, my dear, is very pejorative statement. You make the (incorrect)
> assumption that *all* 'women' want to have a vagina. I know several
> transgenderists who, unless they opted to tell you, you would never know still
> had their penis. It has no effect, one way or the other, on their identity as
> women.
A friend of mine circulated the results of asking natal women what they'd
do if they had a penis. The answer, to the woman, was "Remove it". Some
said they'd have a bit of fun with it, but the answer was invariably "I
wouldn't want to keep it."
Chaundra Allen
>The cisgendered ideal states that men have a penis, women have a vagina, and
>thats all there is.
Well I think most men do have their penis and like it, and women the
other way around. I mean, I guess a woman *could* have a penis but
why would she *want* it? It's almost 100% the guys who are into
having a penis.
>It says that anyone who thinks otherwise is 'sick' or
>'confused'. It allows for the existance of the transgendered by declaring us
>as mentally ill.
Well, I'm not saying anybody's sick or mentally ill, I just don't know
why some girl would want to have a penis. Specially when it's pretty
easy to get rid of it.
>We realize that sex and gender are two entirely different things, and unlike
>the cisgendered ideal, do not see a necessity in the alignment of the two.
Sure seems like it would be more fun to match up, if you don't you'll
be sort of stuck in the middle. Maybe some people like it better that
way, I don't know.
>We
>realize that the two need not be 'linked' or 'aligned', as sex is between
>one's legs and gender is between one's ears.
I think sex is between the ears too, it's how you feel. It's like
they say, the brain is the number one sex organ! I feel female in my
brain, no matter what the rest is like, which I can change that
anyway. You just get a good therapist and the next thing you know
it's done. I know lots of girls who have done it.
But you can't change what's in your head, you know. I guess some
poeple in their minds don't feel female, but just feel like they want
to act female with their clothes and all but still stay a guy
physically. That's okay by me but I just don't think many girls want
to have bodies like guys.
>But, there are many of us (yes many) who do not subscribe to the notion that
>one need have a vagina in order to be a women, rejecting the 'biology as
>destiny' argument making the genitals the locus of one's gender identity.
People can live any way that want and all, and if somebody wants to
keep their guy body they should *defenitely* not have the surgery.
They'd be miserable and wish they still had their penis.
But I don't think most girls would be real happy if they had a body
like a guy. Like, "Hey, Tonya, how come you got a body like a guy,
with a big hairy chest and all?" What's she gonna say, yeah, well I
like it that way? I don't think so. Or like, "Okay, I'll change the
hairy chest but I want to keep my penis?"
I mean, what do you say to your boyfriend. "Oh, that's just my penis,
I wanted to hang on to that." It's up to the indivudual and all but I
dont' believe most girls see themselves wanting a penis whereas the
guys would.
>With 'womanhood' no longer based on morphology, there is no 'need' (as the
>medical community would have us believe) to undergo surgery simply so one can
>be a 'woman'. This position is not a drastically new one, as any TS in the
>RLT is in basically the same place: a woman with a penis. The difference
>here is that the TS has plans for its conversion, where as the transgenderist
>is quite content to leave it as it is.
I think that's because TS's want to be a girl and have a girl body,
not have a guy body.
>That, my dear, is very pejorative statement. You make the (incorrect)
>assumption that *all* 'women' want to have a vagina. I know several
>transgenderists who, unless they opted to tell you, you would never know still
>had their penis. It has no effect, one way or the other, on their identity as
>women.
I never said somebody can't live as a woman if they want to. What I
said was I don't get why if you want to be a woman they still want to
have a man's body with a penis and you know what hanging there.
People can change all that if you want to. Anyway, I guess different
people want different stuff.
>Love and Stuff,
>Donna
Thanks, you too!!
Chaundra
Laine Victoria Campbell
Chaundra Allen wrote:
> I think sex is between the ears too, it's how you feel. It's like
> they say, the brain is the number one sex organ! I feel female in my
> brain, no matter what the rest is like, which I can change that
> anyway. You just get a good therapist and the next thing you know
> it's done. I know lots of girls who have done it.
You just get a good therapist and it's done? So Chaundra do you think everyone can
afford a good therapist and go out and get their surgery. I m in your situation
with school and being the same age. I "pass like crazy" too but I sure as hell am
not getting surgery any time soon thanks to money. I can't afford a therapist or
electro right now and barely can afford my hormones. Please try to be a little
more sensitive in your comments. And good luck with everything,
Laine
ms_d...@geocities.com
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71l4so$jo2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > In article <363e101e....@news.mindspring.com>,
> > chau...@geocities.com (Chaundra Allen) wrote:
> > > Hi everybody, just checkin' in!
> >
> > Hi Chaundra, nice pic on your site. Let us know when the links are up.
>
> She's a classic over-worked undergrad. Her site hasn't changed in years.
> I don't even know what year she is in -- it would be nice if, like, she'd
> say "Hi, I'm Chaundra and now I'm a junior."
>
> > > Anyway there's one thing I don't get. I was reading all this stuff
> > > and some of these people said they wanted to keep their penis. What I
> > > don't get is why if you're want to be a woman you would want to keep
> > > you penis? (Ick.)
> >
> > Now lets see... Being a woman with a penis... Hmmm...
>
> Being a transgenderist with an agenda .... Hmmmm ....
Wrong! First, I am *not* a transgenderist and have never represented myself as
such. Second, I don't have any particular 'agenda'. If here doing what
everyone else is, offering my half-nibble's worth on all this stuff.
> > With 'womanhood' no longer based on morphology, there is no 'need' (as the
> > medical community would have us believe) to undergo surgery simply so one
> > can be a 'woman'. This position is not a drastically new one, as any TS
> > in the RLT is in basically the same place: a woman with a penis. The
> > difference here is that the TS has plans for its conversion, where as the
> > transgenderist is quite content to leave it as it is.
>
> With "womanhood' no longer based on morphology IN YOUR OPINION.
Yes, in my opinion. Unless someone posts with footnotes and bibliography
indicating the sources of their information, *all* of this is opinion, mine,
yours and everybody's elses.
> The opinions of you and countless other gender-benders doesn't make it so.
And the opinions of you and countless others who view themselves as sick,
deformed, dammaged or whatever other labels you want to adopt doesn't make it
so either. So what's your point?
You so want validation of your point of view that you are willing to do it at
the expense of another's?
> A TS woman in RLT is not in the same place as a transgenderist. A TS woman
> in RLT is a woman working to have a serious problem fixed. A transgenderist
> is a horse of a different color.
As *so* many have made abundantly clear. God forbid someone should actually
identify as something other that 'transsexual'...
> Instead, I ask this question -- what would the identity of a "woman" be that
> "she" would want a penis?
Whatever identity she would want it to be. That you feel a vagina is a
prerequisite for womanhood is all well and good, but it is *not* a universally
held belief.
> > > I just don't think most girls would want to do that, it sounds more
> > > like a guy thing to me.
> >
> > That, my dear, is very pejorative statement. You make the (incorrect)
> > assumption that *all* 'women' want to have a vagina. I know several
> > transgenderists who, unless they opted to tell you, you would never know
> > still had their penis. It has no effect, one way or the other, on their
> > identity as women.
>
> A friend of mine circulated the results of asking natal women what they'd
> do if they had a penis. The answer, to the woman, was "Remove it". Some
> said they'd have a bit of fun with it, but the answer was invariably "I
> wouldn't want to keep it."
And this is the conclusive study to put this to rest? Ask most women if they
would want to get their nipples pierced and they'll tell you know, and yet
there are many who do. It all comes down to personal preferance.
If you were born male, feel you should have been female and want to have
things altered to realize that, than by all means do it; I'm all for people
having the right to do what they want to their bodies. However, to make the
blanket statement that womanhood is about having a vagina does a great
disservice to *all* women. Most, no make that all the women that I know do
not locate the center of their womanhood in their crotch.
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> In article <71lnq0$e53$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <71l4so$jo2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > Now lets see... Being a woman with a penis... Hmmm...
> >
> > Being a transgenderist with an agenda .... Hmmmm ....
>
> Wrong! First, I am *not* a transgenderist and have never represented myself as
> such. Second, I don't have any particular 'agenda'. If here doing what
> everyone else is, offering my half-nibble's worth on all this stuff.
Oh, right. "Intergendered" -- is that the new buzz word for "Cross-dresser"?
Used to be "bigendered". The rate of making up new words is high enough
around here that I suspect I should buy stock in dictionary publishers.
> > With "womanhood' no longer based on morphology IN YOUR OPINION.
>
> Yes, in my opinion. Unless someone posts with footnotes and bibliography
> indicating the sources of their information, *all* of this is opinion, mine,
> yours and everybody's elses.
Whoa! "Womanhood" is the state of being a woman. Like "Parent-hood" or
"Mother-hood". How can one =be= a woman with a penis? In your head? I
think a lot of us tried that and generally failed miserably. So I ask the
question again, what would be the identity of a person who felt that keeping
"her" penis was part of "her" identity as a woman?
> > The opinions of you and countless other gender-benders doesn't make it so.
>
> And the opinions of you and countless others who view themselves as sick,
> deformed, dammaged or whatever other labels you want to adopt doesn't make it
> so either. So what's your point?
I had a problem, I sought the appropriate treatment, problem fixed. But
back to the question you were asked -- what kind of "woman" would want to
have a penis?
> You so want validation of your point of view that you are willing to do it at
> the expense of another's?
I get plenty of "validation" of my point of view from the real world, thank
you very much. "Validation" in the form of agreement with delusion ("I'm a
woman! Wanna hear about my penis?!?") isn't "validation".
> > A TS woman in RLT is not in the same place as a transgenderist. A TS woman
> > in RLT is a woman working to have a serious problem fixed. A transgenderist
> > is a horse of a different color.
>
> As *so* many have made abundantly clear. God forbid someone should actually
> identify as something other that 'transsexual'...
Feel free to identity as "Auntie Em" for all I care. Just don't expect me
to view you as "Auntie Em".
> > Instead, I ask this question -- what would the identity of a "woman" be that
> > "she" would want a penis?
>
> Whatever identity she would want it to be. That you feel a vagina is a
> prerequisite for womanhood is all well and good, but it is *not* a universally
> held belief.
I feel that making a good-faith effort to fully integrate into society as a
=woman= is what it takes to be one.
How come we have every form of gender-trash in the world coming in here
posting with a female name? Is your real name "Donna"? Do you really live
as "Ms. Donna"? We had this discussion with LoreeTV a while back. "Her"
name was, and probably still is T. G. Loree (sie's posted hir full name, I
won't out of respect for hir privacy).
Plenty of guys running off to their guy lives all pretending to be women.
> If you were born male, feel you should have been female and want to have
> things altered to realize that, than by all means do it; I'm all for people
> having the right to do what they want to their bodies. However, to make the
> blanket statement that womanhood is about having a vagina does a great
> disservice to *all* women. Most, no make that all the women that I know do
> not locate the center of their womanhood in their crotch.
I make the blanket statement that womanhood is about being a woman. I find
it difficult to imagine how one can =be= a woman if they have a beard, speak
in a masculine voice, make no effort to be perceived of as a woman 24x7 and
enjoy their male genitals enough to hold onto them, so to speak.
-- Geena.
ms_d...@geocities.com
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71pmo7$nok$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > In article <71lnq0$e53$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > In article <71l4so$jo2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > > Now lets see... Being a woman with a penis... Hmmm...
> > >
> > > Being a transgenderist with an agenda .... Hmmmm ....
> >
> > Wrong! First, I am *not* a transgenderist and have never represented myself
> > as such. Second, I don't have any particular 'agenda'. If here doing what
> > everyone else is, offering my half-nibble's worth on all this stuff.
>
> Oh, right. "Intergendered" -- is that the new buzz word for "Cross-dresser"?
> Used to be "bigendered". The rate of making up new words is high enough
> around here that I suspect I should buy stock in dictionary publishers.
My but someone got up on the wrong side of the bed...
FWIW, crossdressing is an action, not an identity. And no, intergendered is
not the new 'buzz word' for crossdresser. Bigendered implies living as a man
sometimes, and as a woman other times. It is indicative of feeling one is
*both* genders. Intergendered is indicative of *not* feeling one is 'both'
genders. It is about occupying that place along the gender spectrum *between*
the endpoints of 'man' and 'woman'.
> > > With "womanhood' no longer based on morphology IN YOUR OPINION.
> >
> > Yes, in my opinion. Unless someone posts with footnotes and bibliography
> > indicating the sources of their information, *all* of this is opinion,
> > mine, yours and everybody's elses.
>
> Whoa! "Womanhood" is the state of being a woman.
OK, enlighten my then. Just what does it mean to 'be a woman'? What is this
universal definition of womanhood? And don't give me the crap that womanhood
is a construct which exists a priori.
> How can one =be= a woman with a penis? In your head? I think a lot of us
> tried that and generally failed miserably.
You failed so ergo it is an invalid construct. Please...
> So I ask the question again, what would be the identity of a person who felt
> that keeping "her" penis was part of "her" identity as a woman?
You'd have to ask her, I neither you nor I can speak with ant authority as to
what another person's identity is.
> > > The opinions of you and countless other gender-benders doesn't make it
> > > so.
> >
> > And the opinions of you and countless others who view themselves as sick,
> > deformed, dammaged or whatever other labels you want to adopt doesn't make
> > it so either. So what's your point?
>
> I had a problem, I sought the appropriate treatment, problem fixed. But
> back to the question you were asked -- what kind of "woman" would want to
> have a penis?
The kind who feels no need for a vagina. Turn it around. In the case of an
F2M TS who feels no need for surgery, what kind of man wouldn't want a penis?
Many F2Ms feel no need for bottom surgery to be men. I suppose their
identities as men as suspect too?
> > You so want validation of your point of view that you are willing to do it
> > at the expense of another's?
>
> I get plenty of "validation" of my point of view from the real world, thank
> you very much. "Validation" in the form of agreement with delusion ("I'm a
> woman! Wanna hear about my penis?!?") isn't "validation".
This really bothers you, doesn't it? Why all the hostility here? That there
are people living as the women they have wanted and not undergone SRS just
doesn't compute for you, does it?
> > > A TS woman in RLT is not in the same place as a transgenderist. A TS
> > > woman in RLT is a woman working to have a serious problem fixed. A
> > > transgenderist is a horse of a different color.
> >
> > As *so* many have made abundantly clear. God forbid someone should
> > actually identify as something other that 'transsexual'...
>
> Feel free to identity as "Auntie Em" for all I care. Just don't expect me
> to view you as "Auntie Em".
You want others to respect your definition of yourself and identity, yet you
are unwilling to do the same?
> > > Instead, I ask this question -- what would the identity of a "woman" be
> > > that "she" would want a penis?
> >
> > Whatever identity she would want it to be. That you feel a vagina is a
> > prerequisite for womanhood is all well and good, but it is *not* a
> > universally held belief.
>
> I feel that making a good-faith effort to fully integrate into society as a
> =woman= is what it takes to be one.
And one needs a vagina as a show of 'good-faith'?
> How come we have every form of gender-trash in the world coming in here
> posting with a female name?
Because there is a lot of other 'gender-trash' out there besides transsexuals?
> Is your real name "Donna"?
My name - I chose it - it's how I prefer to be addressed. Is it the name
choosen for me at birth? No.
> Do you really live as "Ms. Donna"?
Hmmm... ::checking my pulse:: Well, I'm alive so I guess I live as Ms.
Donna.
Why do you find it necessary to make a personal attack on me? I've not
attacked you? And this does what to support your position?
> Plenty of guys running off to their guy lives all pretending to be women.
I don't gender myself as a woman. I don't pretend to be a woman. When asked,
I'm upfront about it: I am not a woman and not am I a man. Do not presume to
'know' me.
> > If you were born male, feel you should have been female and want to have
> > things altered to realize that, than by all means do it; I'm all for people
> > having the right to do what they want to their bodies. However, to make
> > the blanket statement that womanhood is about having a vagina does a great
> > disservice to *all* women. Most, no make that all the women that I know do
> > not locate the center of their womanhood in their crotch.
>
> I make the blanket statement that womanhood is about being a woman.
Sorry, no circular definitions allowed. One can not define a word by using the
same word.
Again, 'being a woman' means what?
> I find it difficult to imagine how one can =be= a woman if they have a beard,
> speak in a masculine voice, make no effort to be perceived of as a woman 24x7
> and enjoy their male genitals enough to hold onto them, so to speak.
Now see, here you go talking about something alltogether different. No one
was talking about having a beard or speaking in a 'masculine' voice. Stick
to the topic. The question addressed one and only one thing, having a penis.
Also, no one said anything about *not* making an effort to be gendered as a
woman by others.
Unless you walk around with your privates exposed, no one knows *what* you
have going on down there.
Frankly, it's none of their business. Why make it yours?
Love and Stuff,
Donna (gender-trash du jour)
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
LoreeTG
relation to others as well as me.
Seems silly to me that more people don't get fed up with their self
appointed positions as the arbiters of all things dealing with sex and
gender.
>How come we have every form of gender-trash in the world coming in here
>posting with a female name? Is your real name "Donna"? Do you really live
>as "Ms. Donna"? We had this discussion with LoreeTV a while back. "Her"
>name was, and probably still is T. G. Loree (sie's posted hir full name, I
>won't out of respect for hir privacy).
Respect??! LOL!!! I don't believe you know the meaning of the word! It's
more like self interest... but don't worry, I'm nothing like you at all and
won't post your actual name as long as you want it to remain unposted.
As for talking about other peoples names, "Geena" doesn't have any room to
talk. Geena isn't hir name.
All my paychecks are made out to Loree Thomas, all my mail is addressed to
Loree Thomas, my bank account is in the name of Loree Thomas, my telephone
answering machine says "Hi, this is Loree, leave a message!". My friends,
family and acquaintances all call me Loree... or Ms. Thomas.
Seems my name is Loree Thomas, doesn't it?
How much of your stuff has the name Geena on it? Oh yeah... none. It all
has your "real" name on it... just like mine does.
You can use any name you want as long as it isn't with the intent to
defraud... no legal process is really necessary.
Loree Thomas
Seattle
lor...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/4958
ms_d...@geocities.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> Hmm... Diane, "Geena", and Cheryl are all showing their true colors in
> relation to others as well as me.
Seems we really get their knickers all in a knot.
> Seems silly to me that more people don't get fed up with their self
> appointed positions as the arbiters of all things dealing with sex and
> gender.
As most dogmatists usually have but one point to make, most people stop
listening after a while. I'm sure there are many who are fed up, so they
simply pay it no mind.
> >How come we have every form of gender-trash in the world coming in here
> >posting with a female name? Is your real name "Donna"? Do you really live
> >as "Ms. Donna"? We had this discussion with LoreeTV a while back. "Her"
> >name was, and probably still is T. G. Loree (sie's posted hir full name, I
> >won't out of respect for hir privacy).
>
> Respect??! LOL!!! I don't believe you know the meaning of the word!
I guess there is gendertrash, and then there is *real* gendertrash.
Doesn't *anyone* get tired of this stupid pecking order crap?
> It's more like self interest... but don't worry, I'm nothing like you at all
> and won't post your actual name as long as you want it to remain unposted.
Huh??? Actual name???
> As for talking about other peoples names, "Geena" doesn't have any room to
> talk. Geena isn't hir name.
Really... Now this *is* interesting.
Geena, is this true? You attack me for not using my 'real' name and you post
under a pseudonym? Hypocrisy abounds here now, doesn't it?
> All my paychecks are made out to Loree Thomas, all my mail is addressed to
> Loree Thomas, my bank account is in the name of Loree Thomas, my telephone
> answering machine says "Hi, this is Loree, leave a message!". My friends,
> family and acquaintances all call me Loree... or Ms. Thomas.
>
> Seems my name is Loree Thomas, doesn't it?
So it would seem.
> How much of your stuff has the name Geena on it? Oh yeah... none. It all
> has your "real" name on it... just like mine does.
>
> You can use any name you want as long as it isn't with the intent to
> defraud... no legal process is really necessary.
Good point and a very true one. But it seems here that unless one has
completely reinvented themselves, it ain't true. Too bad that the elitist
attitude is so prevalent that one can not express an alternative point ov view
without being attacked on a personal basis.
The motto here ought to be: der langen Rede kurzer Sinn.
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
'nitimur in vetitum' - Ovid
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> In article <71qneh$81m$1...@slave2.aa.net>,
> "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> > Seems silly to me that more people don't get fed up with their self
> > appointed positions as the arbiters of all things dealing with sex and
> > gender.
>
> As most dogmatists usually have but one point to make, most people stop
> listening after a while. I'm sure there are many who are fed up, so they
> simply pay it no mind.
Which explains why people keep weighing in with opposition to LoreeTV's
self-proclaimed "transsexual" status.
> > >How come we have every form of gender-trash in the world coming in here
> > >posting with a female name? Is your real name "Donna"? Do you really live
> > >as "Ms. Donna"? We had this discussion with LoreeTV a while back. "Her"
> > >name was, and probably still is T. G. Loree (sie's posted hir full name, I
> > >won't out of respect for hir privacy).
> >
> > Respect??! LOL!!! I don't believe you know the meaning of the word!
>
> I guess there is gendertrash, and then there is *real* gendertrash.
Huh?
> Doesn't *anyone* get tired of this stupid pecking order crap?
Trick question -- the answer is "yes", and that is precisely the point that
Diane has made several times. Why can't Loree admit that sie is a
transvestite and quit trying to climb the "gender hierarchy" by claiming to
be a transsexual? As in, "I'm not one of those transvestite perverts, I have
a =real= condition. I'm a transsexual!" Cross-dressers and transvestites
have been trying to find ways to linguistically validate themselves for
years. Claiming to be TS is just one of the ways it's done.
> > It's more like self interest... but don't worry, I'm nothing like you at all
> > and won't post your actual name as long as you want it to remain unposted.
>
> Huh??? Actual name???
Yeh, as in =legal= name. You know, the name on my driver's license, passport,
social security card, federal income tax return. You know, =that= name.
> > As for talking about other peoples names, "Geena" doesn't have any room to
> > talk. Geena isn't hir name.
>
> Really... Now this *is* interesting.
>
> Geena, is this true? You attack me for not using my 'real' name and you post
> under a pseudonym? Hypocrisy abounds here now, doesn't it?
My legal first name is Julie. I used to post under my full legal name,
something that "T. G. Loree" has =never= done, by the way, and was viciously
attacked by one of Loree's friends in Seattle. All of my personal
information was posted to various newsgroups with "invitations" to come to my
house and have sex. The end result was that I had to change my work phone
number because of the sexual harassment I received. Fortunately my attacker
had the wrong address, or I may have been forced to move or risk sexual
assault by some crazed nutcase.
> > All my paychecks are made out to Loree Thomas, all my mail is addressed to
> > Loree Thomas, my bank account is in the name of Loree Thomas, my telephone
> > answering machine says "Hi, this is Loree, leave a message!". My friends,
> > family and acquaintances all call me Loree... or Ms. Thomas.
> >
> > Seems my name is Loree Thomas, doesn't it?
>
> So it would seem.
Except that "her" drivers license, social security card, federal income tax
return and passport (if she has one ...) all says "T. G. Loree" and identifies
"her" as a male.
> > How much of your stuff has the name Geena on it? Oh yeah... none. It all
> > has your "real" name on it... just like mine does.
> >
> > You can use any name you want as long as it isn't with the intent to
> > defraud... no legal process is really necessary.
>
> Good point and a very true one. But it seems here that unless one has
> completely reinvented themselves, it ain't true. Too bad that the elitist
> attitude is so prevalent that one can not express an alternative point ov view
> without being attacked on a personal basis.
Huh? Wait -- I posted here for nearly =three= years using my legal name.
Not some "made up" name, or clever rearranging of my name, or fake female
name. MY legal name. When my legal name was "John", that's what I used.
When it was "Julie", that's what I used. THAT, "Ms. Donna" and "Loree
Thomas", is personal integrity.
-- Geena.
ms_d...@geocities.com
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71shg6$edi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > In article <71qneh$81m$1...@slave2.aa.net>,
> > "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> > > Seems silly to me that more people don't get fed up with their self
> > > appointed positions as the arbiters of all things dealing with sex and
> > > gender.
> >
> > As most dogmatists usually have but one point to make, most people stop
> > listening after a while. I'm sure there are many who are fed up, so they
> > simply pay it no mind.
>
> Which explains why people keep weighing in with opposition to LoreeTV's
> self-proclaimed "transsexual" status.
And this effects you how exactily? Why does it matter to you what Loree
considers herself to be. Why is it you feel so threatened by Loree calling
herself a TS?
> > > >How come we have every form of gender-trash in the world coming in here
> > > >posting with a female name? Is your real name "Donna"? Do you really
> > > >live as "Ms. Donna"? We had this discussion with LoreeTV a while back.
> > > >"Her" name was, and probably still is T. G. Loree (sie's posted hir full
> > > >name, I won't out of respect for hir privacy).
> > >
> > > Respect??! LOL!!! I don't believe you know the meaning of the word!
> >
> > I guess there is gendertrash, and then there is *real* gendertrash.
>
> Huh?
Gendertrash, genderqueer... Pick a label. To the rest of the 'normal' world,
all of us here are gendertrash, you, me... The whole friggin lot of us. But,
it would seem that some of us are 'trashier' than others. That I'm
comfortable being trans and not needing to 'fix' anything seems to put me in
a trashier subgroup that the more 'noble' gendertrash.
Some fuckin' community this is...
> > Doesn't *anyone* get tired of this stupid pecking order crap?
>
> Trick question -- the answer is "yes", and that is precisely the point that
> Diane has made several times. Why can't Loree admit that sie is a
> transvestite and quit trying to climb the "gender hierarchy" by claiming to
> be a transsexual?
Why can't Diane devote her efforts towards promoting a greater understanding
of *all* transgendered people instead of flaming *one* person. What is it
*so* damn important that Loree 'admit' *anything* to herself. What
difference does it make to you or Diane or *anyone* else for that matter.
And climbing the 'gender hierarchy'? Who, pray-tell, is the top trans in this
hierarchy? The transsexuals? By whose decree?
How utterly pathetic that you would actually promote the notion that one of
you is somehow 'better' than another.
I'll echo me previous statement: Some fuckin' community this is...
> As in, "I'm not one of those transvestite perverts, I have a =real=
> condition. I'm a transsexual!" Cross-dressers and transvestites
> have been trying to find ways to linguistically validate themselves for
> years. Claiming to be TS is just one of the ways it's done.
Well, I'm not one of those 'transvestite perverts' as you so delicatly put it.
I have my own identity, one not created at the expense of another group, and
you still saw fit to attack that. An interesting response, considering you
complemented me on coining the term Intergendered a couple months back.
What I don't understand is why the 180 on me? At the beginning of October we
seemed to get along:
> > Subject: Re: Gender Identity
> > Author: geenad
> > Email: gee...@my-dejanews.com
> > Date: 1998/10/09
> > Forums: soc.support.transgendered
> >
> > In article <6vlfdn$ra8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > In article <6vl8s5$h9j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Yup. I don't have a "femme side". I live as a woman because I am one.
> > >
> > > Now, I do have this twisted "macho dude" side that I'd like to tell you
> > > about some day ;-)
> >
> > You know, I know a good gender shrink who can help you to become the man
> > you really are inside... ;-)
>
> With Halloween coming up, I'm going to start digging around my closet to
> see what kind of really neat Dude Duds(tm) I've still got lying around.
> Maybe I'll go out as a "Really Real Man(tm)" for Halloween this year ...
>
> > Love and Stuff,
>
> Same back at'cha. You really are pretty cool. It's so seldom that a really
> neat personality stumbles onto the scene and you're one of the neater ones
> we've had around here in a _long_ time.
>
> -- Geena.
This *was* you, wasn't it?
So, what gives? I offer my opinion to Chandra you go off on me why?
> > > It's more like self interest... but don't worry, I'm nothing like you at
> > > all and won't post your actual name as long as you want it to remain
> > > unposted.
> >
> > Huh??? Actual name???
>
> Yeh, as in =legal= name. You know, the name on my driver's license,
> passport, social security card, federal income tax return. You know,
> =that= name.
Oh... *That* actual name.
> > > As for talking about other peoples names, "Geena" doesn't have any room
> > > to talk. Geena isn't hir name.
> >
> > Really... Now this *is* interesting.
> >
> > Geena, is this true? You attack me for not using my 'real' name and you
> > post under a pseudonym? Hypocrisy abounds here now, doesn't it?
>
> My legal first name is Julie. I used to post under my full legal name,
> something that "T. G. Loree" has =never= done, by the way, and was viciously
> attacked by one of Loree's friends in Seattle.
Not a nice thing for *anyone* to do.
> All of my personal information was posted to various newsgroups with
> "invitations" to come to my house and have sex.
I saw it.
> The end result was that I had to change my work phone number because of the
> sexual harassment I received. Fortunately my attacker had the wrong
> address, or I may have been forced to move or risk sexual assault by some
> crazed nutcase.
So you post under a post under a pseudonym for some degree of anonimity?
Funny, because that is the pretty much the *same* reason I do. So, why is it
OK for you but for me?
This isn't about dishonesty, it's about wanting to keep some degree of
privacy, right? I see no reason to make it a point of argument.
> > > All my paychecks are made out to Loree Thomas, all my mail is addressed
> > > to Loree Thomas, my bank account is in the name of Loree Thomas, my
> > > telephone answering machine says "Hi, this is Loree, leave a message!".
> > > My friends, family and acquaintances all call me Loree... or Ms. Thomas.
> > >
> > > Seems my name is Loree Thomas, doesn't it?
> >
> > So it would seem.
>
> Except that "her" drivers license, social security card, federal income tax
> return and passport (if she has one ...) all says "T. G. Loree" and
> identifies her" as a male.
And *why* do you care? If Loree is living in a fantasy world, so what?
> > > How much of your stuff has the name Geena on it? Oh yeah... none. It
> > > all has your "real" name on it... just like mine does.
> > >
> > > You can use any name you want as long as it isn't with the intent to
> > > defraud... no legal process is really necessary.
> >
> > Good point and a very true one. But it seems here that unless one has
> > completely reinvented themselves, it ain't true. Too bad that the elitist
> > attitude is so prevalent that one can not express an alternative point ov
> > view without being attacked on a personal basis.
>
> Huh? Wait -- I posted here for nearly =three= years using my legal name.
> Not some "made up" name, or clever rearranging of my name, or fake female
> name. MY legal name. When my legal name was "John", that's what I used.
> When it was "Julie", that's what I used. THAT, "Ms. Donna" and "Loree
> Thomas", is personal integrity.
And now it's Geena, some "made up" name just like Loree and I. Or have you
legally changed it to Geena, so as to maintain your personal integrity.
So everyone... Show of hands... Is this a waste of bandwidth or what???
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> In article <71sr67$tuk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Which explains why people keep weighing in with opposition to LoreeTV's
> > self-proclaimed "transsexual" status.
>
> And this effects you how exactily? Why does it matter to you what Loree
> considers herself to be. Why is it you feel so threatened by Loree calling
> herself a TS?
It affects me quite personally by muddying what it means to be a person
with my past. Transsexual men and women have been fighting for over 40
years to acquire legal rights and we did this by demonstrating that we
aren't something other than what we claim to be -- ordinary members of the
genetically opposite sex. For example, I have breasts and a vagina. In
Texas, women are granted the right (it's in the insurance code, I believe)
to have mammograms at a certain interval. I have the legal right to marry
a man. A rape crisis shelter would probably provide me with certain
services in the event of need. Incarceration would be in a women's facility.
As long as "transsexual" means what it has meant for 40 years -- physical,
genital sex change and the living of a lifestyle within bounds for "ordinary
members of the genetically opposite sex", I can reasonably expect those
things I listed above to remain as they are.
Once "transgenderist" and "transvestite", to say nothing of "bigendered",
"intergendered", "agendered", "non-gendered", etc. start to encrouch on what
it means to be "transsexual", social norms, conventions, legal rights, etc.
are called into question. Suddenly I am less able to argue convincingly that
I am simply an ordinary woman -- after all, so is "LoreeTV", and depending on
your frame of mind or attire at the time, you might be as well.
Myself and others have spent significant amounts of time saying "This is what
a transsexual is." and society has reacted against those definitions and
said "Okay, you claim to be an ordinary woman, we will treat you like an
ordinary woman." LoreeTV is trying to, essentially, co-opt the work of
transsexuals and say "Well, I wish to apply this to males who cross-live."
> Gendertrash, genderqueer... Pick a label. To the rest of the 'normal' world,
> all of us here are gendertrash, you, me... The whole friggin lot of us. But,
> it would seem that some of us are 'trashier' than others. That I'm
> comfortable being trans and not needing to 'fix' anything seems to put me in
> a trashier subgroup that the more 'noble' gendertrash.
No, to the majority of society, transsexuals have fully acted on a need and
"corrected a problem." This is more of that "education" I've written about.
You want social acceptance for "gendertrash", well, go out and work for it.
I've spent time with my employer, my church, my neighbors, etc. educating them
about what a "transsexual" is. The message is always the same -- I am an
otherwise normal woman who happened to have been born male. No "gender
theory" or "sex=crotch, gender=head" lessons. I'm just a woman. I'm a female
woman. I'm just an ordinary, garden variety, normal, female-bodied woman.
> Why can't Diane devote her efforts towards promoting a greater understanding
> of *all* transgendered people instead of flaming *one* person. What is it
> *so* damn important that Loree 'admit' *anything* to herself. What
> difference does it make to you or Diane or *anyone* else for that matter.
>
> And climbing the 'gender hierarchy'? Who, pray-tell, is the top trans in this
> hierarchy? The transsexuals? By whose decree?
There are two different "gender hierarchies". One has trannies at the top
and the other has mundanes at the top. "I'm not really a transvestite
because I just dress on Halloween." "I'm not really a CDer because I only
underdress." "I'm not really a transsexual because I don't want to have my
weenie whacked". I've seen the crap. One group disses the next -- above or
below -- for some perceived advantage. Now we have LoreeTV deciding sie is a
"transsexual" because sie feels that "transsexual" is better than
"transvestite" or "transgenderist" -- despite the fact that =both= of those
terms more accurately describe hir.
> How utterly pathetic that you would actually promote the notion that one of
> you is somehow 'better' than another.
And how utterly pathetic of you to leap to some conclusion.
> > As in, "I'm not one of those transvestite perverts, I have a =real=
> > condition. I'm a transsexual!" Cross-dressers and transvestites
> > have been trying to find ways to linguistically validate themselves for
> > years. Claiming to be TS is just one of the ways it's done.
>
> Well, I'm not one of those 'transvestite perverts' as you so delicatly put it.
> I have my own identity, one not created at the expense of another group, and
> you still saw fit to attack that. An interesting response, considering you
> complemented me on coining the term Intergendered a couple months back.
Yes, I think you described a "situation" that had not been adequately
described before. My response to you would have been very different had you
decided to coin the term "Intergendered Transsexual". Hell, I can even tell
you what an intergender transsexual is --
An intergendered transsexual is a person, born either male or female, who has
changed some attributes of their physical sex to be opposite that of their
birth sex. Their lifestyle is distinguished from a transsexual in that the
gendered attributes of the person lie between the stereotypically male and the
stereotypically female. The term "intergendered transsexual" therefore can be
used to describe any born male or female who has used hormones, electrolysis,
breast reduction, gonadectomy, genital reassignment surgery, or non-genital
cosmetic surgery, without compromising their ability to present as any gender
between "stereotypical man" and "stereotypical woman".
Sounds real groovy, right? Well guess what -- TVes who have ever taken a
single birth control pill are now "Intergendered transsexuals". And if you
say they aren't, well your a bigot.
> What I don't understand is why the 180 on me? At the beginning of October we
> seemed to get along:
Because =you= carved out new territory for =you=. You didn't side with
someone who wishes to create ambiguity in =my= identity.
> So, what gives? I offer my opinion to Chandra you go off on me why?
Go back to describing and defining "Intergendered people" and leave the
word "transsexual" alone and I'll go back to thinking you're pretty cool.
> > My legal first name is Julie. I used to post under my full legal name,
> > something that "T. G. Loree" has =never= done, by the way, and was viciously
> > attacked by one of Loree's friends in Seattle.
>
> Not a nice thing for *anyone* to do.
Yup, and Loree has posted several times that she feels the person who did
it didn't do anything at all wrong. She even attacked me for doing what I
did to have that person removed from the Internet.
> > The end result was that I had to change my work phone number because of the
> > sexual harassment I received. Fortunately my attacker had the wrong
> > address, or I may have been forced to move or risk sexual assault by some
> > crazed nutcase.
>
> So you post under a post under a pseudonym for some degree of anonimity?
> Funny, because that is the pretty much the *same* reason I do. So, why is it
> OK for you but for me?
What is the name on your driver's license? What is your legal sex? How
do you live? Could you =honestly= state that "Donna", as a feminine name,
is more indicative of how you live than "Donald"?
Unfortunately you are collateral damage -- this isn't about you. You admit
that you live "intergendered", which as I understand it means you live as
something lying between "man" and "woman". It would be dumb to say "Hey, you
can't use a woman's name because you live 37% (or 73% ...) as a man." I
don't suppose that all intergendered people could be named "Kelly" or "Sandy"
or "Pat" ;-)
> > Except that "her" drivers license, social security card, federal income tax
> > return and passport (if she has one ...) all says "T. G. Loree" and
> > identifies her" as a male.
>
> And *why* do you care? If Loree is living in a fantasy world, so what?
People tend to reach conclusions based on past experiences. It is what it
means to =learn=. If someone meets LoreeTV and gets "Oh, I'm a non-op
transsexual!" what are they going to think the next time the meet a
transsexual? "Big tall guy with a beard, deep voice, and a penis." Loree
can scream bloody murder all day long that this is an inaccurate description,
but it is based on DIRECT statements, not some fantasy I've concocted.
> > Huh? Wait -- I posted here for nearly =three= years using my legal name.
> > Not some "made up" name, or clever rearranging of my name, or fake female
> > name. MY legal name. When my legal name was "John", that's what I used.
> > When it was "Julie", that's what I used. THAT, "Ms. Donna" and "Loree
> > Thomas", is personal integrity.
>
> And now it's Geena, some "made up" name just like Loree and I. Or have you
> legally changed it to Geena, so as to maintain your personal integrity.
I stopped when my safety was threatened. I =do= have another ID which uses
"Julie" as the first name. At the time I started using this ID my attacker
was still spamming the "come fuck me in the ass!" postings all over the net.
I felt it was safer to use a name that wasn't well associated with me. My
closer friends know that I look kinda like Geena Davis, and I figured they
would "figure out" that this was me. Many did, some didn't. Some are still
clueless ;-)
> So everyone... Show of hands... Is this a waste of bandwidth or what???
Which part? We covered quite a bit of ground here.
-- Geena.
LoreeTG
>> > something that "T. G. Loree" has =never= done, by the way, and was
viciously
>> > attacked by one of Loree's friends in Seattle.
>>
>> Not a nice thing for *anyone* to do.
>
>Yup, and Loree has posted several times that she feels the person who did
>it didn't do anything at all wrong. She even attacked me for doing what I
>did to have that person removed from the Internet.
>
Geena, you fucked up bigtime here. Post ONE example of the above. You
can't, of course, because it is a totalliy made up bogus LIE.
Plain and simple, no possibility of a misunderstanding... nothing other than
a bald face lie.
Geena, you have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that you are a liar.
LoreeTG
trying to avoid responding directly to any of the more vehement flamers...
but it isn't working... Geena is taking my silence to be a license to be
more open in what =lies= she posts. She's not even bothering to pretend
she's misunderstanding me any more.
So... Donna, just a couple of things. Keep my name out of your discussions
with Geena and she'll leave you alone (if you want to bow to her censorship)
and here's what happened this summer:
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71sr67$tuk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <71shg6$edi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Now... please remember the Geena claims she doesn't lie.
> and was viciously
>attacked by one of Loree's friends in Seattle.
I don't know Celeste. I've never met Celeste. I've never corresponded
with Celeste. When the flame war in a.s.srs spilled over into this
newsgroup, I was adamantly opposed to what Celeste was doing, and had never
even HEARD of Celeste before then. There is no way Celeste was ever my
"friend".
Celeste is a 17 year post-op in deep stealth who lives in Redmond WA and
doesn't get involved in the T-community... ever. She and the three flamers
we've seen in here recently, spent the summer in totally destroying a.s.srs.
She hasn't been around recently... and so those three flamers lost their
flame bait. They needed a new cause... I was "lucky" enough to be chosen.
whoopee.
Geena knows all this. There is no question of a misunderstanding. She
chooses to post an outright lie... why?
The truth is, it just is part and parcel of what she's been doing all along.
About it being dangerous to share personal info with Geena... well ask
Celeste about that. I'm pretty sure that Geena's complaints about Celeste's
actions are valid... Celeste really did appear to go psycho... but Geena
conveniently leaves off the fact that Celeste's actions were in
retaliation.
Guess what Geena did to Celeste? She used her knowledge of Celestes
personal info in an all out attack. She posted a deep stealth TSs real
name, location, isp, business name, etc.. Why? To FORCE Celeste to do what
she wanted.
What was Celeste's crime? She abused her position as retro moderator of
a.s.srs. and started issuing cancel messages on posts she didn't like. She
was subjected to a flame war very similar to what's been going on in here
recently. The three flamers we've seen operating in here were the primary
parties involved in driving Celeste over the edge. Celeste was hounded and
driven into a corner where she made a very bad mistake in judgement and used
her position as retro-moderator to issue cancels.
The exact chronology of this is still in doubt... I wasn't there when it
started so I don't know.. but Celete (and a few others) maintained that
Geenas "outing" occured prior to the cancels... and the cancels were a
direct attempt to minimise the damage caused by the outings.
To be fair, the only "outing" I saw personally occured after Celeste went
rogue, and that was done by Diane... but Celeste (and others) say it wasn't
the first one. Be that as it may, "outing" anybody, for any reason.. is a
heinous activity.... and
Usenet ISN'T real life. There just isn't enough at stake here to justify
it.
Yes... Geena did the ultimate horrendous thing... she outed a deep stealth
TS... because that person was censoring messages.
Now she's involved in a flame war to censor me. Hypocritical, to say the
least.
One of these flamers (nobody ever owned up to it) posted Celeste's personal
info in neonazi and other hate based newsgroups... inviting them to visit
Celeste at home.
These three also continued the flame war in a.s.srs even after all reason
for it disappeared. They are actually almost FAMOUS for starting and
maintaining flame wars. Again, to be fair, Geena was the least aggressive
of the three in the aftermath... but she did still participate... all the
while claiming (as she does now) that HER posts weren't flames...
Use this info as you see fit. Remember, "forewarned is fore armed".
LoreeTG
<36454813...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>Like it or not, society is not going to accept anything but male and
>female. Third genders, "other" genders, whatever one wishes to call
>it, will not be accepted by the general public, despite the gender
>deconstructionists of academia. Most people are very happy with two
>sexes, and will strongly resist any attempts to upset that apple cart.
So this is an excuse for you to be just as prejudicial as the rest of
society? I don't see it, sorry.
<snip>
>Transsexuals live with tenuous acceptance. If we were to say that
>transvestites, cross dressers, etc. are also TS and should be allowed
>to claim the privelege of being "women", the backlash against us would
>be tremendous, and we would loose what little safeguards we have.
<snip>
>I'm reluctant to jeopardize my hard-won acceptance as a woman for
>those who are not.
<snip>
>I just call it survival.
Ok.. now we have the basic motivation behind the bigoted attacks... fear.
Unreasonable fear at that.
Not really surprising, fear is ALWAYS what's behind bigotry.
Somehow I doubt that me self iding as a non-op TS is ever going to effect
how Geena, Cheryl or Diane is treated by anybody.
Society IS changing on these issues.. it's so sad that these particular
post-ops feel they have to identify with the most conservative, reactionary
elements... but that's what fear does to you.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> >> > My legal first name is Julie. I used to post under my full legal name,
> >> > something that "T. G. Loree" has =never= done, by the way, and was
> viciously
> >> > attacked by one of Loree's friends in Seattle.
> >>
> >> Not a nice thing for *anyone* to do.
> >
> >Yup, and Loree has posted several times that she feels the person who did
> >it didn't do anything at all wrong. She even attacked me for doing what I
> >did to have that person removed from the Internet.
> >
>
> can't, of course, because it is a totalliy made up bogus LIE.
Uh, there were =many= examples of it, sweets. You 100% supported what
"The Poster Formerly Known As Celeste" did and criticized me, Diane, Cheryl,
et alia, who tried to shut her down.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> I originally saved this without posting it... I'm tired of the crap and am
> trying to avoid responding directly to any of the more vehement flamers...
> but it isn't working... Geena is taking my silence to be a license to be
> more open in what =lies= she posts. She's not even bothering to pretend
> she's misunderstanding me any more.
>
> So... Donna, just a couple of things. Keep my name out of your discussions
> with Geena and she'll leave you alone (if you want to bow to her censorship)
> and here's what happened this summer:
Yup, defending your friend, Celeste, I see.
What =happened=, and you can verify it by checking DejaNews, is that Celeste
(who was =not= stealth on the newsgroups -- she was the original proposer of
alt.support.sexreassign -- check alt.config for the discussions in early '96
and you'll find her real name) went after a woman she was a close friend with.
Her former friend committed the horrible "crime" of posting silly messages
to alt.support.srs. In exchange, Celeste posted lies containing that other
posters real name. That poster, by the way, is now =unemployable= because of
Celestes actions. Celeste then started posting other people's private
information (again, use DejaNews to get the details) and started cancelling
any messages which disagreed with her. I wrote Celeste a private e-mail
asking her to leave the group because of the growing distrust. She then
attacked me in public and started cancelling any messages I posted. At that
point I posted her NON-PRIVATE information (since it is in DejaNews it can't
possibly be "private", or something that I was somehow especially privvy to)
to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet (NANAU) asking what could be done. At which
point, she began cancelling =every= message which had the least opposition to
her.
All of this is in DejaNews since she couldn't cancel the messages which were
already archived there.
Lies, Loree? Sorry, the public record speaks for itself.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> cheryl@ultima_thule.com wrote in message
> <36454813...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
> >Like it or not, society is not going to accept anything but male and
> >female. Third genders, "other" genders, whatever one wishes to call
> >it, will not be accepted by the general public, despite the gender
> >deconstructionists of academia. Most people are very happy with two
> >sexes, and will strongly resist any attempts to upset that apple cart.
>
> So this is an excuse for you to be just as prejudicial as the rest of
> society? I don't see it, sorry.
How is it "prejudicial" to say that there are only two sexes? Who =really=
gave you the right to inflict =your= desire to have more than two on society?
Do you really think you have the right to ingest estrogen and proclaim you
are a "transsexual" (or a "woman") without question? Talk about ballsie!
> <snip>
> >Transsexuals live with tenuous acceptance. If we were to say that
> >transvestites, cross dressers, etc. are also TS and should be allowed
> >to claim the privelege of being "women", the backlash against us would
> >be tremendous, and we would loose what little safeguards we have.
> <snip>
> >I'm reluctant to jeopardize my hard-won acceptance as a woman for
> >those who are not.
> <snip>
> >I just call it survival.
>
> Ok.. now we have the basic motivation behind the bigoted attacks... fear.
> Unreasonable fear at that.
They aren't bigotted attacks any more than gays distancing themselves from
the likes of NAMBLA is bigotry. You want social acceptance, go work for it
the same as _real_ transsexuals have been doing for decades. What you are
doing is trying to piggyback "gender fuck" onto transsexuality. You are the
one who is co-opting what others have done, just like NAMBLA members who try
to infringe on gay and lesbian groups and the acceptance =they= have earned.
> Somehow I doubt that me self iding as a non-op TS is ever going to effect
> how Geena, Cheryl or Diane is treated by anybody.
I already explained how it has here in Texas. In my county the local judges
refuse to sign gender change orders because of "non-op transsexuals".
> Society IS changing on these issues.. it's so sad that these particular
> post-ops feel they have to identify with the most conservative, reactionary
> elements... but that's what fear does to you.
I see no evidence that mainstream society is changing on the basic notion
that there are two essential sexes. I've seen little evidence that society
is accepting the notion that you can become a woman just by saying so. Most
of the people I encounter view me as a woman because that is how I live my
life and carry myself =and= how I ensure that I am perceived.
What is more than evident in my discussions with others is that the "Jerry
Springer Transsexual" -- the unpassables and don't wanna be passables -- of
your ilk are not viewed as women by society at large.
LoreeTG
>In article <71tml5$kd1$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
> "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>>
>> Geena, you fucked up bigtime here. Post ONE example of the above. You
>> can't, of course, because it is a totalliy made up bogus LIE.
>
>Uh, there were =many= examples of it, sweets. You 100% supported what
>"The Poster Formerly Known As Celeste" did and criticized me, Diane,
Cheryl,
>et alia, who tried to shut her down.
So it should be very easy to find and post one then... and you didn't.... I
wonder why? Could it be that that exist only in your mind? You are so far
out in left field here it's ridiculous.
For the record, I actively participated in shutting her down as well,
including contacting her isp via both phone and email. As I am a computer
consultant and have recommended her isp to several clients in the past, they
did take my complaints seriously.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <71uak5$frv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <71tml5$kd1$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
> > "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Geena, you fucked up bigtime here. Post ONE example of the above. You
> >> can't, of course, because it is a totalliy made up bogus LIE.
> >
> >Uh, there were =many= examples of it, sweets. You 100% supported what
> >"The Poster Formerly Known As Celeste" did and criticized me, Diane,
> Cheryl,
> >et alia, who tried to shut her down.
>
> So it should be very easy to find and post one then... and you didn't.... I
> wonder why? Could it be that that exist only in your mind? You are so far
> out in left field here it's ridiculous.
Uh, the post I just replied to was one. Blame-shifting from Celeste's
out of "KRAKATOA" and another poster, her lies about a poster's mental
health and family, her repeated cancellations against the charter, etc.
to =me= as the culprit is acting in support of her actions.
> For the record, I actively participated in shutting her down as well,
> including contacting her isp via both phone and email. As I am a computer
> consultant and have recommended her isp to several clients in the past, they
> did take my complaints seriously.
No, what they took seriously was a pending legal action by another poster
as well as my informing them that they were going to be involved in a civil
suit I was about to prepare. I sent Tim Rosmus a note informing him that
Celeste was in violation of a particular piece of the Texas Penal Code and
that I was going to name Northwest Nexus as a party to the civil suit I was
preparing to file. That next day (coincidence? I think not ;-), Celeste
was told that all of her accounts were being closed.
Until I sent Tim proof on Sept 18th that Celeste was behind the mailbombing
(which violates something like Section 33.01a of the Texas Penal Code), NWN
wasn't going to remove her accounts. On Friday Sept 18th I sent Tim 3
mail bombs and on Saturday Sept. 19th she was told to pack up her web sides
and go away.
The truth, Loree, is that you want to be a big fish. That's why you claim
to be a "transsexual" and why you claim "involvement" in "shutting down"
Celeste and why you brag about how "no TVes or CDers take hormones" and what
an incredible software expert you are. You don't know squat about the
motivations of transsexuals (because you aren't one), you had nothing to do
with shutting down Celeste (you had no evidence that could be used in a court
of law to justify breaking a business contract), you have squat for knowledge
about TVes and CDers outside of Ingersoll or Seattle and you really don't
seem to know much about computers if you are stuck taking odd jobs in retail
stores between gigs (in 19 years as a programmer, my last retail job outside
of the biz was 1981 -- do the math).
You're, quite simply, a 41 year-old punk transsexual wannabe who likes to
ride on others coattails.
Famvieths
HATE have a problem with us, and if it isnt us it will be someone else.
there are only a very few that are like the KKK. we can stop them if we make
owr selves the ones in control.
it can only be done as the gays and lesbians did it. GET OUT AND STAY OUT. I
have been out for 2 years and it took a lot to get to the point that I am a
Woman. I work for a wonderful company, on a retail sales flor. not a small
compay either 630 stores. they have no problem with me.
if there were as much hate around as you make it sound I would have been offed
by now.
PAULA
LoreeTG
>In article <71v7jo$avk$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
> "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<71uak5$frv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >In article <71tml5$kd1$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
>> > "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Geena, you fucked up bigtime here. Post ONE example of the above.
You
>> >> can't, of course, because it is a totalliy made up bogus LIE.
>> >
>> >Uh, there were =many= examples of it, sweets. You 100% supported what
>> >"The Poster Formerly Known As Celeste" did and criticized me, Diane,
>> Cheryl,
>> >et alia, who tried to shut her down.
>>
>> So it should be very easy to find and post one then... and you didn't....
I
>> wonder why? Could it be that that exist only in your mind? You are so
far
>> out in left field here it's ridiculous.
>
>Uh, the post I just replied to was one.
So.. you fucked up.. can't find anything that even you could twist into
resembling that lie, could you?
There weren't any others and you posted that lie before my last post..
besides which, I said that Celeste DID do the things you accused her of and
she DID issue cancels.
Whatever you feel... my post certainly wasn't supporting Celeste 100%.. I
called her rogue, psycho, send she went over the edge... pretty strange
language for support, don't you think? What I did do was NOT support you
100%. You use peoples personal information to wage real war in the real
world. The mail bombs and such occurred long after you outed Celeste. She
was psycho, you were down right evil.
>The truth, Loree, is that you want to be a big fish.
You throw that word "truth" around a lot.. especially for a person who lies
in almost every post.
I think you are actually a sociopath. I don't believe that you can
distinguish between truth and your internal fantasies.
Amazing how the frequency of your lies and intensity of your hate ballooned
after I refused to discuss this via email. Did I hurt your feelings?
Poor thing.
MsTeri
But at least s/he is improving. I haven't noticed Geena flaming
himself ( aka Laura Blake)
Nicole Hamilton
> Hi everybody, just checkin' in! My transitions is going really
> great and my therapist says if I keep it up I should get my
> surgery soon. He won't say how long though :( but I know it
> should be not much longer cause I'm passing like crazy.
Well, there you have it. That's certainly the only criteria I'd worry
about if I were you. No use wasting time thinking too deeply about major
life decisions.
--
Nicki Hamilton
http://www.hamiltonlabs.com/biography.htm
LoreeTG
> "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>Using Occam's Razor
>I find it far easier to believe that you flunk the basic requirement in
being
>a transsexual -- The desire to be perceived and function as the genetically
>opposite sex.
And now we are back to the true root of our difference of opinion... that
you have to change sex to the exact and complete opposite for it to be a
valid transition. I do not believe that to be the case.
To you male/female is all there is and you can't conceive that anybody would
actually WANT to be in the middle. Since I'm not doing my absolute and
utmost best to be perceived as 100% female, that makes me 100% male in your
eyes.
That's fine... it's your opinion. I don't agree with it. Are we done yet?
gee...@my-dejanews.com
>
> You throw that word "truth" around a lot.. especially for a person who lies
> in almost every post.
And the proof of this is ???
Oh, another assertion -- like "non-op transsexual".
> I think you are actually a sociopath. I don't believe that you can
> distinguish between truth and your internal fantasies.
Practicing arm-chair psychology as well? I suppose you studied psychology
for a couple of hours and are now an expert. Whatever.
> Amazing how the frequency of your lies and intensity of your hate ballooned
> after I refused to discuss this via email. Did I hurt your feelings?
I don't "hate" you, Loree. I simply refuse to play into your delusional
feelings of being a "non-op transsexual".
If you recall, there was a time when I viewed you as I do today -- a
transvestite. You told me that you were actually living as a woman and
I accorded you the decency I accord all people who live as women, regardless
of their birth sex. This all "ballooned" when you made it abundantly clear
that you felt "living as a woman" meant "wearing women's clothes and making
no effort to pass." While I also (along with thousands of other transsexual
women ...) wear women's clothes and make no effort to pass, we actually =do=
"pass" because we put the effort in many years ago. You can't be bothered
and you hate to have your nose rubbed in my "opinion" that if you are going
to claim the label "woman" you might as well make the effort to integrate
into society as one.
Of the several hundred transsexual women I've know, exactly =one= takes the
delight you do in constantly telling people "I'm a non-op transsexual!" when
your sex is questioned. That one person would be =you=. Using Occam's Razor
I find it far easier to believe that you flunk the basic requirement in being
a transsexual -- the desire to be perceived and function as the genetically
opposite sex.
-- Geena.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> >In article <71vqbr$q6s$1...@slave3.aa.net>,
> > "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>
> >Using Occam's Razor
> >I find it far easier to believe that you flunk the basic requirement in
> being
> >opposite sex.
>
> And now we are back to the true root of our difference of opinion... that
> you have to change sex to the exact and complete opposite for it to be a
> valid transition. I do not believe that to be the case.
And in typical "I'm an expert in 4 hours" LoreeTV fashion, you twist and
contort what others say to fit your own needs.
Transsexualism isn't a catch-all phrase for every form of gender variance.
It describes a =particular= form. It doesn't describe "bigendered" or
"transgendered" or "transvestite" or "cross-dresser" or any other form of
variance from "cisgendered".
> To you male/female is all there is and you can't conceive that anybody would
> actually WANT to be in the middle. Since I'm not doing my absolute and
> utmost best to be perceived as 100% female, that makes me 100% male in your
> eyes.
No, it simply makes you something other than a TRANS-sexual. You may be
"intergendered", "transgendered", a "cross-dresser", a "transvestite" or any
number of other terms. The absolute dead-last thing you are is a
transsexual.
> That's fine... it's your opinion. I don't agree with it. Are we done yet?
We'll be done when we're done. If you don't know the answer to your own
question, I suspect the answer is "No, we're not done".
Diane
> > > "LoreeTV" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>> And now we are back to the true root of our difference of opinion... that
>> you have to change sex to the exact and complete opposite for it to be a
>> valid transition. I do not believe that to be the case.
Julie never once said that of course. What she has been saying
is that a transsexual desires to change their physical gender.
Since you do not then you are not a transsexual. She has also
pointed out that since your ID, website and resume on that site
distinctly identify you under a male name, it's fairly obvious
that you don't need or want to ID a woman. In such as case you
wouldn't be considered living a TG lifestyle either but rather
as cross dresser or transvestite since you just wear the clothes.
By the way, using your last name (Loree) on your checking account
followed by the first initials (T) of your male name - hardly
counts as a name change <big grins>. Give it a rest - if you
want to play dress up that's fine but run along and have fun
while the big boys and girls talk now OK?
----------------
Diane
Trina
>Give it a rest - if you want to play dress up that's
>fine but run along and have fun while the big
>boys and girls talk now OK?
Oh yeah, sure, right, like you're the voice of maturity.
Puhlease.
Lemme see if I've got this right. You *claim* to have
killfiled Loree but you have no problems with responding directly to
her by quoting someone else's quotes of her when you don't even know -
or, at least, you claim you don't even know - what the original
context of what she even said was. You only know, or, at least, claim
you only know, what was quoted, which may have been taken out of
context, may have been only have been part of what was argued or
discussed, or may not have been what she wrote at all.
Do you think it is reasonable to argue with someone when you
can't even see what it is they said in the first place or their
response? Obviously you're very interested dialog and discussion. No,
you'd much rather take cheap pot-shots at your leisure. Oh yes, you're
oh-so-very mature. You're like a child having a tantrum, their fingers
in their ear while they scream at the top of their lungs "I can't hear
you! You're a transvestite because I say so! I can't hear you!". Very,
very mature behavior.
The big boys and girls are talking, you're just not one of
them. Run along now...
Trina
LoreeTG
>In article <723dg3$um9$1...@slave3.aa.net>,
>I wrote:
>> That's fine... it's your opinion. I don't agree with it. Are we done
yet?
>
>We'll be done when we're done. If you don't know the answer to your own
>question, I suspect the answer is "No, we're not done".
<sigh> I suppose not... well I'm done trying to respond to your lies and
attacks... I'll just ignore them from now on and continue to self ID the way
I want to.
As a non-op TS.
Diane
> Lemme see if I've got this right. You *claim* to have
>killfiled Loree but you have no problems with responding directly to
>her by ...yadda ...yadda...yadda....
What's your point?
----------------
Diane
Trina
On Sun, 08 Nov 1998 18:02:43 GMT, n...@this.time (Trina) DID NOT write:
>> Lemme see if I've got this right. You *claim* to have
>>killfiled Loree but you have no problems with responding directly to
>>her by ...yadda ...yadda...yadda....
>What's your point?
Gee, you slay me with your wit.
You make my point for me. Was "...yadda ...yadda...yadda...."
in my message? No, it was not, *you* put it there. You're going to
argue with someone based on secondhand quotes and *you* can't even get
first hand quotes right?
My point is that you're not interested in debating with
someone, you're not interested in discussing anything with anyone. You
want to dictate someone's views, tell them who and what they are
(when, I might add, you can't even get the damn state they live in
straight!), and you don't even have the decency to listen to what they
have to say on the subject. You'd rather play games with second hand
quotes that you can't even get right so you can try, in your own
desperate fashion, to make cheap rhetorical points and hope no one
notices how full of BS you are. Sorry to tell you this, but people do
notice.
If you've killfiled Loree, fine, drop it. This one sided
potshot stuff is pure childish crap. If you haven't, grow up and stop
pretending.
Trina
Diane
> My point is that you're not interested in debating with
>someone, you're not interested in discussing anything with anyone.
<yawn>
Only half true - closer to the truth is that I am interested in
talking with well reasoned and socialized people. Unfortunately
you're not one of them.
Sorry.
----------------
Diane
gee...@my-dejanews.com
"LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <72493d$6kq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <723dg3$um9$1...@slave3.aa.net>,
> >I wrote:
> >> That's fine... it's your opinion. I don't agree with it. Are we done
> yet?
> >
> >We'll be done when we're done. If you don't know the answer to your own
> >question, I suspect the answer is "No, we're not done".
>
> <sigh> I suppose not... well I'm done trying to respond to your lies and
> attacks... I'll just ignore them from now on and continue to self ID the way
> I want to.
"Mommy, Mommy! Geena keeps pointing out that I don't make any effort at
all to present as a woman. She's mean!"
> As a non-op TS.
Right. A non-air breathing mammal. A four-legged trout. A bottle of fine
french wine made from left-over Oscar-Meyer bologna. Those things all make
as much sense as you being =any= kind of transsexual.
Trina
>On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 03:28:35 GMT, n...@this.time (Trina) wrote:
>> My point is that you're not interested in debating with
>>someone, you're not interested in discussing anything with anyone.
Gee, I'm impressed, you actually got the quote right.
><yawn>
>Only half true - closer to the truth is that I am interested in
>talking with well reasoned and socialized people.
Oh really? That would explain why you don't bother with messy
things like actually responding to someone's points. Wouldn't want any
facts or opinions that might disagree with your god-like omniscience
to get in the way, now would we?
>Unfortunately you're not one of them.
>Sorry.
Don't be. Coming from you I consider that a compliment.
Trina
ms_d...@geocities.com
In article <71tcn8$o14$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71t2tf$air$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > In article <71sr67$tuk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Which explains why people keep weighing in with opposition to LoreeTV's
> > > self-proclaimed "transsexual" status.
> >
> > And this effects you how exactily? Why does it matter to you what Loree
> > considers herself to be. Why is it you feel so threatened by Loree calling
> > herself a TS?
>
> It affects me quite personally by muddying what it means to be a person
> with my past. Transsexual men and women have been fighting for over 40
> years to acquire legal rights and we did this by demonstrating that we
> aren't something other than what we claim to be -- ordinary members of the
> genetically opposite sex. For example, I have breasts and a vagina. In
> Texas, women are granted the right (it's in the insurance code, I believe)
> to have mammograms at a certain interval. I have the legal right to marry
> a man. A rape crisis shelter would probably provide me with certain
> services in the event of need. Incarceration would be in a women's facility.
>
> As long as "transsexual" means what it has meant for 40 years -- physical,
> genital sex change and the living of a lifestyle within bounds for "ordinary
> members of the genetically opposite sex", I can reasonably expect those
> things I listed above to remain as they are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the above 'rights' have nothing to do
with being transexual; my wife is afforded the same rights under the law.
Having completed transition, do you still identify as transexual? It would
seem, from a legal standpoint, that you are now no different than any other
woman, a point you continually stress. The legal rights seem to be not from a
demonstration that identity as transexual is a valid one and should be
treated as such. Rather, you are now 'protected' under existing legislation
by your recognition as 'female' under the eyes of the law. Were the identity
as a transexual actually recognized, a pre-op TS woman would be entitled to
the same above stated rights. As far as I know, that has yet to happen.
> Once "transgenderist" and "transvestite", to say nothing of "bigendered",
> "intergendered", "agendered", "non-gendered", etc. start to encrouch on what
> it means to be "transsexual", social norms, conventions, legal rights, etc.
> are called into question. Suddenly I am less able to argue convincingly that
> I am simply an ordinary woman -- after all, so is "LoreeTV", and depending on
> your frame of mind or attire at the time, you might be as well.
Come on now. Being a transgenderist, bigendered, etc. does not encrouch on
what it means to be a transexual. Your above definition above is quite
specific and does not necessarily (if at all) fit any of the other
aforementioned transgender identities.
What is wrong with calling into question social norms and conventions? I
believe that was a big part of the gay movement, was it not? To challenge
the 'accepted' societal norms, point out where they fell short and change
things to allow for a more tollerant and understanding society? Yes, it is
an ongoing process and no, it is far from done. But the fact is that
societal norms are not carved in stone and they can and *do* evolve.
The claim that you are 'simply an ordinary woman' means exactily what? There
is no single universal definition of womanhood. If fact, a room full of women
will have varing opinions as to what 'womanhood' is. There are all sorts of
cultural differences in the definition of 'womanhood'. In the U.S., the
'definition' (if there actually is one) has changed over the past fifty years.
Hell, it's changed over the last twenty years.
The point here being that it *will* continue to change. Is there a reason
that that change can not include male born 'women' who do not see a need for
SRS?
> Myself and others have spent significant amounts of time saying "This is what
> a transsexual is." and society has reacted against those definitions and
> said "Okay, you claim to be an ordinary woman, we will treat you like an
> ordinary woman." LoreeTV is trying to, essentially, co-opt the work of
> transsexuals and say "Well, I wish to apply this to males who cross-live."
No one is co-opting anything. We are all entitled to the same right to define
our identities as we see fit. What part of the work of transexuals am I
co-opting in my definition of self?
The nit here seems to be that there is but one narrow definition of woamnhood
and that it shouldn't include anyone other that cisgendered females and
transexual women. This isn't about being TS, is it? It's about being a
woman and how that is defined. The problem here isn't that there are people
who call themselves non-op transexuals, is that there are people who identify
as and live as women who don't fit the accepted morphology. It's about *not*
fitting the cisgendered stereotype of 'woman' and being OK with that.
> > Gendertrash, genderqueer... Pick a label. To the rest of the 'normal'
> > world, all of us here are gendertrash, you, me... The whole friggin lot
> > of us. But, it would seem that some of us are 'trashier' than others.
> > That I'm comfortable being trans and not needing to 'fix' anything seems
> > to put me in a trashier subgroup that the more 'noble' gendertrash.
>
> No, to the majority of society, transsexuals have fully acted on a need and
> "corrected a problem." This is more of that "education" I've written about.
No, to the majority of society, we're all genderqueer, regardless of how much
work is put into 'correcting the problem'. There is a small degree more
tolerance now, but nothing approaching the level of acceptance you indicate.
I do agree that education is key here. Society in general needs to learn
about who we are. But that's *all* of us, not just the transexuals. The
trans community is much larger and more diverse than just the TS population.
> You want social acceptance for "gendertrash", well, go out and work for it.
No problem. This forum and my newsgroup are a starting point. I explain
whatever I can when the question comes up. In discussions dealing with gender
in general, I use it as an opportunity to introduce others to the TG point of
view.
> I've spent time with my employer, my church, my neighbors, etc. educating
> them about what a "transsexual" is. The message is always the same -- I
> am an otherwise normal woman who happened to have been born male. No
> "gender theory" or "sex=crotch, gender=head" lessons.
Do you mention that there are other people besides transexuals? Do you
educate them as to diversity of the transgender community? Or do you
continue to perpetuate the myth that transexuals are the 'real' thing and
everyone else is simply screwed up.
Presenting only the transexual side of things, is presenting only part of the
picture of being transgendered. By omiting everyone else, the very notions
which all other transgendered people are fighting against are supported. Not
educating people that sex and gender are two different things bolsters the
transexual position at the expense of the rest of the transgendered community.
> I'm just a woman. I'm a female woman. I'm just an ordinary, garden variety,
> normal, female-bodied woman.
I fully accept you as a woman, but as I see it, your history challenges your
"I'm just an ordinary, garden variety, normal, female-bodied woman"
statement. There is nothing 'garden variety' about being a woman who was born
male. Should it make any difference you were born male? I personally don't
think so.
> > And climbing the 'gender hierarchy'? Who, pray-tell, is the top trans
> > in this hierarchy? The transsexuals? By whose decree?
>
> There are two different "gender hierarchies". One has trannies at the top
> and the other has mundanes at the top. "I'm not really a transvestite
> because I just dress on Halloween." "I'm not really a CDer because I only
> underdress." "I'm not really a transsexual because I don't want to have my
> weenie whacked". I've seen the crap. One group disses the next -- above or
> below -- for some perceived advantage.
And why is it such a pissing match? Because everyone is *so* self absorbed.
Because each 'group' thinks they have the 'answer' and everyone else is wrong.
Because no group is willing to simply 'accept' the other for who they are
without trying to 'convert' them.
> Now we have LoreeTV deciding sie is a "transsexual" because sie feels that
> "transsexual" is better than "transvestite" or "transgenderist" -- despite>
> the fact that =both= of those terms more accurately describe hir.
Did she actually say that being transexual is somehow *better* than being a
transgenderist?
> > How utterly pathetic that you would actually promote the notion that one of
> > you is somehow 'better' than another.
>
> And how utterly pathetic of you to leap to some conclusion.
It would seem that you feel being a transexual is somehow better than being a
transgenderist (or TV/CD/etc); otherwise why react so hostilly. Do you
honestly feel that *anyone* calling themself TS who you feel isn't is going
to 'set the clock back' for all you???
> > > As in, "I'm not one of those transvestite perverts, I have a =real=
> > > condition. I'm a transsexual!" Cross-dressers and transvestites
> > > have been trying to find ways to linguistically validate themselves for
> > > years. Claiming to be TS is just one of the ways it's done.
> >
> > Well, I'm not one of those 'transvestite perverts' as you so delicatly
> > put it. I have my own identity, one not created at the expense of another
> > group, and you still saw fit to attack that. An interesting response,
> > considering you complemented me on coining the term Intergendered a couple
> > months back.
>
> Yes, I think you described a "situation" that had not been adequately
> described before. My response to you would have been very different had you
> decided to coin the term "Intergendered Transsexual". Hell, I can even tell
> you what an intergender transsexual is --
>
> An intergendered transsexual is a person, born either male or female, who has
> changed some attributes of their physical sex to be opposite that of their
> birth sex. Their lifestyle is distinguished from a transsexual in that the
> gendered attributes of the person lie between the stereotypically male and
> the stereotypically female. The term "intergendered transsexual" therefore
> can be used to describe any born male or female who has used hormones,
> electrolysis, breast reduction, gonadectomy, genital reassignment surgery,
> or non-genital cosmetic surgery, without compromising their ability to
> present as any gender between "stereotypical man" and "stereotypical woman".
But doesn't this 'dilute' the 'pure' meaning of transsexual just the same as
'non-op' does? Actually, intergendered alone would cover the above laundry
list. Tacking transsexual on to it does nothing to enhance or detract from
the meaning. As gender is not a function of sex (IMO), it makes little
difference what kind of 'x-sexual' the person is.
> Sounds real groovy, right?
Groovy??? I guess...
> Well guess what -- TVes who have ever taken a single birth control pill are
> now "Intergendered transsexuals".
Anyone who wants to label themselvs as such has got my blessing. I, however,
will *not* presume to assign a label such as that to anyone. People need to
discover for themselves *who* they are. More external labeling will not help
that to happen for anyone.
> And if you say they aren't, well your a bigot.
Well, thank you for answering for me.
> > What I don't understand is why the 180 on me? At the beginning of October
> > we seemed to get along:
>
> Because =you= carved out new territory for =you=. You didn't side with
> someone who wishes to create ambiguity in =my= identity.
Geena, I haven't 'sided' with *anybody*. Chandra asked a question and I gave
her an answer. I was *one* possible answer. It was *my* answer. It was not
presented as *the* answer. You were welcome to give her *your* answer. I'm
sure Chandra is a big girl and can decide which (if any) she prefers.
I'm not one to take sides. I state my point of view as *my own*. It has been
known to happen that it overlaps with someone else's every now and then.
I didn't realize that there were sides to be taken here. It was my
impression that as an open public forum, we all can discuss a topic in the
hopes of everyone getting something positive out of it. The notion that there
were sides battling with the intent to 'win' something here was not one I had
entertained.
Can someone provide team rosters so I know who's on which 'side'?
> > So, what gives? I offer my opinion to Chandra you go off on me why?
>
> Go back to describing and defining "Intergendered people" and leave the
> word "transsexual" alone and I'll go back to thinking you're pretty cool.
Leave word "transsexual" alone? What did I do to diminish the meaning of
'transsexual'?
Is there now a list of words that can and can't be used depending upon who's
team one is on? Only certain people are allowed to use certain words and
discuss certain topics in the public forum? Who are the thought police here?
So tell me, have you burned any good books lately? Last I checked freedom of
speech was still in effect.
I've made no attempt to redefine what 'transsexual' means. I use the term as
the descriptor in reference to a group of individuals, nothing more. I have
asked questions regarding the meaning of the term now and then, but it is not
a term which I have tried to userp as my own or change so as to be more
inclusive. Unfortunately it is a very 'political' term and use thereof
invites upon the user attacks from the members of said group.
If there is another, prefered term, for use by individuals not a part of the
group in question, I'll be more than happy to use it in the spirit of keeping
the peace.
> > > The end result was that I had to change my work phone number because of
> > > the sexual harassment I received. Fortunately my attacker had the
> > > wrong address, or I may have been forced to move or risk sexual assault
> > > by some crazed nutcase.
> >
> > So you post under a post under a pseudonym for some degree of anonimity?
> > Funny, because that is the pretty much the *same* reason I do. So, why is
> > it OK for you but for me?
>
> What is the name on your driver's license?
Not Donna. My license has the name I was given at birth on it.
> What is your legal sex?
No one's business other than my own. That it is a requirement on a driver's
license is another issue unto itself.
> How do you live?
As I am employed by Corporate America (a sub-culture unto itself), I present
as the gender which I was assigned at birth. Out of work, I live and present
more or less in the middle. A less than perfect arangement, but as I have a
family to which I am dedicated, it is my goal to find a workable middle
ground between what they want and need from me and what I want and need for
myself.
> Could you =honestly= state that "Donna", as a feminine name, is more
> indicative of how you live than "Donald"?
Actually, it's not 'Donald' and no, as a name it is not more indicative of
how I live. It *is* indicative of how I identify. Given the two polar
extremes of society, the name 'Donna' is closer to how I identify and feel on
a regular basis than my 'real' name. Regardless, I don't pretend that I live
as a woman.
> Unfortunately you are collateral damage -- this isn't about you. You admit
> that you live "intergendered", which as I understand it means you live as
> something lying between "man" and "woman". It would be dumb to say "Hey, you
> can't use a woman's name because you live 37% (or 73% ...) as a man." I
> don't suppose that all intergendered people could be named "Kelly" or "Sandy"
> or "Pat" ;-)
Hmmm... I've never been refered to as 'collateral damage' before... :)
(BTW, that is one of my all time favorite double-speak expressions.)
One's name should be nothing more than that which they wish to be known as.
That one's name need imply one's gender (or sex) makes it difficult to present
oneself in such a way that is true to how they identify.
> > And *why* do you care? If Loree is living in a fantasy world, so what?
>
> People tend to reach conclusions based on past experiences. It is what it
> means to =learn=.
Agreed.
> If someone meets LoreeTV and gets "Oh, I'm a non-op transsexual!" what are
> they going to think the next time the meet a transsexual? "Big tall guy
> with a beard, deep voice, and a penis." Loree can scream bloody murder all
> day long that this is an inaccurate description, but it is based on DIRECT
> statements, not some fantasy I've concocted.
Let's forget about Loree specifically, as the issue is not about her but one
of perception in general.
I agree that were someone to meet a person persenting as you describe who
labled themselves as a transexual, in the absence of any other 'examples',
that would be their 'image' if a transexual. However, *all* people come in
all sorts of different shapes and sizes; that includes transexuals as well.
We overlook most of the differences in men and women bacause we have been
exposed to so many examples thereof that we understand that there is great
variation in men and women.
The problem illustrated here is that there is far less exposure of the general
public to transexuals (and other transgendered persons) for them to see the
diversity as a regular part of who we are. The one or two (for example) that
any individual is likely to meet become for them the standard to which all
others will be heald.
But keep in mind that there are transexuals who do not 'pass' well. These
individuals will have the same 'negative' effect as mentioned above. The
'solution' here isn't a more rigid definition of being transexual. It is the
education of the public as to diversity amongst the transgendered. As there
are no uninterpreted experiences, we as a community need to provide that
'experience' if we are to be considered simply as people and not as some
marginalized group on the fringe of society.
> > And now it's Geena, some "made up" name just like Loree and I. Or have you
> > legally changed it to Geena, so as to maintain your personal integrity.
>
> I stopped when my safety was threatened. I =do= have another ID which uses
> "Julie" as the first name. At the time I started using this ID my attacker
> was still spamming the "come fuck me in the ass!" postings all over the net.
> I felt it was safer to use a name that wasn't well associated with me.
Sounds reasonable. Well, I hope that you are no longer being harassed, as I
can see no justification for anyone to harass anyone else.
> My closer friends know that I look kinda like Geena Davis,
A bit, as I recall.
> and I figured they would "figure out" that this was me. Many did, some
> didn't. Some are still clueless ;-)
Well, now you have the perfect Christmas gift for them: buy them a clue and
see if they get it! :)
> > So everyone... Show of hands... Is this a waste of bandwidth or what???
>
> Which part? We covered quite a bit of ground here.
So long as conversations don't degenerate into name calling and the like, I
tend to consider it bandwidth well used.
Quite a bit of ground to be sure, and I'm willing to bet that there is lots
more to cover.
As I've said in the past, more dialogue and less dogma. You never know, we all
might learn something.
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
LoreeTG
>In article <724q02$lgo$1...@slave1.aa.net>,
> "LoreeTG" <lo...@aa.net> wrote:
>> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<72493d$6kq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Mommy, Mommy! Geena keeps pointing out that I don't make any effort at
>all to present as a woman. She's mean!"
>
>> As a non-op TS.
>
>Right. A non-air breathing mammal. A four-legged trout. A bottle of fine
>french wine made from left-over Oscar-Meyer bologna. Those things all make
>as much sense as you being =any= kind of transsexual.
<G> This was so silly I thought it deserved to be reposted...
Diane
> Gee, I'm impressed, you actually got the quote right....yadda...yadda...yadda...
Still trying to irritate me? You're just not that good child. Oh
wait! what's that sound??]
<plonk!>
----------------
Diane
;-
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the above 'rights' have nothing to do
>with being transexual; my wife is afforded the same rights under the law.
>Having completed transition, do you still identify as transexual? It would
>seem, from a legal standpoint, that you are now no different than any other
>woman, a point you continually stress. The legal rights seem to be not from a
>demonstration that identity as transexual is a valid one and should be
>treated as such. Rather, you are now 'protected' under existing legislation
>by your recognition as 'female' under the eyes of the law. Were the identity
>as a transexual actually recognized, a pre-op TS woman would be entitled to
>the same above stated rights. As far as I know, that has yet to happen.
<~~ducking my head & dipping in flame retardent~~>
Hello,
I have had a change of name and change of gender on my driver's
license. I spoke to the CA DMV and was informed that they were in the
process of going through all of my records and updating them to
reflect the current changes. As far as I was told, I am now legally as
female as my mother. If I was put into jail, I'd have to be held in
the women's tank. I'm subject to the above mentioned rights in the
eyes of the law. The form that was requisite for this (DL 328) listed
my gender identification and demeanor as female and as
transitional/pre surgical. Granted, this is in California, which is
very progressive in gender reassignment. However, one's driver's
license here is like a passport. This serves as the basis for all of
my legal documentation. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that if I
were to go to Florida, my legal status and rights are the same there
as well. If the county sheriff decides to *see what's underneath* and
judge/treat me on those grounds, well it would seem that I would have
grounds for a law suit (and the $$$ for SRS!).
This doesn't change how the general public perceives me; that's all
based on my actions, mannerisms and so forth. As a woman, I can't see
how one would want to literally carry around any form of documentation
that would state otherwise. Additionally, I wouldn't want to write a
check signing *Barney Somethingorother*, either. There's a lot to be
said for congruency. I still cringe when I receive a piece of mail
addressed to the 'old' name.
I'm going to exercise my restraint and keep my opinions on the other
topics of this thread to myself.
Val
email to spidergrrl at chickmail dot com
clkatz
>On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 17:20:21 GMT, ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the above 'rights' >>have nothing to do with being transexual; my wife is >>afforded the same rights under the law.
>>Having completed transition, do you still identify as >>transexual? It would seem, from a legal standpoint, >>that you are now no different than any other
>>woman, a point you continually stress. The legal rights >>seem to be not from a demonstration that identity as >>transexual is a valid one and should be treated as >>such. Rather, you are now 'protected' under existing >>legislation by your recognition as 'female' under the >>eyes of the law. Were the identity as a transexual >>actually recognized, a pre-op TS woman would be >>entitled to the same above stated rights. As far as I >>know, that has yet to happen.
><~~ducking my head & dipping in flame retardent~~>
>Hello,
>I have had a change of name and change of gender on my >driver's license. I spoke to the CA DMV and was >informed that they were in the process of going through >all of my records and updating them to reflect the >current changes. As far as I was told, I am now legally >as female as my mother. If I was put into jail, I'd >have to be held in the women's tank. I'm subject to the >above mentioned rights in the eyes of the law. The form
>that was requisite for this (DL 328) listed my gender >identification and demeanor as female and as
>transitional/pre surgical. Granted, this is in >California, which is very progressive in gender >reassignment. However, one's driver's license here
>is like a passport. This serves as the basis for all of >my legal documentation. I am not a lawyer, but I believe >that if I were to go to Florida, my legal status and >rights are the same there as well. If the county sheriff >decides to *see what's underneath* and judge/treat me on
>those grounds, well it would seem that I would have >grounds for a law suit (and the $$$ for SRS!).
First of all you are a female on paper only as far as the State of
California is concerned, no passport and no women's rights, if you are
ever arrested you would not be put in a women's tank, you would be
seperated and put in isolation or with other pre-op transexuals you would
not be put with males as they might "use you" and since you still have
male genitalia you would not be put with women.
As far as Florida is concerned they will accept your California Drivers
License and issue same as long as you don't tell them anything different,
but again if you were ever arrested there the results would be the same.
If you have ever been arrested you would know about strip searches, as
long as you have that thing between the legs you will be treated as a
"male" in a jail setting, but if you have breasts, then you would be
seperated from the rest of the population. If you doubt my word call the
Los Angeles Sheriff's Office or the San Francisco Sheriff's Office, if you
find out anything different let me know, but until two years ago I lived
in California and have lived in Florida as well as Arizona and have been
involved in law enforcement for over 40 years.
>This doesn't change how the general public perceives me; >that's all based on my actions, mannerisms and so forth. >As a woman, I can't see how one would want to literally >carry around any form of documentation that would
>state otherwise. Additionally, I wouldn't want to write >a check signing *Barney Somethingorother*, either. >There's a lot to be said for congruency. I still cringe >when I receive a piece of mail addressed to the 'old' >name.
The general public will perceive you as you present yourself, if you are
not careful and take care to make sure that you look as you want to be
treated they would think that you are a man in drag, but if you look as a
female and act same that's how society in general will take you. >Val
>email to spidergrrl at chickmail dot com
+=Carol Katz=+
Head of Census
Operator error. Replace operator and strike any key to continue...
Allee114
As I jump from post to post on this thread I have to laugh! I'm reminded of
old hens sitting around cackling and squawking at each other over some birdseed
on the ground. Only this is worse due to the the male testosterone levels
causing you two fight and a bicker like to little boys. Grow up!!!
I'm sure this will ruffle your feathers... Go ahead and tell me all about
it........... I need a good laugh every day anyway
A. Nichole Spencer
honor seed
I do not read these threads to feel and not respond with my feelings,
but I found myself waiting for a response, to my messages, which
wasted time.
I have also had my messages canceled, this one will allow me to see if
the problem continues. It is possible messages are intermittently
killed.
I look as these threads as a party line deal.
Any claim to not be thinking along the lines of a TV because you are
TG or TS is bogus, especially coming from somebody who says emotions
can't be divided up somehow on a male/female basis.
The substance of these threads is common, for the most part
non-conclusive, and does not summarize very well the previous
statements.Diane, I believe, made a statement I should learn to snip
and repeat previous comments. I did, and I don't feel a need to do
this in this message.
One can be pleasant and polite without being timid and shy. In fact,
not communicating is ofter viewed as being rude.
Now, I'm going to write or say, however you want to define this, that
I am dividing up feelings into male and female categories, I'll
explain latter, this is going to open doors for me.It is a very long
time since I have had anybody I cared to share this with.
Labelling is not my interest.Defining labels for my purposes (actions,
activities and social life) is.So next time I get any snafu from Diane
or Geena, or any hint that my messages are blocked, I will take
appropiate measures to end the problem. This thread is getting dumped.
I do not care if anybody responds to this, although I would like to
hear from anybody via e-mail on how messages are blocked, I will be
grateful and attentive. I will not be as nice as some of you, to
people who respond to my stuff with redirection anymore, to bad.
I will respond in a male way to end what I consider a male emotion
that is relating to me via this group, I don't care who you are, this
time when I bring a subject up either don't respond, or do so with a
feeling other than right/wrong, good/bad.
The reason I am writing this is, when I verbally attack somebody with
written words, I will be as calm as a you are right now, the words
will just be words to give those who are upset a chance to see how
others have failed to describe them. And it will further give those
who wish to incite, instead of having an intelligenial group talk, a
chance to stock up on ways and terms to further incite people, this
will reveal how rude they are, and if trying to pass one iota, will
reveal a totally masculline personality behind a feminine curtain.
What a waste.
I heard this behavior is genetic and goes on for generations, for
instance, if a family usually compliments each other this is handed
down generation to generation. What a waste to change your appearance
but not your behavior. How vulgar. And who can say they were born a
certain way, although it works for me, in absence of emotional studies
of a true calibre.
Love you all
Honor
Diane
<ho...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>So next time I get any snafu from Diane
>or Geena, or any hint that my messages are blocked, I will take
>appropiate measures to end the problem. This thread is getting dumped.
>I do not care if anybody responds to this, although I would like to
>hear from anybody via e-mail on how messages are blocked, I will be
>grateful and attentive
Messages rarely are canceled and if they are then there will be a
record of it in Deja News. I've done it for you and here's a
link that lists all cancels for this group in the past 30 days:
The results indicate that 5 messages have been canceled. Four of
them were by GTE and one by an individual apparently canceling
her own post. There is no indication anywhere that any of your
messages have been canceled.
By far, the most common cause of missing messages is inexperience
by the user which results in a failed posting. Trust me on this
- we have learned *a lot* about the cancel mechanism since an
incident that happened on ASSRS this past summer.
Diane
><ho...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>>So next time I get any snafu from Diane
>>or Geena, or any hint that my messages are blocked, I will take
>>appropiate measures to end the problem. This thread is getting dumped.
>>I do not care if anybody responds to this, although I would like to
>>hear from anybody via e-mail on how messages are blocked, I will be
>>grateful and attentive
As an added aid here is a Deja News search link which identifies
all your messages posted in the past 30 days to this forum. If
you see it there it got posted. If not - it didn't.
Diane
>
>I think what this group needs is a good retromoderator. I know of one
>who's currently out of a job, who might be perfect for the position.
>THEN we won't see anymore of this no-op TS crap.
You're so bad....
honor seed
>
> In article <36728fd2...@cnews.newsguy.com>, che...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
> >I think what this group needs is a good retromoderator. I know of one
> >who's currently out of a job, who might be perfect for the position.
> >THEN we won't see anymore of this no-op TS crap.
>
> the Spring of 1996 when two post ops (one some 20 years post op and the
> other about 4 years) initiated a vicious barrage of attacks against anyone
> who was not post op
Hi Michelle darling,
I have to back up to where I was feeling before I got a late start
early this morning at 4 am. umm-humm. Let me see (squinting). On yea,
oooooo, I felt so submissive entering the pages of my favorite
newsgroupies.(a quick smile of recognition).[my nose got twitchy].
Time was not wasted, as I dutifully put pictures in my scrapbook while
Miss Common Computer (miss cc) did her loading. I was
snip-snip-snipping hardcopy when, ooooooo, Document done. I felt like
I could hardly wait, like opening presents on Chrismisss. (But then my
nose went up and I felt like I had a servant). Feelin concerned I
looked. (mouth ajar). Relieved I saw it diumped some mess..ages I
unmarked read, (miss cc is a little lost on labels too).Feelin
attentive (just a little better than worried) I...... [leaving now for
more coffee, must have feeling attentive that makes me want to feel it
even mor] back [miss microwve, zapped my coffee, while I stepped on my
stair stepping exercise machine and read part of an article about
'Lack of exercise as a risk factor', offhand I only remember to bowl
instead of minature golf] anywayyyys....
I attentively dove into this article by Cher, and she writes she's a
wicked, wicked woman. (winked and jotted down wicked-deranged-negative
female emotions [giggle]). Then I came here. umm-humm
I read your article, got a goose bumpy feeling(smile about you
Michelle and here is what I believe.( I'm going to put some eye makeup
on while I go back and reread the whole article again) Okay back,
wasn't that quick. (cute smile).mmmmm. Now that last sentence was a
put-on Diane, so you know the difference. (ageeable smile)
This also reminds me of the gays who did not want transvestites in
their lounges and bars in Studio City, Ca. in 1976, I remember being
told to leave with my lover at the time.I remember feeling resigned.
(mm sigh). I had a glimpse of their lifestyle and usually they are
older and think of themselves as exactly the same as the conservative
moral majority(which is a minority) and they seem to be oblivious to
prejudice against the fact their relationship is discriminated against
by straight couples in exactly the same way they discriminate against
others, while not against straight relationships. They are not usually
involved in gay activist social life. Their emotion comes from being
unable to direct their miserableness about being different back at
those who cause it. They are bullyish and imposing at certain times
only. Newsgroups are the most recent manifestation.
I am not sure, (squinting and smiling), about how to relate to
somebody who doesn't like my lifestyle, I just know I cannot feel
pleasant and polite if I am meek and quiet with them. I can be
agrreable if they don't impose themselves to often.(nose is going way
up feeling forgetful) But that's it............
I'm grateful you brought up the worthless absurdity of
vicious,vehement and name - calling and behaving like snotty
schoolgirls screaming at a lesser kids. I remember a great big girl
who was going to thump a little boy in the playground, I went and
stopped it. (smile and feeling better now, deep breath, coughhhhh).
About 1960, so viscious people never seem to disappear, where is the
funzone? (giggle) umm-hummm Thank-you Michelle dear.
Respectfully,
Honor Christine
ooooooooo the chills again 0000
I feel calm here, once I accepted blank and hollow, kinda like not
wanting to leave somebody you like visiting.
My nose is burning for the twisting though.
Diane
<ho...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>This also reminds me of the gays who did not want transvestites in
>their lounges and bars in Studio City, Ca. in 1976, I remember being
>told to leave with my lover at the time.
And your style and spelling change yet again.
I love a mystery. I think that you may be someone purposely
trying to create a persona different from her actual self. This
is because your grammar, word choice and sometimes spelling
change from time to time in a markedly noticeable way.
I could be wrong but even a casual observer has to notice the
radically different tone and syntax from your first several
messages to this one. This sort of evolution does happen to
almost all of us but over a period of months - not days or weeks
thus making me believe that something is "forced" about your
persona.
honor seed
And you, Diane dear, are forgetting I last asked you who you really
ac-tu-ally are. umm-humm. I told you (in a whiny voice) .... ..
I told you that I re-cog-nize many feelings in my-self. And told you
what they werrre.... without e-ven de-fin-ing them (gently smiling).
Now,
are you going to telll me, that you are bashful. umm-hummm.
I know , you think sur-gic-ally, chem-ick-ly and dressssing your bod-y
has made the feel-ings you had since birth match your appearance,....
(squinty and per---miss--ively smiling)....you haven't had to force a
sin-gle feeling. Oh my.umm-humm Now, let me see, how can I be like
you? hummmm. I have to change my mentality to not want to change my
mentali-ty before I change my body.(putting finger in nose) Ohh and
then, poofff, my mind will automatic- like, just assume (a male
e-mo-tion) in what to everybody looks like it is un-ass-umeing, from
male to female. umm-humm Did yours do that because you just reacted to
everyone who was fooled by your new appearance, or did your mind
cahnge because you do a really good job at make-believe? And did all
that hard work of changing and forcing your appearance to change
cause, umm-humm, that mentality to switch over in a single day or two?
Was it a breeze or a sneeze? Or was I right the first time, you didn't
force any change, you just let your appearance ef-fort-less-ly catch
up to the wat you thought when you were born? (laughh, cough)
(giggllllle.) Thanks Diane, realllly, your a good sport for giving me
an example of how to act like a forgetfully polite
simpleton..umm-hummm [putting more sheer plum on mt lips still
smiling]
> I could be wrong but even a casual observer has to notice the
> radically different tone and syntax from your first several
> messages to this one.
The first messages you heard the tone of were,
waaaaaaa-gooo-goooo-glurp- (little petite giggle), remember ?
I was thinking 'I don't midn this wet diaper, but do you have a
fem-in-in col-or?' So I guess I was a born fe-male like you.
Then when I got old enough to form words for you to *hear * the *tone*
of----- I politely asked if anyone had any experiences that related to
Female Gender Mentality Training.(FGMT) Not knowing(you Diane) I had a
whole bunch, you told me a bunch of unreliable stuff, and some (a
lit-tle, saying it conseiderately) understanding stuff, but no
training of mentality, syaing you din't need it, okay, time out.
You tink dis radicar(dis is radicarry diffelent tone), you clayzy. I
tell you, firsst time i talk, you risten, umm-humm, den you talk, I
risten,you make no sense, talk wrong time, avoid mya question bout
expelience. Evelyone want to disaglee, what diffelence make you tink
gendel and sex, who have crue, seem rots cale. solly bout radicar
accent. Now know why you tink I shourd not lry to undelstand tlaining
mind, but arleady trlain mind, just rooking fooor mole trlaining
idears.
So whats youl plobrem?
This sort of evolution does happen to
> almost all of us but over a period of months - not days or weeks
Okay, so I'm not like *almost all of us*, and I won't be when my
wee-wee looks like a glovebox either.But only reason you saw change in
days orrrrrrr weeks is messages blocked, I just changed my ***T-
tone** in
centons (seconds).. [gritting teeth and lighting up]... Say girls, how
can everything this housemother says to me be so invitingly moronic(I
mean endearing)?
Do you like feeling embarrassed Diane, well you made me feel that
way(oooo- felt good - like something good going to happen) when I
first posted. i won't assume you feel embarrassed . Just tell me how
you do feel nand what your action (umm-humm), activity or social
life(these are all behavior) is because of that feeling. Not what
behavior you do and then what you feel from it.
> thus making me believe
Diane, Miss thing, get a grip, make believe I understand your
imitation sophistication.
> that something
Yes, miss thing, its responding to you in this polite, pleasant way.
is "forced"
You know darling I do get that mental "forced" feeling, ooooooo yeh,
and its all good. I feel so submissive, passive, domesticated, weak,
frail, worthless, senseless, dependant, inferior, subordinate, and all
the victim mentality stuff. But not at the same time, all these have
different definitions from each other, we can argue over them if you
want and creat a thread so long it will make the devil's tail look
short. Or not.UMMhumm. I respectfully suggest you get some help from
Andrea, Diane. Let the rest of us talk about what feelings create what
behavior, instead of leading us into the trap of talking about how we
feel about someones behavior. I spend my life by loving you, yehhhhh
whoooaaaa, and this is the only way I can help, over and over again,
keep responding (or get a new message together) and I'll use a little
male direction feeling on you as you think, (since you think for "all
of us"), but I am just being pleasant and polite (fem emote) to you,
how do you feel right now anyone? (you too Diane)
Stop - umm-humm- close your eyes, take three deep breaths,(anywhere,
anytime) and get in touch with your feelings. -(I felt like i am
curious)( in the inquiring sense, not the unusual sense
except[physical sensation] my black stockened leggs are cold while my
forest green silk dressed upper chest and face feel flushed and warm.)
I believe feeling unusual is not because others have just
respectfully suggersted it about forcing my persona, although ,
maybe..........Diane are you black? Are you a hypnotist?
about your persona.
Sometimes our mentality is so strong about appearing weak, the persona
or aura as some call it reaches a balance of negative/positive which
negative people will see the negative in and the positive will see the
positive in.This is simple. You say redefine, no.
Complicated is for brillant girls, not for common average and plain
unassuming girls unless you can force a change in mentality, and that
is what I'm here to write. Start by keeping a journal on a feeling you
have and a behaviour you have that comes about because of that
feeling. It is better to use feelings that are not reactions to others
behavior, although if thats all ytou ever have Diane and Andrea, start
there. Geena and Karen need this too.
End.
If you want to deal with pain in your lower back yourself use a
rolling pin.
Wishes...and kisses!
Honor Christine
I feel like changing before I post again to Diane & clique
Theoni
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:45:23 -0800, honor seed
> <ho...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> >This also reminds me of the gays who did not want transvestites in
> >their lounges and bars in Studio City, Ca. in 1976, I remember being
> >told to leave with my lover at the time.
> And your style and spelling change yet again.
> I love a mystery. I think that you may be someone purposely
> trying to create a persona different from her actual self. This
> is because your grammar, word choice and sometimes spelling
> change from time to time in a markedly noticeable way.
> I could be wrong but even a casual observer has to notice the
> radically different tone and syntax from your first several
> messages to this one. This sort of evolution does happen to
> almost all of us but over a period of months - not days or weeks
> thus making me believe that something is "forced" about your
> persona.
You're being facetious, right? I mean, it's been _blatantly_ obvious
who she is from day one, no?
Sheesh, flatter her why don'cha;).
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Vootie!
http://www.maximumaccess.com/~tk329 http://www.khayward.com/~jott
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Linda Elan
honor seed wrote in message <364D61...@pacifier.com>...<snip>
>Sometimes our mentality is so strong about appearing weak, the persona
>or aura as some call it reaches a balance of negative/positive which
>negative people will see the negative in and the positive will see the
>positive in.This is simple. You say redefine, no.
I won't translate...but may this have to do with difference between
the wise and the brilliant? It's just my allegory..pardon my
large feet..I sometimes cover them not well enough..
Hmm..as an aside..I wonder if I could be a convincing you..
(Though I won't..though curious is my large feeling..and I decide
probably I'm not quite up to it...I self-assess)
No..what I say is always me..though I do feel a simularity in
some ways..or perhaps it's my conceit that I feel some
knowing of some similar shoes to fit in...
>Complicated is for brillant girls, not for common average and plain
>unassuming girls unless you can force a change in mentality, and that
>is what I'm here to write. Start by keeping a journal on a feeling you
>have and a behaviour you have that comes about because of that
>feeling. It is better to use feelings that are not reactions to others
>behavior, although if thats all ytou ever have Diane and Andrea, start
>there. Geena and Karen need this too.
Certainly brilliance abounds here...of both left and right...
Sounds necessary to me..or should say feels?
Hmm...I would be curious as to if a walk between words finds
a rainbow...feels new..good enuf?
Pardon my butting in...
Whateva,
Linda Elan
honor seed
<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> No..what I say is always me..though I do feel a simularity in
> some ways..or perhaps it's my conceit that I feel some
> knowing of some similar shoes to fit in...
got to get something out, before I forget, conceit in females and high
self-esteem in men is almost the same feeling(to me), you describe
your emotions ***based**** on how I define them,[or the other way
around] (nobody seems to want to define - lazy- I guess or other more
interesting things to do - - how curious)
I understand your feelings come across on the internet newsgroup as
feminine, to me.. Either you already consciously or unconsciously
realize its okay to be "bad" or you see the definitions as propounded
by males (or males who are females), could be another.
Thanks for the word conceit, the hard part is going to be balancing it
with the huge inferior mentality I've been working at having so I'm
only uppity in balance with being pleasant about it.
. Start by keeping a journal on a feeling you
> >have and a behaviour you have that comes about because of that
> >feeling. It is better to use feelings that are not reactions to others
> >behavior, although if thats all ytou ever have Diane and Andrea, start
> >there. Geena and Karen need this too.
>
> Certainly brilliance abounds here...of both left and right...
> Sounds necessary to me..or should say feels?
> Hmm...I would be curious as to if a walk between words finds
> a rainbow...feels new..good enuf?
no and yes, I mean the fog is lifting, you're inspiring, oh my
goodness, a subcategory, okay a feeling of being neww---umm-hummm
--probably why we want to change- a unique *new* feeling *T* people
get when (or just before?) changing okay, and inspiring, the feelingg
you get when you accept the new feelings you're getting as you change
your appearance. mmmmmmmmm.Maybe your a substitute teacher. I really
want to adventure forth, but this is 4:10 AM like I am 12 hours off
and I want to dream of that rainbow with a pot of emotional gold at
the end. Iusually try to get to bed by noon and get up arounf 6pm.
knights in white satin never reaching the end couldn't cover their
feet either. I love you animals....
>
> Pardon my butting in...
Oh god you were beautiful! and sincere
>
> Whateva,
>
> Linda Elan
gee...@my-dejanews.com
tk...@snugbug.maximumaccess.com (Theoni) wrote:
> Diane (notr...@sirius.com) wrote:
> > I could be wrong but even a casual observer has to notice the
> > radically different tone and syntax from your first several
> > messages to this one. This sort of evolution does happen to
> > almost all of us but over a period of months - not days or weeks
> > thus making me believe that something is "forced" about your
> > persona.
>
> You're being facetious, right? I mean, it's been _blatantly_ obvious
> who she is from day one, no?
From day one? No, it wasn't obvious "from day one" to me, at least. But
it has becoming increasingly obvious.
It's ... Laura Blake! No? Darn. The Poster Former Known As(*&%&&%
NO CARRIER
Diane
>It's ... Laura Blake! No? Darn. The Poster Former Known As(*&%&&%
>NO CARRIER
Well I did some minor <ahem>research and it's not laura or
celeste. Not unless they took the trouble to register with the
telephone company under a separate name and address. It's
apparently just another fun person in this wild and wooly thing
we call UseNEt. Are we having fun yet?
Linda Elan
honor seed wrote in message <364E21...@pacifier.com>...
> I understand your feelings come across on the internet newsgroup as
>feminine, to me.. Either you already consciously or unconsciously
>realize its okay to be "bad" or you see the definitions as propounded
>by males (or males who are females), could be another.
Thanks..other people have said I come across more female in writing,
I have no idea really..(nice to not have to work on something..;-) )
>Thanks for the word conceit, the hard part is going to be balancing it
>with the huge inferior mentality I've been working at having so I'm
>only uppity in balance with being pleasant about it.
That sounds like an attitude of loyal service! ;-)
>> Pardon my butting in...
>Oh god you were beautiful! and sincere
Why thank you..:-)
Linda Elan