Post Op TS Help
Diane Garnett
Like all pre op transsexuals, the strength of my inner feelings have taken
me through years of misery, and bought me to the threshold of surgery. While
I have worries about the actual surgery, I'm confident that the number of
doctor I've had to satisfy, and my inner feelings will see me through. I'm
worried however that after surgery nothing will change, despite the trauma
of surgery, and that I might actually regret having the surgery.
Please can anyone advise me on the after effects of surgery?
Diane
Nicole Hamilton
> I'm worried however that after surgery nothing will change,
> despite the trauma of surgery, and that I might actually
> regret having the surgery.
>
> Please can anyone advise me on the after effects of surgery?
Hmm... well, to be completely honest, not much does change. All it really
does is bring you to the conclusion. For me, SRS was the right choice and
I'm very much at peace with myself, having done it. I was very satisfied
going in that it was the right choice for me and I definitely have no
regrets. What it did do for me was provide a milestone for my transition
out of transition. All that energy and money and emotion that I was
pouring into transition is now available for other things. So I've bought
a motorcycle, started flying lessons, planned a vacation with my kids,
started looking into target shooting (I've got a couple friends who are
really big on this), gotten re-invigorated in my business, started looking
for a new house and been thinking about taking another course at Harvard
this fall.
But it's odd, really, when I think about my body now. I know that among
some TS, it's very impolitic to say this, but I will anyway: for me, the
SRS was not the most important surgery I did, it was merely the final one.
Much more significant in my quality of life were the facial surgeries I did
with Ousterhout (bonework last Oct 29 and a facelift Feb 25) and a boob job
with Schrang (at the same time as SRS on Mar 22.) I definitely am happy
with having chosen SRS but it's almost (and I know this will sound
positively bizarre to some) as if it wasn't all that important one way or
the other. What was important was the life I could lead and for that, it's
pretty unimportant (because it's nobody's business) what's between my legs.
I like being able to look at myself as I step out of the shower and see an
ordinary woman. That matches what I think lives inside my body and the
brings a real peace and a sense of greater claim on being a woman. But it
didn't change much else except making it easier to tie off loose ends like
getting a new passport and maybe most important, declare myself done.
I know you know this, but it does maybe bear repeating: if you're not 100%
sure you want SRS, don't do it. Put it off. You can always change your
mind later and go do it. If you're expecting it to make you suddenly
happy, it won't. It doesn't change much. (Or at least, it shouldn't. You
know the saying, "If you weren't transsexual before reassignment, you will
be afterwards.")
Nicki
Laura Blake
>worried however that after surgery nothing will change, despite the trauma
>of surgery, and that I might actually regret having the surgery.
I can't answer to whether you will regret the surgery, but I can give you
one insight to mull over...
Nobody sees your crotch. They are not going to magically treat you any
differently because you had a surgery they don't even know about. Socially,
the SRS changes nothing. At best it might let you bypass any unresovled
internalized transphobia you have for a while, most likely it will make no
difference at all.
SRS changes you... not the way society sees you.
-----
Laura Blake
You can lead a horse to water,
but a pencil must be lead.
-----
Toni Roome
> >I'm worried however that after surgery nothing will change, despite the
> >trauma of surgery, and that I might actually regret having the surgery.
>
> I can't answer to whether you will regret the surgery, but I can give you
> one insight to mull over...
>
> Nobody sees your crotch. They are not going to magically treat you any
> differently because you had a surgery they don't even know about. Socially,
> the SRS changes nothing. At best it might let you bypass any unresovled
> internalized transphobia you have for a while, most likely it will make no
> difference at all.
>
> SRS changes you... not the way society sees you.
>
can be said on the matter.
It may make a difference to ppl who know you, and have known you before,
just because they are aware that you are complete.
Because you are less worried about incongriguities between your body and
your presentation it may make things easier when you are swimming or in
the changing room or anywhere where you may have ot show off your body.
It should make intimate relationships better, if you want your partner
to fully relate to you as a woman, though quite a few would still have
problems if they know your history.
And perhaps it will make you feel a lot happier about yourself. Though
for some people social acceptance as a woman is everything for others
(myself included) what we also want is the right body, and srs does seem
to give you a good approximation.
But don't expect it to magically make up for any problems you may have
in socialising, and do look out for post-op depression. It's something
we often spend a lot of our will on achieving and for some it can be a
bit of a let down when you just have to go back to getting on with your
ordinary life afterwards.
hugs,
--
Toni
"One should, each day, try to hear a little song,
read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it is
possible, speak a few reasonable words" (Goethe)
Laura Blake
>>That you would change your body because of THEIR misunderstandings and then
>>you should feel better about it is a pretty damned stupid concept.
>
>Is that so? Do you really mean that?
Yes... I do mean it.
>I have not changed my body because of
>society, I have done that for me!
Really? If you lived in a world that allowed males to live openly as women,
would you still have spent a couple of years of your life, thousands of
dollars, and god knows how much emotional energy getting your body all
hacked up?
Be honest...
In a world that doesn't proscribe femininity in males, I seriously doubt the
idea would even have occured to you.
-----
Laura Blake
For every problem I have there are thousands who don't.
For every problem I don't have there are thousands who do.
Wisdom comes from knowing when to teach and when to learn.
-----
Karen Ross
news:375eb46...@news.sprint.ca...
> Really? If you lived in a world that allowed males to live openly as
women,
> would you still have spent a couple of years of your life, thousands of
> dollars, and god knows how much emotional energy getting your body all
> hacked up?
>
> Be honest...
>
> In a world that doesn't proscribe femininity in males, I seriously doubt
the
> idea would even have occured to you.
A nice way to express the limits of your imagination, experience and
understanding.
TaraGem
writes:
>Nobody sees your crotch. They are not going to magically treat you any
>differently because you had a surgery they don't even know about.
People *do* see your crotch. In women's changing areas and showers. In a
bikini. At public hottubs or anywhere nudity is allowed.
>At best it might let you bypass any unresovled
>internalized transphobia you have for a while, most likely it will make no
>difference at all.
How can a transsexual have transphobia? Isn't that something that exists in
society, like homophobia?
hey...@lamar.colostate.edu
> How can a transsexual have transphobia? Isn't that something that
exists in
> society, like homophobia?
>
> Tara
Tara,
Anybody can fear the concept of being transgendered. Even a post-op
transexual. I think that Laura is trying to express the idea that
internalized transphobia may motivate people to have SRS rather than
live somewhere in the middle (with the belief that having SRS makes
someone a woman or man).
I still struggle with the decision of whether or not to have SRS.
Certainly, in some cases, it would be wonderful to be post-op. Like
when I want to have sex with a straight man. And other times, being
post-op would not be so wonderful (like when I want to have sex with gay
men). I feel the most pressure to have SRS when I get tired of being so
fucking different.
Once you've thought about the alternatives to, and consequences of SRS,
the decision becomes a simple yes or no type question. Before you go
and have your penis or vagina converted, make sure you and your
therapist have gone over all of these options. That SRS decision can't
be reversed and will cost you $$$$. If you've discussed every
alternative and consequence to surgery, and still don't really know what
you want, you should default to no surgery. You can always go for
surgery later on... And you never know...maybe in 10 years SRS will be
so much better or perhaps pre-op trannys will be the newest teen-rage.
I'm not trying to discourage those of you who have made up their minds
on surgery...if it's the thing for you, rock-on. I'm just telling those
of you who are wishy-washy on the subject not to rush into things.
hugs,
Camille
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Laura Blake
>How can a transsexual have transphobia? Isn't that something that exists in
>society, like homophobia?
And of course you've never heard of "Internalized homophobia"... you know a
gay man who hates gay men, or hates being a gay man.
Transsexualism is a form of "Internalized Transphobia"... what the hell do
you think motivates them to such great lengths as to seek surgery to fit
into the cisgender ideal?
-----
Laura Blake
Ok... so how come "Verb" is a noun?
-----
Toni Roome
> >It may make a difference to ppl who know you, and have known you before,
> >just because they are aware that you are complete.
> >Because you are less worried about incongriguities between your body and
> >your presentation it may make things easier when you are swimming or in
> >the changing room or anywhere where you may have to show off your body.
Laura Blake responded:
> >complete.
> >incongriguities
>
> Oh my... we have swallowed the cisgender ideal hook line and sinker, haven't
> we?
>
> "Complete" is not achieved by removing parts of the body.
>
I'm a human being, not a hypogryph. Most of us expect to come in the
standard two varieties, I just felt that I'd drawn the short straw in
ending up a bit of a mind/body mix. Your idea of being a male who
identifies as female might be all right for you, but it's a bit mind
bending for me. I wanted to get my body fixed. And feeling complete is,
to me, a pretty good descrition of how I feel now, with a neo-vagina,
and incomplete is how I felt before, when I had male bits which you,
seemingly, are so keen on keeping.
> "Incongruity" presumes that there is a right and wrong way for a person to
> identify... that there is something "incongruous" (i.e. "wrong") about a
> male who identifies as a woman or a female who identifies as a man.
>
As you say this *is* entirely a societal expectation issue. If you start
showing your penis around in a female communal changing room I would
expect you to get some reaction. I wouldn't even think about going to
such a place as a pre-op, now it's not a worry. I don't have to agree
with that (and I can understand why it does disturb other women) to
state it as a fact of life.
Life is also easier if you pass, becuase you take hormones, life is
easier if you pass because you don't sound like a man. As we (and you?)
do lots of things to be accepted as female by others, why are *you* so
disturbed about a bit of genital surgery which we do mostly to please
ourselves?
> BOTH these concepts come directly from the bowels of an unaccepting society.
> That you would change your body because of THEIR misunderstandings and then
> you should feel better about it is a pretty damned stupid concept.
>
I changed my body to make me happier. It worked for me, maybe it
wouldn't have for you. We each make our own decisions and then we have
to live with the consequences.
> >It should make intimate relationships better, if you want your partner
> >to fully relate to you as a woman, though quite a few would still have
> >problems if they know your history.
>
> And when they fuck you not knowing your history, only to discover it
> afterwards, they are just as likely to kill you as not... People
> --especially men-- do not like being tricked into sexual situations.
>
I wasn't suggesting that I try and conceal my past. But sometimes others
can often accept us as what you are now, and I would wonder how someone
would view me in the present if I still have male genitals. I know *I*
had problems in knowing how to relate to others sexually when I was
pre-op (and pre-transition for that matter). But obviously you see
things differently.
> >And perhaps it will make you feel a lot happier about yourself.
>
> That it might do... it very nicely bypasses (in the short term at least) the
> unresolved issues of internalized transphobia that drive most transsexuals
> to the operating table... "Why fix the world, when I can fix me instead"...
> uh-huh... that really solves the problem, doesn't it?
>
I don't have a big problem with the world (though I know others who do
have real problems with transphobia in others, which is why I support
campaigning organisations such as Press for Change that are trying to
improve our rights, and how other see us), and I am a lot happier for
having had my srs.
> >But don't expect it to magically make up for any problems you may have
> >in socialising, and do look out for post-op depression.
>
> Yep... that wonderful let down when you discover that you went to all that
> pain, expense and trouble and not a damned thing changed.
>
Actually it doesn't hurt that much. Electrolysis is much worse (and goes
on much longer). And some things do change. But yes, if you have other
issues, it won't fix them. It's not a panacea.
Amber Thompson
>
> In article <375dc339...@news.sprint.ca>, ldb...@sprint.ca (Laura Blake)
> writes:
>
> >Nobody sees your crotch. They are not going to magically treat you any
> >differently because you had a surgery they don't even know about.
>
> People *do* see your crotch. In women's changing areas and showers. In a
> bikini. At public hottubs or anywhere nudity is allowed.
>
> >At best it might let you bypass any unresovled
> >internalized transphobia you have for a while, most likely it will make no
> >difference at all.
>
> society, like homophobia?
Tara, from some of Lauras posting, it seems she hates TS's. She
blames us for everything that is bad in her life.
--
Amber Thompson (Frostfire)
ICQ#5904742
http://homepages.together.net/~msfrost/tananda.html
(Please do not put a link to my site, on your website without
permission.
Thank You.)
Laura Blake
wrote:
>I'm a human being, not a hypogryph. Most of us expect to come in the
>standard two varieties, I just felt that I'd drawn the short straw in
>ending up a bit of a mind/body mix.
Oh my, what a shame...
>Your idea of being a male who
>identifies as female might be all right for you, but it's a bit mind
>bending for me.
1) I do not identify as "female"... I live as a woman, but have never told
anyone I am "female".
2) This is a problem for you because you don't understand that sex (between
your legs) and gender (between your ears) are two different and separate
things that do not have to align in any special way.
That you have a problem with this **clearly** shows that you aren't thinking
outside the box... all caught up in the cisgender ideal.
>I wanted to get my body fixed.
Why do you think it was broken?
>And feeling complete is,
>to me, a pretty good descrition of how I feel now, with a neo-vagina,
>and incomplete is how I felt before, when I had male bits which you,
>seemingly, are so keen on keeping.
I'm not ambitious about keeping --or losing-- anything... It's just the way
my body is built and I don't see why that should be a problem.
>As you say this *is* entirely a societal expectation issue. If you start
>showing your penis around in a female communal changing room I would
>expect you to get some reaction.
Oh I don't know... I use the women's showers at the local Y all the time.
>Life is also easier if you pass, becuase you take hormones, life is
>easier if you pass because you don't sound like a man. As we (and you?)
>do lots of things to be accepted as female by others, why are *you* so
>disturbed about a bit of genital surgery which we do mostly to please
>ourselves?
Because it is a LIE... you are telling the world you are female, when you
are actually nothing of the sort. SRS does not build females... it builds
really good closets for males.
>I changed my body to make me happier. It worked for me, maybe it
>wouldn't have for you. We each make our own decisions and then we have
>to live with the consequences.
Yep... I didn't tell you not to have a sex-change did I?
I just pointed out what is wrong with the concept.
>I wasn't suggesting that I try and conceal my past. But sometimes others
>can often accept us as what you are now, and I would wonder how someone
>would view me in the present if I still have male genitals.
My boyfriend seemed not to have much of a problem with it.
>I know *I*
>had problems in knowing how to relate to others sexually when I was
>pre-op (and pre-transition for that matter). But obviously you see
>things differently.
Yes I do... but then, I'm not all caught up in this stupid cisgendered
notion that there can only be two kinds of people.
Jan
relationship to the world. If one existed in a vacuum, it couldn't
possibly matter how one looked, or how ones body was shaped, or whether
it stuck out or in at any particular point. There are many ways one can
go about resolving this conflict, from fighting against the way the
world is; finding an alternative sub-society; getting psychotherapy;
getting surgey; dressing unusually...etc...
The point is that people have their own ways of finding a balance that
they are comfortable with, and it is not up to anyone else to insult
those hard-won choices. The road to hell is paved by people who think
they know better than everyone else.
Jan
Amber Thompson
>
> It seems to me that trans issues are all about conflicts in one's
> relationship to the world. If one existed in a vacuum, it couldn't
> possibly matter how one looked, or how ones body was shaped, or whether
> world is; finding an alternative sub-society; getting psychotherapy;
> getting surgey; dressing unusually...etc...
>
> The point is that people have their own ways of finding a balance that
> they are comfortable with, and it is not up to anyone else to insult
> those hard-won choices. The road to hell is paved by people who think
> they know better than everyone else.
>
> Jan
That describes Laura, i don't care how she lives her life, I just get
angry when someone tells me my choiceds are wrong, or that society is
forceing me to have SRS, No one forced me to seek SRS, I did that
myself.
The next time you don't agree without someone else, don't act like
Laura.
Amber Thompson
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:29:03 -0400, Amber Thompson <msf...@together.net>
> wrote:
> > Tara, from some of Lauras posting, it seems she hates TS's. She
> >blames us for everything that is bad in her life.
>
>
> All my problems are YOUR fault.
>
> <ROFL> You are such a hoot!
Besides, it describes you perfectly.
Laura Blake
wrote:
> Tara, from some of Lauras posting, it seems she hates TS's. She
>blames us for everything that is bad in her life.
Yep, Amber that's right... you nailed it.
All my problems are YOUR fault.
<ROFL> You are such a hoot!
-----
Nicole Hamilton
> Tara, from some of Lauras posting, it seems she hates TS's. She
> blames us for everything that is bad in her life.
A pile of crap. Laura does believe that a lot TS go on to have SRS for a
lot of misguided reasons having to do with trying to fit into a society
that does not accept that there can be more just two sexes. I think she's
right. Though we might disagree on the numbers, I think that just as with
any population, we have dim bulbs among us, too.
Laura also makes clear that she supports our right to self-determination.
She might argue that a TS who chooses SRS is choosing poorly, but she
supports our rights to make that choice. I know that personally for a
fact. When I had SRS, Laura sent me a personal note acknowledging that
while it wasn't what she'd have chosen for me or for herself, she was
pleased to know it had brought me happiness. I think that's very in
character for Laura. She's a nice, caring lady and I am very proud to
consider her a friend. But if you want to have a debate with her, you
better have some brains and be prepared to use them. She's got a brilliant
mind and doesn't suffer fools.
Nicki
Karen Elizabeth A.
> Laura also makes clear that she supports our right to self-determination.
> She might argue that a TS who chooses SRS is choosing poorly, but she
> supports our rights to make that choice.
She supports it as a *choice* not a necessity. Most of the time it seems
she is saying "Go ahead and have SRS. You have a right to be a total
idiot and I'll support your right to mutilate yourself to my deathbed!"
That's the message I've always read in her posts on the subject.
More importantly, If her views prevail insurance coverge for SRS would
disappear. Don't say insurance coverage is rare. 4 people in our support
group, including myself, have had SRS payed for to some degree by
insurance.
Secondly, the likely political fallout if her views were generally
adapted towards TS's could include our right to legal status as women
and the right to marry men. I *know* that is not her objective - quite
the oposite. But given the conservative bent of *this* country (as
opposed to Canada) that could easily be the outcome here. That is why I
wasted no time getting my birth certificate changed. As you know I had
no pressing practical need to do so.
> I know that personally for a
> fact. When I had SRS, Laura sent me a personal note acknowledging that
> while it wasn't what she'd have chosen for me or for herself, she was
> pleased to know it had brought me happiness. I think that's very in
> character for Laura. She's a nice, caring lady and I am very proud to
> consider her a friend.
She and Michelle Steiner were friends too at one time...
> But if you want to have a debate with her, you
> better have some brains and be prepared to use them. She's got a brilliant
> mind and doesn't suffer fools.
She is bright (most T*'s are it seems). She also has a blind spot in
this area. In any case this is not an area where logical analysis is the
answer. One has to search their heart to find what is right for
themselves.
-Karen A.
Karen Elizabeth A.
> Transsexualism is a form of "Internalized Transphobia"... what the hell do
> you think motivates them to such great lengths as to seek surgery to fit
> into the cisgender ideal?
Because it fits the persons inner needs?
-Karen A.
Newone343
changes with the correct hormones of your body.
Karolina Lindqvist
hey...@lamar.colostate.edu wrote:
> I still struggle with the decision of whether or not to have SRS.
> Certainly, in some cases, it would be wonderful to be post-op. Like
> when I want to have sex with a straight man. And other times, being
> post-op would not be so wonderful (like when I want to have sex with gay
> men). I feel the most pressure to have SRS when I get tired of being so
> fucking different.
>
> Once you've thought about the alternatives to, and consequences of SRS,
> the decision becomes a simple yes or no type question. Before you go
> and have your penis or vagina converted, make sure you and your
> therapist have gone over all of these options.
I am a little bit puzzled over the discussions here. For myself
beeing a TS, is not a thing of reasoning and logic, it is more
a matter of feelings and intuition. Reasoning I use only to
try to understand my feelings, but like an afterwards thing.
The feelings decide, reasoning is just like confirming, and to
check out that the feelings are not completely out to lunch.
What is surprising is just these endless reasoning, to make
SRS or no SRS a thing of logic and reason. My own feeling is
that if anyone dedices on that step based on reasoning only, then
it should not be done. If the feeling of it beeing the
right thing, is not there, then it is not the right thing.
If you try to do SRS based on what kind of sex is the greatest,
with or without, I think better keep your parts. Sex is really
transitionary. It is nothing you really base your life on.
It in itself will not decide if you will live a happy life
or not. It can be like a spice, but if the main dish
is not good tasting, it does not matter how much spices you
put on, it will still not taste good.
So I would advice. Throw away your reasoning, and listen
to your intuition. Then when you have heard what that have
to say, analyse with your reasoning, and use the reasoning
to fulfill that dream.
Just my opinion
-- Karolina
TaraGem
writes:
>Transsexualism is a form of "Internalized Transphobia"... what the hell do
>you think motivates them to such great lengths as to seek surgery to fit
>into the cisgender ideal?
I don't understand the logic of your thinking. It would seem to me that if one
was TS, but disliked being TS, the last thing they would want to do is have SRS
since that would just reinforce that they are transsexual.
If one is TS and transphobic then their best course, IMO, is to seek therapy
with an experienced gender identity therapist.
Laura Blake
>I am fully aware of the constructness of gender and that my identity
>was shaped by my involvement in society. But this doesn't erase my
>history, my experience, my identity.
You say you know that it's all about social pressures and gender
constructs... and still you maintain you are incapable of rising above them.
What a pity... such an obviously intelegent person so anxious to sell
herself short.
And, of course, here comes the stock-in-trade argument...
>Let me bounce the question back to you. I have seen you say that
>you live as a non-op transgendered woman. Do you take hormones or
>have had electrolysis?
Hormones yes, electrolysis no.
Why? Because... I can clear my face of hair, I can grow breasts, I can
change my hairstyle, change my wardrobe even change my name WITHOUT denying
that I am a male human being. The minute I hack up my crotch I cross a very
important line... I deny my sex... which is no less a lie than denying my
gender.
>Of course you must agree that changing your body with electrolysis
>simply buys into the gender norm that women must not have facial
>hair.
No, I don't have to agree with that. I know several men who have had
extensive electrolysis... one because of severe juvenile acne others because
that's just plain what they wanted. These things do not necessarily signal
gender difference, and they do not necessarily signal the same intensity of
self-rejection you want people to think they do.
>If you equally advise against HRT and electrolysis, then I applaud
>you for being consistent. But if you don't, why the big deal about
>SRS?
Because, as I said above... I can do all these other things without
defrauding the rest of the planet into thinking I am something I'm not. I
can do all these things without denying my male sex.
Laura Blake
wrote:
>So I would advice. Throw away your reasoning, and listen
>to your intuition. Then when you have heard what that have
>to say, analyse with your reasoning, and use the reasoning
>to fulfill that dream.
I guess you don't quite understand what this is about...
We are not asking anyone to or not to have SRS... that is an extremely
personal decision that nobody has a right to dictate to anyone else. What
IS under question here is why people think they need SRS to get along in the
world. As has been conceded by both sides of this discussion, most of it is
the result of early-life conditioning and social pressures... My contention
is simple... these are things that oppress, and oppression can be overcome
without hacking up the body. SRS in fact complies with oppression.
Transsexuals will argue that their identities as "female" are fixed and
immutable... and of course, so long as they refuse to educate themselves
beyond suh nonsense, that is exactly what they are.
TaraGem
>born female) would not SRS be the *only* means they would have of escaping
>their transgender status in society? It's nothing but a different closet.
>One in which you deny your sex instead of your gender.
>
I feel the way to escape the transgendered status in society is to pass well.
Then you're accepted as a typical female. After SRS I'll still be a transsexual
woman.
>"Transsexualism" both as a diagnostic tool and as an object pursued by
>transgendered people is rooted squarely in the cisgender ideal, which
>(falsely) claims an essential alignment
must exist between gender and sex.
It depends on how you want to present yourself-- as a man or a woman, or
something in between.
>Oh fuck.... where the hell do you think the >stupidity about SRS came from in
>the first place? Stupid shrinks labeling >everything unusual as a disease,
>and then cooking up these cockamamey cures...
I think it's up to any therapist to evaluate someone and determine if they're a
good candidate for SRS. Though I'm sure there are unethical therapists, I doubt
that few qualified therapists are going to recommend SRS without thorough
evaluation to determine if the person is ready for such a life-changing
surgery.
Laura Blake
>I feel the way to escape the transgendered status in society is to pass well.
BUT... why do you need to escape it at all?
Why do you need all this bullshit about shrinks and surgeons in the first
place? What is so horrible that you must hack up your body?
Why don't you just say "Ok, I'm a transie" and then get on with your life?
tracy
Hi Laura,
It's these type of discussions that have always fueled
my own indecision: I could never argue with what you
say, 'cause it makes alot of sense - on the other hand,
the opinions expressed by some of those who disagree
with your views, seem to hit me at a more emotional
level (and yes, I realize that emations can *also*
be influenced by societal pressures and expectations).
If you don't mind me asking (I'm sure you've covered
this in the past), with whom do you relate to on
a sexual level?
Tracy
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laura Blake
> It's these type of discussions that have always fueled
> my own indecision: I could never argue with what you
> say, 'cause it makes alot of sense - on the other hand,
> the opinions expressed by some of those who disagree
> with your views, seem to hit me at a more emotional
> level (and yes, I realize that emations can *also*
> be influenced by societal pressures and expectations).
Of course they appeal to you on an emotional level... it's an empathetic
vibe shared by all people in similar situations. The effect of this kind of
empathy can be very emancipating, it can lead whole nations out of bondage
and into the freedom that is their right. It can also be used as a weapon
to lead people into horrific self-deprocations and some of the most wildly
self-destructive behaviours immaginable. Cult suicides are fueled as much
by empathy as they are by stupidity.
> If you don't mind me asking (I'm sure you've covered
> this in the past), with whom do you relate to on
> a sexual level?
Men, usually... but I don't see where that is germaine to the current
discussion.
tracy
Laura,
Sexual relations - or, at least the need for an
intimate relationship - have been a big factor
in my recent decision. During my early years after
transition, I was very (very!) sexually active -
with men, and did alot of flirting with women
(but the lesbians I knew, although *very* friendly
and accepting, at some point always said "after surgery...").
I became more and more uncomfortable with the idea that
the men seemed to be interested in me precisely *because*
I still had a male part - and at this point it has
been many years since I've had *any* sexual relationship.
I know getting srs doesn't mean I will automatically
find the love of my life (I'm not the hot, young thing
I used to be), but it just feels like it's time.
Tracy
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Toni Roome
> >Your idea of being a male who identifies as female might be
>
> 1) I do not identify as "female"... I live as a woman, but have never told
> anyone I am "female".
>
ppl male=man and female=woman. Perhaps my terminology is a bit loose.
> 2) This is a problem for you because you don't understand that sex (between
> your legs) and gender (between your ears) are two different and separate
> things that do not have to align in any special way.
>
not something I was comfortable with. You, on the other hand, also have
a perfect right to identify is some way as a woman (but that is also
the claim of CDers when they crossdress, isn't it?) and still keep your
male bits.
> That you have a problem with this **clearly** shows that you aren't thinking
> outside the box... all caught up in the cisgender ideal.
>
wouldn't be able to appreciate that a male body didn't have to imply an
identity as a man (though admittedly that was a problem I did have for a
long time).
> >I wanted to get my body fixed.
>
>
work a lot better :).
> >And feeling complete is,
> >to me, a pretty good description of how I feel now, with a neo-vagina,
> >and incomplete is how I felt before, when I had male bits which you,
> >seemingly, are so keen on keeping.
>
> I'm not ambitious about keeping --or losing-- anything... It's just the way
> my body is built and I don't see why that should be a problem.
>
Ok, that's fine for you, but why should you think it has to be the same
for everyone else? I don't keep trying to deny the validity of your life
choices for you. I know you feel the that the 'srs industry' once tried
to railroad you in surgery, and I don't defend them doing so, but my
impression is that they go on the working assumption that that is right
because that is what most of their clients want and what having had it,
they are happy with.
Even when I was in denial, I would have to imagine I had female genitals
to have sex as a male. Once I got some sort of handle on who I really
was I couldn't have sex as a male at all. Living as a woman, and having
changed my body in others ways through hormones it would be mind
blowingly silly for me still be have to live like that if I could get a
reasonable simulation of what I had always wanted, and what, in some
sense, I always believed I had.
> >As you say this *is* entirely a societal expectation issue. If you start
> >showing your penis around in a female communal changing room I would
> >expect you to get some reaction.
>
> Oh I don't know... I use the women's showers at the local Y all the time.
>
Communal showers? Naked? And what are other women's reactions? (btw what
*is* a Y?).
> >Life is also easier if you pass, becuase you take hormones, life is
> >easier if you pass because you don't sound like a man. As we (and you?)
> >do lots of things to be accepted as female by others, why are *you* so
> >disturbed about a bit of genital surgery which we do mostly to please
> >ourselves?
>
> Because it is a LIE... you are telling the world you are female, when you
> are actually nothing of the sort. SRS does not build females... it builds
> really good closets for males.
>
This is just rhetoric Laura. I take it you wander round with 1/4"
stubble and hoot in a baritone? And have you started testo patches yet?
And how can srs be a lie which you arte telling to the world? You've
just been telling us that no one knows if you've had it or not.
> >I changed my body to make me happier. It worked for me, maybe it
> >wouldn't have for you. We each make our own decisions and then we have
> >to live with the consequences.
>
> Yep... I didn't tell you not to have a sex-change did I?
>
Well, I can't swear that you didn't. You were certainly warning other
ppl on usenet against it when I was up for my surgery.
> >I wasn't suggesting that I try and conceal my past. But sometimes others
> >can often accept us as what you are now, and I would wonder how someone
> >would view me in the present if I still have male genitals.
>
> My boyfriend seemed not to have much of a problem with it.
>
I know lots of happy gay couples too.
> >I know *I*
> >had problems in knowing how to relate to others sexually when I was
> >pre-op (and pre-transition for that matter). But obviously you see
> >things differently.
>
> Yes I do... but then, I'm not all caught up in this stupid cisgendered
> notion that there can only be two kinds of people.
>
No. But it's you who are denying that I can fall into a different box
from you. The problem for the truly cisgendered is that they can't
conceive there is a place in the world for either of us (transgendered
or transsexual).
Toni Roome
> We are not asking anyone to or not to have SRS... that is an extremely
> personal decision that nobody has a right to dictate to anyone else. What
> IS under question here is why people think they need SRS to get along in the
> world.
>
to think to think that our genitals are wrong. That is why so many
attempt self-mutilation.
> As has been conceded by both sides of this discussion, most of it is
> the result of early-life conditioning and social pressures... My contention
> is simple... these are things that oppress, and oppression can be overcome
> without hacking up the body.
>
Where was that conceded? I think that body-sex dysphoria has the same
roots as social-gender dysphoria and is probably set in the womb. But
some ppl have both and some don't. Which is why I thnk that perfectly
valid to at least ask ppl if they really need to get their bodies fixed
as well.
Gretchen
<To...@erewhon.u-net.com> wrote:
> Laura Blake wrote:
> > We are not asking anyone to or not to have SRS... that is an extremely
> > personal decision that nobody has a right to dictate to anyone else. What
> > IS under question here is why people think they need SRS to get along in the
> > world.
> >
> For most of us it's simply not about getting on in the world. We happen
> to think to think that our genitals are wrong. That is why so many
> attempt self-mutilation.
Toni
You seem to be on a thought track I have been thinking about. It concerns
the "who" that we achive feedback and confirmation of our identity. If 9
out of 10 identified TS do not have SRS, I think that it is because when
they transition into living full time and being accepted as female by
society, the feedback is all they need to find fullfilment. They do not
need to have the SRS because the external stimulus is enough.
For the smaller percentage of TS, the person that matters most is the one
they see in the mirror everyday. They are those of independent mind and
thought who decide for themselves what is right. It does not matter if
they pass, live and are accepted as female. Feedback from society is not
the most important element in their lives. They know what is between their
legs and can not feel complete as long as they know there is more they can
do. It is a matter of self satisfaction not pleaseing society.
This internalizing seems to show up in two forms. Commonly it is those who
hate their own body. An obviously internal viewpoint. I think society
creates another aspect of this. The TS who is rejected and outcast growing
up. They finaly decide that society does not matter because the social
stigmatization is wrong. They learn to count on their own opinion above
that of societies views.
This internal/ external acceptance goes a long way to explaining why many
TS put off SRS once living full time and accepted. Also explains
transgenderists who live female with no body modifications necessary.
Mostly explains why passing is of such importance.
>
> > As has been conceded by both sides of this discussion, most of it is
> > the result of early-life conditioning and social pressures... My contention
> > is simple... these are things that oppress, and oppression can be overcome
> > without hacking up the body.
> >
> Where was that conceded? I think that body-sex dysphoria has the same
> roots as social-gender dysphoria and is probably set in the womb. But
> some ppl have both and some don't. Which is why I thnk that perfectly
> valid to at least ask ppl if they really need to get their bodies fixed
> as well.
> hugs,
I do not concede the discussion. I think those who have overcome the
oppression are those who decide for themselves to have SRS. The ones who
are satisfied when society accepts their lifestyle as female are those
most likely not to have SRS. About the only case I can think of where an
external force is the primary motivation is the "I need SRS to please my
boyfriend" cases.
Wendy
TaraGem
writes:
>>I feel the way to escape the transgendered status in society is to pass
>well.
>
>BUT... why do you need to escape it at all?
Because I'm not escaping. I still participate in the TS community by coming to
newsgroups, writing to politicians, helping other TG people, etc. I prefer to
blend in because, unfortunately, in our society you're treated better if you
do. I'll be the first one to say it's wrong and I work towards making society
more accepting.
>Why do you need all this bullshit about shrinks and surgeons in the first
>place?
Therapists have been very helpful to me by allowing me to sort out my gender
identity--for a long time I thought I was a crossdresser who liked taking
female hormones--and with practicalities such as ID changes, voice training,
etc.
>What is so horrible that you must hack up your body?
This is where we diverge on our views. To me SRS is not "hacking up" my body.
SRS is getting my genitalia in-line with my core identity. I may feel this way
because of societal imprinting...I don't know. The jury is still out. But the
fact is it's there. I consider it a birth defect and know it's something I
want.
Laura Blake
wrote:
>For most of us it's simply not about getting on in the world. We happen
>to think to think that our genitals are wrong. That is why so many
>attempt self-mutilation.
Has it ever occured to you to figure out WHY it is this way?
Why do you think your genitals are wrong?
Why are you so desperate about it?
Wouldn't it make sense to try to understand how it came to be this way,
rather than just following along with the pack?
>Where was that conceded? I think that body-sex dysphoria has the same
>roots as social-gender dysphoria and is probably set in the womb.
Yeah right... we learn self-rejection in the womb. <ROFL>
Girlfriend, you need to do A LOT MORE thinking on this one...
Laura Blake
wrote:
>For the smaller percentage of TS, the person that matters most is the one
>they see in the mirror everyday. They are those of independent mind and
>thought who decide for themselves what is right.
<ROFL>.... I think you got this one backwards dearie. Those of us who opt
out of SRS do not do so as an acquiescence...
Our lives get a lot tougher when we crosslive. There are many social
supports that simply don't exist for us; some within our own peerage. Many
places do not even acknowledge our existence and proceed to treat us as
transvestites, which can be grossly inappropriate in many circumstances. A
goodly many of us, lacking psychiatric "carry letters" to validate our
lifestyles find ourselves out of work, without medical care, or homeless.
Crossliving is as much an act of overt social defiance as it is a lifestyle
elective.
Transsexuals on the other hand, have this massive world-wide institution
right there to push them along, like good little sheep, into the operating
room. The whole thing exists to get you to hack up your body. It takes NO
independent thought to get a sex-change... and in many clinics (such as the
Clarke) independence of thought is actively discouraged.
You REALLY do need to give this all a lot more thought!
Karolina Lindqvist
Laura Blake wrote:
>
> I guess you don't quite understand what this is about...
I understand completely allright, thank you.
>
> We are not asking anyone to or not to have SRS... that is an extremely
> personal decision that nobody has a right to dictate to anyone else. What
> IS under question here is why people think they need SRS to get along in the
> world. As has been conceded by both sides of this discussion, most of it is
> the result of early-life conditioning and social pressures... My contention
> is simple... these are things that oppress, and oppression can be overcome
> without hacking up the body. SRS in fact complies with oppression.
> Transsexuals will argue that their identities as "female" are fixed and
> immutable... and of course, so long as they refuse to educate themselves
> beyond suh nonsense, that is exactly what they are.
You are not questioning my decision to have SRS or not, but you
are questioning mine, and everyone else, motive. I think you
should consider that people do think differentliy then you
sometimes. That there is a possibility to have a perfectly logical
motive, in a way that you cannot understand fully. So therefore
I stand with my words. If you cannot understand, it might be that
you are not listening to your inner intuition enough. Learn to
listen to that voice, and many things, which were previously
unclear, becomes clear.
It all has to do with our limited intelligence, compared to
the more unlimited intuition. With intuition you can understand
things that the intelligence can not understand, and you can
that way surpass the limitations of the intelligence.
There is a saying "the proof of the cake is eating it". You
can analyze a nice cake from all kind of scientific viewpoints,
you can list the ingredients, analyse how it is baked. You can go
down on the molecular level, and have a complete understanding of
it. But still you don't have the slightlest clue on how it actually
tastes. There is only one way to figure that out. To forget all
the analyzing and just take a bite. But before doing that, you
have to have a feeling that it will probably taste good,
otherwise you would never even try it. That feeling is not logical
thinking, it is something else. It does not come from counting
the atomic particles of the cake, It is just some kind of feeling.
So when we come to SRS, we have to examine our own feelings,
and find an inner motivation. You can analyse all surgical
techniques, all sexual techniques, visual aspects, and so on,
but that will not get you nearer to the feeling of it. But
if you question your inner feeling of it, you can get a pre-taste
of how it would feel for you. I can usually tell the
approximate taste of a cake, just by looking at it, without
knowing anything about the manufacturing process. Very seldom
I get disappointed by actually taking a bite. So by a
similar process I can extrapolite how it would feel after SRS.
Maybe not the exact taste, but rather how I would relate to
it. If I would like it or not.
I have to say I could not really know how it would feel to
have breasts. It is a new feeling, that I have not felt before,
so therefore previously outside of my experience. But my intuition
said that I would like it. And that turned out to be true.
SRS I can logically motivate in much higher degree. There is
a high level negative feeling of disturbance from the current
organ. I can list a number of problems with it. But then we
also have the unknown taste of having a vagina.
We can maybe also add in sexual functioning.
But no matter what, there is only one way to figure it out
-- to do the operation. Ultimately we can only trust our
intuition about whether we are going to like it or not.
So if that is what we are to trust, therefore the most
logical thing to do is actually learn to understand the
intutition better. That is the only thing that is going
to help us make a good decision. You don't live by
logical arguments, so they are just a tool in the process
of understanding, not and end in themselves.
-- Karolina
Laura Blake
wrote:
>You are not questioning my decision to have SRS or not, but you
>are questioning mine, and everyone else, motive.
Yeppers, I most certainly am.
Why do some people hate their crotches?
Where does the hatred come from?
Why are these people so desperate?
Why isn't anyone investigating this?
etc.
I, unlike you, don't believe that human intuition is always the best guide
for such profoundly life altering decisions. Years ago my intuition told me
to get a sex-change, and I ended up leaving the hospital barely an hour
before the surgery. My intuition deceived me horridly for a very long time.
>I think you
>should consider that people do think differentliy then you
>sometimes.
I don't deny that... But I do like to understand why.
>There is a saying "the proof of the cake is eating it". You
>can analyze a nice cake from all kind of scientific viewpoints,
>you can list the ingredients, analyse how it is baked.
<YAWN> I'm 48 years old... I've been tasting the transgender cake for longer
than half of you have been alive.
Unknown
>Amber Thompson <msf...@together.net> wrote:
>> Tara, from some of Lauras posting, it seems she hates TS's. She
>> blames us for everything that is bad in her life.
>
>A pile of crap. Laura does believe that a lot TS go on to have SRS for a
>lot of misguided reasons having to do with trying to fit into a society
>that does not accept that there can be more just two sexes. I think she's
>right. Though we might disagree on the numbers, I think that just as with
>any population, we have dim bulbs among us, too.
Some transgenderists feel that those who elect reassignment surgery
undercut the validity of their efforts to live as women without
modifying the genitalia. They believe this raises an implication that
their wish to keep the penis and testicles intact while otherwise
changing social and gender roles is thus somehow inappropriate.
Consequently, they sometimes issue various condemnations of SRS as
butchery, lunacy, mutilation, "hacking up the body", and so forth.
They may also argue that those who seek surgery are only reinforcing
an oppressive system, or acting out of fear and ignorance.
I understand those sentiments and have always thought there is
substantial truth in them. Laura is one of the more vocal and
articulate proponents of that point of view. She has passion and a
great gift for turn of phrase and expression, although she
occasionally goes over the top or lets arrogance get the best of her.
Nonetheless, I respect where she's coming from and truly admire her
indefatigable approach.
There's no doubt that some people pursue SRS for foolish reasons, and
that is especially true when people first come out of the blocks with
their trans feelings. It's easy to say, "I know -- I have feminine
feelings so I must be transsexual and therefore I'll change my name,
get some new clothes, have an operation and everything will be okay!"
That's a bit naive, of course, and for many folks it isn't necessary
to go any further than changing your name and getting new clothes.
You don't need a permission slip for that, nor do you need to visit a
doctor.
By the time most people get around to seriously contemplating surgery
-- at least if they've proceeded with a modicum of caution and good
sense -- they're operating on a somewhat different level with deeper
considerations of personal and physical identity. For this reason if
none other, it makes sense for people to take their time and evaluate
all their options. (I do not, however, support an enforced period of
"real life experience" under the direction of therapists, as that has
not proven to have any predictive value regarding satisfaction with
surgery).
>When I had SRS, Laura sent me a personal note acknowledging that
>while it wasn't what she'd have chosen for me or for herself, she was
>pleased to know it had brought me happiness. I think that's very in
>character for Laura.
I'm pleased Laura sent you a complimentary note, Nicki, but don't know
that it's in character with her public persona. She has roundly
blasted me and others, in some of the crudest language imaginable,
both publicly and privately, for having SRS. Several weeks ago I
observed that there may be reasons other than internalized transphobia
for having SRS, and was toasted by Laura for "peddling sex-change" to
the unwitting and labeled "THE ENEMY". She went on to observe that I
was an idiot for "hacking up my body" and the "last post-SRS cunt I
looked at was so grossly deformed and so poorly constructed that I
actually lost my lunch on the way out of the room!"
In any event, there is value in understanding the transgenderist point
of view. And without a doubt every trans-identified person should
give careful consideration to all options, including the non-SRS
approach. Surgery in and of itself really has little to do with
gender presentation, and relates to a different set of issues.
Andrea
Claudia W.
I have been going through this thread and I acually wanted to reply to so
many things, but I don't have the time. So here:
I find it distastful to speak of srs as "hacking your body" surely there is
a psychological motivation in using such aggressive terms but I don't want
to go into that. Srs or grs is a rather simple surgery and I don't
understand all the fuss about it. As for me didn't have srs because society
forced it's view of gender on me. But to live as a "woman" with forks and
spoons dangeling between your legs, no thank you. And if I use my genitals
just for pissing, why not have something that you can also use for sex and
that is not so embarrassing. And to speak of the shinks and srs industry
and the all so powerful societies influences is also kook terminolgy. I
never saw a shrink while transitioning. I paid for everything I had done
myself by stripdancing. I injected the mones myself, which I bought on the
black market. I didn't give a shit what "society" thinks, It was actually
the society that I can relate to that tried it's best to stop me. *I*
wanted to be able to look into the mirror and see what I am. And forks and
spoons just wasn't it. It was due to my determination that I was one of the
few lucky ones that had grs at 20. Now I am 30 and have been married for 7
years. I had a great life so far and I intend to keep it this way. What
would have been the alternative? I don't care much, but my life sure beats
sitting around lonely in drag in a gay club or growing old when even the
transfans loose interest. (And I really had an overdose of this species in
the Peepshow...)
BTW, has anyone ever wondered why men have nipples too?
Because nature provides the same frame for males and females. The rest is
for reproduction. But there is a much more powerful element in humans than
the body, it is the mind. And if ....Susan looses her legs in an accident,
she doesnt become Sus because of that, she is still Susan.
To know that you are a woman and to decide to live with a penis is beyond
me. I rather have a penis in me than on me. However, I am not trying to
promote srs. I met quite a few that even though they are postop, I find it
difficult to accept them as a woman. It's not the looks, but I realize that
the motivation for srs differs completely and it takes much more than just
srs to comfortable with yourself. It is a developing process that never
ends. But the amount of securety can never be achieved when non OP.
My decision (to go *all* the way) was very impulsive and based on a cruel
and very simple fact:
Girls have a vagina, Boys have a penis.
Claudia W.
em.starts.w....@yahoo.com
D. A. Taylor
Diane Garnett wrote in message
<928882221.1283.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Hi
>
>Like all pre op transsexuals, the strength of my inner feelings have taken
>me through years of misery, and bought me to the threshold of surgery.
While
>I have worries about the actual surgery, I'm confident that the number of
>doctor I've had to satisfy, and my inner feelings will see me through. I'm
>worried however that after surgery nothing will change, despite the trauma
>of surgery, and that I might actually regret having the surgery.
I can't speak from personal experience, but I can speak from the standpoint
of having a TG partner who has decided to remain no-op.
First off, I should say that I am 100% behind her decision NOT to have
surgery, and that in no way impinges upon her femininity or her ability to
be a woman. I see my partner as female, period, and I have no reservations
about that fact, even when I see her naked.
The truth really is that very rarely does anyone look at what's between your
legs. I am a genetic female, and I can't EVER remember having a
crotch-check for any other reason than my annual pap smear. Nobody looks.
The reality is that the only people who end up knowing what is between your
legs is your sexual partner and your doctor. Nobody else cares.
My partner opted not to have surgery when she realized that surgery wasn't
going to change things for her. She realized that it wasn't going to
improve her passability (and she passes well, thank you), her employability,
and it certainly wasn't going to change the basic fact that she is, was, and
always will be a lovely transsexual woman. She realized that since surgery
wasn't going to change any of those things that there really wan't a lot of
reason to have it, especially when combined with the risks involved, and the
chance that she might become inorgasmic after surgery. Since I'm the only
one who sees what's between her legs on a routine basis, and I think she's
beautiful the way G-d made her, there just wasn't a reason to go to all the
pain and expense of having her body changed.
I am sure there are many who will disagree with my POV, but that's my 2
cents worth. Other people's mileage will vary.
D. A. Taylor
>Transsexuals on the other hand, have this massive world-wide institution
>right there to push them along, like good little sheep, into the operating
>room. The whole thing exists to get you to hack up your body. It takes NO
>independent thought to get a sex-change... and in many clinics (such as the
>Clarke) independence of thought is actively discouraged.
I have to say that I couldn't have put it better myself. Although I am not
technically TG myself, my partner is, and I've gotten to see how "the
system" works quite clearly. It seems to me that the way the system is set
up is designed to shove everybody throught the same path, and those that
choose not to have surgery end up with a substantially harder row to hoe.
My partner's therapist didn't really know what to "do" with her once she'd
made the decision to not have surgery. Once she didn't fit in the mold, the
therapist really couldn't do much else for her, after she wrote the
necessary carry and hormone letters.
I too believe that there's a lot of pressure placed on TG people to have
surgery so that they "fit" into a particular little box. After all, society
believes that there are only two genders, male and female. My own
experience (and my wrestling with my own issues about gender) have made me
realize that gender is much more of a spectrum, much more complicated, and
substantially less black and white than people would argue.
A little off the topic of your message, but since I keep seeing this
mentioned in post after post, the issue of public locker rooms and swimming
pools really isn't an issue, despite all those that argue to the contrary.
First off, when you are buying a gym membership, one always inspects the
facilities first. *I* am a genetic female, and I wouldn't buy a membership
in a place that didn't have private (or at least semi-private) shower
facilities. So, the issue of locker rooms is resolved by having a degree of
pickiness on where you go. As for swimwear, my partner has a very
attractive "hip minimizer" swimsuit that has a little skirt on it. The idea
is that it's designed to hide a fat woman's oversized ass, but in my
partner's case it does a great job of hiding other things in case her tuck
job slips... (It also makes her hips look a little rounder, which is also a
bonus) She looks attractive and very passable, and more than once we've
spent the better part of a day at a public pool lounging on the deck and
nobody's batted an eye.
Laura Blake
<dtaylo...@impulse.net> wrote:
>I have to say that I couldn't have put it better myself. Although I am not
>technically TG myself, my partner is, and I've gotten to see how "the
>system" works quite clearly.
Very often it is the case that those who are involved peripherally, as you
are, tend to see the mess for what it is much more quickly than those who
have a professed interest in the outcome. It's that tired old "Don't bite
the hand that feeds you" crap. Objectivity is often best gained by having
nothing to lose, in a given situation.
>It seems to me that the way the system is set
>up is designed to shove everybody throught the same path, and those that
>choose not to have surgery end up with a substantially harder row to hoe.
Of course it is. The "Cisgender Ideal" under which these clinics operate
sets out right and wrong ways to be gendered. If you are male it is OK to
be a man, but if you are female you have a disease. If you are female it is
OK to be a woman, but if you are male you have a disease. This attributes
correctness to the set of woman-female and man-male, and wrongness to the
set of woman-male and man-female. And these hell-hole clinics exist to
attempt to correct the "problem".
The troubling part is that they do this without a single bit of science to
back their assertions. As I've mentioned in other messages of late, the
foundation document (Document Zero) in which the topic is researched and a
determination is made on objective criteria simply does not exist. The
etiology of gender identity remains a total mystery to these people... yet
they have no problem screwing around with it like some kind of play toy.
Simple observational evidence provides a very clear contradiction to the
behaviours of these clinics. We all know that, with rare exceptions, each
human being is either male (i.e. born with a penis) or female (born with a
vagina). This much is a matter of established science. We also know by
social observation that by and large there are two genders. Take a walk
down any crowded street and you will find that the population is almost
universally divided into men (masculine) and women (feminine). The next
step is the one these shrinks (conveniently) do not take. As you pointed
out in another message... in most social contact we do not actually know
anyone's sex. We are left to guess, so what we do is observe their gender
and **assume** we know their sex from it. We only connect the two, because
we have always connected them... it's our custom.
Those of us who are called "transgendered" are the ones who defy this
assumptive methodology... where observation says woman (or at least
"feminine") but the person is actually male, and vice versa. THIS is what
these clinics seek to prevent... they exist to promote the idea that all
women are female and all men are male. The method used is that of depicting
anyone not clearly Cisgendered (woman-female or man-male) as disordered, and
prescribing a curative course of social adaptation and physical mutilation
thus ensuring that the so-called disorder is not freely present within
society. It really is all about enforcing social conventions, and it's
nothing more than moral judgement leveled upon a specific class of perfectly
healthy and harmless people.
That transsexuals get so easily sucked into this should come as no surprise.
Everything in their lives leads them to the conclusion that SRS is
necessary. The first observation is there is almost no visible transgender
presence in society, providing them with no reason to even consider it as a
possiblity. In fact it's far worse than that; transgendered people are
openly ridiculed in media, in familes, and on the streets, giving them good
reason to *fear* the consequences of being transgendered. And finally to
make this shit really stink, when the time comes for them to move into the
transcommunity themselves, they are bombarded with talk about disorders,
cures, clinics and diagnoses... most loudly and most often by their own
peers. They are literally pressured by both social and in-group traditions
to conclude that SRS is their only way to find happiness... their only way
to escape the "horror" of transgender identity.
The entire institution of transsexualism, thus, feeds off of the ignorance
of those involved (both shrinks and transies). Were things handled only a
little differently people would be educated to realize that woman-male and
man-female are perfectly natural and ordinary occurances in society, and
have been for a very long time. At that point the undertaking becomes one
of dealing with the shame and fear absorbed from society and peerage alike,
rather than pushing them to simply leap into a new closet wherein they have
indeed overcome the denial of their gender but have now engaged an even more
profound denial of their body's sex. I fail to see how leaping from one
form of denial into another fixes anything... yet that is exactly what these
people are encouraged to do.
SRS should be a last resort, used only in cases where all attempts to help
the patient otherwise have consistently failed and/or the patient is
desperate to the point of possible self-mutilation.
>My partner's therapist didn't really know what to "do" with her once she'd
>made the decision to not have surgery. Once she didn't fit in the mold, the
>therapist really couldn't do much else for her, after she wrote the
>necessary carry and hormone letters.
Of course not... Most shrinks are only marginally cognizent of gender issues
to begin with, and only a very few are even aware that crossliving (i.e.
without SRS) can even be done. A surprisingly large number of them don't
even know what a transgenderist is, and many actively decry us as invalid
human beings who are "refusing treatment".
To your partner's credit, she seems to have done what most transgenderists
do.... She has gone *beyond* the need for surgery into a place of
self-acceptance that most transies never reach. The common transsexual
screech of "inbetween" and "incomplete" is just a bunch of insecure mud
slinging, and it should be treated as such. The fact is that your partner
has worked very hard and has achieved something most don't: she accepts
herself as a transgendered person.
>I too believe that there's a lot of pressure placed on TG people to have
>surgery so that they "fit" into a particular little box.
Yeppers...(for example) try telling your boss you want to work as a woman,
but have no plans to seek a sex-change. After they relax their sphincter
and uncross their legs, most often they fire you. The only support you will
get will be in the form of a "carry letter" from a shrink, and most won't
issue them unless you are surgery tracked.
>After all, society
>believes that there are only two genders, male and female. My own
>experience (and my wrestling with my own issues about gender) have made me
>realize that gender is much more of a spectrum, much more complicated, and
>substantially less black and white than people would argue.
Point your browser at http://www.donnas-hideout.org and read the whole
site. Donna has some really wonderful stuff posted there...
Karolina Lindqvist
"D. A. Taylor" wrote:
> The truth really is that very rarely does anyone look at what's between your
> legs. I am a genetic female, and I can't EVER remember having a
> crotch-check for any other reason than my annual pap smear. Nobody looks.
> The reality is that the only people who end up knowing what is between your
> legs is your sexual partner and your doctor. Nobody else cares.
As long as all girls were wearing skirts, it was allright. But with
the fashion with trousers, it is either painful to camouflage the
thing between the legs, or it is going to be visible. There is also
a big trouble with bathing-suits and bikings, gym-outfits, and many
other kind of clothes. Of course, if you somehow manage to camouflage
the thing, you can still not change clothes in a gym, since you have
to underess, and most gyms have female and male dressing rooms only.
And you can forget about saunas.
Also if you wear a thin skirt, and the wind is blowing against
you, it is going to be visible, unless you before going out
was taking the painful trouble to hide it.
And then it is the question of sex life. With the thing dangling
behind your legs, your choice of sex partners is severly
restricted. If you can find any at all. Maybe the ones that
would accept you, you would not accept.
You can also not belive how many variations of pain that
can emenate from that organ, especially if trying to hide it.
I can understand that a genetic girl does not have an
understanding of these things, so you are excused. But belive
me -- it is no fun.
-- Karolina
Karolina Lindqvist
"D. A. Taylor" wrote:
> A little off the topic of your message, but since I keep seeing this
> mentioned in post after post, the issue of public locker rooms and swimming
> pools really isn't an issue, despite all those that argue to the contrary.
> First off, when you are buying a gym membership, one always inspects the
> facilities first. *I* am a genetic female, and I wouldn't buy a membership
> in a place that didn't have private (or at least semi-private) shower
> facilities.
A pity I have not found a single one. Maybe I am living in a backwards
country, or maybe I am not rich enough to be able to go to the gyms
with private facilities. I rather select gyms depending on training
facilities, good trainers and such essential things for training,
rather than the shower facilities. Or maybe I just select the same
gyms that my friends go to.
> As for swimwear, my partner has a very
> attractive "hip minimizer" swimsuit that has a little skirt on it.
I have been looking, and looking and looking, and have not find
this kind of swimsuit anywhere. Of course I always select clothes
according to what I can afford. Maybe if I go to a very fancy
swimsuit-show I can find these things. Then of course, I have to
buy THAT particular swimsuit, not according to if I like the colour
or something else that you think is stupid.
Do you buy swimsuits of that kind? If not, why not?
Oh, you don't need to. But you want to put that restriction
onto others?
And that is exactly the point. I don't want to be unneccesary
restricted. Face the fact, surgery lifts off a lot of restrictions.
There are enough restrictions having been born in a male body,
things that cannot be surgically altered.
-- Karolina
Karolina Lindqvist
Laura Blake wrote:
> Why do some people hate their crotches?
> Where does the hatred come from?
> Why are these people so desperate?
> Why isn't anyone investigating this?
> etc.
If the crotches are not important, why are all the time
bringing them up? Obviously it is very important to you what is
between other peoples legs.
> I, unlike you, don't believe that human intuition is always the best guide
> for such profoundly life altering decisions. Years ago my intuition told me
> to get a sex-change, and I ended up leaving the hospital barely an hour
> before the surgery. My intuition deceived me horridly for a very long time.
Did it really? Due to this thing you actually figured out that you
did not want SRS. Before you were convinced you needed it. If you
had not come so far as to surgery, you might still be wandering
around wishing for it. So why was it a failure? You came to peace
with yourself. Your logical thinking could obviously NOT lead
you to a solution before hand, otherwise you would never had
came so far.
Your intuition lead you to your understanding you have now.
> I don't deny that... But I do like to understand why.
It is hard, since to understand others you have to have a very
open mind, and sometimes live yourself into their minds. If
you are blocked in your own standpoint, you have severe problems
understanding others. You have to be so shure about yourself
that you can play "what if" games, with yourself as an object,
without getting lost.
> <YAWN> I'm 48 years old... I've been tasting the transgender cake for longer
> than half of you have been alive.
Oh, the argument "I am older than you, so I know better". The thing
is that it is not the age which gives knowledge and wisdom, it is
what you have done with your years. (There are also other aspects,
which are too philosophical to get into here)
I actually referred to SRS. Something that neither you, nor me,
know the taste of. So we are on exactly the same level there.
You think the taste is bitter, I think it is sweet. Maybe we
both should listen to those actually tasting it, to get a clue?
The satisfaction rate for those gone through it is very high.
Either all post-ops are liars, or those who would not like
it actually are told by their intuition to stop before it is
too late. You can guess what I belive.
Funny enough, we ended up where I started: "trust your intution".
-- Karolina
Toni Roome
Andrea Bennett):
> No Andrea, I don't blast you for buying a cunt... I blast you because you
> are an asshole and a continuous pain in the backside.
>
Sound like she's getting to you Laura.
D. A. Taylor
>the fashion with trousers, it is either painful to camouflage the
>thing between the legs, or it is going to be visible. There is also
I gotta argue with this one. My partner is able to camoflage her unwanted
"bulge" even wearing stuff like clingly stirrup pants and doesn't complain
of discomfort and it doesn't show...
>a big trouble with bathing-suits and bikings, gym-outfits, and many
My sweetie passes fine in a bathing suit and doesn't bitch about it.
>the thing, you can still not change clothes in a gym, since you have
Not true. Tammy's changed in the locker room at the RV park where we live
many times. There's no problem. Maybe our experience is unique, but most
of the locker rooms in our area have private or semi-private areas where she
can change.
>And then it is the question of sex life. With the thing dangling
>behind your legs, your choice of sex partners is severly
>restricted. If you can find any at all. Maybe the ones that
>would accept you, you would not accept.
I will agree with you to some extent. However, being post-op does NOT solve
this problem. There still comes a point where your partner *is* going to
find out about your past. A friend of ours, who is very pretty, very
passable and post-op, got the crap beat out of her when she revealed her
past to someone she was very serious about. Dating if you are TS is
problematic, whether you are pre- or post-op, because the fact still remains
that you are TS... Surgery doesn't make you the same as a genetic girl, as
much as most people would like to believe that it does.
>You can also not belive how many variations of pain that
>can emenate from that organ, especially if trying to hide it.
My partner never complains about it. I'm not sure that your experience is
universal... We have several other pre-op friends who don't seem to have
this problem. I'm not trying to argue with you, just I'm not sure that
"everybody" has the same experience.
Jan
which also should be noted.
Jan
Jan
Thanks for that - a welcome dose of reality amid the clouds of ideolgy.
You did what you wanted, and you are happy with the results - what more
is there to say?
Terms like 'hacking your body' are not factual, but essentially
moralistic.
Jan
Jan
to hoe'? If no surgery was contemplated, and the 'mones were in hand,
what remaining presenting symptoms were there to treat?
I'm not disputing what you are saying, but the need to be clear about
things is evident when there is so much distortion on these issues.
Jan
"D. A. Taylor" wrote:
>
> Hi Laura,
>
> >Transsexuals on the other hand, have this massive world-wide institution
> >right there to push them along, like good little sheep, into the operating
> >room. The whole thing exists to get you to hack up your body. It takes NO
> >independent thought to get a sex-change... and in many clinics (such as the
> >Clarke) independence of thought is actively discouraged.
>
> I have to say that I couldn't have put it better myself. Although I am not
> technically TG myself, my partner is, and I've gotten to see how "the
> system" works quite clearly. It seems to me that the way the system is set
> up is designed to shove everybody throught the same path, and those that
> choose not to have surgery end up with a substantially harder row to hoe.
> My partner's therapist didn't really know what to "do" with her once she'd
> made the decision to not have surgery. Once she didn't fit in the mold, the
> therapist really couldn't do much else for her, after she wrote the
> necessary carry and hormone letters.
>
> I too believe that there's a lot of pressure placed on TG people to have
> surgery so that they "fit" into a particular little box. After all, society
> believes that there are only two genders, male and female. My own
> experience (and my wrestling with my own issues about gender) have made me
> realize that gender is much more of a spectrum, much more complicated, and
> substantially less black and white than people would argue.
>
> A little off the topic of your message, but since I keep seeing this
> mentioned in post after post, the issue of public locker rooms and swimming
> pools really isn't an issue, despite all those that argue to the contrary.
> First off, when you are buying a gym membership, one always inspects the
> facilities first. *I* am a genetic female, and I wouldn't buy a membership
> in a place that didn't have private (or at least semi-private) shower
B {:o)
>
> Hi!
> I have been going through this thread and I acually wanted to reply to so
> many things, but I don't have the time. So here:
> and very simple fact:
*If this statement is fact, You can take any biological male,
perform SRS on him and he will be come a 'insta_Woman'. True, yes
or No??
> Claudia W.
*Bernice
<-|spunky|+>
> As for swimwear, my partner has a very attractive "hip minimizer"
> swimsuit that has a little skirt on it.
Yep I've seen those suits, and personally I wouldn't be caught dead in one.
Appearances aside, I participate in several water sports where swimming
speed and agility are a factor, and a suit like that would seriously get
in the way. I prefer to wear racing swimsuits (speedo, descente, etc.)
and am very glad that I can. Such suits can be quite uncomfortable for
someone with a "package" down there.
spunky
**
Hats off to the new age hairstyle made of bones
Hats off to the use of hats as megaphones
Speak softly, drive a Sherman tank
Laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank
--
For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or e-mail:
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
Amber Thompson
"D. A. Taylor" wrote:
> I am sure there are many who will disagree with my POV, but that's my 2
> cents worth. Other people's mileage will vary.
As long as she is happy with her decision, nothing else matters.
Claudia W.
B {:o) wrote in message <3765C6E0...@prodigy.net>...
>*Bernice
C'mooooon, don't start hairsplitting on me. <eyeroll>
I was speaking from my own perspective. I got (as anyone) no eternal truth
to offer. Bill Clinton with a snatch would still be Bill Clinton. Read my
post again (all of it) and get the drift, instead of ripping parts of your
likeness out of context. I am not putting on a woomo-meter and say that that
one is "more" woman than another. What I am saying is that you can dream and
imagine how it would be like to be a millionaire, but you don't know for
*sure* what it is like unless you have the million. Yet there is people who
own a million and still shop at Sears. Whatever makes you happy. Getting grs
can open a door in your developement as a female, it's up to you which way
to take. Our mind starts out as a hallway and every room leads into another.
Sometimes you turn back, sometimes you go further, sometimes you walk to the
edge of the house, sometimes you fall over. And sometimes you enter a room
and know that you are at home.
--
Claudia W.
em.starts.w....@yahoo.com
-------------------|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|
Claudia W.
>Of course it is. The "Cisgender Ideal" under which these clinics operate
>sets out right and wrong ways to be gendered.
Yes, and the Zionist Jews are aiming towards world domination and the world
is run by a couple of guys who nobody has ever seen................. and the
NSA goes around implanting little earphones to give orders to our
subconscience.............
Laura, go get a vacation and possibly a life.
Gretchen
> There is also, apparently, a cancer risk if you practice 'tucking',
> which also should be noted.
>
> Jan
>
Could you please site your source for this statistic, the type of cancer
and the tissues involved? Also the statisticaly significant increase in
risk in cases per hundred thousand compared to untucked testicles. I have
been looking but have found absolutely nothing about tucking and cancer.
Are you comparing undescended testicles that are intra-abdominal 24/7
from birth with the few hours testicles would be in the inguinal canals
while tucked after adulthood? If it is a matter of heat, then why not
attribute the cancer to hot tubs, saunas, wearing briefs instead of
boxers, heated water beds, electric blankets, etc?
If there is a legitimate risk I would truely like to know about it.
Wendy
D. A. Taylor
Jan wrote in message <3765A757...@nospam.com>...
>Perhaps you could tell us a little more about what made it a 'harder row
>to hoe'? If no surgery was contemplated, and the 'mones were in hand,
>what remaining presenting symptoms were there to treat?
Basically, what makes not having surgery a "harder row" in some respects is
that the "system" is designed to support those who fall into the machine and
have surgery, and to be pretty unsupportive of those who don't.
A lot of this, I'm sad to say, comes from within the TG community itself.
My partner has lost a number of her TS friends when she decided that
transition and hormones were enough. She was accused of not being a "real"
TS woman, of somehow being a mockery of all those who have "suffered for
surgery," and for being a sell-out and a wimp for not going the whole way.
Frankly, I was amazed that people would say this kind of stuff to her. It
seems to me that the whole point addressing gender dysphoria is to find a
place where you are comfortable. These were all people who had been highly
supportive and helpful in my partner's transition previously, when they were
under the assumption that the end-point on her path was surgery. Once
surgery wasn't on her roadmap, then all the support and help was completely
withdrawn.
IMAO, I think that surgery should be considered a LAST resort to resolving
gender issues, not the first choice that it seems to be now for so many
people.
I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a therapist, nor an expert in
the field of gender dysphoria. However, many of the transsexual women I've
met IRL and on-line seem to be in a terrible hurry to have surgery, and
aren't willing to stop, think, and try to find a bit of self-acceptance
before going off to surgically alter themselves.
The bottom line is that surgery doesn't change WHO you are -- it only
changes what your genitals look like. It seems to me that a lot of TS women
think that somehow the surgery is going to magically change things for them.
I honestly don't belive that surgery is a magic answer, because it only
makes a change to a part of your body that most people never see.
I'm not saying that nobody EVER should have surgery. I just think that
there are a lot more people who rush into it, going way too fast, and they
don't ever stop until the process is over. Then, when all the struggling
and working toward a goal is over, they fall into a depression because
there's nothing left to do...
Random Companion
> No Andrea, I don't blast you for buying a cunt...
Well plenty of men do that, on a fairly regular basis. Well, rent them,
anyway. :)
--
Commando in Apron
(Sorry, couldn't help it)
www.panatropic.net
www.espace.demon.co.uk - Yak Butter Sandwich revamped.
tracy
>Basically, what makes not having surgery a "harder row" in some respects is
>that the "system" is designed to support those who fall into the machine and
>have surgery, and to be pretty unsupportive of those who don't.
That has not been my experience - the medical and therapeutic
support people here treat t's as individuals - and there is
no pressure to have, or not have, srs. Of course, they are
probably a bit more enlightened here (SanFran) than in some
other places.
....
....
....
>IMAO, I think that surgery should be considered a LAST resort to resolving
>gender issues, not the first choice that it seems to be now for so many
>people.
And the knowledgeable therapists would agree completely.
There can be peer-group pressure to get suregery, there is
no doubt about that.
Tracy
.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wretc...@my-deja.com
who here has decried that you are invalid or somehow disturbed or
psychologically incomplete as you claim the transcommunity treats those
who crosslive. The only such accusations I've seen come from you that
all transsexuals are delusional and immature. You scream that surgery
is a trap that transpeople are forced to accept. You are proof that
crossliving is possible and that you are not forced into it. It is
simply an option. The fact that you resent the option whether because
of a view toward transpeople who accept cisgendered privilege and status
or for some other reason does not make surgery a non-option. Please be
a little less vitriolic in your posts.
Thank you.
Bailey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Karolina Lindqvist
Jan wrote:
>
> There is also, apparently, a cancer risk if you practice 'tucking',
> which also should be noted.
And as I experienced, the very painful "testis torsis", which
requires emergency surgical treatment.
-- Karolina
Karolina Lindqvist
"D. A. Taylor" wrote:
> I gotta argue with this one. My partner is able to camoflage her unwanted
> "bulge" even wearing stuff like clingly stirrup pants and doesn't complain
> of discomfort and it doesn't show...
You are welcome to argue :-)
This is a very individual thing. Some have more, some have less.
I have lost one third, so while I have little less than more,
I am also assymetric.
In any case, to always to remember to pack in properly after each
toilet visit is an annoyance, and I have been out a few times where
I forgot to do it, or did not do it properly, and I felt really
annoyed.
People might not normally look at your crouch, but when they
are doubting whether you are "male" or "female", they do. While
you can cheat with the breasts, it is much harder to cheat with
the things down there.
It is also a very internal thing. To be reminded of the male
past is very painful for some of us.
>
> >a big trouble with bathing-suits and bikings, gym-outfits, and many
>
> My sweetie passes fine in a bathing suit and doesn't bitch about it.
So your sweetie is very lucky.
> Not true. Tammy's changed in the locker room at the RV park where we live
> many times. There's no problem. Maybe our experience is unique, but most
> of the locker rooms in our area have private or semi-private areas where she
> can change.
I have been training at three different gyms, and they all had
big common rooms for changing. I happened to like semi-privacy even
as a "man", so I was looking for such corners, but found none.
It might have something to do with the country. Nudity is nothing
to be afraid of in this country.
> I will agree with you to some extent. However, being post-op does NOT solve
> this problem. There still comes a point where your partner *is* going to
> find out about your past. A friend of ours, who is very pretty, very
> passable and post-op, got the crap beat out of her when she revealed her
> past to someone she was very serious about. Dating if you are TS is
> problematic, whether you are pre- or post-op, because the fact still remains
> that you are TS... Surgery doesn't make you the same as a genetic girl, as
> much as most people would like to believe that it does.
So I just stay away from (such) men. There is a huge difference between
having the wrong plumbery, and having the wrong history.
Quite some persons say: as long as you have not had an operation,
you are considered (sexually) a man. After operation we consider
you a woman. Frankly, I am quite prone to think the same.
> My partner never complains about it. I'm not sure that your experience is
> universal... We have several other pre-op friends who don't seem to have
> this problem. I'm not trying to argue with you, just I'm not sure that
> "everybody" has the same experience.
I have had the worst pains I ever felt from down there. Many times
smaller pains also. It is a weak spot on my body, where I am prone
to get troubles. One third already had to be surgically removed, so
better get rid of everything, like some kind of unneccesary appendix.
You see, when you have no attachment to some bodily part, you can
look much more objective on it.
-- Karolina
Karen Ross
news:376688e7$0$2...@sienna.impulse.net...
> A lot of this, I'm sad to say, comes from within the TG community itself.
> My partner has lost a number of her TS friends when she decided that
> transition and hormones were enough. She was accused of not being a
"real"
> TS woman, of somehow being a mockery of all those who have "suffered for
> surgery," and for being a sell-out and a wimp for not going the whole way.
She may have lost some people she *thought* were friends. But she didn't
lose any friends. Whether one is "really TS" is sometimes useful in terms
of having a logical discussion. In real life it doesn't mean much else.
What matters for most folks is how they live their lives and what they want
out of life. You're better off without people that cannot distinguish
labels from substance.
... It
> seems to me that the whole point addressing gender dysphoria is to find a
> place where you are comfortable. These were all people who had been highly
> supportive and helpful in my partner's transition previously, when they
were
> under the assumption that the end-point on her path was surgery. Once
> surgery wasn't on her roadmap, then all the support and help was
completely
> withdrawn.
I've seen that happen. Sometimes it feels like people are so insecure in
what they say they want that for someone else to not share their purported
needs is threatening. Some act like they think it might be contagious.
OTOH, some people become concerned that someone that doesn't want SRS
somehow doesn't seriously want to be a woman. Therefore, they believe,
helping someone along a road that doesn't end in surgery might be harming
them. Sometimes they may have a point, but generally that is just and
expression of the limits of their own conceptualization. Even
well-intentioned ignorance can hurt.
One of the biggest problems seems to be that some people often only can
relate to those who have the same feelings and experience that they have.
When they discover that someone else if different, they lose the capacity to
understand them. Others re-cast everyone else's actions and motivations
into terms of their own no matter how poorly they fit.
> IMAO, I think that surgery should be considered a LAST resort to resolving
> gender issues, not the first choice that it seems to be now for so many
> people.
The clasic mistake is to think that SRS changes gender. It doesn't. It
changes sex. If you want to physically have sex as a female, you need
female genitalia. But having SRS will do nothing to resolve issues of
"being" a woman. If you are already a woman with male parts and want female
parts, SRS can be an excellent choice. It resolves a physical dissonance,
not "gender issues".
> I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a therapist, nor an expert in
> the field of gender dysphoria. However, many of the transsexual women
I've
> met IRL and on-line seem to be in a terrible hurry to have surgery, and
> aren't willing to stop, think, and try to find a bit of self-acceptance
> before going off to surgically alter themselves.
And there are a lot of them out there that are very ambivalent about being
women. They rush into SRS with the delusion that it will resolve their
ambivalence once and for all. It doesn't. It's a foolish reason for SRS.
In my experience, the more insistantly and impatiently demand immediate SRS,
the less likely they are to be ready for it. The majority of post-op TS
folks I've known have been quite happy their decision. I have. But there
are exceptions. It is interesting to hear them admit six months later that
they were really cross-dressers that got carried away with a sexualized
fantasy. Oops, major mistake. Then they have to live with what they did.
> The bottom line is that surgery doesn't change WHO you are -- it only
> changes what your genitals look like. It seems to me that a lot of TS
women
> think that somehow the surgery is going to magically change things for
them.
That's magical thinking. And those folks are in for a rude surprise when
they discover that it doesn't.
> I'm not saying that nobody EVER should have surgery. I just think that
> there are a lot more people who rush into it, going way too fast, and they
> don't ever stop until the process is over. Then, when all the struggling
> and working toward a goal is over, they fall into a depression because
> there's nothing left to do...
Oh, "nothing left to do" isn't exactly how I'd characterize the reason for
their depression. Rushing into SRS is very risky. But they make their
beds....
-- Kare
Jan
she had personal experience of the problem - so she may have some stats.
Jan
Gretchen wrote:
>
> In article <3765A627...@nospam.com>, Jan <J...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > There is also, apparently, a cancer risk if you practice 'tucking',
> > which also should be noted.
> >
Jan
medical/psychiatric authorities, and it seems that your partner was more
affected by lack of support from other tgs, which is a real pity.
Could it be that some tgs who have decided to get SRS are insecure
enough about it that they need a conspiracy of silence around their
decision., and squeeze out the dissenters ? Or is it more a normal
reaction of a support group to someone who takes another tack ? I have
seen similar tendencies in addiction support groups - people can get
very narrow-minded.
I agree that the least harm possible should always be sought, and
surgery should not be undertaken lightly. The compulsive quality that
one sometimes sees in people who don't just want to change their body,
but want to change it RIGHT NOW, can be pretty alarming. You only get to
cut once, so taking an extra few years......what's the difference ? In
the meantime, you have the time to establish a life, and something other
than surgery to obsess about.
I do believe, however, that SRS can be a rational decision that leads to
the results sought - which is my definition of a good decision.
Good luck to you and your partner, and thanks for expanding on your
original comments.
Jan
"D. A. Taylor" wrote:
>
> Jan wrote in message <3765A757...@nospam.com>...
> >Perhaps you could tell us a little more about what made it a 'harder row
> >to hoe'? If no surgery was contemplated, and the 'mones were in hand,
> >what remaining presenting symptoms were there to treat?
>
> Basically, what makes not having surgery a "harder row" in some respects is
> that the "system" is designed to support those who fall into the machine and
> have surgery, and to be pretty unsupportive of those who don't.
>
> A lot of this, I'm sad to say, comes from within the TG community itself.
> My partner has lost a number of her TS friends when she decided that
> transition and hormones were enough. She was accused of not being a "real"
> TS woman, of somehow being a mockery of all those who have "suffered for
> surgery," and for being a sell-out and a wimp for not going the whole way.
> Frankly, I was amazed that people would say this kind of stuff to her. It
> seems to me that the whole point addressing gender dysphoria is to find a
> place where you are comfortable. These were all people who had been highly
> supportive and helpful in my partner's transition previously, when they were
> under the assumption that the end-point on her path was surgery. Once
> surgery wasn't on her roadmap, then all the support and help was completely
> withdrawn.
>
> IMAO, I think that surgery should be considered a LAST resort to resolving
> gender issues, not the first choice that it seems to be now for so many
> people.
>
> I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a therapist, nor an expert in
> the field of gender dysphoria. However, many of the transsexual women I've
> met IRL and on-line seem to be in a terrible hurry to have surgery, and
> aren't willing to stop, think, and try to find a bit of self-acceptance
> before going off to surgically alter themselves.
>
> The bottom line is that surgery doesn't change WHO you are -- it only
> changes what your genitals look like. It seems to me that a lot of TS women
> think that somehow the surgery is going to magically change things for them.
> I honestly don't belive that surgery is a magic answer, because it only
> makes a change to a part of your body that most people never see.
>
Jan
"B {:o)" wrote:
>
> "Claudia W." wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> > I have been going through this thread and I acually wanted to reply to so
> > many things, but I don't have the time. So here:
> > My decision (to go *all* the way) was very impulsive and based on a cruel
> > and very simple fact:
> > Girls have a vagina, Boys have a penis.]
>
> *If this statement is fact, You can take any biological male,
> perform SRS on him and he will be come a 'insta_Woman'. True, yes
> or No??
>
> > Claudia W.
>
> *Bernice
Claudia W.
>Now why do you think they do that? Golly, doya think it might have
>something to do with the way I live?
Dear Laura.
Who cares how you live? You think you are that important?
But, one pointing at a cancer patient saying that it is wrong to remove the
cancer shouldn't be surprised to get the face scratched. All you do is
raging out of this glass box you are sitting in and actually putting on one
of the most intolerant behavior in here. And this ridiculous theory that we
are victims of the people enforcing the gender status quo is nothing but
neurotic. The sad part is that you mentioned that you also write to
politicians. Not only is there no justification for such action, but it is
also complete useless. You will !*never*! be able to stop people to choose
grs who are stable. Just because grs doesn't work for you doesn't mean it is
wrong for others. Everything else is your ignorance fassading your fragile
personality structure. The reason you are flamed is not because people think
your lifestyle is wrong, the reason you are flamed is because you say grs is
wrong. You say that we are victims of an ordered status quo, while you in
fact are trying to proclaim that your lifestyle is more right than choosing
grs. I agree that there are some cases that better not went for it, but
that does not mean it is generally wrong. Anyway, who died and made you
Jessica. What you should realize is that you have not discovered that the
earth is round, all you have is an opinion. And you know what they say about
opinions........ So, if I disagree with you doesn't mean that I think your
lifestyle is wrong but it would be definitely wrong for me. You wonder why
sisters feel they have to justify their grs to you? Well surprise,
surprise. With your opinion you are questioning the intelligence and
integrity of everybody that chose grs. And just because you are desperately
trying to gain a balance by condemning other choices doesn't make your
preachings any more right. If your personality structure was solid, you
wouldn't need to construct absurd theories and trying to spread them in the
form of a self-elected savior. For me, this is where neurosis starts and I
say that not to insult you.
I wish you wouldn't reply to this post and just reflect the said. Of course
it will make you angry, nobody likes being criticized. Your theory has no
relevance in my life. I just feel that you are wasting a lot of your energy
for the wrong reasons. I am attacking you because there seems no other way
to get through that wall around you.
Karolina Lindqvist
"D. A. Taylor" wrote:
> The bottom line is that surgery doesn't change WHO you are -- it only
> changes what your genitals look like. It seems to me that a lot of TS women
> think that somehow the surgery is going to magically change things for them.
> I honestly don't belive that surgery is a magic answer, because it only
> makes a change to a part of your body that most people never see.
>
> I'm not saying that nobody EVER should have surgery. I just think that
> there are a lot more people who rush into it, going way too fast, and they
> don't ever stop until the process is over. Then, when all the struggling
> and working toward a goal is over, they fall into a depression because
> there's nothing left to do...
I tend to agree with you here. The surgery thing I think is handled in
a little bit hysterical way, sometimes. Voice is probably much more
important than surgery, for passing. What I am particular surprised
about is the other kinds of surgery, breast enhancement and face
surgery. These things are not even questioned at all.
The genital surgery is also overemphesized from
"the other side". There sometimes seems like a kind of religious
crusade kind of argumentation from those who have "seen the light"
and have decided not to do genital surgery.
SRS has very little bearing on life compared to RLT, and HRT
which has a very significant influence on life.
But a lot of this comes from TS themselves. Many post-ops
distance themselves from the TS, and call themselves women.
I don't say that is wrong, but that I think is actually
creating and fuelling the SRS hysteria. Everyone want to
come to that stage, and be "real women" or "real TS" or
whatever. Maybe that is particularly appealing to those
who have a little bit of the male competitive mind.
That the desire to come to the "highest" stage, takes
over from sense and reasoning.
Mixed into this things can also be the desire to find
some spiritual goal in life. Especially if the person does
not have any other spiritual goals, to become a woman
can become like a substitute. But such a person is going to
be disappointed. Women are spiritual seekers as much as men,
and does not have any advantage there. In the beginning maybe
it is a relief, and maybe TS-women can appreciate their
womenness more than genetic women, but ultimately it will end
up in a similar situation as all other women in the world.
-- Karolina
Claudia W.
>>Who cares how you live?
>
>live. It takes only a cursory scan of the Usenet archive at
>http://www.deja.com to find lots and lots of transsexuals arguing against
>crossliving... calling us men in dresses, referring to us by masculine
>pronouns, saying we are "incomplete", calling us freaks
-snip-
Well, I fully accept the transgendered lifestyle, as I mentioned before, it
wouldn't have been an option for me. But the behavior of some post OP's (and
boy can they be extreme) does not justify your arrogant and insulting
comments regarding grs. That is like two children throwing sand at each
other, what's the point of that? That doesn't help any of us.
>>But, one pointing at a cancer patient saying that it is wrong to remove
the
>>cancer shouldn't be surprised to get the face scratched.
>It is pretty hard to compare SRS to Cancer...
>
>For one thing, the diagnosis of transsexualism is actually contraindicated
>where there is a disease or malformation of the genitalia. In those cases
>the diagnosis is "intersexuality"... SRS, in reality, is psychiatric
>surgery performed only on healthy and well formed genitalia.
>
>Do I really need to define "Cancer" for you... I mean do I really need to
>tell you that a tumour is unhealthy tissue?
>
>Honey... the comparison you make just doesn't work.
It doesn't work for you, it works for me. I don't care about the biological
and medical aspects of cancer, for me it is a compilation of cells that *I*
don't want. A penis is a compilation of cells that *I* didn't want. See?
Both of them grow "natural", in case of cancer sometimes also genetically
induced. I guess this again is how you look at it.
>>And this ridiculous theory that we
>>are victims of the people enforcing the gender status quo is nothing but
>>neurotic.
>Really? Have you looked into what these shrinks *really* believe about us?
>Have you looked at the DSM-IV or the Standards of Care?
>
>They think transies have a mental disease that must be fixed... and they
are
>happy to do whatever they can to prevent us from roaming free in society.
-snip-
>I'm betting you even think these idiots are helping you...
I never saw a shrink while transitioning. I paid for *everything* I had done
myself by stripdancing. I injected the mones myself, which I bought on the
black market. I didn't give a shit what "society" thinks, It was actually
the society that I can relate to that tried it's best to stop me. (I copied
this over from my post in this thread) As you see, this idiots didn't help
me. I chose the unofficial way, because I was to young to be taken serious
by them. I don't think you have any idea what it means for a transsexual
teenager to be working a 16 hour shift in a peepshow and being submitted to
the most perverted men imaginable. Is that the alternative for someone that
wants grs? If I had the choice again, believe me, I'd rather sit in front of
shrink who thinks I am disturbed than to sit behind a window and seeing a
guy licking old sperm from the glass who doesn't even care that I am
throwing up. Hmmmmmm. Yummy. Wanna hear more, because that was one of the
harmless cases....... Well anyway, I earned that money, yes I did. The
shrinks and the institutions are no problem at all if you know how to play
them. Just smartly let them hear what they want to hear and get what you
want. As for the transgendered folks, I don't know how the situation in the
US/Canada is. In Germany they are actually doing their best to prolong grs
and promote the small solution (which would be your way).
>You need to get your facts straight... I do not write to them about
>stopping SRS... you are making [a gross, and incorrect, assumption.]
your day? Sorry for the wordplay. No seriously, from what I read from you,
I didn't have the impression you could ever support grs. (I guess nobody who
just went through this thread would). You are right then that I was wrongly
assuming.
>Frankly: You seem to be confusing my dislike for the oppressive nature of
>the *institutions* involved in transsexualism, with a dislike of
>transsexuals.
And you seem to be confusing your difficulties as a transgendered woman with
the system with transsexual woman who want grs and make use of the system.
>Whether I like or dislike the people caught up in this is
>irrelevant... they have every right to make their own choices in life, and
I
>will defend that right to the best of my ability.
Noble words, I hope it is not just a tactic to take the wind out of my
sails.
>>I wish you wouldn't reply to this post
><ROFL> Of course you do...
Just checking.....
>However, you have so much so wrong that I had no choice.
No need to apologize :)
--
Claudia W.
em.starts.w....@yahoo.com
-------------------|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|
Now let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya
Toni Roome
> The bottom line is that surgery doesn't change WHO you are -- it only
> changes what your genitals look like. It seems to me that a lot of TS women
> think that somehow the surgery is going to magically change things for them.
>
of how you interact with others) I does more than change the appearance
of your genitals. They respond differently too. How would you feel if
you had a penis? However whether that is right or not for any particular
person may well be an other question.
hugs,
--
Toni
"One should, each day, try to hear a little song,
read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it is
possible, speak a few reasonable words" (Goethe)
Toni Roome
Toni Roome <To...@erewhon.u-net.com> wrote:
> >For most of us it's simply not about getting on in the world. We happen
> >to think to think that our genitals are wrong. That is why so many
> >attempt self-mutilation.
>
> Has it ever occured to you to figure out WHY it is this way?
>
Well it was always that way, as far as I cam remember. And living in a
male body thinking that was against everything I was ever taught.
> Why do you think your genitals are wrong?
>
Kinaesthetically they always seemed alien. Certainly from puberty they
seemed to have a life of their own and wanted to do things I didn't want
to do.
> Why are you so desperate about it?
>
How do you mean desperate? I simply, finally, did something about it. I
lived as a man for 46 years and it just wasn't working for me. After I
started hormones and transitioned I was happier with my life but it was
still incomplete. For one thing I didn't have any significant sex life.
Of course, I did ask myself if I still wanted srs (and its not as if it
was something that just popped into my head) and the answer was still a
strong yes. So I went ahead and had it. I don't consider that anyone
else, either my peers or my pshrinks persuaded me, or even attempted to
persuade me.
> Wouldn't it make sense to try to understand how it came to be this way,
> rather than just following along with the pack?
>
Well I would like to know, but I don't consider it essential to my life.
In general I'm a very stubborn person. I'm not the sort to follow any
pack, and what 'packs' I have been exposed to, certainly in 3D rather
than online, would predominantly not want to transition, nor to have
srs.
> >Where was that conceded? I think that body-sex dysphoria has the same
> >roots as social-gender dysphoria and is probably set in the womb.
>
> Yeah right... we learn self-rejection in the womb. <ROFL>
>
I don't accept your loaded vocabulary, but yes, I suspect some of us do.
> Girlfriend, you need to do A LOT MORE thinking on this one...
>
Can't see it myself.. but then I did say I was stubborn.
Toni Roome
> Transsexuals on the other hand, have this massive world-wide institution
> right there to push them along, like good little sheep, into the operating
> room. The whole thing exists to get you to hack up your body. It takes NO
> independent thought to get a sex-change... and in many clinics (such as the
> Clarke) independence of thought is actively discouraged.
>
Actually GIC such as Charring Cross in London seem to spend most of
their time and effort in persuading ppl to do anything *other* than have
srs.
Only 10-15% of ppl referred to CX end up having srs, and its the others
that are considered to be the successes.
Of course to be one of those "unfortunate" 10% you do have to fit their
stereotypes.
Toni Roome
> As long as all girls were wearing skirts, it was allright. But with
> the fashion with trousers, it is either painful to camouflage the
> thing between the legs, or it is going to be visible.
[snip]
> Also if you wear a thin skirt, and the wind is blowing against
> you, it is going to be visible, unless you before going out
> was taking the painful trouble to hide it.
>
I think this is a very individual matter and for some ppl (such as
yourself) it may be a problem and a significant factor in what you want
to do. Certainly once I was on hormones I can't remember any difficulty
so long as I wore a light control panty, since the testes had shrung and
would retract and the penis was, perhaps, 4cm long, small and, on
hormones, well behaved.
I still wanted my srs though :-).
Laura Blake
wrote:
>> >For most of us it's simply not about getting on in the world.
>male body thinking that was against everything I was ever taught.
Can you see the contradiction in your two quotes above?
-----
Laura Blake
Ok... so how come "Verb" is a noun?
-----
Toni Roome
Toni Roome <To...@erewhon.u-net.com wrote:
> > >For most of us it's simply not about getting on in the world.
> >And living in a male body thinking that was against everything
> >I was ever taught.
>
> Can you see the contradiction in your two quotes above?
>
The first quote (taking some words from you and glossing them) is my
point that we want female genitals because they seem right to us, not
simply as a social convenience. Much of your argument has been to the
effect that nobody will see your genitals so that if we simple want them
for social acceptance that this is a non-issue. You can't see inside my
head, so your only argument against my point is that I'm the dupe of a
worldwide cis-gendered conspiracy that denies trasngenderism as a
possiblility.
The secomd quote is making the point that the *real* cis-gender
conspiracy would deny the possiblility that my mind (gender:woman
body-image:female) is different from my actual body (male). These are
the people that think we are *al*l deluded.
The accepted cis-gender model is that I'm in a male body therefore I'm a
man. Since the incidence of trans-sexualism is 1:10000 or so then I
must acdept the balance of probabilities are on their side.
I was taught that I was a man:male, and I probably had to fight as hard
against that conditioning as you. What I was aware of in all those years
where I did accept my maleness, was that I was unhappy with my
gentitalia, so for me that was in some ways more central to my
self-identity than it was, clearly, for you, but equally a contradiction
of the cis-gender model I was taught.
Your self-image is that you are a woman in a male body (somewhat
feminised by hormones, but maybe that is beside the point, or is it?).
In any event what you want is be is to be accepted as a a woman but
don't want or don't need (I've never been clear which) to change your
male bits to be comfortable.
For me, my self-image is woman:female, and I find the approximation I
get from changing my genitals, as well as taking hormones more
comfortable than from hormones alone.
I wonder sometimes why you wish to deny others the possiblility that
what they choose is right for them, just as what you choose is right for
you, and instead (just like the cis-gendered masses) think we are
deluded and (unlike them) think you are not.
Karen Elizabeth A.
> > As for swimwear, my partner has a very attractive "hip minimizer"
> > swimsuit that has a little skirt on it.
>
> Yep I've seen those suits, and personally I wouldn't be caught dead in one.
>
> Appearances aside, I participate in several water sports where swimming
> speed and agility are a factor, and a suit like that would seriously get
> in the way. I prefer to wear racing swimsuits (speedo, descente, etc.)
> and am very glad that I can. Such suits can be quite uncomfortable for
> someone with a "package" down there.
The only bathing suit I own is a skirted one. I bought it while pre-op
to hide that which is no longer there...
Well you know what i look like. Post-op (SRS last August) I've tried
other suits but given my size and my shape, I look *much* better in the
skirted suit.
Yes it is a pain while swimming and I don't really like it, but unless
there are more physical changes *and* I lose a good bit of weight, it
behoves me to wear one. One does what they have to do. Not all of us are
5'2" :-(
Take CAre,
-Karen A.
Toni Roome
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:09:24 +0100, Toni Roome <To...@erewhon.u-net.com>
> wrote:
> >No I don't Laura. I suppose you must be a bit tired if you think you do.
>
>
Well I *was* told you had a sharp and intelligent mind <shrug>.
Laura Blake
>Identity is intimately bound up in social pressures and constructs, you
>cannot have an identity apart from them. Should we fault heterosexual
>genetic females for not having a subversive gender identity? Do blacks fail
>to rise above their ethnic constructs and identities? Do Christians, Hindus,
>Buddhists, etc. sell themselves short by buying into certain religious
>ideologies? This is a very slippery slope to go down.
If stupid worked like bad breath, you could blow the flies off a shit truck.
-----
Laura Blake
"If assholes had wings,this
place would be an airport!"
-----
Karen Ross
news:376A9DBA...@erewhon.u-net.com...
> Laura Blake wrote:
> > Well... I can see this is going noplace fast.
> >
> Well I *was* told you had a sharp and intelligent mind <shrug>.
Toni, there's a world of difference between being able to reason and being
willing to reason.
-- Kare
Laura Blake
>Toni, there's a world of difference between being able to reason and being
>willing to reason.
AND there is a world of difference between a reasoned discussion, and what
passes for it here. In fact, none of these people is interested in
learning. Like you, their only concern is trouncing someone else on-line.
Sorry... I'm not going to play that game anymore.
Laura Blake
>Your assumption that because I'm TS I must have
>experienced internalized transphobia has apparently closed your eyes to
>what I'm saying.
In my 15 year experience with this community, I have not yet met a single
transsexual who did not display profoundly transphobic attitudes; including
yourself. And believe me honey I've met one hell of a lot of transsexuals.
I hardly think it is assumptive of me to conclude, based on this experience,
that transsexualism is a form of internlalized transphobia.
>What I was trying to communicate to you
>was that regardless of this, my history does not match up with your
>theory of internalized transphobia.
Actually it matches up perfectly... You see, *everyone* I've ever talked to
about this has proclaimed themselves to be an exception.
Jan
It is a bit long, but given that it airs some of the issues raised by
Laura in a rational way, I thought it was worth posting. While it
supports her views to some extent, it leaves room for rational debate,
for those who do not see enemies behind every disagreement.
=============================
302.85 Gender Identity Disorder
Next, let's examine the second category, Gender Identity Disorder. The
diagnostic criteria for adults and
adolescents [APA94] are:
A. A strong and persistent cross-gender identification (not
merely a desire for any perceived
cultural advantages of being the other sex). In adolescents and
adults, the disturbance is
manifested by symptoms such as a stated desire to be the other
sex, frequent passing as the
other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the
conviction that he or she has the
typical feelings and reactions of the other sex.
B. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of
inappropriateness in the gender role of
that sex. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is
manifested by symptoms such as
preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex
characteristics (e.g., request for
hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual
characteristics to simulate the
other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.
C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex
condition.
D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or
other important areas of functioning.
Specify if (for sexually mature individuals) Sexually Attracted
to Males, ... Females,... Both, ...
Neither.
The clinical significant criterion, D, was added to all conditions in
the Sexual and Gender Identity
Disorders section. The definition of "distress or impairment" lies at
the heart of the issue of
pathologization of gender expression.
Dysfunction, Nonconformity, and Mental Disorder
A third interpretation of these categories has been advanced by George
Brown of the Veterans'
Administration [Brown95] and is widely believed within the gender
community [Kirk95]. It holds that the
clinical significance criteria for Transvestic Fetishism and Gender
Identity Disorder serve to exclude ego
systonic or otherwise well adjusted transgendered subjects from
medical diagnosis. This view is
supported somewhat by the following statement in the DSM-IV
introduction:
"Neither deviant behavior ... nor conflicts that are primarily
between the individual and
society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a
symptom of
dysfunction..."
However, it is contradicted in the GID section:
"Gender Identity Disorder can be distinguished from simple
nonconformity to
stereo-typical sex role behavior by the extent and pervasiveness
of the cross-gender
wishes, interests, and activities."
The second statement implies that you may deviate from social
expectation without a diagnostic label,
but not too much. Appendix four, the Annotated Listing of changes in
DSM-IV, speaks of categories
subsumed, not eliminated [APA94]. Nothing in the text of the DSM-IV
Sexual and Gender Identity
Disorders chapter or the supporting literature conveys an intent to
depathologize any transgendered
people who were classified in previous editions [Bradley91, APA94b].
Dysfunction, defined as distress or impairment, is the key issue in
that all who grow up in a closet,
suppressing their identity, experience distress. Therefore, no one is
necessarily excluded by the clinical
significance criteria. These criteria have proven problematic in other
ways. For example, a child molester
who is not distressed or socially impaired by the condition would
arguably be disqualified for a diagnosis
of pedophilia. Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard, members of the DSM-IV
Subcommittee on Gender
Identity Disorders, have noted that the question of whether distress
is inherent to transvestism or
imposed by social pressures is not resolved [Zucker95]. It is again
not clearly defined who is ill and who
is not, the judgement resting upon the personal values of the
evaluator.
Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
Homosexuality was deleted from the seventh printing of the DSM-II in
1973 for the following reasons
[APA80, Stoller73]:
Crucial issue is the consequence, not the etiology of a condition
Significant portion of subjects
are satisfied with their sexual orientation
show no significant psychopathology
function socially and occupationally
Condition fails criteria of distress and disability
Condition fails criterion of inherent disadvantage
This decision is considered a significant milestone in the gay rights
movement of the 1970s [Bawer93].
No one has reasonably established why gender orientation is treated so
differently in the DSM
excepting differences in political organization and influence
[Bullough93]. Contrary to the medical
stereotype, I have met many people in the transgender community who
are satisfied with their gender
orientation, show no significant psychopathology, and function very
well socially and occupationally.
The Stigma of Psychosexual Disorder
The burden of social stigma suffered by transgendered people is
worsened by medical classification
[Bolin88]. Transvestic Fetishism, in particular, is organized in the
most damaging and demeaning
manner possible, classified as a Sexual Paraphilia along with
Pedophilia, Exhibitionism, Voyeurism,
Frotteurism, Sadism and Masochism.
DSM-IV Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders: Paraphilias
302.4 Exhibitionism
302.81 Fetishism
302.89 Frotteurism
302.2 Pedophilia
302.83 Sexual Masochism
302.84 Sexual Sadism
302.3 Transvestic Fetishism
302.82 Voyeurism
This legitimizes stereotypes that unfairly associate cross-gender
expression with criminal or harmful
conduct.
Myths and Stereotypes
Here are a few examples of transgender myths and stereotypes
perpetuated in the DSM and medical
literature that are unsubstantiated by research or inaccurately
describe many transgendered people:
The Overbearing Mother
The Effeminate Childhood
The Organ of Hate and Disgust
The Daredeviling Crossdresser
The Fetishistic Transvestite
The Masochistic Transvestite
The Aging Transvestite
Spontaneous Transsexualism
The Homosexual Transsexual
The first two "mother-blame" theories [Stoller68] are reminiscent of
those unsuccessfully applied to gay
men in the past [Stoller73, Zucker95]. Most transsexuals do not
necessarily hate their genitals
[Bornstein94, Bolin88], and reassignment surgery candidates in fact
need the tissues to reconstruct
new ones. The "daredeviling crossdresser" [Brown95] represents victim
bashing in that crossdressers
who suffer discrimination or bigotry are blamed for risking "getting
caught." The presumption that
non-transsexual crossdressing constitutes sexual deviance is implied
by the very name, Transvestic
Fetishism. This and the common association of sexual masochism with
cross-gender expression
[Zucker95] exaggerate the significance of sex in gender and trivialize
the role of social expression.
Sexual motivation is said to be displaced by gender dysphoria in the
Aging Transvestite [Wise80]
model, when it is more likely lessened with self-acceptance and
increased freedom of expression.
Finally, suggestions that favor surgical reassignment candidates with
heterosexual outcomes [APA94]
deserve scrutiny.
Distress, Impairment, and the Role of Social Intolerance
Micheal Lewis, author of Shame, the Exposed Self, defines shame as a
self perceived failure to meet
self-imposed standards and a global attribution of failure to the
total self [Lewis95]. This occurs at a
surprisingly early age, between 18 and 36 months, when children
internalize the values of the society
around them. While not targeted specifically at socially marginalized
groups, Lewis' observations
explain much about the experience of a closeted development. Are
distress, depression and anxiety,
attributed by the medical literature to gender expression, reasonable
consequences of undeserved
shame? What are the implications of masquerading the spirit?
Conversely, what are the implications of masquerading the body to fit
the core identity? Given the harsh
stigma associated with cross-gender identity, is it possible that
sexual expression serves defensive
purposes, representing denial or displacement? Does this explain the
commonly reported transience of
fetishistic crossdressing [Bradley91, Wise80] more adequately than
spontaneous "development" of
transsexualism later in life? Again, the DSM fails to distinguish
inherent distress from socially imposed
distress, presuming the former.
Socio-Cultural Considerations
Anthropologist Anne Bolin noted the provincial nature of gender
research with socio-cultural findings
virtually ignored in medical policy [Bolin87]. There is substantial
historical precedent for the enforcement
of rigid gender roles by medical practitioners. For example, from the
early to mid-1900s, women who
exceeded the bounds of gender conformity in demanding civil rights and
the right to vote were
discredited and often institutionalized with a diagnosis of "hysteria"
[Mayor74]. Homosexuality, as noted
previously, was classified as mental illness until 1973, representing
a violation of "appropriate" gender
role.
At the heart of the current medical policy is a presumption of gender
essentialism, perpetuating the
doctrine of two sexes, immutable, and determined by genitalia. A
growing body of literature that
considers gender a social construction, not a biological imperative
[DeBeauvior52, Kessler78, Butler90,
Garber92, Lorber94], has been inexplicably disregarded.
Other social considerations include the power inequity in transsexual
psychotherapy and the validation
of medical caregivers [Bolin88]. A therapist serving as a gatekeeper
to the availability of surgical or
hormonal treatment holds absolute power over a transsexual client.
This undermines the therapeutic
relationship, leaves the client little motivation for honest
expression [Blanchard88], and creates a
distorted view of transgenderism by psychiatric caregivers reflected
in the current medical policy.
Finally, medical practitioners and researchers have a self-interest in
the present diagnostic categories,
which are perceived to lend respectability to gender work [Pauly92],
and legitimize association with
transgendered subjects [Bolin88].
Cross-Cultural Supernumerary Gender Precedents
Socio-cultural research has elucidated a growing list of supernumerary
gender roles among many
cultures [Bolin87, Bullough93, Williams86]. A few examples include:
Native American Two-Spirit Traditions
The Navajo Nadle
The Lakota Winkte
The North Piegan Manly Hearts
The Tahitian Mahu
The Madagascar Sekrata
Hindu Tantric and Hijra Sects
Islamic Xanith, Khawal, and Sufi Traditions
The European Castrati
These were accepted, often highly respected, societal roles where
gender variation and fluidity were
considered a normal variation of human life. Are we to infer now that
all of these people were mentally
ill?
Summary
Our examination of the present classification of Transvestic Fetishism
and Gender Identity Disorder has
raised substantive questions with disturbing answers. We believe that
there is ample evidence to review
the policy of gender pathologization with a reasoned dialogue
inclusive of the gender community and
socio-cultural researchers and open to the possibility that difference
is not disease, nonconformity is not
pathology, and uniqueness is not illness.
=============================END EXTRACT
Honest differences and cultural biases do not seem adequately contained
in a statement like 'They think transies have a mental disease that must
be fixed... and they are happy to do whatever they can to prevent us
from roaming free in society'.
Laura states 'all research in this area begins from the assumption that
transgender identity is not supposed to happen'. As anyone knows who has
done any science, or studied the philosophy of science, knows, science
does not assume, it proposes theories and tests them against evidence.
It would be utterly silly to have a conclusion first and then do
research !! And most especially, science NEVER assumes that anything is
'not supposed' to happen. It might examine unusual, unpredictable
occurrances to see why they occur - and so it should. However, what
Laura may be trying to promote is a 'paradigm shift', the kind of thing
that can lead to scientific revolutions (see Thomas Kuhn, 'The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions' - I think).
While sissify sees some murkiness in the DSM IV manual on this, I
believe that the primary test is section D (The disturbance causes
clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational,
or other important areas of functioning). Given that, I think the
therapist is bound to attempt to help restore the patient to functioning
- which is properly their focus, not the larger sociological issues.
Mise cansado,
Jan
Laura Blake wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:47:32 -0000, "Claudia W." <spa...@nirvana.com>
> wrote:
> >Who cares how you live?
>
> There are LOTS of people who quite obviously care --very deeply-- how I
> live. It takes only a cursory scan of the Usenet archive at
> http://www.deja.com to find lots and lots of transsexuals arguing against
> crossliving... calling us men in dresses, referring to us by masculine
> pronouns, saying we are "incomplete", calling us freaks and a few even
> claiming that we should not be allowed to live as we do. It's about
> Transphobia, absorbed from the social environment in which they live, they
> (as do most) believe that one must be cisgendered (i.e. woman-female or
> man-male) to be a valid person, and they are insecure enough in their own
> positions as to be intolerant of others who may choose otherwise. This has
> been going on for as long as I have been involved in the transcommunty, and
> almost always it comes from transsexuals (quelle surprise).
>
> >But, one pointing at a cancer patient saying that it is wrong to remove the
> >cancer shouldn't be surprised to get the face scratched.
>
> It is pretty hard to compare SRS to Cancer...
>
> For one thing, the diagnosis of transsexualism is actually contraindicated
> where there is a disease or malformation of the genitalia. In those cases
> the diagnosis is "intersexuality"... SRS, in reality, is psychiatric
> surgery performed only on healthy and well formed genitalia.
>
> Do I really need to define "Cancer" for you... I mean do I really need to
> tell you that a tumour is unhealthy tissue?
>
> Honey... the comparison you make just doesn't work.
>
> >And this ridiculous theory that we
> >are victims of the people enforcing the gender status quo is nothing but
> >neurotic.
>
> Really? Have you looked into what these shrinks *really* believe about us?
> Have you looked at the DSM-IV or the Standards of Care?
>
> They think transies have a mental disease that must be fixed... and they are
> happy to do whatever they can to prevent us from roaming free in society.
> Moreover they do this without any science to back their positions. As I
> have frequently pointed out, all research in this area begins from the
> assumption that transgender identity is not supposed to happen... but the
> foundation research to *prove* this, has simply never been done.
>
> As it is. All transies who come into their sphere of influence are
> diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (DSM-IV, 302.85) followed by SOC
> based recommendations that amount to a constant pressure to conform to the
> cisgender ideal.... but of course you don't see how this might just be
> oppressive of our personal freedoms, now do you?
>
> I'm betting you even think these idiots are helping you...
>
> >The sad part is that you mentioned that you also write to
> >politicians. Not only is there no justification for such action, but it is
> >also complete useless. You will !*never*! be able to stop people to choose
> >grs who are stable.
>
> You need to get your facts straight... I do not write to them about
> stopping SRS... you are making a gross, and incorrect, assumption. In fact,
> along with other equality issues, my position has remained steadfastly that
> if SRS is offered as a service it must be offered *fairly*, and should be as
> available to patients as any other surgery. I have in fact been arguing
> that people have a RIGHT to choose SRS -- or not. (The matter that I may
> not always agree with people's choices is irrelevent. )
>
> Frankly: You seem to be confusing my dislike for the oppressive nature of
> the *institutions* involved in transsexualism, with a dislike of
> transsexuals. Whether I like or dislike the people caught up in this is
> irrelevent... they have every right to make their own choices in life, and I
> will defend that right to the best of my ability.
>
> >I wish you wouldn't reply to this post
>
> <ROFL> Of course you do...
>
> However, you have so much so wrong that I had no choice.
>
Jan
Well said - I understood and accepted everything you said as your truth,
loud and clear. You provide a strong dose of pragmatism and common
sense!!
Jan
Toni Roome wrote:
>
> Laura Blake wrote:
> Toni Roome <To...@erewhon.u-net.com wrote:
> > > >For most of us it's simply not about getting on in the world.
> > >And living in a male body thinking that was against everything
> > >I was ever taught.
> >
> > Can you see the contradiction in your two quotes above?
> >
> No I don't Laura. I suppose you must be a bit tired if you think you do.
>
Jan
I jes' guess that that there place mus' be the 'ception that proves the
rule!!
How dare you have actual data!!! Don't go confusing the discussion with
actual facts!!!
Jan
Toni Roome wrote:
>
> Laura Blake wrote:
> > Transsexuals on the other hand, have this massive world-wide institution
> > right there to push them along, like good little sheep, into the operating
> > room. The whole thing exists to get you to hack up your body. It takes NO
> > independent thought to get a sex-change... and in many clinics (such as the
> > Clarke) independence of thought is actively discouraged.
> >
> Actually GIC such as Charring Cross in London seem to spend most of
> their time and effort in persuading ppl to do anything *other* than have
> srs.
>
> Only 10-15% of ppl referred to CX end up having srs, and its the others
> that are considered to be the successes.
>
> Of course to be one of those "unfortunate" 10% you do have to fit their
> stereotypes.
>
Glenn, thine Prophet of Chaos
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:43:40 +0200, Karolina Lindqvist <p...@algonet.se>
>wrote:
>>You are not questioning my decision to have SRS or not, but you
>>are questioning mine, and everyone else, motive.
>
>Yeppers, I most certainly am.
That's a very good thing, actually.
Regardless of your opinion on SRS, it is not something that should be
entered into without some serious self-questioning.
Glenn,
sometimes known as Angie.