Separation of T*
Aly
limited ability to fathom oposing opinions as worth while (in other words those who view all of life as one big
FLAME).
It is time for those individuals who espouse themselves as transsexuals (a label I accept with reservation) to
start differentiating themselves from cross-dressers, TV and other morphic permutations of gender polarity. TS
have difficulty in life partly because so many persons residing within the general public, cross associate our
plight with the exhibitionism of CD and TV. While existing TS groups bicker over DSM issues and legalities
(worthy issues for addressing) all groups should come together and develop a branding image of TS and then
actively work to erase the erroneous cross contamination of imagery so broadly painted by CD and TV.
I am not suggesting that CD TV or others be in any way isolated from the community, because we share some
common forms of harassment and treatment, but given the scope of our plight as a whole, we must work to
differentiate ourselves from these two parties who inevitably will never understand our NEED to have SRS and be
accepted as our preferred genders.
- Aly
gee...@my-dejanews.com
Thanks for posting this, Aly. This is the essence of what I call my
"Transsexual Exclusion Philosophy". We must, as men and women of transsexual
experience, carve out a "yardstick" against which transsexuality can
reasonably be measured and the speak out against anyone who claims to fit
that "identity" without measuring up. That is essentially what "brand
identification" and "trademark protection" are about.
If the TVes and CDers want to encroach on our "identity", we should point out
in plain, clear terms "You are not a transsexual because you do not meet
this specific criteria." Let them go find, invent, create, defend, etc. their
own terminology. Let them go out and fight for =their= civil rights and legal
protections.
I am sick and tired and =disgusted= with every form of gender trash out there
deciding that "transsexual" is a nice label to adopt.
-- Geena.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lafem...@my-dejanews.com
interest. I think your opinion is excellent. I am not seeking to denigrate
any paticular group or person, however to change one's sex or to be a
transexual should be just that. The complete change of one's sex, not
dressing as a woman and claiming to be one.
Let me clarify my point. I have no problem with someone who wishes to dress
and live as a woman while keeping their male genitals. Nor do I have a
problem with "cross dressers" etc. I do believe that it would benefit all to
find a commom ground and cease what appears to me to be the contiual
in-fighting, back biting, and self destruction of what should be a common
goal -- equality with the rest of the world. Unfortunately this equality
must come with some form of "label.
Rather than continuing this battle, some distinctions should be drawn. This
doses not imply we cannot all fight for common rights and goals. For all
those who must "flame" this article, go right ahead. You are showing your
lack of compassion and demonstrating the lack of ability for a thought
process other than for your own little wishes and desires.
lafemme
> - Aly
Famvieths
leaves them out or the ts group. but do not alianate them we as a group can
achieve a lot. if we fight between ourselves we will be weaked. and overcome.
In togethernes we are STRONG.
PAULA
Aly
Using an adjective like transgendered as a politcally correct surrogate for TS CD TV only dilutes what I am
proposing. Why does a TS have to be considered TG. I am not TG. I barely consider myself TS. BUt when
labeling is approporiate, TS better have the strength behind it that I intend. If a lay person is referring to
TS, they had better be implicitly understanding that I have no desire to be in the least bit associated with my
birth gender. I don't want to be confused with a person who, by free choice, feels that it's acceptable to
pick and chose from both genders, mmuch akin to a person browsing in the market. This certainly is not the
opportunity alotted to genetics, so why shuld we play a double standard IF, and the word is IF we wish to be
accepted as our preferred gender. NOW, I am not saying that the person who, by finances or medical advances,
is excluded from acheiving a complete gender change should be construed as non-TS. Simply that those who are
willful in displaying a pick and choose lifestyle should be differentiated.
Let us consider for a moment that we agree on a TS Brand Image.
This same image could then be developed to compliment the broader cause.
HOw so?
Well, let us look at both product and service lines that have faced similar problems.
For years generic PC (clones) played on the brand of IBM and eventually became the stronger brand image.
The same thing is very evident in batterys (what was the name of the battery in that bunny?)
For services, brands get confused when one thinks about opthamologists vs optamologists. You see, in all these
examples brand dilution has occured.
When the layperson considers TS, they have images of CD and TV dancing in their minds. They don't equate
necessity to be accepted in EVERY fashion as woman or man by as many as can open their minds to this notion.
INstead they are plagued by misconceptions and thoughts that the "clothing" is the key visual factor.
For those who are TS, ask yourselves,
"Would I be deeply hurt if someone pronouned me by my birth gender, knowing that the person means no ill will?"
"Would I feel ashamed if others knew I was not genetic gender I feel I portray?"
"Would I relax enough with a stranger to NOT hide my past?"
Guess what, these feelings have NOTHING to do with clothing. It has everything to do with BEING your preferred
gender.
And here is why I say I have difficulty viewing myself as TS. I consider myself a woman, female, lesbian, etc
in EVERY way. TS is as much a misguided label for myself as male ever was. TS only describes my tedious
effort to complete SRS. I WAS WOMAN BEFORE I WAS TS. Think about that! When you figure that one key
characteristic of myself, then you will understand why I believe that TS need to differentiate themselves. I
still believe that we need to support other groups, just in a more strategic and determined fashion which
concretes the TS image.
So in TOGETHERNESS we are Strong... Not really. In a firm identity and our ability to work with others will
make us STRONG. NOt just thinking that we share a blurry common cause.
Think about it. I WAS A WOMAN BEFORE I WAS A TS.
For the CD or TV, the statement would be I WAS A MAN (WOMAN) BEFORE I "PRETENDED" TO BE A WOMAN (MAN)
lafem...@my-dejanews.com
Myra
In article <19981106162329...@ng155.aol.com>,
famv...@aol.com (Famvieths) wrote:
> try using the term transgender with those who are not ts. it includes us and
> leaves them out or the ts group. but do not alianate them we as a group can
> achieve a lot. if we fight between ourselves we will be weaked. and overcome.
>
> In togethernes we are STRONG.
>
> PAULA
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
LoreeTG
>Famvieths wrote:
>>
>> try using the term transgender with those who are not ts. it includes us
and
>> leaves them out or the ts group. but do not alianate them we as a group
can
>> achieve a lot. if we fight between ourselves we will be weaked. and
overcome.
>>
>> In togethernes we are STRONG.
>>
>> PAULA
>
>
TS CD TV only dilutes what I am
>proposing. Why does a TS have to be considered TG. I am not TG. I barely
consider myself TS.
Well, Aly... maybe it would be best if you just stuck with newsgroups
specifically for TS people (like a.s.srs). It seems to me that by posting
in s.s.tg you are lumping yourself in with those very people you DON'T want
to be associated with.
It would make a lot more sense for you to leave than to ask everybody else
to leave... as long as you continue to associate with the TV/CD/TG crowd...
people are gonna have difficulty seeing how you are different.
You should never be lumped in with people you don't identify with... if
someone else did it to you, you would be upset.. why do it to yourself?
I understand why you wouldn't want to be identified with a bunch of
freaks.... after all, you are entirely normal.
Much as it will hurt my feelings, it is ok with me if you abandon us
perverts... see ya!
Hugs,
Loree Thomas
Seattle
lor...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/4958
Laura Blake
>Using an adjective like transgendered as a politcally correct surrogate for
>TS CD TV only dilutes what I am proposing. Why does a TS have to be
> considered TG. I am not TG. I barely consider myself TS.
Oh lord if only I had a nickel for every time I've heard this particular
line of plap and smargle... "I'm not really like you, and I don't want to
be associated with you!" Classic TS denial...
For years now, I've listened to transsexuals tell me there is no such thing
as internalised transphobia, even while they themselves are displaying it
very clearly for all to see. When, I wonder, will any of you finally come
to realize that rejecting your own peers and your own peerage is a symptom
of a greater problem... one that remains wholly unaddressed in this
community?
When I see transsexuals, like this one, trying to build distance between
themselves and their membership in this minority group, all I see is someone
struggling in a desperate quest to be anyone but who they actually are.
Face some facts. It is *easily* demonstable that you were born male; this
is both visually and legally evident to the point where attempting do deny
it makes you look outright stupid. It is also easily demonstable that you
are of a feminine preference; this can be adduced from your lifestyle and
manner. Putting these two simple facts together leads to one and only one
conclusion: Womanhood in a male... woman-male... Transgender identified.
Now, lets look at the community of your peers... Who are we? Well lookie
there... we are males with a feminine bent, and females with a masculine
bent... woman-male and man-female... Transgender identified.
And the essential difference between us is? Nothing.
Now, you will tell me that since you are a transsexual, and should have been
female all along you somehow don't fit the transgender mold. And, I will
tell you that as a transgenderist (out, proud, and unashamed) I probably
should have been female all along... and I definately fit the transgender
mold.
Next, you will proclaim difference because you are having SRS to "fix"
yourself, and therefore don't fit the transgender mold. I will tell you
that I have been on the gurney waiting for SRS ... and I definately fit the
transgender mold.
For every way you can find of EXCLUDING your peers, I can find equally silly
or equally compelling ways of including you. Like it or not, you are
transgendered. You look like a broad, with a big ole cock between your
legs... the definitive image of transgender identity.
So now lets ask the BIG question: "Why can't you accept such an obvious
fact?"
First, and most likely, it's a function of the way you were raised.
On average transies grow up in a cisgender only world where being anything
but a Ward and June Clever clone is likely to get you into some kind of
trouble with someone. Look back through your life; how much positive
reinforcement of transgender imagery did you see while growing up? If you
are like most of us you saw only cisgendered people. Everywhere you looked
you saw cisgender heros, cisgender beauty queens, cisgender parents,
cisgender leadership, cisgender professionals. (the matter that some of
them may well have been secretly transgendered is irrelevent, you saw them
as cisgendered people.) When you saw the transgendered, where and how did
you see them? You saw them as either freaks to be stared at, or as comedic
relief on some pathetic sit-com. Even when you did see transgender
portrayals it is likely they were portayed either as clinging burnouts
(Crying Game), someone crossdressing to commit a fraud (Tootsie) or as some
kind of flamboyant drag queen (Too Wong Foo) etc. And, even when you did
see *real* transgendered people, you saw them trying to be invisible, living
highly secretive lives, and pretending to be cisgendered just to get along
in the world... i.e. you saw them as dishonest people.
Were there ANY positive role models for transgender people while you were
growing up... The answer is: "No!" Most of us grow up with this
"freakazoid, burn out, sex-crazed, pervert, flaming, sicko" image of our own
kind. And, sadly, many of us never get past it. (You'll see plenty of
evidence of this right here on this newsgroup.)
Now, it is pretty obvious that a lot of people see and absorbe these common
social messages, not just transies. For transies this is a double whammy...
First; you absolutely don't want to be what you think we are. Second; you
don't want the world to think you're like that either... so you reject us,
building distance as a means of denying similarity.
Second, lets take a look at what you have learned since you admitted your
situation.
If you are like most transies, the first thing you heard when you revealed
your secret was "Are you seeing a shrink?", which comes right out of the
common belief that transgender identity is an illness. Again, if you
followed the normal progression, you then got into contact with the
transcommunity, and the very first thing they told you was "You have a
gender disorder and you really should get hooked up with a shrink." So now
on top of all those little images of freaks and perversion playing off in
your cisgender-trained head, you have YOUR OWN PEERS telling you to get
help. The obvious conclusion? "I must really be fucked up!"
Now, all things running on averages, you go out and you get yourself hooked
up with a shrink. And what's the first thing you hear from them?
Yeppers... "You have a gender identity disorder."
There are NO positive messages out there... Have you, anywhere in your
travels *ever* seen or heard anything about transgendered people that was
good, affirming or even remotely encouraging? If you are running anywhere
near the averages, I'm betting you haven't.
I mean, hell, who wouldn't reject such a bunch of sickos and losers? Who in
their right mind would want anything to do with THAT!?!? I know I sure as
hell wouldn't.
And what happens next? You are left with the inescapable negativity of the
situation, you *know* you are transgendered... and you form an escape plan:
Sex-change! You objectify this as a means of becoming cisgendered... or
more accuratetly, as a means of being NOT-transgendered. If you are a woman
and you have a cunt, you must not be like us ... right?
WRONG...
Most people, particularly the bigoted ones, will see your sex-change as an
irreversible declaration of your gender identity disorder. Most believe
sex-changes are given because the disorder can't be cured. They don't
accept transsexuals into the world any better than they would accept an old
crossliving transie like me... In fact, many view it as a form of surgical
fraud in which you are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not.
And, sadly, there is some validity to their argument.
Sex-change doesn't make you cisgendered... just the opposite, in most
people's eyes, it makes you even more transgendered than the rest of us!
The only thing working in your favour is that many people view this as an
attempt to "fix your problem" and will give you some brownie points for
trying. But, ultimately, on the big scorecard of life you are still getting
an "F" in "being cisgendered"!
Like most transsexuals, you have two choices here... You can do what many
on this newsgroup have done, and concoct all kinds of wild justifications
for your sex-change, you can try to convince people you have a mental
illness or a birth defect that makes you this way and you can beg for
sympathy from anyone who will listen... OR you can take the extra step more
and more of us are taking with each passing day... You can learn to think
outside the transphobic box built for you by the cisgender world. You can
let go of those horrific stereotypes playing off in your head, and replace
them with real images, taken from your own knowledge and experience with
your own kind. Don't let your fears close off your mind... LEARN what it's
really like to be trans... don't let the cisgender world, of which you are
not part, dictate your opinion of your own kind.
Y'know what, we aren't bad people... On average, transies are some pretty
good folk. Most of us are very much like their cisgendered counterparts...
it's just that we are of the other sex. A lot of us are successful
activists, business professionals, lawyers, and doctors and a lot of us are
very concerned about what happens to our own kind.
Aly, when you reject us, you are rejecting part of yourself. Failing to
understand the social impacts of growing up transgendered in a cisgender
world has cut too many of us off from any sense of community or belonging,
and in the process it cuts us off from self-understanding and self-esteem.
We end up rudderless, devoid of identity and more than a little closeted
when we are afraid to be ourselves... Don't let your own fears do this to
you, tackle them, understand them... think outside the box!
Now, as for this notion that transsexuals should be seen as a separate
group, different and apart from the rest of the transworld. Care to give it
some more thought? The truth is that CD/TG/TS do not differ in kind...
They differ only what they choose to do about their transgender identities.
Bottom line: I've seen a god awful lot of people do what you are doing, and
believe me, hon, it most often has a lot more to do with a transsexual's own
fear, shame, and self-loathing than it could ever have to do with any of us
transies!
-----
Laura Blake
Being the first to climb the mountain
also means finding your own way down.
Theoni Kallandra
breath when I decided I couldn't stand any more) this is getting VERBOSE,
and REPETITIVE ok? The three present major arguments have decayed to
the point where people are arguing, not about issues, but about what
they said. It's over, dead, smelly, no longer good even for bait.
Let's do something else, like painting a fence.
LoreeTG (lo...@aa.net) wrote:
[loree telling Aly to hoist sail and dribble off]
> I understand why you wouldn't want to be identified with a bunch of
> freaks.... after all, you are entirely normal.
> Much as it will hurt my feelings, it is ok with me if you abandon us
> perverts... see ya!
> Hugs,
> Loree Thomas
Loree, all this spleen obviously stems from your unfortunate involvment
with an inferior NOS. Dump that Novell hair shirt and get a Real O/S.
Geena can recommend a good one, and since you Know Where She Lives you can
punish her with technical questions for weeks. Or there's Intel/Solaris,
or Linux, it's a big store.
Item: this ongoing argument about legitimacy is (wait for it, here she
comes again!) just misuse of language. People are getting adrenalized
over WORDS. WORDS relate to GROUPS. GROUPS involve MEMBERSHIP. Sadly,
neither WORDS, GROUPS, nor MEMBERSHIP are real. Nope. Not. Nonesuch.
Just smoke. "It's all a FALSEhood."
We must all work for sanity in the face of language. This means that
we must force ourselves to be at least two levels smarter than we want
people to believe we are.
PERSonally, I think any TS with an imagination should _love_ TV's....
I mean, consider: they bathe, they smell better than an average man,
they wear cute outfits, they have to learn to speak softly in public, and
if you're dating one, and tell them to wear something extra sexy, they
arrive on your doorstep pre-warmed and ready to consume(!) I'm serious
here, we all have a lot more in common than we do difference-wise.
Given that, how much closer still are TS's and those who are woman in
all but 20 cm^2 of fulcrum flesh? So.
I do so wish we could all stop hurting each other and jockying for
legitimacy. It validates all manner of oppression to no constructive
purpose. We're most of us geeks of the first water. Irrespective
of gender issues, that excludes us from consideration as normal.
And "normal" is a C-. We don't want to perform at that level anyway.
Christmas is coming. A time for rest, snuggling against the ice-crystal
wind, watching the days get shorter and shorter. Remember, our ancestors
thought the sun was going away, and it wasn't until a few days after
Dec 21st that it was clear that warmth and light were returning, and
everybody was so relieved they threw a big party. Now, in our world,
we are rubbing shoulders with legions of dull normals who believe deeply
that the world will cease to exist when the odometer rolles over on
one of the three or four utterly arbitrary calendars people use. This is
a gift from their loving God, author of fear and pestilence, so they go
forth and love likewise. This is surely a script we can re-write, huh?
Can y'all give me an "Oops!" Brothers and Sisters?
Christmas could become a real Event, y'know:). It could be the day we
remember that we are in a world governed by natural law, and seasoned
by chaotic randomness where we can build any kind of life we want in
a place of some predictibility, and some uncertainty, where it HELPS
to have more friends than enemies, and it's EASIER to be good than bad,
it's still reasonable to pray sometimes, and the food is generally good.
It could be a celebration of our ability to choose not to kick and snarl
and bite.
We deal with a lot of important things on these newsgroups: pain,
lonliness, fear and uncertainty. We also deal with a lot of illusions
which distract the breeches off of us. Reading you all, I'm so proud to
be like you _all_ in the ways I am. We are a force for new thoughts and
new insights. We should try to protect each others' dignity and poise
so we can teach the normals, live good lives, and stop killing ourselves.
We have this technology.
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Discover the deep dark. Discover the deep dark. Discover the deep dark TAN.
Discover the deep dark TAN. Discover the deep dark tan of Aztec.
Discover the deep dark. Discover the deep dark. Discover the deep dark Tan of Aztec.
Discover the deep dark TAN of Aztec. Amen.
http://www.maximumaccess.com/~tk329 http://www.khayward.com/~jott
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Karen Elizabeth A.
> Face some facts. It is *easily* demonstable that you were born male; this
> is both visually and legally evident to the point where attempting do deny
> it makes you look outright stupid.
Unles you have met her in 3D you may well be wrong on both counts. I've
met people who, even knowing they were TS it was not evident visually -
and I do know what to look for.
Legally, at least in the US, a post-op TS in most jusritictions is
legally female - with even the birth certificate changed and the
original sealed.
> It is also easily demonstable that you
> are of a feminine preference; this can be adduced from your lifestyle and
> manner. Putting these two simple facts together leads to one and only one
> conclusion: Womanhood in a male... woman-male... Transgender identified.
Again how little you truely understand despite your high opinion of
yourself. I'm not of feminine preference (female is not the same as
feminine). Life would be easier if I was.
Identification has does not follow the logic you allow above. A female
is identity is different then a transgender identity. Most MTF tg's have
a feminine idetity but not a female one. A TS has a female identity
which *may* (usually is) feminine as well.
<<And the essential difference between us is? Nothing.>>
Actually it's huge. Vert differnt hopes and dreamsd and objectives.
> So now lets ask the BIG question: "Why can't you accept such an obvious
> fact?"
Maybe for many it's neither true nor obvious.
> On average transies grow up in a cisgender only world where being anything
> but a Ward and June Clever clone is likely to get you into some kind of
> trouble with someone.
What dream world did you grow in? I did not grow up in a nice quite
middle calss 50's suburb.
> relief on some pathetic sit-com. Even when you did see transgender
> portrayals it is likely they were portayed either as clinging burnouts
> (Crying Game), someone crossdressing to commit a fraud (Tootsie) or as some
> kind of flamboyant drag queen (Too Wong Foo) etc. And, even when you did
> see *real* transgendered people, you saw them trying to be invisible, living
> highly secretive lives, and pretending to be cisgendered just to get along
> in the world... i.e. you saw them as dishonest people.
Actually when I was growing up none of that wa true (I'm in my 40's)
> Were there ANY positive role models for transgender people while you were
> growing up... The answer is: "No!"
Well yes, Christine Jorgenson and Renee Richards to name two.
> If you are like most transies, the first thing you heard when you revealed
> your secret was "Are you seeing a shrink?", which comes right out of the
> common belief that transgender identity is an illness.
Actully I hear all points of view in on-line forums. Most do these days.
> And what happens next? You are left with the inescapable negativity of the
> situation, you *know* you are transgendered... and you form an escape plan:
> Sex-change!
You simple do not sexual dysphoria (inate discomfort with the primary
sex characteristics of your birt sex). It is real. It exists.
> You objectify this as a means of becoming cisgendered... or
> more accuratetly, as a means of being NOT-transgendered. If you are a woman
> and you have a cunt, you must not be like us ... right?
> WRONG...
Setting up such simplistic strawmen is beneath you. Reality is much
mopre complex.
> Most people, particularly the bigoted ones, will see your sex-change as an
> irreversible declaration of your gender identity disorder. Most believe
> sex-changes are given because the disorder can't be cured. They don't
> accept transsexuals into the world any better than they would accept an old
> crossliving transie like me... In fact, many view it as a form of surgical
> fraud in which you are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not.
> And, sadly, there is some validity to their argument.
THAT epends on the individual, For upu having SRS would be a fraud - but
for others? Heck you even addmitted that was not the case for twoTS's
you've know. Hmmm seems like your ideals are not universally applicable
after all - even by your own admission.
> Sex-change doesn't make you cisgendered... just the opposite, in most
> people's eyes, it makes you even more transgendered than the rest of us!
What crap.
> The only thing working in your favour is that many people view this as an
> attempt to "fix your problem" and will give you some brownie points for
> trying. But, ultimately, on the big scorecard of life you are still getting
> an "F" in "being cisgendered"!
Tell that to the married TS's who are enjoying their nirmal lives as
cis-gendered women. While they may be in the minority, they do exist.
> Now, as for this notion that transsexuals should be seen as a separate
> group, different and apart from the rest of the transworld. Care to give it
> some more thought? The truth is that CD/TG/TS do not differ in kind...
> They differ only what they choose to do about their transgender identities.
In your opinion. Many disagree.
> Bottom line: I've seen a god awful lot of people do what you are doing, and
> believe me, hon, it most often has a lot more to do with a transsexual's own
> fear, shame, and self-loathing than it could ever have to do with any of us
> transies!
Or perhaps it has more to do with their inate identity? It'a a
thought...
Laura Blake
wrote:
>Unles you have met her in 3D you may well be wrong on both counts. I've
>met people who, even knowing they were TS it was not evident visually -
>and I do know what to look for.
R-O-F-L!!!!
Good ole Karen... always the first to leap to justification and denial.
Thanks again, hon... you do more to prove my point than anyone else I know.
Donna Lynn Matthews
tk...@baluga.maximumaccess.com says...
<snip - god, but that was good!>
Bravo!
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
How much more valuable an actual man is compared with any
sort of merely desired, dreamed of, odious lie of a man?
with any sort of *ideal* man? - Nietzsche
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
Aly
issue. TS and TV and CD and whatever other gouping value you would create, are different. I am not advocating
that the mere existence of these differences precludes us a distinct groups, to islaote ourselves or worse, to
castigate another.
Instead, MY POINT was, that from a poliy strategy, it behooves TS to BRAND themeselves as having a VERY
DIFFERENT agenda. Right now how is the battle being strategized. One front argues the medical validity.
Another faction lays claim to arguing rights to appear as the opposite gender in the workplace. Still other
factions have their ideologies. I am not judging these idiologies. Just that if all these groups came to a
concensus about what it means to be TS (in aggregate terms), then perhpas those policy makers who are absorbing
their lobbying points, could distinguish the finer faction points and say "Well, most would agree that to a TS
these are basic issues which are not true for the TV or CD AND these are the issues which are common to all
person addressing gender issues." Given that the TS (post op/ pre op) are RLTing, workplace discrimination is
a BIG concern. I'm sorry but the TV can just wait until after hours to show their gender issues. For the TS,
it walks into work every day. It lives in the form of divorce (not that others don't also face this issue but
for the TS, the issue is quite different), it survives in the form of coworker unease, it lies in wait with a
bathroom issue (what TV has this in the work place?).
So my dear L.B. being TS means one does live , LIVE, with very different issues. Now being TG, well that
muddies the thought a bit because here you have a person who faces MOST of the issues a post op TS would PLUS a
difficulty addressed with being NON-OP. In many ways, the pre-op TS must advocate for understanding that the
post-op seeks (given that is the goal to be post-op one day) but closely identifes with the TG living RLT. So
L.B. we do (you and I) have a need to brand our plight as very different from the WEEKEND Dresser. Look if the
TV wants to RLT it, we'll talk. Otherwise, L.B. you should mellow on your theories and look at this from a
strategic positioning point.
-Aly
Technoid
>
> In article <722c4l$8tl$1...@narwhal.maximumaccess.com>,
> tk...@baluga.maximumaccess.com says...
>
> <snip - god, but that was good!>
>
> Bravo!
Yup!
That's why, even if I'm not following a thread, or the thread has run off the
rails somewhere and has become nothing more than an aggravation or waste of
bandwidth, I ALWAYS stop to read a Theoni post.
She not only has a flair for words, she's subtle while being right-there-in-your-face.
She makes one think.
Some of the things of hers I've read have been rather emotional experiences,
others have been very humorous, but the one thing they've all shared is a
small time-bomb that eventually goes off and broadens my view.
Uh, if I haven't said it before (but I'm sure I have), thanks Theoni, just for
being you.
Tom
--
| Tom Losh <man...@tech-center.com> |
| PGP 5 fingerprint: |
| 3E2E 6143 393D 872B CB0E |
| 88E2 CA28 25BA 69B9 32EA |
Aly
> What exactly is your problem with CDers anyway?
ON a personal level... nothing. On a BRANDING level, they are often viewed as like subtitutues and muddy the
distincting between TS and CDing
>
> >Look if the
> >TV wants to RLT it, we'll talk. Otherwise, L.B. you should mellow on your
> > theories and look at this from a strategic positioning point.
>
> Aly... Are you even marginally aware who you are talking strategy with?
>
Yes I am more than marginally aware. Yes I have been impressed, swayed in portion by some of your thoughts and
even interested in your plight. Respectfully I choose to disagree with your theories on transphobia and SRS,
though I realise that you have honest beleif in them.
It's all based on an insight so painfully simple, I can explain it by
> saying only 6 words!
And those 6 words are?
>
> Suddenly, here's you, all fresh and squeaky clean, and perhaps just a little
> wet behind the ears, telling me it won't work?
My my my... for someone of such high intelligence, you resort to one-on-one bashing instead of taking an
academic view and arguing WHY my point is flawed (if it is at all).
That's what I meant in the first post, don't allow your tender egos to blind you to this approach. Product and
service differentiation has a strong impact in policy decision and public suasion.
Tell ME why your inclusion is BETTER than my exclusion (though not castigation) approach.
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> (Wait! What's that I hear... a rumbling off in the distance... The shuffling
> of many feet... Oh, now I recognize the sound... it's only the usual TSs
> getting lined up to take swipes at me and call me a liar... Nothing to get
> upset about. If you ignore them, they'll give up after a while.)
L.B. I have made no personal attacks on you and have respectfully mentioned that I PERSONALLY don't agree with
your transphobia in its completeness. There is no bashing coming from me. Only a proposal for a strategy that
differentiating TS plight from CD TV.
Prove my strategic approach weak.
Karen Elizabeth A.
> Good ole Karen... always the first to leap to justification and denial.
>
> Thanks again, hon... you do more to prove my point than anyone else I know.
If you ever get a clue about who I am and what I'm about I'll truely be
amazed.
Saying that there is more diversity then you will admit to is hardly
justification or denial.
Both of us have met people like the ones I've refered to in my post. You
prefer to ignore their exastance in formulating your T* world view. I do
not.
In addition yoy also can not and never will admit the possibility that
for some their is an inate knowledge that their body is wrong. While I
don't fall into the former catagory I do fit in the latter. You deny my
knowledge of myself. Sorry but you don't ligitimately get to do that. No
one does.
As I've alway said, the stuff you spout is true for some - but not all.
Each person has to figure out what is true for them. Your's is not the
one true way.
-Karen A.
Laine Victoria Campbell
written and had a lot of good points and a few flawed ones as most arguments will.
Karen if you would explore your differences of opinion and discuss instead of
attacking the person making the argument it could be a lot more constructive for
the rest of us who are interested in all sides' points.
Karen Elizabeth A. wrote:
> Laura Blake <ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > Face some facts. It is *easily* demonstable that you were born male; this
> > is both visually and legally evident to the point where attempting do deny
> > it makes you look outright stupid.
>
> Unles you have met her in 3D you may well be wrong on both counts. I've
> met people who, even knowing they were TS it was not evident visually -
> and I do know what to look for.
Genetic testing, legal papertrails. There is always a way no history is ever
erased for good or bad. Finding out may not be as easy as Laura suggest but if
one *really* wants to know it is possible.
> > It is also easily demonstable that you
> > are of a feminine preference; this can be adduced from your lifestyle and
> > manner. Putting these two simple facts together leads to one and only one
> > conclusion: Womanhood in a male... woman-male... Transgender identified.
>
> Again how little you truely understand despite your high opinion of
> yourself. I'm not of feminine preference (female is not the same as
> feminine). Life would be easier if I was.
See this is a good point. Laura's argument here was a little simplistic but her
basic point is true. All trans people of any type have the common factor that
their genetic bodies and personal identities are not equivalent in the
cis-gendered ideal. But the disclaimer of insulting her percieved arrogance was
not needed, the rest of your argument would have stood alone.
> <<And the essential difference between us is? Nothing.>>
>
> Actually it's huge. Vert differnt hopes and dreamsd and objectives.
The essential difference actually is nothing. We all have variant identities with
our genetic selves. This is where we can and should draw together to get things
done. You are right though, transsexuals do have varying identities, paths and
goals from other transgendered individuals but so does every person in the world.
It is possible to acknowledge this difference while still acknowledging the base
similarity. The original poster said that she believes the transsexual identity
should be separate from an umbrella term. She also said that she believed that
once this distinction was made she would be comfortable working with other types
of transgendered individuals in a broader community sense as long as her
individual needs as a transsexual (as per the common definition) were recognized
and addressed. Laura neglected this and seems to believe that a transsexual who
wants his or her identity validated automatically wants to reject his or her
membership in the broader transgendered world and while this is sometimes true
(and just as valid as any other choice) it is not always the case.As transgendered
individuals we have all made choices. We may have made the choice to ignore our
needs and live as our genetics were doled out to us or we have chosen to validate
and bring out our truer identities. Some people feel the need to move into the
mainstream and while it is true that this does nothing to eliminate the prejudice
they probably experienced in the beginning of their transition it is still a valid
choice and is their right to do so.
> > So now lets ask the BIG question: "Why can't you accept such an obvious
> > fact?"
> Maybe for many it's neither true nor obvious.
The fact that one is transgendered is pretty obvious to one's self I would think
Does most of the world need to know that? Not unless you choose to. But there
are ways to help educate even while being anonymous. An individual who completely
neglects their transgendered status is not living up to a responsibility that is
inherent in such a status. I, as a young person transitioning now, am indebted to
all of my transgendered elders (not to make y'all feel old *smile*) for their
efforts in making my life easier. But my transition is not easy and my life is
not perfect and in return for what my elders have given me I owe a debt to
continue fighting for equality. If I choose to do this while living in "stealth"
there are ways to do this, and if I choose to do this by being out to everyone, I
can do this. However,if I mainstream and do nothing I have proven myself unworthy
of the gift that those who came before me have given.
> > On average transies grow up in a cisgender only world where being anything
> > but a Ward and June Clever clone is likely to get you into some kind of
> > trouble with someone.
> What dream world did you grow in? I did not grow up in a nice quite
> middle calss 50's suburb.
Again, that statement was not relevant to the argument. Laura states that most of
us grew up in worlds where any gender transgression was not viewed favorably. I
was fortunate not to and am an exception. However, from most of the stories I
have heard or had the honor of people sharing with me, this is still the norm.
> > relief on some pathetic sit-com. Even when you did see transgender
> > portrayals it is likely they were portayed either as clinging burnouts
> > (Crying Game), someone crossdressing to commit a fraud (Tootsie) or as some
> > kind of flamboyant drag queen (Too Wong Foo) etc. And, even when you did
> > see *real* transgendered people, you saw them trying to be invisible, living
> > highly secretive lives, and pretending to be cisgendered just to get along
> > in the world... i.e. you saw them as dishonest people.
> Actually when I was growing up none of that was true (I'm in my 40's)
Well seems like you were an exception. This intrigues me. My world of growing up
pretty much resembles the world Laura painted. How was yours different? Were
trans people completely invisible or presented more positively? Do you think this
is because of different forms of media available at that time?
> > Were there ANY positive role models for transgender people while you were
> > growing up... The answer is: "No!"
> Well yes, Christine Jorgenson and Renee Richards to name two.
These are two women that have been helpful in advancing our struggle and I am
proud that they are my ancestors but they were not presented as positive role
models when I grew up. They were the butts of jokes and cruel comments. They
were mocked and denigrated and presented as misguided, sick and perverted men.
> > If you are like most transies, the first thing you heard when you revealed
> > your secret was "Are you seeing a shrink?", which comes right out of the
> > common belief that transgender identity is an illness.
> Actully I hear all points of view in on-line forums. Most do these days.
I don't believe she is talking about on-line trans forums she is talking about
when one reveals one's transgendered status to an individual who does not identify
as trans and is not exposed to the trans community except for mainstream
misconceptions. Seems to me that when I came out this was the first thing asked
by the majority of people. Sure made me feel like some kind of medical
experiment.
> > And what happens next? You are left with the inescapable negativity of the
> > situation, you *know* you are transgendered... and you form an escape plan:
> > Sex-change!
> You simple do not sexual dysphoria (inate discomfort with the primary
> sex characteristics of your birt sex). It is real. It exists.
Of course it exists. But it is presented as a disease and this is what Laura
objects to. Being differently gendered from your genetic body is not pleasant
thanks to our culture's norms and prejudices but it seems to be a pretty natural,
human occurence (whether it is rare or not is a matter of opinion but it seems
pretty common if you look at the whole spectrum of *levels* of transgendered
identities) and labelling it as a mental disorder does nothing for the self esteem
of the individual in question nor does it make their decision any easier to bear.
It seems that our culture is obsessed with labelling any variation in one's
identity or life as abnormal and in need of fixing instead of simply embracing it
as a natural part of life.
Now I don't see sex-change as an escape, as Laura has presented it. It does make
life easier in some ways but it also makes life a lot tougher in some ways (and I
will admit to this being only an opinion based on my views of others who are post
op as I have not yet had my surgery). I do think that too many people see it as a
*way out* from their transgendered status but this is not true. There will always
be people who see a post op transsexual as a man if mtf or a woman if ftm. Will
these people always know the individual is transgendered? No. But there are,
unfortunately, too many ways for this to be exposed and one has to remember that
their sex change operation was for their own peace of mind and not for society's
piece of mind if they are to survive.
> > Most people, particularly the bigoted ones, will see your sex-change as an
> > irreversible declaration of your gender identity disorder. Most believe
> > sex-changes are given because the disorder can't be cured. They don't
> > accept transsexuals into the world any better than they would accept an old
> > crossliving transie like me... In fact, many view it as a form of surgical
> > fraud in which you are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not.
> > And, sadly, there is some validity to their argument.
>
> THAT epends on the individual, For upu having SRS would be a fraud - but
> for others? Heck you even addmitted that was not the case for twoTS's
> you've know. Hmmm seems like your ideals are not universally applicable
> after all - even by your own admission.
Laura is not talking about her own views she is talking about the views of most
people in the mainstream. We are quite familiar with her own opinions but in this
case she is talking about others. Most people will see it as fraud and that is
what we, as transgendered people of all sorts, goals and identities, need to work
to change. Please look at what is presented and not your bias against her and her
opinions.
> > Sex-change doesn't make you cisgendered... just the opposite, in most
> > people's eyes, it makes you even more transgendered than the rest of us!
> What crap.
Not really. I hear things like "you know that guy got his dick cut off" way too
often. SRS does nothing to make many of the more intolerant people (and
unfortunately, they are in the majority) view you differently even if it can help
to make people not realize that you are transgendered (and again, there is nothing
inherently wrong with this decision). Yes the fact that this happens is crap and
it is terrible but it is true nonetheless.
> > The only thing working in your favour is that many people view this as an
> > attempt to "fix your problem" and will give you some brownie points for
> > trying. But, ultimately, on the big scorecard of life you are still getting
> > an "F" in "being cisgendered"!
> Tell that to the married TS's who are enjoying their nirmal lives as
> cis-gendered women. While they may be in the minority, they do exist.
You are arguing two different points. Laura seems to be talking about people who
are, for one reason or another, known to have been formerly of a different sex
then what they are now. You are talking about women who are stealth to most, if
not all, people in their lives Both are valid ways of living but if one is out as
a transsexual than they will too often still be viewed as their birth sex no
matter what they truly are and no matter what steps they have takin to affirm
their identity.
> > Now, as for this notion that transsexuals should be seen as a separate
> > group, different and apart from the rest of the transworld. Care to give it
> > some more thought? The truth is that CD/TG/TS do not differ in kind...
> > They differ only what they choose to do about their transgender identities.
>
> In your opinion. Many disagree.
And there is nothing wrong in disagreeing if it is done constructively! Laura is
still a little extreme in this viewpoint (at least in how I have read her
statements) that all trans people do not differ because they do differ widely in
identity, behavior, decisions, and needs but they do all still have that one
common fact that they are transgendered to some degree or another. And yes they
have different needs that need to be addressed and all are valid but they are
still in the same ballpark and need to recognize their similarities as well as
their differences.
> > Bottom line: I've seen a god awful lot of people do what you are doing, and
> > believe me, hon, it most often has a lot more to do with a transsexual's own
> > fear, shame, and self-loathing than it could ever have to do with any of us
> > transies!
>
> Or perhaps it has more to do with their inate identity? It'a a
> thought...
I have to agree here. The original poster seemed fairly accepting of all trans
types but still insisted on her rights as a transsexual being expressed, validated
and acted upon. There is nothing wrong with declaring one's identity as
transsexual to be unique from one's identity as bigendered or other such
identities. It is when we move to exclude those others who we have ties to
because we are insecure of our own identites that are sometimes tenuous at best
(thanks to the prejudices of society) that we move into dangerous territory as
Laura has pointed out.
Of course all of this is open for debate, discussion and heated argument but lets
keep the personal attacks to private email. The amount of personal attacks I have
had to deal with deleting or reading has been ridiculous and I know others agree.
You are in a semi-public forum, please respect all involved even the silent ones
who just read and absorb.
Laine
Karen Elizabeth A.
> You know both of you have good and bad points. Laura's argument was quite
> well written and had a lot of good points and a few flawed ones as most
> arguments will.
> Karen if you would explore your differences of opinion and discuss instead
> of attacking the person making the argument it could be a lot more
> constructive for the rest of us who are interested in all sides' points.
I've done that many times in the past. I don't have the time or energy
to get into a protracted discussion again. As you probably can tell, I'm
not a good typist ;-) and so writing long winded point by rebuttles of
the core of her arguments is not something I care to do again.
She is intellegent and writes well but she discounts what others feel.
When it goes doen to it she believes SRS is mutilation and the only
reason anybody wants it is to fit the "cigendered" ideal. If you dare
think otherwise it's because you have been brainwashed by society. In
other words she have the one truth about being T* for all. It simply is
not so.
I and many others have had these arguments for with her for years. Most
are tired of going over the same ground over and over again every few
months. I post simply so that newbies know that how they feel is NOT
invalid.
-Karen A.
Laine Victoria Campbell
Karen Elizabeth A. wrote:
> Laine Victoria Campbell <lv...@Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > You know both of you have good and bad points. Laura's argument was quite
> > well written and had a lot of good points and a few flawed ones as most
> > arguments will.
>
> > Karen if you would explore your differences of opinion and discuss instead
> > of attacking the person making the argument it could be a lot more
> > constructive for the rest of us who are interested in all sides' points.
> I've done that many times in the past. I don't have the time or energy
> to get into a protracted discussion again. As you probably can tell, I'm
> not a good typist ;-) and so writing long winded point by rebuttles of
> the core of her arguments is not something I care to do again.
>
> She is intellegent and writes well but she discounts what others feel.
> When it goes doen to it she believes SRS is mutilation and the only
> reason anybody wants it is to fit the "cigendered" ideal. If you dare
> think otherwise it's because you have been brainwashed by society. In
> other words she have the one truth about being T* for all. It simply is
> not so.
>
> I and many others have had these arguments for with her for years. Most
> are tired of going over the same ground over and over again every few
> months. I post simply so that newbies know that how they feel is NOT
> invalid.
>
> -Karen A.
Like I said. I am quite aware of her opinions and yours as well and all of the
other regular posters to this newsgroup. :) Posting your opinion as a reaction
when she posts hers is fine and, I think, needed for the reason you said but it
is the personal attacks that have grown tiresome. When I read a thread I want
to see someone picking apart an idea, exposing it's flaws and strengthening it's
merits. What I do not want to see though is name calling, harassing and cursing
and I have seen this from far too many people in the last few weeks and I'm
pretty sure a majority of the subscribers of this newsgroup will agree. This is
not directed at you but at all of the posters in general. Few have been
completely innocent.
Laine
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake) wrote:
> For years now, I've listened to transsexuals tell me there is no such thing
> as internalised transphobia, even while they themselves are displaying it
> very clearly for all to see. When, I wonder, will any of you finally come
> to realize that rejecting your own peers and your own peerage is a symptom
> of a greater problem... one that remains wholly unaddressed in this
> community?
Perhaps you could provide per-reviewed articles from psychology journals,
or even human sexuality texts, supporting your thesis that transsexuals
suffer from this "internalized transphobia". Surely if you are right on
this point, some who actually has professional credentials has written on
the subject ...
-- Geena.
Laura Blake
<lv...@Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Karen if you would explore your differences of opinion and discuss instead of
>attacking the person making the argument it could be a lot more constructive for
>the rest of us who are interested in all sides' points.
Laine, honey, can't you see that Karen's biggest point is that she is pissed
at me. We've known each other on-line for a VERY long time... In all this
time the one thing she has never understood that I just don't buy the horse
manure she's selling... hell it isn't even Grade A horsemanure, and I can
get the good stuff a lot more cheaply.
She repeatedly says she's not going to get into a protracted discussion with
me, but just can't leave anything I say unchallenged. Frankly... I don't
even know why she tries...
Laura Blake
>L.B. we do (you and I) have a need to brand our plight as very different from the
>WEEKEND Dresser.
What exactly is your problem with CDers anyway?
>Look if the
>TV wants to RLT it, we'll talk. Otherwise, L.B. you should mellow on your
> theories and look at this from a strategic positioning point.
Aly... Are you even marginally aware who you are talking strategy with?
Honey, I'm the girl who single handedly negotiated first in the world
policies with the Canadian, Ontario and BC human rights commissions, almost
a decade ago. Transsexuals, transgenderists, and transvestites have been
included in all three statutes since 1992. Based upon my work they have
exactly the same rights as anyone else living in this country. And you know
what? It's all based on an insight so painfully simple, I can explain it by
saying only 6 words!
Suddenly, here's you, all fresh and squeaky clean, and perhaps just a little
wet behind the ears, telling me it won't work?
Hmmmm...
(Wait! What's that I hear... a rumbling off in the distance... The shuffling
of many feet... Oh, now I recognize the sound... it's only the usual TSs
getting lined up to take swipes at me and call me a liar... Nothing to get
upset about. If you ignore them, they'll give up after a while.)
-----
Laura Blake
wrote:
>As I've alway said, the stuff you spout is true for some - but not all.
>Each person has to figure out what is true for them. Your's is not the
>one true way.
<YAWN> Go bore someone else. I've heard it all before. I didn't buy it
the first 200 times, and I ain't buyin' it now.
<-|spunky|+>
On 7 Nov 1998 20:55:49 GMT, tk...@baluga.maximumaccess.com (Theoni
Kallandra) was so, you know, like:
> PERSonally, I think any TS with an imagination should _love_ TV's....
> I mean, consider: they bathe, they smell better than an average man,
> they wear cute outfits, they have to learn to speak softly in public,
> and if you're dating one, and tell them to wear something extra sexy,
> they arrive on your doorstep pre-warmed and ready to consume(!)
Um sorry, but I find few things in life more of a turn-off than a man
in a dress.
> I'm serious here, we all have a lot more in common than we do
> difference-wise.
And I seriously disagree.
spunky
**
You'll miss me with effigies
Lighting up your house like Xmas trees
As tears roll down below your knees
You'll miss me with effigies
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
<-|spunky|+>
On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 19:48:11 -0800 Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com>
Wrote:
> given the scope of our plight as a whole, we must
> parties who inevitably will never understand our
> genders.
Hear Hear!
spunky
**
You'll see my teeth in the stars above
Every tree a finger of my glove
And every time push comes to shove
You'll see my teeth in the stars above
Laura Blake
>"internalized transphobia". Surely if you are right on
>this point, some who actually has professional credentials has written on
>the subject ...
Julie, honey, get a clue... really now... that's like asking the KKK to
write a treatise on racial equality.
Karen Elizabeth A.
> <YAWN> Go bore someone else. I've heard it all before. I didn't buy it
> the first 200 times, and I ain't buyin' it now.
Same here about your point of view.
-Karen A
Karen Elizabeth A.
> Laine, honey, can't you see that Karen's biggest point is that she is pissed
> at me.
Not at you personally since I've never met you. What get's me angry is
your dismisal of other's feelings and beliefs about themselves.
> We've known each other on-line for a VERY long time... In all this
> time the one thing she has never understood that I just don't buy the horse
> manure she's selling... hell it isn't even Grade A horsemanure, and I can
> get the good stuff a lot more cheaply.
Strange, but I feel that way about some of what you have to say...
Why do I bother? You may notice that it's spurratic. I ignore you for
long streches of time - but once in a while I read of post of yours that
irks me enough when I'm in the mood to respond and have the time.
Tonight was such a time. I also think I'm doing a public service for
newbies since you always start out sound reasonable before you
degenerate to deriding people's self idenity and descend into vugarity.
BTW do you know that you are the first person I have ever kill-filed?
JFH (now Gena) was second. Somehow it's seems appropriate that you two
where the only ones ever. Maybe I should never have gotten rid of that
file...
-Karen A.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
anon-...@anon.twwells.com (<-|spunky|+>) wrote:
>
> On 7 Nov 1998 20:55:49 GMT, tk...@baluga.maximumaccess.com (Theoni
> Kallandra) was so, you know, like:
>
> > PERSonally, I think any TS with an imagination should _love_ TV's....
> > I mean, consider: they bathe, they smell better than an average man,
> > they wear cute outfits, they have to learn to speak softly in public,
> > and if you're dating one, and tell them to wear something extra sexy,
> > they arrive on your doorstep pre-warmed and ready to consume(!)
>
> Um sorry, but I find few things in life more of a turn-off than a man
> in a dress.
Well .... there are =some= TVes that I can deal with. As in, the ones
who know that they are just transvestites and not "really women when I
dress" or "I'm so scared! I can't admit to myself I'm a transvestite!".
Any man who is able to admit anything which might be perceived as a
negative in society's eyes has a serious jump on the rest of the penis
bearing population.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake) wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 1998 04:09:59 GMT, gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >"internalized transphobia". Surely if you are right on
> >this point, some who actually has professional credentials has written on
> >the subject ...
>
> Julie, honey, get a clue... really now... that's like asking the KKK to
> write a treatise on racial equality.
No one said the KKK was the only group who could write a treatise on racial
equality, or people who disagree with you could write about "internalized
transphobia".
So ... how about coming across with a dozen or two journal cites describing
this "internalized transphobia".
Kasia
> Why does a TS have to be considered TG. I am not TG. I barely consider
myself TS.
I've been called gay many times in my life. And what do I have in common
with homosexual men? They don't have any gender disphoria, any desire to be
female in any way. Why do I have to be considered gay male if I just like
men and was born male? If I say that I'm nogendered bisexual, believe me
still for most of the people I'm just gay - malegendered homosexual. Who
would waste his time on understanding what "nogendered" could mean? There
are even people who claim that there is no real bisexuality, just
homosexuality and heterosexuality. That's all because people like to have
simple answers and classify everything either as black or white: bad/good,
man/woman, hetero/homo, TS/TV. Unfortunately life is not that simple. Life
is complicated and mixes all these categories together in many various
possible combinations. People will confuse TS with TV/CD/TG, just because
they don't really know what is the difference. And they don't really like
to know, because they don't like life to be complicated. There is nothing
you can do about it, and alienating yourself from the others who could help
you is not the best solution.
> I don't want to be confused with a person who, by free choice, feels that
> it's acceptable to pick and chose from both genders,
As I said you will be confused with such person, even if you scream very
loud that you're different. As for me I don't live as a third gender by a
free choice. I am the third gender, I'm not choosing anything, I'm not
thinking about it. I've never been a man, I hate testosterone, I hate
becoming a man, but I've never been a woman too. I don't want to have
breasts, I don't want SRS. I want to be female from the neck up, but the
rest, at least for now, should be left alone. I'm not a TS, and I've never
said so. I've been already classified as a TS by one therapist though, and
I can start taking hormones anytime. Of course I think he's wrong. Another
therapist is far more skeptical and he's wrong too. He's says that I have
typical feminine personality, but thinks that I can live as a man.
Unfortunately there is no way to classify me differently. Just because
there are only TV/TS, man/woman cages you have to fit in. It's your fault
too, that I have these problems. People like you seem to be interested in
keeping such cages existing, just because they are happy with it, but I'm
certainly not. You've been a woman all your life, though born male, it's
ok, but let me be 1. different from you 2. different from all the men, ok?
> And here is why I say I have difficulty viewing myself as TS. I consider
myself a woman, female, lesbian, etc in EVERY way.
Ok, I have to tell you this. I don't know why, but I don't like lesbian
TS's. Sorry. There is obviously something wrong with you.
> Think about it. I WAS A WOMAN BEFORE I WAS A TS.
> For the CD or TV, the statement would be I WAS A MAN (WOMAN) BEFORE I
> "PRETENDED" TO BE A WOMAN (MAN)
And for me the statement is I'VE NEVER BEEN A MAN, BUT I HATE TO PRETEND A
WOMAN.
Am I a TV? No. I've stopped crossdressing 7 years ago.
I'm taking Androcur for 4 months and removing my beard, but is it making me
TS? No.
Am I a TG/non-op TS? No. I hate mixing sexes, I couldn't be a woman with
penis.
So do you know how to classify me? No.
Life is complicated. There is no TV world/ TS world. Every human has
her/his own unique world, that you will never classify correctly. So why do
you cry others confuse TV's with TS's? Did you see Harry Benjamin S.O.S. ?
Are you type VI - true transsexual, high intensity? See what is written
there:
[...]
"Sex Object Choice and Sex Life : Intensly desires relations with normal
male as a "female" if young" [...]
Did you have such relations?
Karen Elizabeth A.
> L.B. I have made no personal attacks on you and have respectfully
> mentioned that I PERSONALLY don't agree with your transphobia in its
> completeness. There is no bashing coming from me. Only a proposal for a
> strategy that differentiating TS plight from CD TV. Prove my strategic
> approach weak.
Thwere can be no discussuin with Laura on the basic tenenats of her
faith (and make no mistake about it - it is a relegious belief for her).
She considers someone to be bashing her when they disagree with her on
exactly this point. Even those who disagree politely but firmly with
reasoned arguments eventually get treated to a shower of obsenities and
personal attacks. It has been her pattern for years.
-Karen A.
Unknown
>So my dear L.B. being TS means one does live , LIVE,
>with very different issues. Now being TG, well that
>muddies the thought a bit because here you have a person
>who faces MOST of the issues a post op TS would PLUS
>a difficulty addressed with being NON-OP. In many ways,
>the pre-op TS must advocate for understanding that the
>post-op seeks (given that is the goal to be post-op one day)
>but closely identifes with the TG living RLT. So L.B. we
>do (you and I) have a need to brand our plight as very
>different from the WEEKEND Dresser. Look if the
>TV wants to RLT it, we'll talk. Otherwise, L.B. you should
>mellow on your theories and look at this from a strategic
>positioning point.
I really haven't followed the ins and outs of this discussion, and for
fear of being barbecued am reluctant to enter it. But of course I'm
going to stick my nose in anyway.
At one time or another I've identified myself in most of the
categories -- TG, CD, non-op, pre-op, post-op, etc. -- that are under
debate. As far as I'm concerned, any of them is a perfectly valid
choice if it suits the individual. And I don't see a "pecking order"
where one can be said to be better than another.
I guess there are some common interests for all, at least in the sense
that all of us have a yearning to transcend to one degree or another
the traditional notions of sex and gender, and to be able to live our
lives without being hassled or feeling ashamed or defective. There
are obviously some divergent interests, too, and some of those are in
conflict with one another.
Ten (and maybe even five years ago) I wouldn't have said this and
didn't see how it could be true, but my own reality tells me it is so:
Life, and one's perception of self, is qualitatively different after
SRS. I cannot say that without experiencing it no one can understand
the differences, for maybe those greater perception and insight than
me can do so. I personally could not and did not comprehend how these
changes would affect me. The way my brain works, contemplating such
matters in the abstract is one thing, while doing it and living it are
another.
I often used to say, "Oh, I'm the same person, I've just changed the
packaging." That doesn't fully describe how I feel these days.
Andrea
Theoni
> In article <722c4l$8tl$1...@narwhal.maximumaccess.com>,
> tk...@baluga.maximumaccess.com says...
> <snip - god, but that was good!>
> Bravo!
> Love and Stuff,
> Donna
Oh, thanks:). I'm not really in this for the essay competition, tho,
I just want people to get along better. Being a career quarreller, I
sometimes feel like I've wasted too much time at it, and want to spare
others that rush of regret:).
Theoni
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Use old words: feed the racial memory.
Theoni
> That's why, even if I'm not following a thread, or the thread has run off the
> rails somewhere and has become nothing more than an aggravation or waste of
> bandwidth, I ALWAYS stop to read a Theoni post.
> She not only has a flair for words, she's subtle while being right-there-in-your-face.
> She makes one think.
But can I make it _stop_? (Sitting on 4-poster bed jumping all over
the room, waiting for Fr. Merrin to arrive:). I would really love it
if people could either stop fighting such long and repetitive battles.
I'm not insisting they get along, but they always act _surprised_ when
the person they're arguing with doesn't come to their viewpoint. It's
too reminiscent of "ranking" behavior, "everybody in their box, don't
you dare leave your box". I've never seen women do that, and I've
never seen men do anything else. It hurts me somewhere left of the
stomach when people work so hard to be good women at so many levels,
yet completely miss such recognizable patterns in their actions. This
is one of the behaviors we're here to save men from, and show them a
better way, I think. (Catholic Girl Syndrome: You Must Save Them All,
taught at Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility Academy. Oh well, the
little green and plaid jumpers are cute.)
> Some of the things of hers I've read have been rather emotional
> experiences, others have been very humorous, but the one thing
> they've all shared is a small time-bomb that eventually goes off and
> broadens my view.
Time-bomb? Moi? That's probably just bit-rot attacking my stored
text....
> Uh, if I haven't said it before (but I'm sure I have), thanks Theoni, just for
> being you.
Oh, now _that_ was _sweet_, thank you for the kind words. I think
moving out of the city has calmed me down a lot...I'm looking out a
window on a mountain valley with a cloud sitting on it, drizzle
everywhere, tons of maple leaves all over the ground, a vision of
placidity. It makes it easier to get up, get dressed, and go put a
sink in the bathroom.
Theoni Kallandra: plumbing done cheap.
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Wheel & Peditate, Attys at Law, Priscilla Asagiri Fashions in Fiberglass
Bitten, Batten, Barton, Burton, and Powell, Luggage Makers
http://www.khayward.com/jott.html http://www.maximumaccess.com/~tk329
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Laura Blake
>>
>> What exactly is your problem with CDers anyway?
>
>ON a personal level... nothing. On a BRANDING level, they are often viewed as like
>subtitutues and muddy the distincting between TS and CDing
I see... so what you are saying is that they should be pushed aside because
they smudge the nice sharp lines around your particular territory... How
sad. Does it not occur to you to look at the reality of our community and
work with *what is actually out there* rather than some political concoction
that no sensible legislator is ever going to buy into.
>It's all based on an insight so painfully simple, I can explain it by
>> saying only 6 words!
>
>And those 6 words are?
"Gender is not related to Sex".
>My my my... for someone of such high intelligence, you resort to one-on-one bashing >instead of taking an academic view and arguing WHY my point is flawed (if it is at
>all).
Spent much time in academic discussion?
I just sent you over 100 lines telling you EXACTLY what I thought was wrong
with your positions...
You say transsexuals should be separate from the other transies, based
apparently on some not-yet well defined concept of "brand recognition".
I say you are all wet and point out exactly why.
And here we are... You have already started getting defensive on me, because
I disagreed with you... Hmmmm... but isn't this what you wanted? Debate,
discussion, point-counterpoint?
>That's what I meant in the first post, don't allow your tender egos to
>blind you to this approach.
I noted your demand for credible responses... and I've been reading your
stuff for about a week and a half watching what you were saying; gathering
some idea of your positions, credibility, and consistency; and preparing
what I believed to be the most cogent response I could offer you.
Tell me hon... exactly how much time did you spend thinking about the post I
sent you on "Internalized Transphobia"... 2, 3 minutes?
>Product and
>service differentiation has a strong impact in policy decision and public suasion.
>Tell ME why your inclusion is BETTER than my exclusion (though not
>castigation) approach.
Well for one thing, we are all real, whole, breathing, thinking, unique,
human beings... not some cast plastic barbie doll with a bar coded serial
number stamped on it's exaggerated ass. People have free will, and we tend
to be highly diverse. We just don't easily fit into those nice little
checkboxes people keep drawing for us. You see there is an infinately fine
gray scale from masculine to feminine.
Sooo, oh great one... Exactly where are you going to draw these lines of
yours... Who gets included and who gets excluded from which laws and under
which circumstances?
AND who gets to decide who gets tossed into which legal group? What should
the qualifications for these gatekeepers be, and what standards and
regulations will be imposed upon them?
And who gets to write the standards and regulations under which these people
will judge us and brand us. And who gets to right the rules and regulations
under which these people operate?
And so on and so on and so on....
What you are proposing is an administrative nightmare... Now suddenly
there have to be all these new laws and rules and classes of people, all
that stuff has has to be administered. Admin costs BIG bucks. They are
going to balk on the sheer complexity and expense of your proposals even if
they are morally and legally solid as a rock.
Bureaucrats and legislators, contrary to the beliefs of many so-called
activists, seldom have much concern for "doing the right thing". For them
it is a matter of practical solutions to well known problems. They will
resist manipulation of social policy until a) it becomes socially practical
and b) there is overbearing pressure to do it. Miss on either one of those
two points and you lose... nothing changes... *except* they are going to be
a lot less prone to listen, next time around.
The reason my "Inclusion" strategy works so well is that it is explicitly
simple... You may not discriminate against someone because you have
judedged their lifestyle to be inappropriate for someone of their SEX.
It makes no difference whatsoever if the individual is transgendered or
cisgendered, it doesn't matter if they are transvestite, transsexual,
transgenderist, intergendered or whatever... it is all the same. People in
authority are not allowed to pass judegment upon your lifestyle, because of
your sex.
And, here's the really great part... Since the protected ground of "Sex" was
already in the Canadian federal and provincial human rights codes I could
handle this bureaucratically --at the policy level-- without seeking any
changes in law, and without a big stink in the press. For the HRCs this was
a "zero cost solution"... no big effort, no fuss, and no budget... just send
out a couple of memos and Voila! instant equality.
So... lets compare here... Would you expect them to pick:
A) A highly complex, expensive new branch of legal bureaucracy that requires
an act of legislature to have any authority and ultimately does not serve
all our equality needs...
OR
B) A very simple, 0 cost solution to the problem that can be negotiated with
any management level bureaucrat over lunch and very cleanly scoops ALL of
us...
Hmmmmm....
>Prove my strategic approach weak.
See above.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake) wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 23:39:09 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> What exactly is your problem with CDers anyway?
> >
> >ON a personal level... nothing. On a BRANDING level, they are often viewed
as like
> >subtitutues and muddy the distincting between TS and CDing
>
> I see... so what you are saying is that they should be pushed aside because
> they smudge the nice sharp lines around your particular territory... How
> sad. Does it not occur to you to look at the reality of our community and
> work with *what is actually out there* rather than some political concoction
> that no sensible legislator is ever going to buy into.
She said =nothing= about CDers being "pushed aside". If you'd actually =read=
what she wrote, instead of applying your "I hate all transsexuals" filter to
it first, then finding the worst possible interpretation, she is saying that
transsexuals should say "This is what we are. Anything else isn't a
transsexual."
If there was the kind of "Brand Recognition" for the different groups, half of
these "label" battles wouldn't exist. It would just be "You aren't an <X>,
because an <X> is <whatever>. See, here's the list."
Now I realize that the odds of getting an honest answer out of you on this
question are identically =zero=, but doesn't it bother you in the least that
there is a person in this group who asserts that "she" lives as a woman,
while making no effort to be perceived by society as such? And I don't mean
from a good person/bad person perspective, but from a claim to "womanhood"
perspective. Put another way, in the Laura Blake book, is wearing women's
clothing all that is required to demonstrate your "womanhood"?
Laura Blake
>doesn't it bother you in the least that
>there is a person in this group who asserts that "she" lives as a woman,
>while making no effort to be perceived by society as such?
Nope...
Sister
>
>We deal with a lot of important things on these newsgroups: pain,
>lonliness, fear and uncertainty. We also deal with a lot of illusions
>which distract the breeches off of us. Reading you all, I'm so proud to
>be like you _all_ in the ways I am. We are a force for new thoughts and
>new insights. We should try to protect each others' dignity and poise
>so we can teach the normals, live good lives, and stop killing ourselves.
>
Joan,
This is nearly the best post you've ever made. You clearly posess the virtues
of prudence and art. And your post was perhaps the best response that anyone
has ever made to the neurotic anxiety that too often shows up in this ng.
Would that all of us could realize that we have the same tragic flaw.
Kindest regards,
Sis
P.S. Have you ever read Rilke?
munged address: beaux-yeux at erols dot com
Joann...@hotmail.com
>
> > Face some facts. It is *easily* demonstable that you were born male; this
> > is both visually and legally evident to the point where attempting do deny
> > it makes you look outright stupid.
>
> Unles you have met her in 3D you may well be wrong on both counts. I've
> met people who, even knowing they were TS it was not evident visually -
> and I do know what to look for.
>
Okay, Karen, I think that if someone did a Barr body test, only a very few
post- ops might conceivably "pass" as female. (See Richards v. United States
Tennis Association, 93 Misc.2d 713 (1977) for a discussion of this; it was
the chromosome test which the USTA wanted to use on Dr. Richards; the court
did not permit the use of the test, based on "overwhelming medical evidence"
that Dr. Richards was a female. Put that case in a federal court, and the
decision might very well have been different. "Visually" could just as well
mean under a microscope.
> Legally, at least in the US, a post-op TS in most jusritictions is
> legally female - with even the birth certificate changed and the
> original sealed.
>
Absolutely true, but a female who _was_ once a male. Dr. Renee Richards was
born as Richard Raskin, and that is an historical fact; the court case only
determined Dr. Richards' then current sex. Legally female, absolutely, but
legally always a female? No, absolutely not.
> > It is also easily demonstable that you
> > are of a feminine preference; this can be adduced from your lifestyle and
> > manner. Putting these two simple facts together leads to one and only one
> > conclusion: Womanhood in a male... woman-male... Transgender identified.
>
> Again how little you truely understand despite your high opinion of
> yourself. I'm not of feminine preference (female is not the same as
> feminine). Life would be easier if I was.
>
> Identification has does not follow the logic you allow above. A female
> is identity is different then a transgender identity. Most MTF tg's have
> a feminine idetity but not a female one. A TS has a female identity
> which *may* (usually is) feminine as well.
>
Here we are, the usual shell game with the definitions of terms. I think
Karen knows what Laura means. I know what Laura means, and I use a different
set of terms myself (actually reversed from Laura's in some ways). I also
understand what Karen is saying.
I disagree with Karen's statement - most MTF TGs have a feminine gender as
well as a masculine gender. Those with a predominantly feminine gender
(i.e., have little or no masculine gender identity) are usually classified as
transsexuals, particularly if they choose to go the SRS route to harmonize
their body's sexual characteristics as much as possible with the gender they
feel inside. That feminine gender, just like any other feminine gender, can
be butch. I know enough MTF crossdressers who are "tomboys" in femme mode -
not a whole lot, but some.
Being gendered feminine does not mean the same thing as "acting in a feminine
manner." A GG can be butch, and identify as gay, and still be feminine-
gendered. Still identifies as female. Still identifies as a woman. Same
thing with any TG or TS. The only difference is the surgery, and perhaps the
level of feminine gender identity.
Note I used my terms: masculine, feminine and neuter are terms widely
understood to denote gender. Male and female are sex, and man and woman are
the total picture.
> <<And the essential difference between us is? Nothing.>>
>
> Actually it's huge. Vert differnt hopes and dreamsd and objectives.
>
That is so much baloney. Oh, it is just a matter of degree of gender
identity, in most cases; and there are persons who have a 95-100% feminine
gender identity (and remember, can be butch, too!), who choose not to have
SRS as being something unnecessary for themselves. They may figure why
bother if the procedure doesn't provide working ovaries and uterus. (Recent
research on embryonic stem cells may provide some hope for the future!!!)
> > So now lets ask the BIG question: "Why can't you accept such an obvious
> > fact?"
> Maybe for many it's neither true nor obvious.
>
So far, I don't see why it's not true or obvious.
> > On average transies grow up in a cisgender only world where being anything
> > but a Ward and June Clever clone is likely to get you into some kind of
> > trouble with someone.
> What dream world did you grow in? I did not grow up in a nice quite
> middle calss 50's suburb.
>
Laura was using some hyperbole - but her point is unrefuted.
> > relief on some pathetic sit-com. Even when you did see transgender
> > portrayals it is likely they were portayed either as clinging burnouts
> > (Crying Game), someone crossdressing to commit a fraud (Tootsie) or as some
> > kind of flamboyant drag queen (Too Wong Foo) etc. And, even when you did
> > see *real* transgendered people, you saw them trying to be invisible, living
> > highly secretive lives, and pretending to be cisgendered just to get along
> > in the world... i.e. you saw them as dishonest people.
> Actually when I was growing up none of that wa true (I'm in my 40's)
>
Really? When I was growing up, I knew nothing about crossdressers, and I had
read about Christine Jorgensen. Eventually I heard about Dr. Richards, too,
but by then I was aboiut 20 years old.
> > Were there ANY positive role models for transgender people while you were
> > growing up... The answer is: "No!"
> Well yes, Christine Jorgenson and Renee Richards to name two.
>
Score a point for Laura. Though really, what was the public reaction to
Christine Jorgensen? Banned in Boston? Looked upon by the news media as a
freak show sometimes?
> > If you are like most transies, the first thing you heard when you revealed
> > your secret was "Are you seeing a shrink?", which comes right out of the
> > common belief that transgender identity is an illness.
> Actully I hear all points of view in on-line forums. Most do these days.
>
Again, I think Laura has a point here - I am seeing a family therapist with
my wife - I am treating my situation as one that requires marriage
counseling, not GID.
> > And what happens next? You are left with the inescapable negativity of the
> > situation, you *know* you are transgendered... and you form an escape plan:
> > Sex-change!
> You simple do not sexual dysphoria (inate discomfort with the primary
> sex characteristics of your birt sex). It is real. It exists.
>
Score again for Laura. I just don't see it as a disorder - it's normal for a
TS to want a "sex change."
> > You objectify this as a means of becoming cisgendered... or
> > more accuratetly, as a means of being NOT-transgendered. If you are a woman
> > and you have a cunt, you must not be like us ... right?
> > WRONG...
> Setting up such simplistic strawmen is beneath you. Reality is much
> mopre complex.
>
> > Most people, particularly the bigoted ones, will see your sex-change as an
> > irreversible declaration of your gender identity disorder. Most believe
> > sex-changes are given because the disorder can't be cured. They don't
> > accept transsexuals into the world any better than they would accept an old
> > crossliving transie like me... In fact, many view it as a form of surgical
> > fraud in which you are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not.
> > And, sadly, there is some validity to their argument.
>
> THAT epends on the individual, For upu having SRS would be a fraud - but
> for others? Heck you even addmitted that was not the case for twoTS's
> you've know. Hmmm seems like your ideals are not universally applicable
> after all - even by your own admission.
>
This one is Laura's point. She's not talking about hou you feel inside, but
how the society perceives you.
> > Sex-change doesn't make you cisgendered... just the opposite, in most
> > people's eyes, it makes you even more transgendered than the rest of us!
> What crap.
>
> > The only thing working in your favour is that many people view this as an
> > attempt to "fix your problem" and will give you some brownie points for
> > trying. But, ultimately, on the big scorecard of life you are still getting
> > an "F" in "being cisgendered"!
> Tell that to the married TS's who are enjoying their nirmal lives as
> cis-gendered women. While they may be in the minority, they do exist.
>
Draw. It's not a panacea. And they're not cisgendered.
> > Now, as for this notion that transsexuals should be seen as a separate
> > group, different and apart from the rest of the transworld. Care to give it
> > some more thought? The truth is that CD/TG/TS do not differ in kind...
> > They differ only what they choose to do about their transgender identities.
>
> In your opinion. Many disagree.
>
And the many are wrong.
> > Bottom line: I've seen a god awful lot of people do what you are doing, and
> > believe me, hon, it most often has a lot more to do with a transsexual's own
> > fear, shame, and self-loathing than it could ever have to do with any of us
> > transies!
>
> Or perhaps it has more to do with their inate identity? It'a a
> thought...
>
Laura scores the last point.
So final score? I didn't count - but both Laura and Karen make good points
here. Just not at the same time.
Joann
Joann...@hotmail.com
lv...@Bellsouth.net wrote:
> You know both of you have good and bad points. Laura's argument was quite
well
> written and had a lot of good points and a few flawed ones as most arguments
will.
> Karen if you would explore your differences of opinion and discuss instead of
> attacking the person making the argument it could be a lot more constructive
for
> the rest of us who are interested in all sides' points.
You know, if I had read _your_ post, I wouldn't have bothered with the one I
just sent - good to know that someone out there sees things in a similar way
to the way I see them! (Well, at least on the matter at hand.)
Aly
Disecting these two broad categories, we know that both time groupings comsume our lives in different ways.
Work gives us income which we use to command resources. Work also provides other non-monetary costs and
benefits. When one considers workplace discrimination, one thinks about those rights that should be accorded
on human decency and not compromised simply because one has agreed to excahnge services for income.
Labour history has shown many instances when worker rights were compromised for profit. Companies look at
discrimination from a dollar perspective now, and a few froma an altruistic view.
Age, sexual and race discrimination is partially abatted becuase employers see a) law suits cost money and b)
to a smaller extent, a few sociologist have argued that diversity can increase productivity (I happen to
agree).
Discussing how this relates to TS vs non TS [CD (TV)] the TS takes a desire to LIVE in the workplace as their
preferred gender. Now an employer must now face several issues a)what does this do to me directly in terms of
profits (News anchor wants to change genders, will ratings fall or increase or what?) b) indirect terms of
costs (co-worker unease translating into decreased productivity).
The costs of maintaining a TS worker are weighed against the benefits of maintaining the worker. For other
forms of discrimination, legal recourse has been added to the costs of firing a worker OR making their life
hell. For the TS little legislation works in their favour.
Now you tell me that to argue for human rights for all person to come to work looking as the opposite gender,
as they please, this is more acceptable. NO. Business seek stability. You were right when you said that
policy had to be socially motivated. In general terms, it must be economically, financialy, socially,
culturally, and politically feesible OR NOTHING gets done. Depending on who the interest group is, each one of
these factors can have little of no bearing on a decision for apporval.
Back to our example.
Employer considers policy that HEY ANYONE CAN GO TO WORK DRESSED AS THEY PLEASE.
Cost: uncertainty, (On Mondays I am Jamie but on Tuesdays I am Jim and ont he fourth Wednesday of each leap
year I am the Easter Bunny), workers issues (today I have the dress on gotta let me use the girls room, or can
we fix my email to read Jamie when I am here on Mondays, or " NO I am Jim on Tuesdays so in this meeting call
me Jamie because today is MOnday).
Benefits: none
PLOICY: Employers, TS persons LIVE their life in their preferred gender 24/7/365 till death. PLease
accommodate this person who has maintained incredible focus to live 2 gender roles, that here is a person who
will feel display loyalty.
Costs: short term re-educating co-workers as TS gains comfort the transition costs in workplace are small as
persons get back to normal.
Benefits: loyal labour force, happy employee now able to take energy once applied to living 2 gender roles
back into productive worker.
And Employers if you also support the TS with medical understanding, your worker will be healthier for when
they come to work.
And why does this work? Because the TS WANTS to be accepted in EVERY way (and works hard at it (too hard at
times)) which means helping others view them as they view themselves.
Now is leisure terms:
Here I think many of the TS and non-TS rights come into play and can work together. Like
-Hey officer, don't beat me up just because I don't look like your typical girl
-Well if you want a divorce, don't take my children from me
-Hey, I should be allowed to eat in this establishement
Using TS to validate other types of expression and lifestyles which are NOT ACCURATE descriptions of what being
a TS is about, only makes it difficult for the TS to get ON with their lives.
tahoe...@usa.net
wrote:
>Using TS to validate other types of expression and lifestyles which are NOT ACCURATE descriptions of what being
>a TS is about, only makes it difficult for the TS to get ON with their lives.
Amen Sister!
Of course this won't change the views of the few who are
terminally confused about themselves but it does help to show
that there are more of us out there with our heads on straight
about the issues.
----------------
Diane
Laura Blake
>Using TS to validate other types of expression and lifestyles which are NOT >ACCURATE descriptions of what being
>a TS is about, only makes it difficult for the TS to get ON with their lives.
<ROFL>
1) Who the hell says I (or anyone else) am doing this?
2) How would, for example, using Rene Richards as an example to validate TG
participation in sports in any way harm Ms Richards? What does she lose by
our gains?
C'mon honey, get a grip on reality... So far all I see is someone trying
desperately to use law to justify their own hatred of crossdressers.
LoreeTG
>On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 15:02:25 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>>Using TS to validate other types of expression and lifestyles which are
NOT ACCURATE descriptions of what being
>>a TS is about, only makes it difficult for the TS to get ON with their
lives.
>
>
>Of course this won't change the views of the few who are
>terminally confused about themselves but it does help to show
>that there are more of us out there with our heads on straight
>about the issues.
You've just managed to demonstrate WHY you can't separate issues for
TS/TV... there is no clear dividing line.
The one you seek to create (living as opposite gender at work) isn't a
distinction that stands up in the real world. I know post-op TS women who
still work in the male role (one posts here regularly) as well as a few
non-op TS (myself included) and transgenderists who are 24/7... and that
means at work too...
Much as people want a sharp and clear dividing line... the real world,
nature, the physical universe, just doesn't work that way.
Loree Thomas
Seattle
lor...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/4958
Aly
> You've just managed to demonstrate WHY you can't separate issues for
> TS/TV... there is no clear dividing line.
>
> The one you seek to create (living as opposite gender at work) isn't a
> distinction that stands up in the real world. I know post-op TS women who
> still work in the male role (one posts here regularly) as well as a few
> non-op TS (myself included) and transgenderists who are 24/7... and that
> means at work too...
>
> Much as people want a sharp and clear dividing line... the real world,
> nature, the physical universe, just doesn't work that way.
Loree I never defined TS. I only said TS vs non-TS. I think the pre-op and non-op who is 24/7/365 falls well
into my example. Not the TV or CD. The dividing line is clear from a policy perspective. Now do I agree that
someone live their life as non-op? There is a difference between the voluntary and un-voluntary non-op. The
involuntary one , would that they could, is TS for me. The person who decides to live their life as non-op,
well I am still out on that. I just don't understand WHY they would want to keep that part of an image that
they CLAIM to not want to project. Shit, what pre-op TS doesn't feel disgust when looking in the mirror? On
the other hand (and this is a question) are non-op comfortable with their image?
Aly
> C'mon honey, get a grip on reality... So far all I see is someone trying
> desperately to use law to justify their own hatred of crossdressers.
>
> -----
I didn't think I expressed hatred of the CD. ONly that our plight differs in ways that requires that a
concensus on what a TS means is useful.
LoreeTG
>>
>> You've just managed to demonstrate WHY you can't separate issues for
>> TS/TV... there is no clear dividing line.
>>
>> The one you seek to create (living as opposite gender at work) isn't a
>> distinction that stands up in the real world. I know post-op TS women
who
>> still work in the male role (one posts here regularly) as well as a few
>> non-op TS (myself included) and transgenderists who are 24/7... and that
>> means at work too...
>>
>> Much as people want a sharp and clear dividing line... the real world,
>> nature, the physical universe, just doesn't work that way.
>
>Loree I never defined TS. I only said TS vs non-TS. I think the pre-op
and non-op who is 24/7/365 falls well
>into my example. Not the TV or CD.
Ok... now bear with me just a little further... While there is no doubt at
all that there is a huge difference between a man slipping on his wife's
panties and a post op TS... both in what they do and are and what their
specific issues are, there is no sharp dividing line between those two
individuals.
While it's nice of you to not specifically excluded non-ops that are 24/7
365... what about transgenderists that are 24/7 365? 364? 300? 24/6? 18/7?
as I said before, there are post-op women I know that aren't 24/7 365...
There isn't an actual dividing line anywhere... You are talking about human
beings and what they do... and there are as many different ways of
expressing a transgendered id as there are trans folk.
It is a seductive idea.. that you can separate those exactly like you from
all the rest and establish an absolute "brand name" identity. It isn't
possible in the real world, however. What you end up with if you try are so
many exceptions that your "brand name" is diluted, or a "class" system based
on such arbitraries as SRS or not, 24/7 or not, sexual orientation...
passability.. and the list goes on... and one time or another each of those
things and more have been used to try and divide up the TG population..
usually to support some bigot's idea of "I'm ok, it's those people that are
weird (perverted, sick, etc.)
Diane
>That is so much baloney. Oh, it is just a matter of degree of gender
>identity, in most cases; and there are persons who have a 95-100% feminine
>gender identity (and remember, can be butch, too!), who choose not to have
>SRS as being something unnecessary for themselves.
Nope - it's not baloney. It's the difference between a cross
dresser and a transsexual. It's the difference between night and
day.
It's interesting and informative to note that each and every
post-op transsexual, without exception, that has written in
agrees that SRS (or at least the desire and motivation for it) is
essential in defining what is a transexual. Now these people
should know something about it dont'cha think?
It is only those who have stated their desire to keep their penis
that maintain that being TS and cross dressing are only a matter
of "degree"
Enough said.
----------------
Diane
Laura Blake
>It is only those who have stated their desire to keep their penis
>that maintain that being TS and cross dressing are only a matter
>of "degree"
When you consider that non-ops of one kind or another make up at least 75%
of the transcommunity, I would be more than a little hesitant to use this in
your platform... First off; I seriously doubt that a majority of
transsexuals, post-op or otherwise agree with this rigid categorization of
the community, and secondly; even if they did, they'd still be outvoted at
least 3 to 1. Sounds like a losing ticket to me...
>Enough said.
Yep... I'd say you've said enough... unless of course you plan to digest
your other foot while you're at it!
Laura Blake
>I just don't understand WHY they would want to keep that part of an image that
>they CLAIM to not want to project.
And that has been my contention with you from the beginning Aly... You
really *don't* understand this well enough to analyse it fully.
>Shit, what pre-op TS doesn't feel disgust
>when looking in the mirror?
Which just about sums up my whole point about "Internalized Transphobia" and
it's impact upon our decision making processes. Does it not make more sense
to *first* deal with that disgust, *before* hacking up the body, rather than
hacking up the body to avoid the self-revulsion?
>On
>the other hand (and this is a question) are non-op comfortable with their image?
This one most certainly is.
Although I've not made much of a point of it on these newsgroups, I have had
surgery available to me for a long time. I could, if I chose to, probably
arrange it within two or three weeks, leaving only the surgeon's waiting
list to contend with. Hell, I've already passed the RLT 15 times over...
BUT... I *choose* not to hack up my crotch, because I simply don't think it
is either necessary or wise.
Laura Blake
>I didn't think I expressed hatred of the CD. ONly that our plight differs in ways that
>requires that a concensus on what a TS means is useful.
Exactly what "plight" is that?
Exactly how does it differ from that of other transies?
In exactly what way is it useful?
Diane
wrote:
>Shit, what pre-op TS doesn't feel disgust when looking in the mirror?
Answer:None
If someone is comfortable having a penis then they are something
other then a transsexual. But then - you knew that . :)
----------------
Diane
Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
to me.
I consider myself to be a TransSexual.TS. I use that "Label" because I have my
sights firmly set on SRS as my goal. But I also consider myself as TransGender,
because I am crossing from my Birth sex (ie, male) towards appearing to be the
opposite sex (ie, female). I haven't had the surgery yet, therefore I am in that
"Category".
(Note: Most of what's in quotes and brackets is to help define what i am saying
using terms that are used everyday.)
I have no ambivalent or hostile feelings towards CrossDressers, TransVestites,
TransGenders or any other group that falls within the boundaries this newsgroup
covers.
Having said that, I would like to answer your claims as they appear to me
personally....
Laura Blake wrote:
> Now, you will tell me that since you are a transsexual, and should have been
> female all along you somehow don't fit the transgender mold. And, I will
> tell you that as a transgenderist (out, proud, and unashamed) I probably
> should have been female all along... and I definately fit the transgender
> mold.
I do not claim that at all. I am as proud to be a TG as I am to be a TS. It's
all a matter of goals as to which term I identify with personally.
>
>
> Next, you will proclaim difference because you are having SRS to "fix"
> yourself, and therefore don't fit the transgender mold.
Again, I don't claim anything of the sort. I may be fixed upon SRS as the goal
of my transition, but I would never claim that I'm any better than you for doing
so.
>
>
> And what happens next? You are left with the inescapable negativity of the
> situation, you *know* you are transgendered... and you form an escape plan:
> Sex-change! You objectify this as a means of becoming cisgendered... or
> more accuratetly, as a means of being NOT-transgendered. If you are a woman
> and you have a cunt, you must not be like us ... right?
>
> WRONG...
This is, again, an incorrect assumption for my outlook. I don't see SRS as an
"escape", I see it as a major step on the way to being what I know I am. I am
NOT using SRS to become Cisgendered. I will ALWAYS identify with those of you
who don't want it or can't reach it. And I will always give you my support in
anything you want to do to gain recognition in the eyes of John and Jane Q.
Public. I can never be truly cisgendered at this time, because there is nothing
science can do to make me completely into a Genetic female. Also, I will always
have the experiences I have been through and shared while Transitioning, some
fond ones and some not. Those will always be a part of me.
>
>
> Most people, particularly the bigoted ones, will see your sex-change as an
> irreversible declaration of your gender identity disorder. Most believe
> sex-changes are given because the disorder can't be cured. They don't
> accept transsexuals into the world any better than they would accept an old
> crossliving transie like me... In fact, many view it as a form of surgical
> fraud in which you are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not.
> And, sadly, there is some validity to their argument.
Sadly, it's also true that we are not accepted by the public, yet! I do not
believe that your belief that I am trying to pass myself off as a female is true
for me personally. I live as a female, I dress as a female, I have someone who
loves me very much, as he would a female. I may not qualify on all counts, and I
may never do so, but It all depends on how we see ourselves as to how much we
are female, truly. If someone asks me directly, I will tell them the truth. Can
I truly do more?
>
>
> Sex-change doesn't make you cisgendered... just the opposite, in most
> people's eyes, it makes you even more transgendered than the rest of us!
> The only thing working in your favour is that many people view this as an
> attempt to "fix your problem" and will give you some brownie points for
> trying. But, ultimately, on the big scorecard of life you are still getting
> an "F" in "being cisgendered"!
Again, the question is, do I really care if I'm cisgendered or not? I don't have
a problem. If people don't like me, they can just get lost, or if they get
rowdy, I'm sure my Ex-USMC fiancee can ask them nicely to "move on quietly.....
> Laura Blake
Laura, The thing I'm trying to say is, PLEASE don't paint me with the same brush
as everyone else. I'm an individual, the same as you. YOU don't like it when
somebody does it to you, so please, don't do it either. Generalisations do
no-one any good, least of all those like us who need to be seen as individuals,
slightly different in some ways but still as human as everyone else.
Cassie Foxx.
Laura Blake
>Ok... now bear with me just a little further... While there is no doubt at
>all that there is a huge difference between a man slipping on his wife's
>panties and a post op TS...
Yeah... about 2 years.
(Just kidding.)
ms_d...@geocities.com
Andrea Bennett (arb...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> I really haven't followed the ins and outs of this discussion, and for
> fear of being barbecued am reluctant to enter it. But of course I'm
> going to stick my nose in anyway.
> At one time or another I've identified myself in most of the
> categories -- TG, CD, non-op, pre-op, post-op, etc. -- that are under
> debate. As far as I'm concerned, any of them is a perfectly valid
> choice if it suits the individual. And I don't see a "pecking order"
> where one can be said to be better than another.
Thank you. I think this is a very important point to make. This whole
notion that there are some who are better than others (and it varies from
sub-group to sub-group) is one of the more erosive elements in the trans
community.
> I guess there are some common interests for all, at least in the sense
> that all of us have a yearning to transcend to one degree or another
> the traditional notions of sex and gender, and to be able to live our
> lives without being hassled or feeling ashamed or defective.
Those would be the main ones IMO.
> There are obviously some divergent interests, too, and some of those are
> in conflict with one another.
While each pocket of individuals can make the case that they have issues
which are different from all others, the fact is that as a unit, we have many
more issues in common. Rather than pissing over who is more or less trans or
who *really* deserves consideration, the application of a modicum of
tolerance *for our own kind* could do wonders for us by persenting us as a
coheasive group rather that the bunch of catty wackos we come off as online.
> Ten (and maybe even five years ago) I wouldn't have said this and
> didn't see how it could be true, but my own reality tells me it is so:
> Life, and one's perception of self, is qualitatively different after
> SRS.
I'd imagine it would be. One can not undergo something so radical and expect
to remain unchanged by it. But is one's core identity changed by it? Have
the common interests stated above changed?
> I cannot say that without experiencing it no one can understand
> the differences, for maybe those greater perception and insight than
> me can do so. I personally could not and did not comprehend how these
> changes would affect me. The way my brain works, contemplating such
> matters in the abstract is one thing, while doing it and living it are
> another.
Until one has had an experience for themself, it's all just speculation.
My sister had a friend who committed suicide. He was around eighteen at the
time. Now, I've had three grandparents die, so It's not like I've never lost
anyone in my life, but this is an experience to which I simply can not relate.
It is a very different thing, and while I can imagine how she felt, I really
can not know the full range of feelings and whatnot she experienced. The
bottom line: I don't really *know* how she felt.
There are many cases where all the speculation in the world will never come
close to the actual experience. And until one has had said experience, they
are really not in a position to speak with any authority on the subject.
What is important to remember is that the experience of one person do not
invalidate those of another.
> I often used to say, "Oh, I'm the same person, I've just changed the
> packaging." That doesn't fully describe how I feel these days.
As I've said before, I don't thing that who we are changes so much as how we
*express* who we are. I'm pretty much the same person I was a year ago. It is
how I live and express myself which has changed. By virtue of what you have
done, you now manifest your inner self in a different way than before.
However, as we tend to view our presentation and actions *as* our selves, your
above statement is most applicable, as from that perspective, I too am not the
same person as I was a year ago.
And yet, inside I'm no different than I ever was.
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
Aly
>
> On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 19:06:20 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I didn't think I expressed hatred of the CD. ONly that our plight differs in ways that
> >requires that a concensus on what a TS means is useful.
>
> Exactly what "plight" is that?
Acceptance of living full time as our preferred gender. I am not saying that it is wrong for the TV to express
themselves. I have not said that any behaviour is wrong. All I have stated is that as far as education of
what TS means to Joe/Jane public, and public perception helps guide policy (the end point) it is useful to
highlight the differences.
Who (m2f) when they first came out to others didn't receive some form of questioning like, "What's so important
about women's clothes?" or "OK, so you like to wear dresses. What's the big deal?" Well, the clothing was
never the issue. The issue was always, I am a woman and I think given some time you will come to realise this
as well. And if not, well then that is your problem.
What drives a person to forsake their careers, their family, friends, their sanity, their lifestyle to change
from living as a man (m2f) to a woman, and the key word is living, has MUCH to do with one's plight.
>
> Exactly how does it differ from that of other transies?
uh I made no distinction. You call them TS and that's what I have been talking about.
>
> In exactly what way is it useful?
L.B. while I am pleased that you have hoisted the banner and battle cry for non-TS, you confuse me with another
enemy, i.e. ignorance.
All person's battling with gender issues face:
- terror of someone else finding out
- loss of family/friends
- aprehension
- confusion
- lack of education w.r.t. sanity (we are not insane based on gender issues)
- public acceptance
- happiness in living as one desires
- compassion for others
- awareness of both genders
- and many more
A person seeking to live their LIFE as the opposite gender tends to face these issues in a higher degree.
Given that you evaluate me as being "wet" why not educate me and help me see just how the TV faces loss of job,
do TV have the same divorce rate as TS, what about sanity issues, do TV contemplate suicide as much as TS, what
about work, do TV struggle to create a new work history in their preferred gender.
I am not getting into the debate about non-op, post-op, pre-op TS. I am only speaking about the distinction.
Shit, I realise that many TV issues are TS issues. But let's face it, having Joe public believe that I appear
as a woman for a few hours a night in flamboyant clothing is not what I want them thinking of conservative me.
Yes the image that I present will have the greater impact in the long term. Educating persons about why I
changed genders is important and part of that educating means drawing distincts so they don't misunderstand why
i HAD to change.
YOu beleive that one carefully consider the need for SRS. I think it is solid advice. You advocate one
consider the motives behind SRS given most of us have been raised to beleive that only the two gender poles are
acceptable and it is our overwhemling desire to be accepted that draws most to SRS and that conforming to a
social gender construct is not a justification for SRS. I consider your point and then looked at myself in the
mirror and said, mirror, the public doesn't undress me, am I conforming to what I believe society has told me
what a "real" female looks like? And my answer, after staring at all of me (and it is a HARD LOOK to do) was
to say that SRS was, is, will be, would be, has been and any other tense, be the right choice FOR ME because I
like me without it. I suppose I could spend years in therapy learning to love myself, I could have done the
same thing in trying to live as a GM, instead I chose to live as WHAT made me happy.
If there are persons who like "living" as their preferred gender AND don't mind their anatomy, then god bless.
But then again, this thread was not about your theories. It was about a proposal that in our education efforts
to Joe Public, that distinctions in life needs be made between the TS (pre-op! post op! non-op?) and th TV.
Loree tells a tale of a fateful trip, where on TS had surgery and lives 24/7 as a man still. Wel you no what,
I think that is the most wonderful example that a person can have disgust with a body part and want SRS.
So instead of proclaiming "Can't we all just share a Coke and get along?" recognize that the paths are quite
distinctive.
Laura Blake
>Thank you. I think this is a very important point to make. This whole
>notion that there are some who are better than others (and it varies from
>sub-group to sub-group) is one of the more erosive elements in the trans
>community.
Well, from over here, it looks a whole lot more like people are confusing
*their feelings* with *the issues*. It's an easy enough mistake to be
making... we each have mde or will make our own emotional journeys that is a
given in any situation where change is taking place. But what we cannot
afford to do is approach the social and legal issues with those emotions as
guidance... and that's what appears to be happening in most of the
conversations occuring here over the years I've been posting here.
This conversation is no different... Aly started out wanting to talk about
a *strategic* approach to transgender equality. It's NOT an emotional
issue, but here we are discussing how much different all this *feels* for
different groups in the community. Has anyone --including Aly-- even
touched upon the real question: "What is the best approach to transgender
equality?" Nope, not yet... we're still busy jockeying for position at
the table...
I can't even begin to tell you how often I've written winnable casefiles
only to have them torn up by people reacting emotionally to one or two words
or given people advice about how to approach the human rights commissions
only to have them go off ranting angry at me because I dared suggest they
reveal what was between their legs. These are *emotional* responses to
strategic thinking... "Seargeant, the hordes are approaching, are the
troops ready for battle?" "Sir, No Sir... they are still crying over Pvt.
Bennet's lost gun!"
Think about it... How far do we expect to get either asking the law to
codify our *feelings* or presenting our *feelings* as justification for a
legal realty? Sounds like a real good way to get laughed out of the
legislature to me!
Isn't it about time we stopped this pathetic "Well that may be how you feel
but it isn't how *I* feel" bullshit, realized that how we feel about
eachother is totally irrelevent, and got right down to the questions...
What do we do about getting kicked out of a store?
What do we do about getting fired from our jobs?
What do we do about getting evicted from our homes?
Do you think debating "TS, TG, or TV?" really matters to someone sitting on
the curbside, unemployed and unable to buy groceries? Do you think it
mattered to the people who landed them there?
Maybe it's time to do just a little growing up, huh?
Laura Blake
>Shit, I realise that many TV issues are TS issues. But let's face it, having Joe public
>believe that I appear as a woman for a few hours a night in flamboyant clothing is
>not what I want them thinking of conservative me.
BINGO.... there it is... You want to hack the community up into little
pieces because YOU *personally* don't want to be mistaken for a
crossdresser.
FREE CLUE: Most crossdressers are also very conservative people who don't
like being mistaken for transsexuals. And... THEY aren't running around
rejecting their peers.
Your biases are showing and your credibility with me just went to 0!
Aly
> This conversation is no different... Aly started out wanting to talk about
> a *strategic* approach to transgender equality. It's NOT an emotional
> issue, but here we are discussing how much different all this *feels* for
> different groups in the community. Has anyone --including Aly-- even
> touched upon the real question: "What is the best approach to transgender
> equality?" Nope, not yet... we're still busy jockeying for position at
> the table...
TG equality? Geena gave some excellent examples for why TS equality differs from TV equality.
Calling it all TG equality only muddies the issue. Luara, I know you have been RLT for a very long while,
answer me this, what is your TG argument for a person who is TS and needs medical care in a place where the
medical wards are seperated, what about dorms, what about passport status, what about driver's license. Your
thought for include everyone dilutes the TS necessity for resolution in these areas. A TV can live without the
driver's license showing F, or going to prision in a male ward, or seeking medical care as a man.
If the rights for TS were not so pressing, how come we read threads about:
- how to change the driver's license
- how to change my name
- how to argue that because I changed genders I am still a fit parent
- how to receive medical care post SRS
- how to educate my employer that RLT isn't a bad thing
- how to update all my records to show my new identity
- how to improve my voice so I can apply for the customer support position when I say, Hi this is Laura, how
may I help you
- how to help spouses cope with the loss of an image they loved.
Laura, your trivialise the TS trek so much that you have sold out what is so critical And that is that being TS
means more than clothes and wearing them in public. It means being accepted, as humanly possible, as your
preferred gender.
Who here would use thier old voice to communicate?
Who here would use old body language?
Who here would say, Yeah I changed my name from jim to Jamie but that big M on my license is OK with me.
Who here would go to work oscilating imagery between male and female because they believe they have a right to?
Who here would argue that men only pretending to be women should be allowed to use the womens room, after all,
what constitutes ladies room attire (dress, jeans, pink clothes?)
No Laura, you trivialise that which you are not.
>
> Think about it... How far do we expect to get either asking the law to
> codify our *feelings* or presenting our *feelings* as justification for a
> legal realty? Sounds like a real good way to get laughed out of the
> legislature to me!
We don't ask the legislature to codify feelings, ONLY INTENT OF BEHAVIOUR. That may be too deep for you, but
given you have had experience in the lobbying arena, you should be able to gain insight into how deep it is
(and yet quite simple).
> What do we do about getting kicked out of a store?
> What do we do about getting fired from our jobs?
> What do we do about getting evicted from our homes?
While these are basic human tenants that we would esteem ourselves worthy (namely freedom of space, of
livelihood, of shelter) you have not raised points that are foreign to TS. How many TV get fired from their
jobs? How many TV get evicted? How many TV get denied medical coverage? No you have mentioned issues that
are quite pressing to the TS and it happens to be they are globally important issues to the others.
Tell me, why do you think T* falls under the umbrella of Rainbow?
Why do you think that the G/L caucus argued not to included T* issues in the most recent rights legislation?
It's not because they don't care. It is because they understand the strategic importance. I didn't like their
decision but I understood it.
Same sex marriage, why are there not more persons dragging TS married couples to court forcing them to divorce?
Afterall, they are same sex and THEY GET TO ENJOY rights that other SS couples do not.
Because it muddies an issue that no one is willing to face at the moment.
>
> Do you think debating "TS, TG, or TV?" really matters to someone sitting on
> the curbside, unemployed and unable to buy groceries?
yes it does. It matters to my friend who is currently unemployed and when SHE goes for a job and they see a
"man in a dress" she worries. The TV gets to put on a suit, get the job, then relax into what they want to do
with their leisure time. It matters!
Do you think it
> mattered to the people who landed them there?
obviously it did because the TV could have kept it out of the work place. Many other groups keep theri
activity preferences out of work. The TS LIVES this shit, and dies with it. I would think that you would
understand that. Afterall, you espouse a person loving themself for who they are and not some construct.
>
> Maybe it's time to do just a little growing up, huh?
This is not about growing up. People grow up like it or not. This is about gaining some wisdom for who you
are, what you think you need to be happy and then getting it.
I am not abusing the TV, only stating that our paths are different and others need to understand this.
I have not made this a personal attack on anyone or any group. When one interest group lobbies against
another, there is no need to make the debate bloody. Obviously you are intelligent and capable of defending
yourself. Since I am not attacking you or any particular TV for how they behave, don't confuse an proposition
and viewpoint as hostile.
Honestly, some of us are civil and still very comfortable with being females and TS at that.
Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
Laura Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:27:47 +1000, Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
> <skunk...@one.net.au> wrote:
> >Laura, The thing I'm trying to say is, PLEASE don't paint me with the same brush
> >as everyone else. I'm an individual, the same as you. YOU don't like it when
> >somebody does it to you, so please, don't do it either. Generalisations do
> >no-one any good, least of all those like us who need to be seen as individuals,
> >slightly different in some ways but still as human as everyone else.
>
> Translation: "Even though you were not responding to anything I said, I'm
> just defensive and insecure enough to have taken this personally."
>
> Cassandra... generalizations are just that... non-specific references based
> on averages, observed or measured, that while not necessarily descriptive of
> any one individual are descriptive of a larger group of individuals; in this
> case, transsexuals.
>
> Do you have any idea just how defensive it makes you look when you have to
> refute things that are not even directed at you?
>
> Hell, your response is SO typical I even predicted your response in a recent
> message where I made a comment about transsexuals lining up to take swipes
> at me...
>
> -----
> Laura Blake
>
> Being the first to climb the mountain
> also means finding your own way down.
*Cassie grins*And you're saying what about generalisations? That they shouldn't be
taken personally?
Breaking down generalisations with specifics is how we deal with them. Your letter,
to me, said some things that I didn't agree with. True, I could have let it ride, but
I decided not to. In one way, I did it to see what YOUR response would be. I'm not
taking a swipe at you, I'm just giving my point of view to things you said.
In a way, you're as "defensive" as you claim I am, but I guess we all get that way
from time to time. I'd like it if you modified the way you present things, but in the
end, all I can do is ask. What you do is up to you.
There are three things you do with statements like you said:
You agree with them,
You disagree with them,
Or you just leave them alone.
I have done all three with various statements you've made in the past. And I probably
will do so again. There's one thing you might have overlooked: I took time to write
an answer to what you'd said. At least that means I didn't just ignore you. But if
you want me to, just ask.
Cassie Foxx
Wishing she had the thick hide her parents said she had sometimes.
Unknown
ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake) wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 19:03:23 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Shit, what pre-op TS doesn't feel disgust
>>when looking in the mirror?
>
>Which just about sums up my whole point about "Internalized Transphobia" and
>it's impact upon our decision making processes. Does it not make more sense
>to *first* deal with that disgust, *before* hacking up the body, rather than
>hacking up the body to avoid the self-revulsion?
The main reason I've had so much plastic surgery has more to do with
what I call "IU", or Internalized Ugliphobia. Rarely do you see the
ugly child praised, even though most of us who were born that way knew
it at a very early age. Over the years, as the message "pretty=good,
ugly=bad" was incessantly drummed into us, we tended to mold this fear
and disapproval into our own inner voices. The result was massive
shame, guilt and self-abhorrence.
For several decades, I was in deep denial of my innate ugliness and
when I finally came face to face with it, my first response was to
race blindly to the nearest plastic surgeon. The doctor said he'd
never seen such a severe case of UID, but could understand why I felt
that way. Before operating, however, he wanted me to do a period of
RLT as an attractive person, and for over a year I walked around in an
incredibly hot and itchy Bob Barker mask. Although this wasn't what
I'd envisioned, I gradually adjusted to my new role and was soon ready
for my surgery.
At first I was content to just move skin around, but ultimately moved
on to bony recontouring. Later this week I go under the knife again
and next Spring, if I can save up the money, I hope to have my cranial
fossa enlarged and an acromioclavicular shave. It may sound crazy, I
know, but at least my self-revulsion is held at bay between surgeries.
I'd like to find a good therapist who really understands IU, but most
of them seem to want to give you a letter for more surgery just to
hustle you out of their offices.
I think IU is one of the most underaddressed problems in our
community. Although it sometimes mimics Tennessee Ernie Fordism
(which I have written about elsewhere), it is my belief that are
really very few true TEF's around.
Andrea
Diane
>I agree with it. You don't get to vote though, since you're not a
>transsexual and haven't paid the poll tax.
Is that "poll" tax or <ahem> "pole" tax?
----------------
Diane
Diane
>Thank you. I think this is a very important point to make. This whole
>notion that there are some who are better than others (and it varies from
>sub-group to sub-group) is one of the more erosive elements in the trans
>community.
others". If you could point me to such a post then we would have
something to discuss otherwise I would suggest that such a
statement lies only in your own mind.
----------------
Diane
Diane
(Theoni) wrote:
>Oh, now _that_ was _sweet_, thank you for the kind words. I think
>moving out of the city has calmed me down a lot...I'm looking out a
>window on a mountain valley with a cloud sitting on it, drizzle
>everywhere, tons of maple leaves all over the ground, a vision of
>placidity. It makes it easier to get up, get dressed, and go put a
>sink in the b
We must be on similar wavelengths these days. I'm in the process
of readying for a move out of the city and into the Lake Tahoe
area. Just being there for a few days was so calming. Looking
forward to hot cups of cocoa by the stove on cold snowy days in
the mountains.
----------------
Diane
joann_p...@my-dejanews.com
Diane <note...@sirius.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:41:32 GMT, Joann...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >That is so much baloney. Oh, it is just a matter of degree of gender
> >identity, in most cases; and there are persons who have a 95-100% feminine
> >gender identity (and remember, can be butch, too!), who choose not to have
> >SRS as being something unnecessary for themselves.
>
> Nope - it's not baloney. It's the difference between a cross
> dresser and a transsexual. It's the difference between night and
> day.
>
> It's interesting and informative to note that each and every
> post-op transsexual, without exception, that has written in
> agrees that SRS (or at least the desire and motivation for it) is
> essential in defining what is a transexual. Now these people
> should know something about it dont'cha think?
>
> that maintain that being TS and cross dressing are only a matter
> of "degree"
>
>
> ----------------
> Diane
>
Actually, I read something today (posted on it here), where it appears at
least one reference has been made to "non-surgical transsexual" as a class.
I hate to break it to you, Diane, but the "non-surgical transsexual" is the
non-op transsexual (the term Loree uses - note that it does have some
validity!). There is no reason why one has to make the arbitrary and
artificial distinction that distinguishes the gendering of transsexuals from
other transgendered people.
In fact, it is my belief that the creation of this artificial distinction is a
defense mechanism for persons who are seeking SRS in an attempt to relieve
their discomfort with their sexual equipment. (See, the gender identity isn't
the problem for the "op" TS, it's the presence of the undesired penis.)
Ah, now _there_ is a distinction you can make, and perhaps it is your real
intention to make this distinction - it is almost as if the TS folks who post
confuse gender and sex. I see the SRS-bound TS as one who is uncomfortable
with their sex, not their gender. That is why the sex is to be changed by
surgery to match the gender.
The "non-op TS" is gendered like any other TS, but chooses to live with the
sex organs they were born with - but they may not necessarily _accept_ them
as determinative of their sex.
I know that many of the people who post here are quite set in their point of
view. I keep looking for some insight that will help me explain to myself why
I feel the way I do. I haven't found it yet.
Joann
joann_p...@my-dejanews.com
Diane <note...@sirius.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 19:03:23 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Shit, what pre-op TS doesn't feel disgust when looking in the mirror?
>
>
> If someone is comfortable having a penis then they are something
> other then a transsexual. But then - you knew that . :)
>
> ----------------
> Diane
>
There are people who are uncomfortable having a penis, who don't feel that
way 100% of the time -- how much nicer to be either cisgendered or
surgery-tracked transsexual, than someone who constantly finds themselves
dancing on the fence.
Yeah, I know, I _think_ I'm on the non-op TG side of the fence, but I am
always flirting with the idea.
joann_p...@my-dejanews.com
ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake) wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:27:47 +1000, Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
> <skunk...@one.net.au> wrote:
> >Laura, The thing I'm trying to say is, PLEASE don't paint me with the same
brush
> >as everyone else. I'm an individual, the same as you. YOU don't like it when
> >somebody does it to you, so please, don't do it either. Generalisations do
> >no-one any good, least of all those like us who need to be seen as
individuals,
> >slightly different in some ways but still as human as everyone else.
>
> Translation: "Even though you were not responding to anything I said, I'm
> just defensive and insecure enough to have taken this personally."
>
> Cassandra... generalizations are just that... non-specific references based
> on averages, observed or measured, that while not necessarily descriptive of
> any one individual are descriptive of a larger group of individuals; in this
> case, transsexuals.
>
> Do you have any idea just how defensive it makes you look when you have to
> refute things that are not even directed at you?
>
> Hell, your response is SO typical I even predicted your response in a recent
> message where I made a comment about transsexuals lining up to take swipes
> at me...
>
> -----
> Laura Blake
>
with you more than disagreed, but then again, I haven't learned to read yet
(and I don't mean that as sarcasm - I have recognized that it's easy .
joann...@hotmail.com
ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake) wrote:
[]
> Isn't it about time we stopped this pathetic "Well that may be how you feel
> but it isn't how *I* feel" bullshit, realized that how we feel about
> eachother is totally irrelevent, and got right down to the questions...
>
Being kicked out of a store for being there crossdressed? I can't imagine it
happening, but I am not sure what I would do. Stuff like putting superglue
in their door locks or throwing a brick through the store window would be
stupid vandalism. If the store is not in a mall, perhaps getting a local T*
group to picket outside might be appropriate. (If the store _is_ in a
shopping mall, mall management permission would probably be required in the
US.) Perhaps a lawsuit would be appropriate. If the store is a chain, maybe
the _best_ approach would be to write a letter to the home office - that
could actually get results! (I actually did that once, but not for CDing - a
bookstore had a sign at the register - "if we forget to give you a receipt,
we'll give you $10" - I had purchased a couple of books, and on my way out
the door, I reached into the bag for the receipt and it wasn't there. I went
back to the register, and both the cashier and the manager refused to honor
the policy! I was steamed, wrote a polite but firm letter to the main
office, and got an apologetic response and a $25 gift certificate).
> What do we do about getting fired from our jobs?
If I am fired for being transgendered, I get to invoke the antidiscrimination
laws in New York.
> What do we do about getting evicted from our homes?
>
Well, for me, that would mean my _wife_ is doing the evicting - and I guess if
she got a court order, I'd have to leave; but I'd oppose it.
> Do you think debating "TS, TG, or TV?" really matters to someone sitting on
> the curbside, unemployed and unable to buy groceries? Do you think it
> mattered to the people who landed them there?
>
One of the local television stations, UPN9, ran a story on "transgendered
prostitutes" in the Greenwich Village area. The story wasn't all that bad,
but the post-story chatter among the newscasters has me aghast - the
impression that was given was that TG people can't get jobs and have to
resort to prostitution - who would hire a freak? I wrote to the news manager
(by e- mail), to complain. As of yet I have not heard back.
> Maybe it's time to do just a little growing up, huh?
>
> -----
> Laura Blake
>
> Being the first to climb the mountain
> also means finding your own way down.
>
Joann
Unknown
joann_p...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In fact, it is my belief that the creation of this artificial distinction is a
>defense mechanism for persons who are seeking SRS in an attempt to relieve
>their discomfort with their sexual equipment. (See, the gender identity isn't
>the problem for the "op" TS, it's the presence of the undesired penis.)
Could be, Joann, that some people simply wish to be female and find
that having a penis and testicles doesn't mesh well with that concept.
To me, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea that doesn't
require further "justification" or "defense mechanisms".
Others may desire to have male sex organs and simply live as women.
That likewise sounds like a valid option, but I'd say the folks in
these two categories are coming from somewhat different places. In
terms of how they interact with the world in casual settings, there
may not be much difference since presumably what's under our skirts is
private in most circumstances. On the other hand, the self-concepts
of those who like having male genitals may differ from those who
prefer having female genitalia.
>Ah, now _there_ is a distinction you can make, and perhaps it is your real
>intention to make this distinction - it is almost as if the TS folks who post
>confuse gender and sex.
Well, gender presentation and physical sex obviously don't have to
match. On the other hand, the concepts are clearly related. If we
didn't differentiate between male and female (i.e, if we were all the
same sex or all different sexes), gender differences between masculine
and feminine would have no meaning. "Gender" is the term that
describes whether one presents attributes that are more like a male or
more like a female -- it doesn't tell us anything else about a person.
>I see the SRS-bound TS as one who is uncomfortable
>with their sex, not their gender. That is why the sex is to be changed by
>surgery to match the gender.
Not all transsexual people have a desire to "match" their bodies with
stereotypical gender presentations, although I suspect that most of
them do, just as is common in the general population. But with all
due respect, Joann, I think it's far too simplistic to attempt to
explain the desire for sex reassignment on the basis that people are
merely trying to "match up" things along conventional lines.
>The "non-op TS" is gendered like any other TS, but chooses to live with the
>sex organs they were born with - but they may not necessarily _accept_ them
>as determinative of their sex.
Personally I don't care what folks call themselves. People apply all
sorts of labels and definitions to themselves, and often they change
over time (sometimes frequently and dramatically).
To my way of thinking, it's perfectly plausible that someone would
like to keep their male genitals yet present themselves to the world
in the female gender. That's their business, and I say go with
whatever makes your boat float. It is a bit of a quantum leap,
however, to assert that a penis and testicles are anything other than
male sex organs.
Nonetheless, I can understand the argument that genitalia alone are
not the sole determinants of sex. We don't say, for example, that a
man who loses his penis due to injury or disease automatically becomes
a female. We don't base the determination solely on reproductive
function either, or solely upon secondary sexual characteristics
(facial hair, breast development, fat distribution, stature, etc).
Even endocrine and genetic measures can be ambiguous. When you get
right down to it, it's difficult to point to any one factor that by
itself determines what sex really is. We tend to resolve those
questions based upon a complex of factors, including gender
presentation and self-identity.
>I know that many of the people who post here are quite set in their point of
>view. I keep looking for some insight that will help me explain to myself why
>I feel the way I do. I haven't found it yet.
I think, Joann, that you cannot look for simplistic explanations.
Definitions of gender and sex are somewhat fluid and determined by
reference to multiple axes. And I don't believe it's particularly
helpful to try to hone your blade on the one-dimensional theory that
transsexuality is simply an exercise in aligning the body with
cultural sociotypes of "man" and "woman". The process is sort of like
Justice Burger's heroic struggle to define obscenity in Miller v.
California -- hard to express in the abstract but you know it when you
see it.
Andrea
Laura Blake
>The story wasn't all that bad,
>but the post-story chatter among the newscasters has me aghast - the
>impression that was given was that TG people can't get jobs and have to
>resort to prostitution - who would hire a freak?
Joann, my naive little bunnykins... I hate to break this to you but
something like about a third of the transcommunity is out there turning
tricks, for just that very reason!
Every major city has it's "tranny alley"... and there's no shortage of
people either selling or buying.
I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with a guy who was going to
produce a documentary on a Canadian TS... She'd been the talk show rounds
bragging about how wonderful her transition was, how helpful her bosses were
to her and how nice everyone was. Of course she'd conveniently neglected to
mention that her office had been moved from the executive suits to a
windowless room in the services area of the basement... But anyway, this
guy was going to make this big movie about her, and was all set to tell this
grand flowery story. I asked him how many TSs he'd met, and how much he
really knew about the transcommunity... He quite proudly told me he'd met
about 16 or 18 of the girls, and was very impressed with them, both as
people and as business professionals. I reminded him that there were likely
twice as many turning tricks in his home town even as we spoke... and, as he
lived in Vancouver, I suggested he take a little drive down to Davies Street
and meet some of the girls working there. The movie never got made.
You see Joann... there IS an underbelly to this community, and we have a
very nasty habit of ignoring it and/or denying it's there. Many of our
peers end up as what I call "fallen angels", drug addicted, HIV+, turning
tricks for food and fixes, and living in abandoned buildings... Precisely
because "[nobody] would hire a freak."
The notion that we are all middle class, well educated people is just one
more big load of hooey being fed to the public by shrinks and transies
alike. Y'all needs to open your eyes and see what's *really* going on out
there....
ste...@my-dejanews.com
logic then?
Forget the labels for a mo', just ask youself where you want to go ...
If you want to be a woman you need the op ... how else can you have
a female experience of sex???? (In your head??)(Duuuuh!)
...And, logically, If you want to be a woman and therefore want a female
experience it probably follows that your T.S.
So if you want the op just do it ... if you dont, ok, dont!
Q.E.D. :-)))
Y.A.P.O.T.S - Yet Another Post Op TS
Donna Lynn Matthews
says...
Well, lessee now... Y'all seem to put yerselves up on some kinda
pedistal or sometin as bein the real thing far as women go. All the rest
of us backwards-ass gendertrash just be play actin or sometin. Y'all get
high 'n mighty on us cuz we gots our peckers and y'all dun got yers fixed
up all nice and purdy like.
Cut the 'who specifically said' crap. Here's an example:
> Subject: Re: I don't get it
> From: gee...@my-dejanews.com
> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 18:35:51 GMT
> Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered
>
> In article <71shg6$edi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
> > 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.
You all find some way to marginalize the non-TS TGs here with "well you
don't even try and pass", "how can you identify as a woman with a penis",
and a load of other bigoted crap.
You have Aly wanting to reinforce the divisions within the T* community,
Chandra who wouldn't be caught dead in public with another TS, Cheryl who
doesn't even want non-TS to even be considered.
So tell me Diane, just what is it about the rest of us that elicits such
a hostile response?
Enquiring minds want to know...
Donna
--
Even the bravest of us rarely has the courage for
what he really knows. - Nietzsche
Aly
>
>
> Well, lessee now... Y'all seem to put yerselves up on some kinda
> pedistal or sometin as bein the real thing far as women go. All the rest
> of us backwards-ass gendertrash just be play actin or sometin. Y'all get
> high 'n mighty on us cuz we gots our peckers and y'all dun got yers fixed
> up all nice and purdy like.
>
> You all find some way to marginalize the non-TS TGs here with "well you
> don't even try and pass", "how can you identify as a woman with a penis",
> and a load of other bigoted crap.
>
> You have Aly wanting to reinforce the divisions within the T* community,
Divisions? Hmmm yeah divisions. Joe public, a TS is not a person parading around in women's clothing looking
for excitement, exhibitionism and erotic pleasure. A true (m2f) TS is a dedicated creature wanting to
assimlate into society as a functioning female. A TS often enters RLT being pre-op but there is that wanting
to be post op one day. A few persons live as females who have no desire to be post-op. [discussion deferred]
A TV has little understanding of TS life. In order to help Joe public better understand and empathize with our
plight TS should differentiate themselves on issues, NOT VALUES. I am not advocating that a person say, hey I
am the TS, I don't (In Donna language) get my rocks off dressing up. Hate the TV. No, instead I say that TS
should describe their plight. By educating others on what we stand for, the differentiation will fall out.
And well maybe the TVs could just try the same, describing why they feel compelled to LIVE as men and dress as
women.
> Chandra who wouldn't be caught dead in public with another TS,
wouldn't be caught with a non passable TS. And yes it is an issue that all TS must face oneday.
>
> So tell me Diane, just what is it about the rest of us that elicits such
> a hostile response?
Just because TV and m2f TS happen to have both been born with a penis, doesn't mean we share the same values
and behavours.
>
> Enquiring minds want to know...
want to know why persons can't feel pride in being a TV? Do I feel pride in TS. Fuck no. I would give up
being TS if I could. Once again, the TV views the world through male ego.
Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
Diane wrote:
*Cassie groans* Ooooooooooogh! That was BAD! *giggle*
I nominate Diane for the "PUNisher" of the week award.
Any seconds?
Cassie Foxx
Cassandra Kitsune Foxx
the past few days. Maybe if we keep thinking along these lines, we can come to a
definition of all the terms that those who fall under tham can agree to.
Then again, who knows?
Cassie Foxx
joann_p...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Actually, I read something today (posted on it here), where it appears at
> least one reference has been made to "non-surgical transsexual" as a class.
> I hate to break it to you, Diane, but the "non-surgical transsexual" is the
> non-op transsexual (the term Loree uses - note that it does have some
> validity!). There is no reason why one has to make the arbitrary and
> artificial distinction that distinguishes the gendering of transsexuals from
> other transgendered people.
>
> In fact, it is my belief that the creation of this artificial distinction is a
> defense mechanism for persons who are seeking SRS in an attempt to relieve
> their discomfort with their sexual equipment. (See, the gender identity isn't
> the problem for the "op" TS, it's the presence of the undesired penis.)
>
> Ah, now _there_ is a distinction you can make, and perhaps it is your real
> intention to make this distinction - it is almost as if the TS folks who post
> confuse gender and sex. I see the SRS-bound TS as one who is uncomfortable
> with their sex, not their gender. That is why the sex is to be changed by
> surgery to match the gender.
>
> The "non-op TS" is gendered like any other TS, but chooses to live with the
> sex organs they were born with - but they may not necessarily _accept_ them
> as determinative of their sex.
>
> I know that many of the people who post here are quite set in their point of
> view. I keep looking for some insight that will help me explain to myself why
> I feel the way I do. I haven't found it yet.
>
> Joann
Diane
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:50:26 -0500, in soc.support.transgendered
ms_d...@geocities.com wrote:
>Well, lessee now... Y'all seem to put yerselves up on some kinda
>pedistal or sometin as bein the real thing far as women go.
No honey you do that yourself. All we maintain is that you have
a penis and we don't. As for being a "real" woman that's not for
me to judge. Please don't project your own insecurities onto
what I actually said.
>Cut the 'who specifically said' crap. Here's an example:
The example that you quote from Geena maintains what she has
stated all along - that being that it is not transsexuals who
claim that there is a "pecking order" but rather it is cross
dressers and transvestites who cannot accept their own life style
who artificially create such an order in their own minds. Geena
has always maintained this as have I. If you are reading
anything else then you are once again projecting your own
insecurities onto our words. If you have any doubt about this
then I suggest you ask Geena herself.
In lieu of the above you have failed to provide an example of
transsexuals maintaining that they are somehow "better" then any
of the other gender variants. Are we closer in nature to a
natural born woman then a weekend crossdresser? Well yes, we are.
That's not better luv - that's just the facts of live. Live with
it or not as you wish.
>You all find some way to marginalize the non-TS TGs here with "well you
>don't even try and pass", "how can you identify as a woman with a penis",
>and a load of other bigoted crap.
"You all find ways....." What we're dealing with is bigotry on
your end masked as concern for an imaginary problem. You project
once again your own insecurities upon transsexuals as a group and
then try to condemn us for such imagined slights. Nonsense. Get
your act together before you condemn us. You have a perfect
right to go about life keeping your penis. Half the planet does
it every day. It doesn't make either you or I better then the
other - it just makes us different.
>So tell me Diane, just what is it about the rest of us that elicits such
>a hostile response?
Form you? Well I would imagine it to be a hostility towards
woman in general - TS or otherwise. I of course don't know your
lifestyle but I am reminded of the gay men who do drag and
oversexualize and parody what it is to be a woman. I'm not
suggesting that you are gay or do drag but I think such behavior
that I mention is misogynistic in nature. As could be yours.
>Even the bravest of us rarely has the courage for
>what he really knows. - Nietzsche
Great quote - the Nazi's loved Nietzsche as well. He was a real
hero to them
Diane
message. I hit the wrong button on my newsreader. I apologize
again for the inconvience.
Diane
Aly
>
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:38:27 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >wouldn't be caught with a non passable TS. And yes it is an issue that
> >all TS must face oneday.
> >being TS if I could.
my my my what a convenient snip.... out of context given I was responding to how Donna cited Chaundra. I hope
you do better than that when making scientific arguments?
here is how it REALLY read:
Donna wrote:
> Chandra who wouldn't be caught dead in public with another TS,
Aly clarified:
wouldn't be caught with a non passable TS. And yes it is an issue that all TS must face oneday.
Donna wrote:
> Enquiring minds want to know...
Aly clarified:
want to know why persons can't feel pride in being a TV? Do I feel pride in TS. Fuck no. I would give up
being TS if I could. Once again, the TV views the world through male ego.
Laura wrote:
>
> Well... this is about all we need to know.
>
> What the hell good is an activist who is utterly ashamed of being herself
> and doesn't even want to be seen with her own kind?
>
> Come clean, Aly... You have yourself in a really icky mess... You ARE the
> kind of people you don't want to be seen with, and you are asking us to
> change ourselves all around just to make you happy.
>
> Wanna take bets on the odds of that happening?
Well Laura IF YOU WERE a TS you would understand that there is not pride in a misfortune, only an optimisim
that one can be happy in life. I am SO happy that you dawn the banner for ALL the TRANSPHOBES in Denial. Your
annual reunions must be huge and in a CLOSET.
honor seed
>
> As a newcomer to the forum, I have read the messages and replies with
> interest. I think your opinion is excellent.
How is it excellent for you?
I am not seeking to denigrate
> any paticular group or person, however to change one's sex or to be a
> transexual should be just that. The complete change of one's sex, not
> dressing as a woman and claiming to be one.
>
> Let me clarify my point. I have no problem with someone who wishes to dress
> and live as a woman while keeping their male genitals. Nor do I have a
> problem with "cross dressers" etc.
I have no problem with you.
I do believe that it would benefit all to
> find a commom ground and cease what appears to me to be the contiual
> in-fighting, back biting, and self destruction of what should be a common
> goal -- equality with the rest of the world.
I believe that men or masculine feelings should adjust themselves
further than female feelings on the term equality. I feel more common
and plain as a woman, and have less haughty, assertive, arrogant
feelings. And this negative female conflict you describe is simply
loking at the differences a little more closely, with more
understanding than most men give it who are not admiting half of their
feelings are feminine.
> > It is time for those individuals who espouse themselves as transsexuals (a
> label I accept with reservation) to
> > start differentiating themselves from cross-dressers, TV and other morphic
> permutations of gender polarity. TS
> > have difficulty in life partly because so many persons residing within the
> general public, cross associate our
> > plight with the exhibitionism of CD and TV. While existing TS groups bicker
> over DSM issues and legalities
> > (worthy issues for addressing) all groups should come together and develop a
> branding image of TS and then
> > actively work to erase the erroneous cross contamination of imagery so broadly
> painted by CD and TV.
> > I am not suggesting that CD TV or others be in any way isolated from the
> community, because we share some
> > common forms of harassment and treatment, but given the scope of our plight as
> a whole, we must work to
> > differentiate ourselves from these two parties who inevitably will never
> understand our NEED to have SRS and be
> > accepted as our preferred genders.
> >
> > - Aly
Well, Aly, I don't understand your complicated effort to support the
idea that all TV are different from all srs TG. In fact nothing is as
far reaching in the emotional sense from being succinct. You will
never understand that, turning your penis into a vagina is not going
to set you apart and make you aloof from the emotions you had the dAy
before srs, so where are you going with this?
honor seed
>
> Aly wrote in message <3643DF...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >Famvieths wrote:
> >>
> >> try using the term transgender with those who are not ts. it includes us
> and
> >> leaves them out or the ts group. but do not alianate them we as a group
> can
> >> achieve a lot. if we fight between ourselves we will be weaked. and
> overcome.
> >>
> >> In togethernes we are STRONG.
> >>
> >> PAULA
> >
<snip-more interesting stuff>
> You should never be lumped in with people you don't identify with... if
> someone else did it to you, you would be upset.. why do it to yourself?
>
> I understand why you wouldn't want to be identified with a bunch of
> freaks.... after all, you are entirely normal.
I don't think so, why would ya want to be strong(a male thing) when
your already weak (afemale thing)- biggg kiss- thanks Loree- Honor
>
> Much as it will hurt my feelings, it is ok with me if you abandon us
> perverts... see ya!
>
> Hugs,
> Loree Thomas
> Seattle
> lor...@geocities.com
> http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/4958
ms_d...@geocities.com
Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Donna Lynn Matthews wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Well, lessee now... Y'all seem to put yerselves up on some kinda
> > of us backwards-ass gendertrash just be play actin or sometin. Y'all get
> > high 'n mighty on us cuz we gots our peckers and y'all dun got yers fixed
> > up all nice and purdy like.
> >
> > don't even try and pass", "how can you identify as a woman with a penis",
> > and a load of other bigoted crap.
> >
>
> Divisions? Hmmm yeah divisions. Joe public,
To whom is 'Joe public' a reference?
> a TS is not a person parading around in women's clothing looking for
> excitement, exhibitionism and erotic pleasure.
I never even intimated that that was what a TS is.
> A true (m2f) TS is a dedicated creature wanting to assimlate into society as
> a functioning female. A TS often enters RLT being pre-op but there is that
> wanting to be post op one day.
Accepted as a given. I've yet to dispute this.
> A few persons live as females who have no desire to be post-op. [discussion
> deferred]
More than a few. Already you are marginalizing a portion of the TG community.
Do not those who have no desire for surgery have the same right to live a life
in accord with their gender as do you?
> A TV has little understanding of TS life.
An assumption on your part sans proof. And what understanding have you of the
TV life?
> In order to help Joe public better understand and empathize with our plight
> TS should differentiate themselves on issues, NOT VALUES. I am not advocating
> that a person say, hey I am the TS, I don't (In Donna language) get my rocks
> off dressing up. Hate the TV.
Donna language??? None of you can seem to make a point without interjecting
some personal jab, can you? Try using 'Aly language' to make your point.
> No, instead I say that TS should describe their plight. By educating others
> on what we stand for, the differentiation will fall out. And well maybe the
> TVs could just try the same, describing why they feel compelled to LIVE as
> men and dress as women.
You are quick to categorize here, never considering that a TV can identify as
much as a woman as yourself. I agree that crossdressers need to make their
identity understood. Many identify as woman and would prefer to live as
women and be treated as such. Many would, given the social acceptance, live
as women full time, falling into that dreaded non-op category.
> > Chandra who wouldn't be caught dead in public with another TS,
>
> wouldn't be caught with a non passable TS. And yes it is an issue that all
> TS must face oneday.
I've seen born-female women who hardly 'pass'. What are you interested in,
acceptance and understanding as a transexual, or in disappearing into society,
never to have your TS status known?
> > So tell me Diane, just what is it about the rest of us that elicits such
> > a hostile response?
>
> Just because TV and m2f TS happen to have both been born with a penis,
> doesn't mean we share the same values and behavours.
Doesn't mean you don't share them either.
> > Enquiring minds want to know...
>
> want to know why persons can't feel pride in being a TV? Do I feel pride in
> TS. Fuck no. I would give up being TS if I could. Once again, the TV
> views the world through male ego.
What??? First you're going to tell us why a TV can't have a sense of pride.
Then you state how you (a non TV) feels no pride in youself. An you finish up
stating that the TV views the world through male ego.
Seems I've wandered into alt.non-sequitur...
You have no sense of pride in yourself? I'm sorry to hear that. I know many
crossdressers who feel quite good about themselves. I also know transexuals
feeling the same. So, just what is it you are so ashamed of? Being TS?
Being clocked as TS?
Donna
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
Doc Policy Violation: Charitable and othen non-pro
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ms_d...@geocities.com (Donna Lynn Matthews) wrote:
> You all find some way to marginalize the non-TS TGs here with "well you
> don't even try and pass", "how can you identify as a woman with a penis",
> and a load of other bigoted crap.
>
> You have Aly wanting to reinforce the divisions within the T* community,
> doesn't even want non-TS to even be considered.
>
> a hostile response?
White dude walks into a store and buys a can of brown shoe polish. He goes
home and smears it liberally all over his body. He then goes out and loudly
proclaims that he is an African-American.
You want to be a woman, Donna? Live the life. There was a book written about
a white man who did precisely what I described above -- it's called "Black
Like Me" by John Howard Griffin.
I set out to change sex 3 years ago because I had a very deeply felt need to
be a whole person. Since starting down this path I have found that trannies
come in two =very= distinct groups -- those who wish to experience what it
means to be the opposite sex as fully and completely as possible, and those
who see nothing wrong with claiming group membership and refusing to pay the
price. In Griffin's book he took the good, the bad and the ugly. By
accepting the entire role of a black man in Southern America, he learned as
full a measure of the black experience as possible.
When you and Loree decide to do that, then I'll consider you to be women. In
the meantime, you are men who are playing at being women. That is about all
the sophistication that society can muster. You really can't transition just
by saying so and you really can't be a woman just by putting a "I am a woman"
button on your lapel.
-- Geena.
gee...@my-dejanews.com
ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake) wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:38:27 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >all TS must face oneday.
> >being TS if I could.
>
>
> What the hell good is an activist who is utterly ashamed of being herself
> and doesn't even want to be seen with her own kind?
I know from direct, personal, first hand experience that you are absolutely
wrong about her. Unless, well, unless I'm not TS and the others in our
dinner party weren't either. Both of them. Which would be four of "us" all
at the same dinner table paying far too much money for a meal.
ms_d...@geocities.com
Diane <notr...@sirius.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:50:26 -0500, in soc.support.transgendered
> >Well, lessee now... Y'all seem to put yerselves up on some kinda
> >pedistal or sometin as bein the real thing far as women go.
>
Honey? Why, we haven't even been introduced yet...
Nope... No pedistals in my home.
> All we maintain is that you have a penis and we don't.
And this needs maintaining? Here I thought that was a given.
> As for being a "real" woman that's not for me to judge.
No, it's not. And yet the lot of you sit back passing judgement on
everyone else who isn't 'really' living as a woman by your standards.
> Please don't project your own insecurities onto what I actually
> said.
And those insecurities would be what? I don't live as a woman. I
don't identify as a 'woman' (or 'man' for that matter) and live
and present as between 'man' and 'woman'. I am quite secure in my
identity.
> >Cut the 'who specifically said' crap. Here's an example:
>
> The example that you quote from Geena maintains what she has
> stated all along - that being that it is not transsexuals who
> claim that there is a "pecking order" but rather it is cross
> dressers and transvestites who cannot accept their own life style
> who artificially create such an order in their own minds.
But why continually pound on crossdressers that identify as women that
they are deluding themselves? Why is it that they can not feel to be
women as much as you? You continually set yourselves apart, stating
that you and they share nothing in common, setting your 'issues' as
being of greater importance than their's since, after all, the
crossdressers are just pretending to be women.
Aly mentions that if a TV wants to do the RLT bit, then she'll listen.
But when a TV is out in public, her issues are much the same as a
pre-op durring RLT; both are subject to the same types of potential
discrimination. And yet, it is the TS 'issues' which need to be heard.
> Geena has always maintained this as have I. If you are reading
> anything else then you are once again projecting your own
> insecurities onto our words. If you have any doubt about this
> then I suggest you ask Geena herself.
You're big on the insecurity bit, aren't you?
> In lieu of the above you have failed to provide an example of
> transsexuals maintaining that they are somehow "better" then any
> of the other gender variants. Are we closer in nature to a
> natural born woman then a weekend crossdresser? Well yes, we are.
Do you 'look' more like a born-female woman? More than likely. Are
you closer in nature? A genetic test would be interesting...
Do I care how much closer you are or aren't? No in the least. But it
seems to matter to you now, doesn't it?
> That's not better luv - that's just the facts of live. Live with
> it or not as you wish.
I view it as neither better nor worse, you are who you are. But thanks luv
for pointing out how you are 'closer'...
> >You all find some way to marginalize the non-TS TGs here with "well
> >you don't even try and pass", "how can you identify as a woman
> >with a penis", and a load of other bigoted crap.
>
> "You all find ways....." What we're dealing with is bigotry on
> your end masked as concern for an imaginary problem.
And what bigotry is on this end?
> You project once again your own insecurities upon transsexuals as a
> group and then try to condemn us for such imagined slights.
What insecurities? I'm not the one telling people that their
identity's as women are suspect? I'm not the one advocating the
separation of the trans-community into more rigidly defined categories?
And who is 'condemning' you and for what? When asked a question, you
fly off the handle? Perhaps it a guilty conscience???
I guess when everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just common sense.
> Nonsense. Get your act together before you condemn us.
Enough with the condemnation bit. Seems that there is a fair amount of
insecurity on your end to feel so condemned.
> You have a perfect right to go about life keeping your penis. Half
> the planet does it every day. It doesn't make either you or I better
> then the other - it just makes us different.
So, if you can say this now, why is it that we get so much crap for it?
You are right, it doesn't make either better than the other, and yet it
continues to be a point of contention. If an individual (with penis)
is living as a woman, do you accept them as such? If not, why?
> >So tell me Diane, just what is it about the rest of us that elicits
> >such a hostile response?
>
> Form you? Well I would imagine it to be a hostility towards
> woman in general - TS or otherwise.
That's rich! My 'hostility' towards women? Christ girl, 90% of my
friends all my life have been women. I'm most at ease around them,
relate to them better, and simply find their company preferable to that
of men. I'm married to one and have two daughters. My hostility...
That is some imagination you have.
> I of course don't know your lifestyle
No, you don't. But I'm sure you'll proceed to make an incorrect
assumption about it.
> but I am reminded of the gay men who do drag and oversexualize and
> parody what it is to be a woman.
Do you understand that drag is *exactily* that, a parody.
> I'm not suggesting that you are gay or do drag but I think such
> behavior that I mention is misogynistic in nature. As could be
> yours.
You *are* a caution, aren't you???
Drag is a show, not a political statement. There is no 'misogynistic'
undercurrent to it.
No I don't do 'drag', I'm not gay and I'm far from a misogynist.
Any more pot-shots you want to take???
Oh wait... What's that up there... It's a...
::ducking under the terminal::
* * * * * I N C O M M I N G . . . * * * * *
S P L A T ! ! !
> > >Even the bravest of us rarely has the courage for
> > >what he really knows. - Nietzsche
>
> Great quote - the Nazi's loved Nietzsche as well. He was a real
> hero to them
FWIW, Nietzsche had no love for the Reich. He felt that the Reich was
destructive of what was best in Germany. At best, they appropriated
his construct of 'will to power' and the Übermensch, twisting it to fit
their own ideals. The rise of the Reich and the willingness of the
Germans to follow underscored for Nietzsche the decline of Germany as
an intellectual culture. It would serve as a prime example of the
collective degeneration of man into the perfect herd animal. An animal
with no spirit of it's own, who has been trained to disregard all that
is natural and life affirming within himself for the sake of the
'common' good.
BTW, do you still hang around the playgrounds at lunchtime, or haven't
you gotten that restraining order lifted yet?
(Cheap shots are *so* childish, aren't they???)
Nice try though...
Love and Stuff,
Donna
--
Donna's Hideout can be found at
http://donnas-hideout.org/
--
ICQ#: 7410262
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Aly
Were I to meet you on the street I would afford you civility, humility and respect. I would even smile.
If you presented yourself as female (and I don't mean by attire alone i.e. clothes don't matter) I would pay
you the courtesy of using the correct grammar.
If you told me you only live as a female when it suits you, in my mind I would question your reasoning for
believing the being female is a conditional state, and would smile in return.
If you told me you desired to live full time as a female I would empoathize with your decision and allot you a
courtesy of seeing you as female with an expectation that you were desiring and working towards this.
If I saw you taking years to just finish electrolysis I would begin to question your commitment.
If you told me you had no desire to have SRS, I would accpet your position and wonder WHY NOT? What vision
does she hold?
If you told me you wanted to assert male privlege at your conveniece because you could, I would be enfuriated
as no other female can do such a thing.
If you told me you cross dressed for years, then considered yourself a TS, I would be intrigued about WHY NOW
are you finally able to see yourself in these terms?
If you told me you knew you were a female many years ago but just now decided to act, I would ask "DID you
really know?" IF so, why wait?
If you told me you like to live as a female, keep your penis, make little to no attempt to integrate yourself
into society as a female and whine about how life has jaded you, then I would laugh my arse off and wonder what
the hell she thought about life.
If you told me you were TS I would assume you want surgery.
If you told me your TG, I will think your anything but TS.
If you told me you can't see any differences between the TG and the TS beyond surgery, you have just proved my
point... but there is a difference...
Finally about pride. How can I be proud to BE TS. TS describes a realisation which connotes a path that those
who have shared a similar realisation have entertained. TS describes changes NOT the final state. TV descibes
behaviour within a final state (the state of BEING a MAN). My final state is being a woman. Was I woman
before transition? Good question. I open that up for discussion.
NO I am not proud to be TS. I am proud to be Aly. I am proud for my life. TS is not me nor my life. TS is
only a descriptor. I asked if the TV could feel proud. To answer this question first means that the TV must
define what it means to be TV.
While I am not proud to be TS, I am neither ashamed. I do not hide from who I am neither do I call attention
to it, but then again, that's a TS reaction and I would think a TV one as well.
Aly
> > What the hell good is an activist who is utterly ashamed of being herself
> > and doesn't even want to be seen with her own kind?
>
> I know from direct, personal, first hand experience that you are absolutely
> wrong about her. Unless, well, unless I'm not TS and the others in our
> dinner party weren't either. Both of them. Which would be four of "us" all
> at the same dinner table paying far too much money for a meal.
Although I was happy to get out of there. I had a migrane from the chatter
Aly
And I would like to understand why a TV would go RLT?
> But when a TV is out in public, her issues are much the same as a
> pre-op durring RLT; both are subject to the same types of potential
> discrimination. And yet, it is the TS 'issues' which need to be heard.
If I led you to understand this then we have a communication issue.
when a pre-op is RLT AND the TG (TV = TG I don't know?) is RLT (24/7/death) then yes the issues are very
similar w.r.t. Living as a person who is non-op (TS always deal with other mental shit TV don't)
As I see it, the pre-op has an obligation to mind her manners before she is post op BECAUSE so much is riding
on the post op. Pre-op owe it to themselves (for the future) and for other post ops NOT TO MUDDIE ISSUES.
What I am saying is that the TV cannot claim, in casual odacity, that they should be granted all the same
rights and vestiges that the post op does UNLESS they are willing to have SRS... but tht would make thm a TS.
The pre-op understands this. It is for her long term interests to understand this. What long term interests
do the TV have? Please explain.
Laura Blake
>I know from direct, personal, first hand experience... four of "us" all
>at the same dinner table
Well, Julie, at least now I know where Aly's getting the bullshit she
peddles on these newsgroups.
Laura Blake
>I set out to change sex 3 years ago because I had a very deeply felt need to
>be a whole person.
So you had something cut off?
Laura Blake
>What I am saying is that the TV cannot claim, in casual odacity,
>that they should be granted all the same
>rights and vestiges that the post op does UNLESS they are willing
>to have SRS...
There it is, as I've said from the beginning, you don't want equality, you
want special priveledges... rights, that you would deny to your own peers.
You are a bigot my dear... a plain and simple bigot.
Aly
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:43:12 -0800, Aly <kah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >What I am saying is that the TV cannot claim, in casual odacity,
> >that they should be granted all the same
> >rights and vestiges that the post op does UNLESS they are willing
> >to have SRS...
>
> There it is, as I've said from the beginning, you don't want equality, you
> want special priveledges... rights, that you would deny to your own peers.
>
> You are a bigot my dear... a plain and simple bigot.
Once again your SNIPing talents at work... excellent you should really go into disinformation campaigns.
If I am a bigot becuase I believe that a post op TS should have rights afforded them that others have not, then
I accept.
Then again we are a world of bigots where mothers feel they have a right to maternity leave, where TV work as
men and want to be ACCEPTED as genetic women (as if men don't already have enough power), where nations believe
they can manage their borders and yes I believe that the post op has earned a right to be esteemed as a female.
Linda Elan
disagree but not
push it in each other's face? Why does every point have to be challenged
here when
this is a place for everyone?
Aly wrote in message <364B29...@ix.netcom.com>...
>I considered, and even began, responding to your points. Sufficeth to say
(write) that our views diverge.
<snip>
>If you told me you only live as a female when it suits you, in my mind I
would question your reasoning for
>believing the being female is a conditional state, and would smile in
return.
I would probably think that too, but I might also let it go because many
things other people think don't
have to make sense to me..my agreement or disagreement changes nothing.
>If you told me you desired to live full time as a female I would empoathize
with your decision and allot you a
>courtesy of seeing you as female with an expectation that you were desiring
and working towards this.
If you told them this upfront it's fair. Personally I prefer friends that
don't put conditions on me..
You see..this has happened to me and it used to upset me. I never quite got
going on my transition
due to lack of finances caused by bipolar disorder, now mostly cured by
medication.
>If I saw you taking years to just finish electrolysis I would begin to
question your commitment.
That's me..and I drifted away from my TS friends because it was easier for
me and them...
I wish there wasn't this heavy pressure among TS's ....not everyone has gone
through life unscathed.
Half of us are overachievers and half underacheivers...it's the people on
the downside that really
need some slack...not judgement..my opinion.
>If you told me you had no desire to have SRS, I would accpet your position
and wonder WHY NOT? What vision
>does she hold?
I would think the same way. A few years ago it would be a big deal. Now I
think it's not such a big deal.
Tell you the truth I think it's mostly a big deal among upper middle class
TS's. Everyone on the bottom,
DQ's, TS's with no money, no college, well I don't think they care about
being legitimized...
Yes...that's not the whole thing...you may say they aren't TS's...but that
is definitely part of it..
>If you told me you wanted to assert male privlege at your conveniece
because you could, I would be enfuriated
>as no other female can do such a thing.
What is male privilege? I've yet to experience it..Then again I'm someone
that dropped out of college and
as a technical person always had people tell me what to do..
If I knew what it was I dunno if I'd know how to use it anyway..
>If you told me you cross dressed for years, then considered yourself a TS,
I would be intrigued about WHY NOW
>are you finally able to see yourself in these terms?
It sounds like you want to interrogate people to judge their "legitimacy".
>If you told me you knew you were a female many years ago but just now
decided to act, I would ask "DID you
>really know?" IF so, why wait?
I know so many people like you..and perhaps myself in earlier times. Really
why is there this need to
know everything...? Everyone should wait on answering these questions
because as you get older you
realize how you thought you knew alot but don't..
>If you told me you like to live as a female, keep your penis, make little
to no attempt to integrate yourself
>into society as a female and whine about how life has jaded you, then I
would laugh my arse off and wonder what
>the hell she thought about life.
It's hard to understand some other people..true..but even totally different
people can be your best friends..
they don't necessarily have to share all your views on life. Is one of you
wrong? Maybe no-one is..
>If you told me you were TS I would assume you want surgery.
I really don't care about testing people unless they are sharing the rent..
I used to insist on your definition though..so I understand.
>If you told me your TG, I will think your anything but TS.
Which really means they are out of the TS club...been there...
>If you told me you can't see any differences between the TG and the TS
beyond surgery, you have just proved my
>point... but there is a difference...
>
Ok...there's a difference...you're more sure you're not part of a fringe
group...and need to feel that way..
Um...that was blunt..but what do you think?
>Finally about pride. How can I be proud to BE TS. TS describes a
realisation which connotes a path that those
>who have shared a similar realisation have entertained. TS describes
changes NOT the final state. TV descibes
>behaviour within a final state (the state of BEING a MAN). My final state
is being a woman. Was I woman
>before transition? Good question. I open that up for discussion.
Pride goeth before a fall.. Like yourself....you're group..you're
choice..I'm not PROUD to be Irish..it's
something I was born with. Is it good and ok..sure..
As for being a woman before and after..to me it's identity inside rather
than penis outside. A personal
beleif that one's identity inside is more female is the thing..how it is
solved is not a litmus test to me..
>NO I am not proud to be TS. I am proud to be Aly. I am proud for my life.
TS is not me nor my life. TS is
>only a descriptor. I asked if the TV could feel proud. To answer this
question first means that the TV must
>define what it means to be TV.
Ok..good..basically same as what I said. People are better off knowing who
they are and not what
their group is..
>While I am not proud to be TS, I am neither ashamed. I do not hide from
who I am neither do I call attention
>to it, but then again, that's a TS reaction and I would think a TV one as
well.
Yes, a very human reaction...and a personal choice.
Thanks for giving something to think about..I'm not meaning to pick on you
personally...
Luck in all,
Linda
<-|spunky|+>
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:24:44 GMT ldb...@nsp.sprint.ca (Laura Blake)
like, you know, totally like:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:11:35 GMT, gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >I set out to change sex 3 years ago because I had a very deeply felt need to
> >be a whole person.
> So you had something cut off?
Here's one for you Laura. What about the FTM with 40DD breasts, Is he being
"self-loathing" for undergoing a mastectomy?
Wouldn't he be more "self-accepting" if he keeps these large breasts and
subjects himself to either:
a). a painful binding process every morning.
Or
b). wearing a Playtex 18-hour bra under his new Louis Roth[tm] suit?
Perhaps he could also play skins at a local pickup basketball game. At least
those boobs might distract his opponents, (and his teammates as well
unfortunately)
I know what my FTM friends would do (and have done) but I'm anxious to hear
*your* answer, since it is "obviously more correct" than anyone else's. :-\
spunky
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Aly
thank you for your reflections and counter reflections.
My point is this:
Dealing with gender issues is something we all share and for those who identify as TS, the set of issues that
need to be conveyed to a general public might be helpful if the public understood just what it means to be a
TS.
Many persons don't enjoy the painful task of defning oneself. It is certainly a task that can take more than
sessions with a counselor and not acheived in one afternoon.
I have nothing aginst the cross dresser. the transvestite, the drag queen, the pre-op, the post-op, the tg or
even other odd labels.
I simply offer as a proposition that perhaps those persons dealing with gender issues who identify themselves
as ts, might benefit from educating others just what a ts means. And how can one define what it means to be a
ts unless they understand what it is not.
I have said that I have questions about what Laura and others have raised as points. Like:
- why would the non-ts desire to live full time? So there is enough discomfort in living like a man BUT not
enough to want SRS intrigues me. Laura offers as a reason, transphobia. I'm not sure what others offer. I'm
undecided.
- why should a person who =does not want to= live full time in their preferred gender role have a right to be
esteemed as the opposite gender? I also accept that the TG TV CD and anyone else who shows an image to the
public that thy are a gender separate from how they live, need under certain conditions access to restrooms,
places of business, etc. I am not saying that they shouldn't.
and many other questions.
Aly
> >enough to want SRS intrigues me.
>
It was a statement I made about my personal intrigue with how you have defined TG. How is this misrepresenting
you?
If you have actually
> read anything I've written here over the past 5 years, you would know by now
> that most transgenderists do indeed start out on the surgery track, but step
> off when they find out what's really going on.
>
> We don't experience any less discomfort (at first) than most TSs... what we
> do is deal with it in a very different way. Instead of hacking up our
> bodies we learn to accept and understand our transgender nature. It's about
> finding self-acceptance... not lack of conviction.
Laura- so you are saying that IF you were allowed to present your ideas to the TG person prior to RLT, you
could actually make an argument NOT to take HRT, not to change or dress, just live HAPPY as your birth gender
because afterall, hey you don't need to HACK up your body with SRS or hormones (internall hacking) or even your
family (Stay living as a man). Seems to me Laura that YOU are the one who can't cope becuase if you could, you
should have gone back to living as a man. But wait, you never were a man you contend.
But are you not a woman either? (and that is a question) So what is the final state of the TG?
You say the TG are mainly SRS bound TS who come to nirvana and realise that they can save 15K and hey, they are
ok with their image. I know SRS is not for all, certainly a few who are planning right now should reevaluate
their TSness, but (and given figures of 75% of trans community is really TG- shit let's make it a conservative
30%)why would a group of persons WANT to LIVE and PRESENT themselves as female EXCEPT for the part that's not
showing (save a few who go to nudist colonies) and not WANT to complete the overall image? Wait, I'll grow
breasts because that makes me feel female but SRS no way, that's too wierd and I love the =real me= (used
loosely). Seems to me that a bit of their maleness is still there, in the back of their minds,in the dark
recesses just saying, maybe I am not as committed to this woman thing as I thought. Afetrall, cutting it off,
who would want to do that?
No the =TG thing= has far more explaining than the =TS thing= given thier vision of female is a hybrid. No
wait, that's it, the TG is just that NOT MALE NOT FEMALE. Now that's a definition I can accept and understand.
That's a definition that's worthy of exploration of rights because hell, your neither gender. I am female on
the other hand. I see myself in every aspect as female and certainly with SRS the mirror is complete.I asked
you before, what is the TG vision of self?
> >Laura offers as a reason, transphobia.
>
> WRONG again... I offer "Internalized Transphobia" as a completely plausable
> explaination of the (often stupid) need for sex-change felt by so many
> transsexuals.
I stand corrected... "internalised transphobia"
>
> What transgenderists and transvestites do is OVERCOME transphobia, whereas a
> transsexual GIVES IN to it.
I might agree with this IF your internalized t-phobia actually existed
>
> >- why should a person who =does not want to= live full time in their
> >preferred gender role have a right to be
> >esteemed as the opposite gender?
>
> Try asking yourself a slightly different question... Why *shouldn't* they
> be accepted?
>
> Never mind your bullshit TS empire building... look for good legal and
> social reasons to exclude TVs and TGs from anything... never mind the
> bullshit Haugh is feeding you, never mind the crap Cheryl and Diane dish
> out... If you can't PROVE we are less deserving than you, if you can't build
> a courtroom quality legal argument *against* our equality then you are,
> quite simply, operating from bigotry and moral judgement.
Laura I am amased. For a person of such intellect you are so bereft of social examples for WHY men and women
are currently at social odds with one another, and then you think that TG/TV should muddie the issue. This
would divide all persons. Social change comes when the issues at hand meet certain feesiblity requirements
(cultural, socio, economic, financial, and technolgical).
It is culturally, socially, financially, and morally infessible for anyone to expect the dismissal of the use
of gender. The TS on the other hand says, "I am one of the genders all can live with. Sure I may not fit the
mold at times BUT I am willing to live this way." Society says, " well we don't like to usually rock the boat
BUT if you show us you are serious, we will take your word and treat you as such." Now comes L.B. "Hey we are
all in this together, let's just throw away the gender construct and say you can be what you want to be, when
you want to be it, as many times as you want to be it. Shit you've already accepted TS, just accept us on our
terms." Society says, "Fuck, everyone on this boat grap a life vest because the internalised transphobia tidal
wave is comming in. And shit, this all started when a few TS got on board. Maybe if we throw them over, it
will appease the gods and the L.B. of this world will see we won't tolerate this much disruption." And so over
goes the TS with her/his rights and fuck we are all left sinking.
Nope a better approach is to allow for steady integration and the first group that should be integrated are the
TS because SHIT, they are not looking to rock the boat anyhow. They just got the raw deal by being born in the
wrong gender and sex organs to match.
Laura Blake
>Once again your SNIPing talents at work... excellent you should really go into >disinformation campaigns.
I'm just responding to things you have actually said... since when is
echoing your own words back to you a form of "disinformation"?
>If I am a bigot becuase I believe that a post op TS should have rights
>afforded them that others have not, then I accept.
Good... because that most certainly is a pretty good working definition of
bigotry.
Y'know it's interesting how bigotry works these days ... The KKK doesn't
hate blacks, they love the white race; they don't believe in segregation,
they just want an all white country; they don't harass jews, they are
exposing a conspiracy; they don't disparage gays, they just don't see why
they need to be that way... it's all the same thing... hatred hiding behind
a thin veil of political correctness.
Why don't you at least have the strength of your convictions and come right
out and say what you really mean... Your spineless weaseling around the
edges of outright transphobic bigotry is beginning to give me a headache.