I Think It's Very Sad

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Suzan Cooke

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to
There are so many things I think are very sad about transsexual
women.

I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
transitioned recently put down transgendered women. Sad because I know
TG women who have been women as long as I have. I was never married to
a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery. Instead I was
part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
lived. Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
prepared to live my life as a queen. Some of my friends from that
period found men and went off to Vegas for a "wedding". They had
implants, took hormones bought a house with the money they saved for
their surgery. The few I still know are still married. Others drifted
off to other parts of the country.

Point is that they are just as much women as I am. Further many
have been women 5-10 times as long as the transsexuals on this list who
are putting TGs down.

When the term Transgender came into general usage in the mid 70s it
wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
gender role of their identity. It was to keep such people from being
lumped in with the CDs and TVs.

I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.

There are other things I think are very sad about us.

TranZGrrlla
Suzy


Deb Marsh

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to

Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:386BD625...@postoffice.pacbell.net...

> There are so many things I think are very sad about transsexual
> women.
>
> I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
> transitioned recently put down transgendered women. Sad because I know
> TG women who have been women as long as I have.

I agree with this completely - although 'sad' seems rather a charitable term
in these circumstances.

> There are other things I think are very sad about us.

Golly! Now there's a surprise 8-)

Debs

P.S. hope that you are recovered and feeling better.

KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to
sco...@pacbell.net wrote:

> I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
>transitioned recently put down transgendered women.

I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want* SRS are
different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the person as
a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or intentions.

> I was never married to
>a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery.

And the significance of that is...?

I was/am in such a relationship... the dynamic is/was unusual by most people's
standards - and she is the only person I've had a close relationship with in my
life and we met when I was 27.


> Instead I was
>part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
>lived.

I actually never knowingly met a gay person until I was late in my college
days. I was that isolated from the world.

> Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
>prepared to live my life as a queen.

Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
you to that sceen?

I ask because while I never let a typical het lifestyle pre transition, I was
also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply oped out
and was a loner.

> When the term Transgender came into general usage in the mid 70s it
>wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
>from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
>gender role of their identity.

And why was it needed? Even HB recognized a group that was non-op TS in his
book. Did people then object to the term non-op TS?

> I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
>recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.

Different situation entirely. In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to the
non-TS spouse. Do you see that? If so why do you think not?

It may be *wisest* not to stay married for the partner having SRS- but that is
a separate discussion.

-Karen A.


Suzan Cooke

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to

Deb Marsh wrote:

> Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:386BD625...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> > There are so many things I think are very sad about transsexual
> > women.
> >

> > I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have

> > transitioned recently put down transgendered women. Sad because I know
> > TG women who have been women as long as I have.
>
> I agree with this completely - although 'sad' seems rather a charitable term
> in these circumstances.
>
> > There are other things I think are very sad about us.
>
> Golly! Now there's a surprise 8-)
>
> Debs
>
> P.S. hope that you are recovered and feeling better.

I guess I had the Y2K bug. Seriously this new combination of Tamiflu,
Augmentin and Claratin work wonders. I should post as an off topic.

Suzy

and you're right 'sad' barely touchs how I feel about some of the things I'm
hearing expressed.

Suzan Cooke

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to

KarenA1013 wrote:

> sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> > I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
> >transitioned recently put down transgendered women.
>

> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want* SRS are
> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the person as
> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or intentions.

But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are women.

> > I was never married to
> >a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery.
>
> And the significance of that is...?

None when you separate it forom the following sentence.

> I was/am in such a relationship... the dynamic is/was unusual by most people's
> standards - and she is the only person I've had a close relationship with in my
> life and we met when I was 27.

And?

> > Instead I was
> >part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
> >lived.
>
> I actually never knowingly met a gay person until I was late in my college
> days. I was that isolated from the world.

Poor Baby...

> > Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
> >prepared to live my life as a queen.
>
> Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
> you to that sceen?

What main stream are you blitthering about? Like Doh 'cuz' I liked boys. "Cuz
it was fun, and exciting and meshed with the hippy and rock and roll and glamour.

I ask because while I never let a typical het lifestyle pre transition, I was

> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply oped out
> and was a loner.

Your sad loss.

> > When the term Transgender came into general usage in the mid 70s it
> >wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
> >from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
> >gender role of their identity.
>
> And why was it needed? Even HB recognized a group that was non-op TS in his
> book. Did people then object to the term non-op TS?

Actually post-ops started saying "How can these people be TS and not have
surgery. Yet obviously these were not TVs either. TG changed gender or more exact
changed gender role.

> > I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
> >recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
>
> Different situation entirely.

Oh really my friends have been husband and wife in one case for over 20 years.

> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
> one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
> least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to the
> non-TS spouse. Do you see that?

Considering the wreckage I see strewen about on these groups, it appears that
not many survive surgery anyway. But for what its worth trannies involved with
guys usually f**k up their relationships during the surgery process too.

> If so why do you think not?

That would all be solved by working for same sex marriages, wouldn't it. But
basically you are saying that because both people still have weewees even though
one has been a woman for 25+ years her marriage shouldn't be valid but in your case
two people with pussies should still be allowed to be married because about 4 years
ago one person decided to get her weewee turned into a pussy.

They are both same sex marrages if you condider the organs involved.

> It may be *wisest* not to stay married for the partner having SRS- but that is
> a separate discussion.
>
> -Karen A.

TranZGrrlla
Suzy


Suzan Cooke

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to

KarenA1013 wrote:

> sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> >> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want*
> >SRS are
> >> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the
> >person as
> >> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or
> intentions.
> >
> > But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are women.
>

> I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not identify as female
> even if they are very feminine.

Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as women as
long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
plumbing=sex. You seem to think for some strange reason that you are better
because you had a little bit of skin shifted. It ani't the surgery it's the
living.

> A TS identifies as female (thus the need for
> SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female.
>

Blah Blah.

> > And?
> And it was neither a het relationship or lesbian relationship in dynamic.

I love it Karen you were married to a woman and still arte but it wasn't het.
Whatever.

> Why? I grew up in *really* bad neigborhoods. I survied by not going out much. I
> stayed home and read a lot of library books and watched TV.

I grew up in mill towns and mining towns.

> >> > Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was
> >> >prepared to live my life as a queen.
> >>
> >> Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
> >> you to that sceen?
> >
> > What main stream are you blitthering about? Like Doh 'cuz' I liked
> >boys. "Cuz
> >it was fun, and exciting and meshed with the hippy and rock and roll and
> >glamour.

Obviously you know that was a subculture...

Yeah the subculture of every kid who actually had a life as a teenager and 20
something. I danced. Did you ever dance. Go out and orgasmically rock out, dirty
dance gay boogie, disco, slam in a mosh pit.

> It was also dangerous.

Life is dangerous. I also skied the double black diamond trails.

>> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply

> >oped out
> >> and was a loner.
> >
> > Your sad loss.
>

> Well my brother was and he is dead...

Better to have lived and died than to merely have existed.

> > Actually post-ops started saying "How can these people be TS and not
> >have
> >surgery. Yet obviously these were not TVs either. TG changed gender or
> >more exact
> >changed gender role.

> So post-ops felt that way even back then. I guess it's not just those on the
> newsgroups then.

It was a way of separating the non-ops from TVs.

> >> > I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
> >> >recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
> >>
> >> Different situation entirely.
> >
> > Oh really my friends have been husband and wife in one case for over
> >20 years.
>

> But they knew what they were getting into. They knew the ground rules. That was
> not the case for my spouse for sure - and I did nopt expect tp tranition either
> because I thought I could not make it.

This is just so freaking lame.

> >> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)
> >> one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
> >> least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to
> >the
> >> non-TS spouse. Do you see that?
> >
> > Considering the wreckage I see strewen about on these groups, it appears
> >that
> >not many survive surgery anyway.
>

> Very true. The percentage has grown over the last 5 years but is still low.


>
> >But for what its worth trannies involved
> >with
> >guys usually f**k up their relationships during the surgery process too.
>

> Understandable.


>
> >> If so why do you think not?
> >
> > That would all be solved by working for same sex marriages, wouldn't
> >it.
>

> My spouse does not consder this a same sex marriage abd does not consider me a
> woman.
>

Ask me if I care Karen you egocentric twit.

> > But
> >basically you are saying that because both people still have weewees even
> >though
> >one has been a woman for 25+ years her marriage shouldn't be valid but in
> >your case
> >two people with pussies should still be allowed to be married because about
> >4 years
> >ago one person decided to get her weewee turned into a pussy.
>

> I'm say it becayse my spouse did not know what she was getting into where in
> they other situation they did. That said. if I had been required to get
> divorced to get SRS I would have.
>

But you didn't.

> > They are both same sex marrages if you consider the organs involved.
>
> Not when the marriage occured for the TS -GG case.

How so are you saying that one of you is a man?

> I believe that same sex marriage sould be legal but it's not my issue. If we
> get divorced I know I will not be able to marry another woman... but since I'm
> het, same sex marriage is not a burning issue for me. I would vote for it on a
> referndum but that's about it.
>
> -Karen A.

TranZGrrlla
Suzy


KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
sco...@pacbell.net wrote:

>> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that don't *want*
>SRS are
>> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements about the
>person as
>> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op status or
intentions.
>
> But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are women.

I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not identify as female

even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus the need for


SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female.

>> > I was never married to


>> >a woman or in a relationship with one prior to surgery.
>>
>> And the significance of that is...?

> None when you separate it forom the following sentence.

Somehow it seems to imply more...

>> I was/am in such a relationship... the dynamic is/was unusual by most
>people's
>> standards - and she is the only person I've had a close relationship with
>in my
>> life and we met when I was 27.
>

> And?
And it was neither a het relationship or lesbian relationship in dynamic.

>> > Instead I was


>> >part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called queens
>> >lived.
>>
>> I actually never knowingly met a gay person until I was late in my college
>> days. I was that isolated from the world.
>
> Poor Baby...

Why? I grew up in *really* bad neigborhoods. I survied by not going out much. I


stayed home and read a lot of library books and watched TV.

>> > Before surgery in the US became a reality in the late 60s I was


>> >prepared to live my life as a queen.
>>
>> Why did you not live in the mainstream as a TG. Why as queen? What attracted
>> you to that sceen?
>
> What main stream are you blitthering about? Like Doh 'cuz' I liked
>boys. "Cuz
>it was fun, and exciting and meshed with the hippy and rock and roll and
>glamour.
Obviously you know that was a subculture...

It was also dangerous.

>> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply
>oped out
>> and was a loner.
>
> Your sad loss.

Well my brother was and he is dead...

> Actually post-ops started saying "How can these people be TS and not


>have
>surgery. Yet obviously these were not TVs either. TG changed gender or
>more exact
>changed gender role.
So post-ops felt that way even back then. I guess it's not just those on the
newsgroups then.

>> > I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally


>> >recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
>>
>> Different situation entirely.
>
> Oh really my friends have been husband and wife in one case for over
>20 years.

But they knew what they were getting into. They knew the ground rules. That was
not the case for my spouse for sure - and I did nopt expect tp tranition either
because I thought I could not make it.

>> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)


>> one or both partners usually do not thow about the situation. At the very
>> least, forcing a divorce when one partner has SRS is *very* unfair to
>the
>> non-TS spouse. Do you see that?
>
> Considering the wreckage I see strewen about on these groups, it appears
>that
>not many survive surgery anyway.

Very true. The percentage has grown over the last 5 years but is still low.

>But for what its worth trannies involved
>with
>guys usually f**k up their relationships during the surgery process too.

Understandable.

>> If so why do you think not?
>
> That would all be solved by working for same sex marriages, wouldn't
>it.

My spouse does not consder this a same sex marriage abd does not consider me a
woman.

> But


>basically you are saying that because both people still have weewees even
>though
>one has been a woman for 25+ years her marriage shouldn't be valid but in
>your case
>two people with pussies should still be allowed to be married because about
>4 years
>ago one person decided to get her weewee turned into a pussy.

I'm say it becayse my spouse did not know what she was getting into where in
they other situation they did. That said. if I had been required to get
divorced to get SRS I would have.

> They are both same sex marrages if you consider the organs involved.

Not when the marriage occured for the TS -GG case.

I believe that same sex marriage sould be legal but it's not my issue. If we

KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
sco...@pacbell.net wrote:

> Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as
>women as
>long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
>plumbing=sex.

For me this was as much about being female as it was beinf socially a woman. I
simply can not understand how someone can identify as a woman and not want to
be female. It's the wanting that's key not the actualy surgery.

> You seem to think for some strange reason that you are better
>because you had a little bit of skin shifted. It ani't the surgery it's
>the
>living.

You read things between the lines that are not there. I don't consider myself
better in anyway. Not one bit- just different.

In case you have not realized it yet. I don't have a lot of self confidence.

> I love it Karen you were married to a woman and still arte but it wasn't
>het.
>Whatever.

I was not amd am not sexually attracted to her. It was a
friendship/companionship thing for me. That is a hard thing for many to
understand.

> I grew up in mill towns and mining towns.

And I was an inner city kid in the projects.

> Obviously you know that was a subculture...
>
> Yeah the subculture of every kid who actually had a life as a teenager
>and 20
>something. I danced. Did you ever dance. Go out and orgasmically rock
>out, dirty
>dance gay boogie, disco, slam in a mosh pit.

No. I said I've always been an extreme loner.

> Life is dangerous. I also skied the double black diamond trails.

I don't ski. I take it those must be steep trails.

>>> also never attracted to any alternative life styles. Instead i simply

>>> opted out and was a loner.

> Your sad loss.

That's the price I payed for not dealing with my gender issues yound and buring
my feelings. I did not have a life. Never claimed to.

>> Well my brother was and he is dead...
>
> Better to have lived and died than to merely have existed.

That's why I finally transitioned and had SRS. I could not take doing that
anymore.

>That was
>> not the case for my spouse for sure - and I did not expect to tranition


>either
>> because I thought I could not make it.
>
> This is just so freaking lame.

It is the truth.

>> >> In the case of a prior TS marriage (MTF or FTM)

>> My spouse does not consder this a same sex marriage abd does not consider


>me a
>> woman.
>>
>
> Ask me if I care Karen you egocentric twit.

I have heard that other spouses feel the same eay. It is exatcly that issue
that breakes up most marriages.
Twit? Well I guess if I ever make it to LA I won't bother trying to meet you
for lunch!


>> I'm say it because my spouse did not know what she was getting into where


>in
>> they other situation they did. That said. if I had been required to get
>> divorced to get SRS I would have.
>>
>
> But you didn't.

I was not required to. I played by the rules as I found them.

>> Not when the marriage occured for the TS -GG case.
>
> How so are you saying that one of you is a man?

Physically I was male when we were married.

She did not know I was TS and I had given up on the possibility of transition
(else I would not have married).

Such are the facts.

-Karen A.

Loree Thomas

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
On 31 Dec 1999 05:10:17 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:

>sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>> Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as
>>women as
>>long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
>>plumbing=sex.
>

>For me this was as much about being female as it was beinf socially a woman. I
>simply can not understand how someone can identify as a woman and not want to
>be female. It's the wanting that's key not the actualy surgery.

I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
=can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.

You already know of several people who claim that very thing. Unless
you secretly believe thaey are totally delusional (which then calls
your own choices in life into questions), that part should be fairly
easy.

The next step is the hard one... you must try to assume that
particular mindset. Try it on, think about how you would feel, about
what it would mean, how you would respond in various situations.

This is called empathy. Traditionally, it is considered both a
feminine trait, and a virtue.

While in this mental space, read back over your own words on the
subject... What do you see? What do you feel?

As a scientist, you should have a very well developed imagination...
I'm sure that if you really wanted to understand, you could.

Hugs,
Loree

"Immortality: My long life ambition."

a

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
> I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have
>transitioned recently put down transgendered women.

Yeah, it is sad. They have made a mental prison just for themselves.

>Instead I was part of the gay scene, the part where the TG people called
queens
>lived.

In the lesbigay scene the transwomen are usually virulently hated, but it is
not just us, there are plenty of lesbigays that the scene has thrown out
because they aren't the kind of queers the scene accepts. Those people
usually blend in with the hets and are well balanced.

The lesbigay-movement is like a hard drive full of virii: Install a program
there and it will get infected also. Instead of getting anything good from
the lesbigay scene, we now suffer from the same ailments as they do. In our
case the outcasts are the TG women and probably also the neutrois.

> Point is that they are just as much women as I am.

Yes, they are, which is not much said about your womanhood, though.

> There are other things I think are very sad about us.

1. The psychologization of our condition and how many of us have bought all
that
2. Being divided into our own slum rather than being united by our cause
with all kinds of people having problems with gender.

Stacy
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3573/transsexual.html

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:386BD625...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
[]> I think it is very sad when I here transsexuals, some of whom have

> transitioned recently put down transgendered women.
[]>

> Point is that they are just as much women as I am. Further many
> have been women 5-10 times as long as the transsexuals on this list who
> are putting TGs down.
>
> When the term Transgender came into general usage in the mid 70s it
> wasn't an umbrella term. It was a term to separate the non SRS folks
> from SRS folks who basically both live the rest of their lives in the
> gender role of their identity. It was to keep such people from being
> lumped in with the CDs and TVs.
>
> I also condider it very sad that their marriages aren't legally
> recognized yet if a post-op m2f stays married to a woman theirs are.
>
> There are other things I think are very sad about us.
>
> TranZGrrlla
> Suzy

Snipped only for bandwidth (something I forget all too often)
Suzy, you said it.

But the spectrum is _so_ fuzzy, that one can sometimes identify in different
ways, at different times, and in different circumstances, and still be true
to oneself.

Joann

Stephe

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

KarenA1013 wrote in message
<19991230222844...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...

>sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>>> I hope you don't think I am one such. I think those that
don't *want*
>>SRS are
>>> different than those who do, but I make no value judgements
about the
>>person as
>>> a result. I certainly would not chose friends by their op
status or
>intentions.
>>
>> But you do, Karen you do. You don't think that they are
women.
>
>I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not
identify as female
>even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
the need for
>SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female.
>


Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?

Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
than ones crotch..

This is exactly what I find truly sad about all of this..

TG's are unaccepted by the people who actually have a chance of
understanding.


Stephe

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187

KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
ste...@pipeline.com wrote:

>Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
>her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
>else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
>didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?

First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has bee upheld in
court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.

As to the first point, that is a basic emotional reaction on my part. I do not
act on those feelings in any way - but he are there. In any case that feeling
does not affect how I treat TG's in 3D.

>Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
>than ones crotch..

Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people on this planet.
That is simply the truth.

-Karen A.

Suzan Cooke

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

KarenA1013 wrote:

> ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> >Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
> >than ones crotch..
>
> Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people on this planet.
> That is simply the truth.
>
> -Karen A.

Really, out side of lovers, the dressing rooms at health clubs and the like and
when I go to hot springs not all that many people see my crotch. That is a simple
fact.

I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.

Suzy


Stephe

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

KarenA1013 wrote in message
<19991231093226...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...

>ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
>>her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
>>else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
>>didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?
>
>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has bee
upheld in
>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.

Whatever... Looks like it to me.. Does it change WHO you are? Not
IMHO..

>
>As to the first point, that is a basic emotional reaction on my
part. I do not
>act on those feelings in any way - but he are there. In any case
that feeling
>does not affect how I treat TG's in 3D.

Same could be said for your wife if that's the case..

>
>>Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little
more
>>than ones crotch..
>
>Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people
on this planet.
>That is simply the truth.
>


Well I'm glad I'm not most people then.. It just isn't that
important to me..


Stephe

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187

Deb Marsh

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:386CF9FD...@postoffice.pacbell.net...

> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
> Suzy

Gosh! You mean it be used for that - oh no, all those wasted years 8-)

Debs

Suzan Cooke

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Deb Marsh wrote:

That's understandable what with all the propaganda. Pet your pussy
and talk nice to her and she'll probably start purring and forgive you.

That's what the woman teaching the becoming orgasmic class taught me.

Suzy 8-b

KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
sco...@pacbell.net

> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.

Isn't that typical of first waver's?

And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
because they think that is why I had SRS.

-Karen A.

KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
ste...@pipeline.com wrote:

>>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has bee
>upheld in
>>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
>
>Whatever... Looks like it to me..

Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing up or having male
sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...

There is a significant change in function.

>Does it change WHO you are? Not IMHO..

In some ways no and in some ways yes.

Experience changes who you are - and I'm not just talking for TS's or SRS.

>>As to the first point, that is a basic emotional reaction on my
>part. I do not
>>act on those feelings in any way - but he are there. In any case
>that feeling
>>does not affect how I treat TG's in 3D.
>
>Same could be said for your wife if that's the case..

Yes, which is why i have no anger towards her even though it hurts.

>>Of course it is - but what is there is important to most people
>on this planet.
>>That is simply the truth.
>
>Well I'm glad I'm not most people then.. It just isn't that
>important to me..

Obviously!

-Karen A.

Nicole Hamilton

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
"Suzan Cooke" <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
> Really, out side of lovers, the dressing rooms at health
> clubs and the like and when I go to hot springs not all that
> many people see my crotch.

And perhaps in a related way, SRS was definitely not, for me, the most
important part of transition. Mind you, I'm definitely happy to look in the
mirror and see that it definitely is female down there now. But even I
don't see what's there more than a few times a day. I'm not active yet, so
perhaps my perspective will change in time, but for me, SRS did not really
change my life. It wasn't as important for me as the facial work or breast
augmentation, both of which did, as instantaneously as a thunderclap, change
the way I related to the world and it to me.

Nicki

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
In article <386CF9FD...@postoffice.pacbell.net>, Suzan Cooke
<sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:

> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.

::Laughing:: You mean there are other reasons to have one? <G>

Cheers,
Gwen Smith
(Who seems to be neither a first or a second waver)

--
. .
/\\//\ Gwendolyn Ann Smith * onQ Community Host, TCF
> () < Board Member, GEA * Webmistress, TransBay
\/()\/ Webmistress, SCCatl * Webmistress,TSMCCenter
"I want this to be a harmony of voices" - Lauren D. Wilson
**Posts may not reflect the views of the above organizations

grrl@petal

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:50:49 GMT, Gwendolyn Ann Smith
<gw...@gwensmith.comatose> wrote:

>In article <386CF9FD...@postoffice.pacbell.net>, Suzan Cooke
><sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
>::Laughing:: You mean there are other reasons to have one? <G>
>
>Cheers,
>Gwen Smith
>(Who seems to be neither a first or a second waver)

I was a Punk/ New Waver...but it was really post-punk. Still am a
posting punk...

As far as ID- I'm a first waver on my mother's side, a third waver on
my fathers. I guess he skipped a genderation ;-)

But when I make my mind up I never waver. Ever.

Wave bye-bye, Cindy

Bye-bye.

Cindy


>
>--
> . .
>/\\//\ Gwendolyn Ann Smith * onQ Community Host, TCF
>> () < Board Member, GEA * Webmistress, TransBay
>\/()\/ Webmistress, SCCatl * Webmistress,TSMCCenter
>"I want this to be a harmony of voices" - Lauren D. Wilson
>**Posts may not reflect the views of the above organizations

-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

grrl@petal

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:

>sco...@pacbell.net
>


>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.

>


>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
>because they think that is why I had SRS.

I got mine because I was playing truth or dare and I'm a patent liar.

I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced lie. And
then they really don't get it, hets that is. Not like I do }8-)

Cindy
Among the Queerest of the Queer

KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
cinzi...@go-slut.com wrote:

>I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced lie.

Hmmmm a while back it wasn't ! ;-)

-Karen A.

Rach...@webtv.net

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
Karen A.,

How do you deal with the fact that your wife does not recognize you as a
woman?

Are you planning a divorce unless you
get this affirmation?

I think it is great if it does not bother you, but
identifying as a female but not getting that
from my spouse would be bothersome
to me personally.

rachael renee


Nicole Hamilton

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
"grrl@petal" <sli...@bitch.net> wrote:
> Cindy
> Among the Queerest of the Queer

Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it
possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore? I'm thinking I
might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.

Nicki

Stephe

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

KarenA1013 wrote in message
<19991231144329...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...

>ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has
bee
>>upheld in
>>>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
>>
>>Whatever... Looks like it to me..
>
>Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing up
or having male
>sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
>


So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?

Having your crotch modified doesn't change who you are as you
already know.

That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
you are seen as one..

Stephe

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187

KarenA1013

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
Rach...@webtv.net wrote:

>How do you deal with the fact that your wife does not recognize you as a
>woman?

It hurts.

>Are you planning a divorce unless you
>get this affirmation?

I have tld her we can not tsay togther indefineyly without that acceptance -
but no specific divorce plans. The situation is a bit more complex than it
seems as weel.

>I think it is great if it does not bother you, but
>identifying as a female but not getting that
>from my spouse would be bothersome
>to me personally.

It does bother me and makes it very difficult to feel settled as a woman even
post SRS.

We both love each other very much. She does not really want to leave me but is
very unhappy that I'm insisting she truely see me as a woman.

She says she would be happy to saty with me forever as long as I do not insist
on that level of acceptance from her.

For my part I really like being with her but I do feel the relationship is
hurting my development as a woman. My being physically attracted exclusive to
men complicates things futher.

So what keeps me with her (we have been married 15 years) are:
1) Love and compatability
2) Knowng she can not survive by herself either emotionally or economically
because of an illness.
3) Sense of responsibility. She told me about her ilness before we married but
I did not tell I was T
4) My looks. I've got a very big masuline body and a normal life in mainstream
society is not possible for me. I could not face that life alone. If I passed
well and was normal sized for a woman staying togther would be much more
difficult.

-Karen A.

Karen A.

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote:

> >Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing up
> or having male
> >sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
> >
>
>
> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?

That is rather disengeuous. I was talking about SRS not being cosmetic
surgery not about gender/

> Having your crotch modified doesn't change who you are as you
> already know.

It does - but not in the way you are assumming I mean.

> That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
> you are seen as one..

I never said it did.

-Karen A.

grrl@petal

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 16:42:45 -0500, "Nicole Hamilton"
<hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:

>"grrl@petal" <sli...@bitch.net> wrote:
>> Cindy
>> Among the Queerest of the Queer
>
>Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it
>possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore?

Uhuh. 8-)

> I'm thinking I
>might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.

Careful, then. Deb Marsh is stalking around the area. Has a cam
attatched to my heart. 8-)

Cindy

grrl@petal

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Uhuh. But then I found out where my libido went ;-)

I love you, Deborah 8-)

Stephe

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Karen A. wrote in message <199912311708061696721@[10.0.2.15]>...

"I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not


identify as female
even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
the need for
SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female."

Or did someone else write this and sign your name?


Stephe


Karen A.

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote:

> "I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not
> identify as female
> even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
> the need for
> SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female."
>
> Or did someone else write this and sign your name?

Read what that says and don't embellish. It does not say that
identifying as female is the *only* thing that makes makes one a woman.

-Karen A.

Deb Marsh

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
GGRRRRRR!!

Debs

Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote in message
news:or9b4.2835$wG6.2...@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net...


> "grrl@petal" <sli...@bitch.net> wrote:
> > Cindy
> > Among the Queerest of the Queer
>
> Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it

> possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore? I'm thinking


I
> might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.
>

> Nicki
>
>

Deb Marsh

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
grrl@petal <sli...@bitch.net> wrote in message
news:386d2acb...@news.newsfeeds.com...

> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 16:42:45 -0500, "Nicole Hamilton"
> <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:
>
> >"grrl@petal" <sli...@bitch.net> wrote:
> >> Cindy
> >> Among the Queerest of the Queer
> >
> >Hah! Love the tagline! But, hey girl, do you read your mail? Or is it
> >possible I'm writing to an address you don't check anymore?
>
> Uhuh. 8-)

>
> > I'm thinking I
> >might be up for a visit to your neighborhood.
>
> Careful, then. Deb Marsh is stalking around the area. Has a cam
> attached to my heart. 8-)
>
> Cindy

Hey, pumpkin, don't worry about me - I'm the unpossessive type (NOT)

Deborah

Karen A.

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote:

> I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
> =can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.

I can do that thought experiment and logically derive the consequences -
but it has not sense of emotional reality to me.

> You already know of several people who claim that very thing. Unless
> you secretly believe thaey are totally delusional (which then calls
> your own choices in life into questions), that part should be fairly
> easy.

I don't think you or stephe are delusional. I recongnize that personal
realities are just that - personal and unique.

> The next step is the hard one... you must try to assume that
> particular mindset. Try it on, think about how you would feel, about
> what it would mean, how you would respond in various situations.

Teh feeling part is difucult. I personally can not make an emotional
connection to the logical construct.

> This is called empathy. Traditionally, it is considered both a
> feminine trait, and a virtue.

I amconsider by a number of people ti be very empathetic... but I
empathize with people - not ideas, if you understand what I mean.

> While in this mental space, read back over your own words on the
> subject... What do you see? What do you feel?

I know where you are going obviously. Yet discussion of ideas which
impact people;s views if tehir lives are always distressing to some
reguardless of intention. Should we not discuss our options and feelings
on this subject because of it?

> As a scientist, you should have a very well developed imagination...
> I'm sure that if you really wanted to understand, you could.

Heck I don't understand why I know myself to be a woman!

-Karen A.

grrl@petal

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

NOT is right. You,ve got me where you want me, and it's where I want
to be forever, sweetness. But don't forget: I actually own
you...except not lately....how did you do that anyway? };-)

Nmmmmhhhph

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Suzan Cooke <sco...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:386C3254...@postoffice.pacbell.net...

> Karen, you are off on a bizaare JU line. They are women. Living as
women as
> long as they have actually makes them more woman than you. Woman=Gender,
> plumbing=sex. You seem to think for some strange reason that you are
better
> because you had a little bit of skin shifted. It ani't the surgery it's
the
> living.

Since you have chose to drag me into this, I would point out that as far as
*I* am concerned, it would depend on why they did not have surgery. Some
people cannot have surgery for medical reasons. But, when someone says,
"Hey, sure I have a penis, but I am a woman," I have to agree with Karen, it
raises questions.

--
Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386c40c6....@news.uswest.net...

> I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
> =can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.

Sorry, but that is simply not a premise I can see as true.

> You already know of several people who claim that very thing. Unless
> you secretly believe thaey are totally delusional (which then calls
> your own choices in life into questions), that part should be fairly
> easy.

They do not have to be "totally delusional."

> The next step is the hard one... you must try to assume that
> particular mindset. Try it on, think about how you would feel, about
> what it would mean, how you would respond in various situations.

I have considered this, and that is why I find it too incredible to accept.

> This is called empathy. Traditionally, it is considered both a
> feminine trait, and a virtue.

It is.

> While in this mental space, read back over your own words on the
> subject... What do you see? What do you feel?
>

> As a scientist, you should have a very well developed imagination...
> I'm sure that if you really wanted to understand, you could.

People can believe a lot of things that others simply cannot accept. I
cannot see someone as a woman, who truly wishes to have a penis.

--
Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:84i8lm$qm0$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...

> Amazing.... You're upset because your wife won't accept you "in
> her heart" as a woman yet **YOU** yourself won't accept someone
> else who identifies as a woman themselves as such because they
> didn't have some cosmetic surgery like you did?

SRS is not cosmetic surgery.

> Think about how shallow that sounds... Life is just a little more
> than ones crotch..

That is true, but how one sees their crotch is prettty significant.

> This is exactly what I find truly sad about all of this..
>
> TG's are unaccepted by the people who actually have a chance of
> understanding.

One cannot understand something that makes absolutely no sense.

--
Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d4bf3....@news.uswest.net...

> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.

Nope, that is simply not true.

--
Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote in message
news:JK7b4.2794$wG6.2...@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net...

> And perhaps in a related way, SRS was definitely not, for me, the most
> important part of transition. Mind you, I'm definitely happy to look in
the
> mirror and see that it definitely is female down there now. But even I
> don't see what's there more than a few times a day. I'm not active yet,
so
> perhaps my perspective will change in time, but for me, SRS did not really
> change my life. It wasn't as important for me as the facial work or
breast
> augmentation, both of which did, as instantaneously as a thunderclap,
change
> the way I related to the world and it to me.

That's a lot of it for me. How can one look in the mirror, see a penis
hanging there, *be happy that it is there*, and consider oneself to actually
be a woman? I am not obsessive about it, but I won't miss it when it is
gone.

--
Jennifer Usher

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:84j8bq$cb9$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...

> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?

That is an old joke. "How can you tell if a crossdresser has used the
bathroom? The toilet seat is up." If you stand to pee, then it really does
raise questions about any claim to be a woman.

> Having your crotch modified doesn't change who you are as you
> already know.
>

> That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
> you are seen as one..

No, it actually doesn't. But, choosing to not have it done, because you
wish to have a penis, does make you a man.

--
Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d5449....@news.uswest.net...


> It doesn't matter... it clearly establishes a one to one
> correspondence between sex and gender.
>
> For the last few posts you have been squirming around and playing word
> games to avoid admiting the harshness of your position.

I tell you what, let me cut through the BS, and make a simple statement. If
you *want* your sex to be male, then you gender is not, repeat not, female.
It is that simple. If you *want* to have a penis, you are a male. You may
be a crossdresser, a transgenderist, a drag queen, or something else, but
you are a man.

--
Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d5e8f....@news.uswest.net...

> >Sorry, but that is simply not a premise I can see as true.
>

> That's ok.
>
> I didn't for even one minute entertain the idea that you were capable
> of empathizing with TGs.
>
> I've grown to know you too well <G>.

Why do you post claiming you are not interested in a flame war, and then
make remarks like this? I am being honest. I cannot see that premise as
true, and that is based on looking at it from the "TG" point of view. I am
perfectly capable of accepting that you disagree without resorting to
insults and taunts. It is a shame that you are not.

--
Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d5fbd....@news.uswest.net...

> >> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
> >> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
> >
> >Nope, that is simply not true.
>

> It is truly my opinion.

It is truly some people's opinions that gays have an agenda to recruit
children.
It is truly some people's opinion that the only reason to have SRS is to
have sex with men (or women in the case of FTMs).
Shoot, it is truly some people's opinion that all blacks play basketball,
eat fried chicken, and love watermelon.
I could add any number of false opinions that are truly believed.

The question is, does someone continue believing them when they are told
that they are wrong, or do they seek to learn if they might actually be
mistaken?

--
Jennifer Usher

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d6273....@news.uswest.net...

> >> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
> >

> >If you stand to pee, then it really does
> >raise questions about any claim to be a woman.
>

> Thanks for the humor!

It is not entirely a joke. Standing to pee is often identified as a male
virtue.

--
Jennifer Usher


Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d4bf3....@news.uswest.net...

> On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:
>
> >sco...@pacbell.net
> >
> >> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
> >
> >Isn't that typical of first waver's?

> >
> >And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm
het
> >because they think that is why I had SRS.
>
> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
>

That is overly broad - you probably should have put it as "sexual
intercourse outside of marriage or intended for pleasure and not procreation
(though if intended for pleasure _and_ procreation, it's okay . . . for
married people)"

(Though the Calvinistic types might leave out the pleasure part altogether.)

Joann

[]> Hugs,
> Loree
>
> "Immortality: My long life ambition."

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d5fbd....@news.uswest.net...

> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:39:36 -0600, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> >news:386d4bf3....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> >> One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the
> >> idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.
> >
> >Nope, that is simply not true.
>
> It is truly my opinion.
>
But it _really_ isn't true, objectively. The caveats are missing. It
doesn't even rise to the level of truth of an incomplete statement. (Plus,
I'd blame the Roman Republic.)

Joann

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jYcb4.11364$y11.1...@news4.mia...

>
> Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote in message
> news:JK7b4.2794$wG6.2...@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> That's a lot of it for me. How can one look in the mirror, see a penis
> hanging there, *be happy that it is there*, and consider oneself to
actually
> be a woman? I am not obsessive about it, but I won't miss it when it is
> gone.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>

That's it! The part between the asterisks! I think a number of people out
there are _not_ happy that "it" is there, but aren't tracking for SRS,
because they are able to ignore it. If one doesn't plan to use it, and
isn't planning to "use" the surgical replacement, either, the question
becomes one of "why bother going through a dangerous, painful and expensive
surgical procedure."

I am not trying to convince you that SRS is wrong for you. But that is a
matter of degree of the intensity of the dysphoria.

Joann


--
****************************************************************************
* Joann Percy
*
* visit my website at:
*
* http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Chelsea/8828/ *
****************************************************************************
*


Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:84j8bq$cb9$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> KarenA1013 wrote in message
> <19991231144329...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
> >ste...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> >>>First and formost SRS is *not* cosmetic surgery and that has
> bee
> >>upheld in
> >>>court. It is reconstuctive surgery that affects function.
> >>
> >>Whatever... Looks like it to me..
> >
> >Look's like cosmetic surgery? Afterwards try peeing standing up
> or having male
> >sex afterwards or vaginal sex before...
> >
>
>
> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
>
> Having your crotch modified doesn't change who you are as you
> already know.
>
> That in and of itself doesn't make you a woman even if legally
> you are seen as one..
>
> Stephe
>
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187
>

Stephe, I have been following this thread, and I think you ought to consider
not pursuing it any farther. You have made your point, and keeping at it is
only going to be seen as mean.

You and Karen are _both_ right about SRS.

It _is_ cosmetic surgery; and it _is_ functional.

Cosmetic to the extent that it only changes the appearance of the genitals,
but doesn't provide a complete reproductive system, and functional to the
extent that it provides aproximately the same sort of function that is
available to a born-woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.

A post-op M2F TS doesn't have menses, can't get pregnant, but neither can
that post-hysterectomee, either.

Both _are_ women, legally (except in parts of Texas where the judges haven't
evolved from being large ignorant primates yet), and functionally. The
post-hysterectomee might _feel_ like less of a woman. (and hey, if it was a
him having the hysterectomy as part of an F2M procedure, that "feeling less
like a woman" part is a _good_ thing!)

Stephe, your posts on this thread make it seem like all you want to do is
convince other people that the way you see things is the only right way. It
is right for you, as I have pointed out in other threads where people are
criticizing you.

And Karen's way is right for her.

The situation with Karen's wife's acceptance situation? I posted on that,
and after making my points, I stopped. I wish Karen luck on that issue, and
envy her for what she _has_ - especially after going through my recent
divorce. Expecting someone to change the way they feel in their heart is,
in my opinion, asking more than one can reasonably expect. Acceptance, yes,
that is important, but it doesn't have to be so totally complete as to be
Orwellian.

Joann


Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Karen A. <k...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:199912311745331832066@[10.0.2.15]...

Karen,

I just posted at a point earlier on the thread, to take issue with Stephe.

Here is where I will take the opportunity to take issue with _you_.

Sex and gender are separate issues. One can be female gendered without SRS,
and be treated socially as female without SRS.

The surgery is not what defines a transsexual woman. For some it isn't
necessary. For others, it is.

In your case, it was and that is fine. But don't deny others their gender
identity just because they don't track for surgery. There is truly room for
all of us.

Joann

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_3db4.11381$y11.1...@news4.mia...

>
> Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message

Jennifer, you are entitled to your opinion on that, but again. look between
those asterisks. One can fall short of SRS and still not _want_ her sex to
be male, or _want_ to have a penis. Having it and being able to deal with
it by pretty much ignoring it, is not the same as wanting it. So your
formulation is correct, but your application may be seen as incorrect,
because people will be reading into what you wrote.

Joann

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rudb4.11431$y11.1...@news4.mia...

>
> Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:386d6273....@news.uswest.net...

>
> > >> So that's how you define gender? Sit or stand?
> > >
> > >If you stand to pee, then it really does
> > >raise questions about any claim to be a woman.
> >
> > Thanks for the humor!
>
> It is not entirely a joke. Standing to pee is often identified as a male
> virtue.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>

Now, this may seem like the thing about the tree in the forest making a
sound, but I think the issue is really not whether one stands to pee, but
that one who *doesn't put the seat back down* is one for whom claims to be a
woman are suspect. Having the penis, even if one doesn't want it, is one
issue. But leaving the seat up is something *only* men do.

Joann

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:WLcb4.11338$y11.1...@news4.mia...

Raising questions is much better than passing judgment.

Joann
>
>

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:386d5e8f....@news.uswest.net...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:32:23 -0600, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote (as a suggetion to Karen A):

> >
> >> I have a suggestion for you... Start from the premise that someone
> >> =can= identify as a woman, and still not want a vagina.
> >
> >Sorry, but that is simply not a premise I can see as true.
>
> That's ok.
>
> I didn't for even one minute entertain the idea that you were capable
> of empathizing with TGs.
>
> I've grown to know you too well <G>.
>
> Hugs,
> Loree
>
> "Immortality: My long life ambition."

Loree, don't give up yet - Jennifer's "key fact" is "_want_ to have a
penis."

Transgenderists, by and large, would probably prefer to have been
born-women. I don't know of any full-timer who really _wants_ the penis
that she has. It's more of a burden than anything else. If one can deal
with it, it doesn't make one less of a woman than the one who _must_ have it
inverted, just a differen sort of woman.

(Yes, most postops still have their penis - it has just been inverted and
most of the erectile tissue removed (and in a real good surgery, part of the
erectile tissue is retained) - it's just called a neovagina. Some do prefer
the surgery that uses a colon section because of the mucus secretion, which
is a bit different - I have talked to a couple who had it done that way and
they're more than satisfied.)

Joann

Joann Prinzivalli

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to

Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Yldb4.11415$y11.1...@news4.mia...

>
> Loree Thomas <ltho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:386d5e8f....@news.uswest.net...
>
> > >Sorry, but that is simply not a premise I can see as true.
> >
> > That's ok.
> >
> > I didn't for even one minute entertain the idea that you were capable
> > of empathizing with TGs.
> >
> > I've grown to know you too well <G>.
>
> Why do you post claiming you are not interested in a flame war, and then
> make remarks like this? I am being honest. I cannot see that premise as
> true, and that is based on looking at it from the "TG" point of view. I
am
> perfectly capable of accepting that you disagree without resorting to
> insults and taunts. It is a shame that you are not.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>

There was a grin there, a *big* one. I saw it.

Karen A.

unread,
Jan 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/1/00
to
Nicole Hamilton <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:

>It wasn't as important for me as the facial work or breast
> augmentation, both of which did, as instantaneously as a thunderclap, change
> the way I related to the world and it to me.

The reason for that is the only thing about you physically that was
*way* out from the female physical norms was your face.

For me SRS was more important. The feeling of rightnes for that part of
my body was huge. Symbolically it also meant there was no going back (I
would not anyway). The facial work did not have that much internal
impact and without SRS, and would not have made it impossible for me to
live as a man.

So far the facial work has not made a huge difference in my experience.
I get read less but I still get read on the street.


-Karen A.

Loree Thomas

unread,
Jan 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/1/00
to
On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:

>sco...@pacbell.net
>
>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
>Isn't that typical of first waver's?
>
>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
>because they think that is why I had SRS.

One of the true evils perpetrated on humanity by Christianity... the


idea than anything related to sexual intercourse is somehow *bad*.

What possible difference can it make to you what motive people assign
for your decisions?

Do you worry that some will think you became a chemist because you
were interested in creating illicit drugs?

Do you worry that some will think you chose to settle (or remain) in
the Boston area because you like baked beans?

In most areas of your personal life, what other people think has
absolutely no significance. Why let it have any in this area?

I hypothesize the only reason possible for your expressed feeling is
that you are completely brainwashed by the Christian concept of "sex
is bad" and are worried that wanting sex with men IS part of the
reason you wanted SRS.

Loree Thomas

unread,
Jan 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/1/00
to
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:29:17 GMT, sli...@bitch.net (grrl@petal) wrote:

>On 31 Dec 1999 19:33:54 GMT, karen...@aol.com (KarenA1013) wrote:
>
>>sco...@pacbell.net
>>
>>> I got my pussy for much more carnal reasons than social.
>
>>

>>And got mine for myself. As I've said before I hate telling non-T's I'm het
>>because they think that is why I had SRS.
>

>I got mine because I was playing truth or dare and I'm a patent liar.
>
>I hate telling non Ts that I'm het because it's a bald-faced lie. And
>then they really don't get it, hets that is. Not like I do }8-)

I've looked at this queer vs het thing from all sides... and no matter
how I look at it, or who I'm attracted to, there doesn't seem to be
any escaping the fact that I am indeed queer as a 3 dollar bill... but
much more fun!

Loree Thomas

unread,
Jan 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/1/00
to
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 22:45:33 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Karen A.) wrote:

>Stephe <ste...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> "I belive that if they don't *desire* SRS than the do not
>> identify as female
>> even if they are very feminine. A TS identifies as female (thus
>> the need for
>> SRS). I belive a woman is someone who Identifies as female."
>>
>> Or did someone else write this and sign your name?
>
>Read what that says and don't embellish. It does not say that
>identifying as female is the *only* thing that makes makes one a woman.

It doesn't matter... it clearly establishes a one to one


correspondence between sex and gender.

For the last few posts you have been squirming around and playing word
games to avoid admiting the harshness of your position.

Hugs,