Introduction
Taemon
I am new here; connected this list yesterday. I am an androgyn and looking
for the likes of me. I think I am what you call 'transgendered' but this is
the first time I am looking for gender-stuff on the net (only got on the net
at my homeplace last week) and the terms and, more so, abbreviations :-)
are mostly new for me.
Let me tell you what I am. I am both what people call 'male' and what people
call 'female' I have learned what is considered 'male' and 'female' by
looking at the prejudices spilled out of mouths and newspapers. I can't tell
by looking at myself. I have never identified with one sex.
Okay, so you already know what I mean, right? This is luxury. This is bliss!
Are there really people here for whom it feels not right to be called either
'she' or 'he'? Me and my friends use sexism-free language among each other
but all the other people I deal with, 'naturally', don't. So I feel a bit
restrained. I have only the one body, in which I feel comfortable, but by
rights, I should be a hermafrodite. I have thought about an operation but
then I would of course have the same problem, only the added benefit of
having spent time as both sexes. I think that price is too high, though.
So I am a bit frustrated. But I wouldn't change my androgyny if I could. It
feels right for me. It's what I am. Enough for now: I'm looking forward to
getting to know you.
Greetings, T.
Taemon
Loree Thomas
>Hi All,
Hi back!
>I am new here; connected this list yesterday. I am an androgyn and looking
>for the likes of me. I think I am what you call 'transgendered' but this is
>the first time I am looking for gender-stuff on the net (only got on the net
>at my homeplace last week) and the terms and, more so, abbreviations :-)
>are mostly new for me.
Talk to Dave... He's our resident trans androdyne.
>Okay, so you already know what I mean, right? This is luxury. This is bliss!
Yup... we know.
>Me and my friends use sexism-free language among each other
>but all the other people I deal with, 'naturally', don't.
Well... let us know what pronouns you prefer and we'll try and use
them.
Sie, Zir?
>So I am a bit frustrated. But I wouldn't change my androgyny if I could. It
>feels right for me. It's what I am.
Amazing... though the labels change (TS/TG/CD/Andro), the words and
attitudes that go with them stay the same.
"It just feels right for me. It's what I am."
I've written (or spoken) those exact two sentences on more than one
occasion.
Welcome to our little corner of Usenet, Taemon.
Hugs,
Loree
"Immortality: My long life ambition."
Kim Dorin
Welcome to the group. As an androgyne I think that you're part of a pretty
big group, particularly considering that you can be androgynous from the
male or female side and of course bang in the middle!
>I think I am what you call 'transgendered'.
Guess that's why you're here. Do you mean that you want to be androgynous
fom the female side (if you're male now or vice versa)? I certainly know M2F
TSs who went thru a fem phase but then moved back to androgynous. All is
possible!
>Let me tell you what I am. I am both what people call 'male' and what
people
>call 'female' I have learned what is considered 'male' and 'female' by
>looking at the prejudices spilled out of mouths and newspapers. I can't
tell
>by looking at myself. I have never identified with one sex.
Sound pretty healthy to me.
>Okay, so you already know what I mean, right? This is luxury. This is
bliss!
>Are there really people here for whom it feels not right to be called
either
>'she' or 'he'? Me and my friends use sexism-free language among each other
>but all the other people I deal with, 'naturally', don't. So I feel a bit
>restrained. I have only the one body, in which I feel comfortable, but by
>rights, I should be a hermafrodite. I have thought about an operation but
>then I would of course have the same problem, only the added benefit of
>having spent time as both sexes. I think that price is too high, though.
From the way you've described yourself, I'd agree.
>So I am a bit frustrated. But I wouldn't change my androgyny if I could. It
>feels right for me. It's what I am. Enough for now: I'm looking forward to
>getting to know you.
I'm not so clear on what's frustrating you, apart from our gender crazed
society of course.
Anyway, have fun here. Please write more.
Regards
Kim
TLM
I am a non-op TGist, living fulltime as a woman. I have said that same
phrase, or something similar: "I am just being who I want to be."
Tommie M.
http://www.flash.net/~tonmcc
Taemon wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am new here; connected this list yesterday. I am an androgyn and looking
> for the likes of me. I think I am what you call 'transgendered' but this is
> the first time I am looking for gender-stuff on the net (only got on the net
> at my homeplace last week) and the terms and, more so, abbreviations :-)
> are mostly new for me.
>
> Let me tell you what I am. I am both what people call 'male' and what people
> call 'female' I have learned what is considered 'male' and 'female' by
> looking at the prejudices spilled out of mouths and newspapers. I can't tell
> by looking at myself. I have never identified with one sex.
>
> Okay, so you already know what I mean, right? This is luxury. This is bliss!
> Are there really people here for whom it feels not right to be called either
> 'she' or 'he'? Me and my friends use sexism-free language among each other
> but all the other people I deal with, 'naturally', don't. So I feel a bit
> restrained. I have only the one body, in which I feel comfortable, but by
> rights, I should be a hermafrodite. I have thought about an operation but
> then I would of course have the same problem, only the added benefit of
> having spent time as both sexes. I think that price is too high, though.
>
> So I am a bit frustrated. But I wouldn't change my androgyny if I could. It
> feels right for me. It's what I am. Enough for now: I'm looking forward to
> getting to know you.
>
> Greetings, T.
Taemon
> > I think I am what you call 'transgendered' but this is
> >the first time I am looking for gender-stuff on the net (only got on the
net
> >at my homeplace last week) and the terms and, more so, abbreviations :-)
> >are mostly new for me.
> Talk to Dave... He's our resident trans androdyne.
Ah. Dave? What is a trans androgyn? :-)
> >Me and my friends use sexism-free language among each other
> >but all the other people I deal with, 'naturally', don't.
> Well... let us know what pronouns you prefer and we'll try and use
> them.
<beam> :-)
> Sie, Zir?
Zir is fine. Sie is German for "she". We use "xe".
> >So I am a bit frustrated. But I wouldn't change my androgyny if I could.
It
> >feels right for me. It's what I am.
> Amazing... though the labels change (TS/TG/CD/Andro), the words and
> attitudes that go with them stay the same.
>
> "It just feels right for me. It's what I am."
True... I didn't really realize that. The TS's I know have been through so
much, I never had that problem. I feel one-sided, not wrong.
> Welcome to our little corner of Usenet, Taemon.
Thank you, Loree.
Love, T.
Taemon
> Welcome to the group. As an androgyne I think that you're part of a pretty
> big group, particularly considering that you can be androgynous from the
> male or female side and of course bang in the middle!
This is good to hear... :-) I have lots of friends and some of them are not
very 'polarized' as I call them but none is as I am, right in the middle. I
feel warm for having eventually found the likes of me.
> >I think I am what you call 'transgendered'.
> Guess that's why you're here. Do you mean that you want to be androgynous
> fom the female side (if you're male now or vice versa)? I certainly know
M2F
> TSs who went thru a fem phase but then moved back to androgynous. All is
> possible!
So I learned. I don't know all the abbreviations, though. Is there a FAQ or
something? And as to what I want to be, I think hermafrodite would come
closest. Living in a hermafrodist world, of course. I really don't want to
be a freak.
> > I have never identified with one sex.
> Sound pretty healthy to me.
Then you are weird ;-)
> >So I am a bit frustrated. But I wouldn't change my androgyny if I could.
It
> >feels right for me. It's what I am. Enough for now: I'm looking forward
to
> >getting to know you.
> I'm not so clear on what's frustrating you, apart from our gender crazed
> society of course.
Well, that's a big part of it. Total strangers approaching me, asking me
"what I am''. Having to fill in your sex at every form you complete (or not
complete, as the case may be). But mainly that I don't feel of one sex but
have a body that says I am. It's restraining. I want more.
> Anyway, have fun here. Please write more.
Thank you.
Love, T.
Taemon
> First: welcome to the group.
Thank you.
> I am a non-op TGist, living fulltime as a woman.
Let's see. Non-op is non-operated, right? T is trans, but gist? Oh,
genderist. Transgenderist is not the same as intergender, right? You have
the body of a man, living as a woman?
I have said that same
> phrase, or something similar: "I am just being who I want to be."
Good for you. For us.
Love, T.
David Weinshenker
> Loree wrote:
> > > I think I am what you call 'transgendered' but this is
> > > the first time I am looking for gender-stuff on the net
> > > (only got on the net at my homeplace last week) and the
> > > terms and, more so, abbreviations :-) are mostly new for me.
> > Talk to Dave... He's our resident trans androdyne.
> Ah. Dave? What is a trans androgyn? :-)
Hi, Taemon... I'm still trying to figure that out myself.
"Trans-androgyne" is a term I sort of invented to describe
a person who was born male (or female) but doesn't especially
feel like a "man" or a "woman".
I have this strange suspicion that some of us, those for whom
it is a situation of clinically-intense dysphoria, must have a
strange time with traditional transgender clinical notions.
"If you can't tolerate living as a Man, we can offer treatments
to turn you into a Woman."
But what if one is somewhere in between (I think I am) and being
fully "feminine" or "masculine" would both be artificial extremes.
-dave w
Taemon
> > Ah. Dave? What is a trans androgyn? :-)
> Hi, Taemon... I'm still trying to figure that out myself.
> "Trans-androgyne" is a term I sort of invented to describe
> a person who was born male (or female) but doesn't especially
> feel like a "man" or a "woman".
Ah, that's me. I just call that androgyne. That doesn't satisfy you?
> I have this strange suspicion that some of us, those for whom
> it is a situation of clinically-intense dysphoria, must have a
> strange time with traditional transgender clinical notions.
Another label we don't fit under... :-) I am not dysphore.
> "If you can't tolerate living as a Man, we can offer treatments
> to turn you into a Woman."
> But what if one is somewhere in between (I think I am) and being
> fully "feminine" or "masculine" would both be artificial extremes.
It sure would. So I decided against operation. Maybe some hormones, to get
more inbetween? Nah, I'm afraid it would only make me a freak. The bearded
lady. I want to be a hermafrodite, living in a world of hermafrodites. Can't
be. I'll just have to deal with it.
There is this sf-writer, John Varley. Xe has made a world in which you can
build yourself into whatever. People change sex a lot. It's my dream. That
books really made me discontended for a while. But what is there to do? We
are not living in a story. How do you cope?
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
>It sure would. So I decided against operation. Maybe some hormones, to get
>more inbetween? Nah, I'm afraid it would only make me a freak. The bearded
>lady. I want to be a hermafrodite, living in a world of hermafrodites. Can't
>be. I'll just have to deal with it.
I'm not sure I understand your aversion to being a "freak". It sounds
to me like you already are... at least as far as your internal sense
of gender goes. That describes me as well. I found the negative
aspects of being a "freak" in society had been overblown in my own
mind... as well as in the cautionary tales of others.
I've been on hormones for over two years now. My body has undergone
significant change, it is fairly obvious to people that I am a mixture
of male and female physically.
The "bad" stuff hasn't happened though.
>There is this sf-writer, John Varley. Xe has made a world in which you can
>build yourself into whatever. People change sex a lot. It's my dream. That
>books really made me discontended for a while. But what is there to do? We
>are not living in a story. How do you cope?
Varley is pretty good. I've got a recomendation for you for a GREAT
book that deals with a human society that has 5 different recognised
sexes.
"Shadow Man" by Melissa S. Scott
Taemon
> >It sure would. So I decided against operation. Maybe some hormones, to
> >get more inbetween? Nah, I'm afraid it would only make me a freak. The
> >bearded lady. I want to be a hermafrodite, living in a world of
> >hermafrodites. Can't be. I'll just have to deal with it.
> I'm not sure I understand your aversion to being a "freak". It sounds
> to me like you already are... at least as far as your internal sense
> of gender goes.
Yeah, but nobody notice so I can live the way I want, pretty much. All I
need is to sow some confusion now and then about my sex, which is not
difficult. Although the need is growing and I think I have to find out more
about cross-dressing (inter-dressing? trans-dressing, I think) but I can
deal with that one. If I were a "freak", it would influence my whole life. I
don't know if I can pay the price, you know?
> That describes me as well. I found the negative
> aspects of being a "freak" in society had been overblown in my own
> mind... as well as in the cautionary tales of others.
Hm. This is VERY interesting. Can you tell me more?
> I've been on hormones for over two years now. My body has undergone
> significant change, it is fairly obvious to people that I am a mixture
> of male and female physically.
Really? How do you look? How do people react? Where are you going? What
would feel right for me is... let me think... no facial hair, broad
cheekbones, small breasts... as for the genitals, I don't know. There's just
no way I can be a hermafrodite, is there? Also, it would really mess up my
sex-life, which is pretty normal :-}
> The "bad" stuff hasn't happened though.
Cool.
> Varley is pretty good. I've got a recomendation for you for a GREAT
> book that deals with a human society that has 5 different recognised
> sexes.
>
> "Shadow Man" by Melissa S. Scott
Thanks! I'll write that down. Maybe you already know this one:
http://users.lanminds.com/~mohanraj/balist.html
I read fantasy all the time, for the freedom it gives us.
Love, T.
David Weinshenker
> as for the genitals, I don't know. There's just
> no way I can be a hermafrodite, is there?
Hmmm... Riki Anne Wilchins has some thoughts in "Read My Lips"
which I quote below.
-dave w
- - beginquote - -
And of course, the only surgery most doctors will perform is one
from column A or one from column B: there is no intermediate ground.
But, as Dana Priesling notes, if Nature naturally makes intersexed
people, then what could possibly be wrong with wanting to become
intersexed? [...] Logically, since surgery doesn't make one anything,
nor does having a penis prevent one from being anything else, why not
have designer genitals?
(p.121-122)
And please do not refer me to arguments of pathology or functioning.
It is manifestly the case that some intersexed bodies function well
sexually, and sometimes in ways we cannot imagine. Holly [Boswell]
described to me a wonderful intersexed adult video that I have been
trying to get my grubby little hands on. It is of two people, both
with penises and cunts, penetrating and being penetrated by each
other, simultaneously. She said it was the most complete, moving,
and beautiful merging of two human bodies she had ever witnessed.
(p.119)
- - endquote - -
Taemon
> > as for the genitals, I don't know. There's just
> > no way I can be a hermafrodite, is there?
> Hmmm... Riki Anne Wilchins has some thoughts in "Read My Lips"
> which I quote below.
> It is of two people, both
> with penises and cunts, penetrating and being penetrated by each
> other, simultaneously. She said it was the most complete, moving,
> and beautiful merging of two human bodies she had ever witnessed.
"being penetrated"... well, I'll rant about female-hostile speech another
time. Anyway, this is one of the problems, isn't it? Even if I could be a
hermafrodite, how would I find another? Another I like? And if I don't,
well... there goes the sex-life. Most normals wouldn't want a hermafrodite.
I don't want that, neither. No, I think I'll keep the genitals the way they
are. Still, it's an enticing thought.
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
>Loree wrote:
>> That describes me as well. I found the negative
>> aspects of being a "freak" in society had been overblown in my own
>> mind... as well as in the cautionary tales of others.
>
>Hm. This is VERY interesting. Can you tell me more?
What more would you like to know?
>> I've been on hormones for over two years now. My body has undergone
>> significant change, it is fairly obvious to people that I am a mixture
>> of male and female physically.
>
>Really? How do you look?
http://www.users.uswest.net/~lthomas1/
>How do people react? Where are you going?
I talk about that constantly... in fact I mentioned it in a reply to
another post just earlier today. As a general rule, most people don't
react much at all. Some are curious or friendly and a very few go out
of their way to make sure I know that they know I'm male. Maybe one
out of 1000 acts hostile... or maybe it's 10,000... it's so rare it's
hard to quantify.
As for where I'm going... I'm pretty much already there. I live as a
transgendered woman 24/7. I've legally changed my name (Not really
changed... just swapped it end for end!) but not my sex.
Someday, I might even complete electrolysis.. but my beard shadow is
pretty light anyway.
>What
>would feel right for me is... let me think... no facial hair, broad
>cheekbones, small breasts... as for the genitals, I don't know. There's just
>no way I can be a hermafrodite, is there?
It's technically possible, but I don't think any reputable surgeon
would agree to perform the operation.
Wait a few years... things might change.
>Also, it would really mess up mysex-life, which is pretty normal :-}
There wouldn't be much point in a herm op if you didn't maintain your
old function as well as acquire new... might as well just have SRS in
that case.
"Normal" seems a strange word. I guess mine is pretty "normal"
too.... for a bisexual transwoman.
>> "Shadow Man" by Melissa S. Scott
>
>Thanks! I'll write that down. Maybe you already know this one:
>http://users.lanminds.com/~mohanraj/balist.html
I wasn't aware of that site, thank you! It's now book marked.
BTW, Melissa Scott is listed there... and seeing her listing reminded
me of another of her books that was superb (they are all good):
"Trouble and Her Friends"
Lesbian Cyberpunk at it's finest!
TLM
Well, not much of the body looks male anymore, just the genital area.
The rest has been hormonally changed enough to be seen as female, even
when sparcely dressed. The sexual function is virtually nill. I live
fulltime as a woman. I don't have a need for SRS at this time in my
life.
If you have any further questions, e-mail me directly. (I use my true
address on my posts). http://www.flash.net/~tonmcc
Tommie M.
Taemon
> >> That describes me as well. I found the negative
> >> aspects of being a "freak" in society had been overblown in my own
> >> mind... as well as in the cautionary tales of others.
> >Hm. This is VERY interesting. Can you tell me more?
> What more would you like to know?
The negative aspects existed only in your head and that of others, you say.
Still, that doesn't make them real? Reality didn't live up to it? How did it
work out, can you tell me?
> >Really? How do you look?
> http://www.users.uswest.net/~lthomas1/
Ah. Gosh, your attractive. But that's beside the point :-) I think you look
quite female, though. The dress might have something to do with that :-)
Your face has changed, right? Are your genitals, er, of one kind, if I may
ask?
> As a general rule, most people don't
> react much at all. Some are curious or friendly and a very few go out
> of their way to make sure I know that they know I'm male.
Hehe :-) Some of my friends use "woman!" for calling me names :-)
> As for where I'm going... I'm pretty much already there. I live as a
> transgendered woman 24/7. I've legally changed my name (Not really
> changed... just swapped it end for end!) but not my sex.
Ah, that answers my other question. But then, again, if I may ask, how is
your sex-life? Did you already have a partner? See, I would like to change a
bit more to the middle but if that means I couldn't find sexpartners
anymore, beside freaks who get excited by freaks I don't know if the remedy
isn't worse that the 'disease'. See my doubts? But the whole idea of
changing my body is new to me. Probably I would find some of those answers
myself, taken the time. But why wait if there are experienced freaks around
here? ;-)
> > There's just no way I can be a hermafrodite, is there?
> It's technically possible, but I don't think any reputable surgeon
> would agree to perform the operation.
Nope. I don't think I would do that, even if it was possible. A bit too
heavy.
> >Also, it would really mess up mysex-life, which is pretty normal :-}
> There wouldn't be much point in a herm op if you didn't maintain your
> old function as well as acquire new... might as well just have SRS in
> that case.
Yep.
> "Normal" seems a strange word. I guess mine is pretty "normal"
> too.... for a bisexual transwoman.
For me, whatever I am, is normal for me. That's what normal means to be, to
be what you are. But I can't deny the fact I'm living in a society in which
most people are 'polarized' and prefer other polarized people; I don't
encounter any problems with my androgyny except my own occasional
frustration but I would as a hermafrodite. It would heal the frustration,
though. I have to play with the idea for a while.
> "Trouble and Her Friends"
I remember that title... I'll check it out. Thanks.
Love, T.
Taemon
> Well, not much of the body looks male anymore, just the genital area.
> The rest has been hormonally changed enough to be seen as female, even
> when sparcely dressed.
I looked at the pictures. You look female, all right.
The sexual function is virtually nill. I live
> fulltime as a woman. I don't have a need for SRS at this time in my
> life.
So you don't have sex? Hm, I'm talking about sex a lot but then, I wouldn't
want to live without. Well, you surely sound like you have found a
fullfillling live. Me, I woulnd't want to live fulltime as a woman, though.
Or as a man. But to have such a trans-gendered body does sound attractive to
me. Hm. Thinking. Thinking.
> If you have any further questions, e-mail me directly. (I use my true
> address on my posts). http://www.flash.net/~tonmcc
You don't want to talk in the group?
Love, T.
David Weinshenker
> David wrote:
> > > Ah. Dave? What is a trans androgyn? :-)
> > Hi, Taemon... I'm still trying to figure that out myself.
> > "Trans-androgyne" is a term I sort of invented to describe
> > a person who was born male (or female) but doesn't especially
> > feel like a "man" or a "woman".
> Ah, that's me. I just call that androgyne.
> That doesn't satisfy you?
To some extent it does! "Trans-androgyne" is a term I sort of
invented, partly in the context of some conversations that
were going on in this newsgroup about the circumstances in
which a M->F individual would be considered a "transsexual
woman" or a "transgendered woman", and I had come to recognize
that I could see myself in terms of some sort of "trans" identity,
male of body but not the same thing on the "inside", but not really
"woman" on the "inside" either. Since the distinction between
"transsexual" and "transgendered" seemed (a) to be a subject
of intense and emotional debate, and (b) based on criteria
(such as the intention to have full SRS) that seemed more
applicable to trans-women than androgynes (or even trans-men),
I decided to not step in that debate and just call myself a
trans-androgyne. (I like "intergendered" too.)
> > I have this strange suspicion that some of us, those for whom
> > it is a situation of clinically-intense dysphoria, must have a
> > strange time with traditional transgender clinical notions.
>
> Another label we don't fit under... :-) I am not dysphore.
Me neither... I'm just contemplating the predicament of someone
who was, who found the conflict between their biological sex and
their underlying androgyny to be so intense and stressful as to
indicate seeking clinical aid... I'm wondering if this might be
an unrecognized factor in some cases of individuals who present
as genuinely "gender-dysphoric" males, but find themselves
unable to transition to "female" despite multiple incomplete
attempts.
> > "If you can't tolerate living as a Man, we can offer treatments
> > to turn you into a Woman."
> > But what if one is somewhere in between (I think I am) and being
> > fully "feminine" or "masculine" would both be artificial extremes.
>
> It sure would. So I decided against operation. Maybe some hormones,
> to get more inbetween?
I've been wondering about this myself! I've been thinking about low
doses of estrogen, perhaps, more like what would be used for a post-
menopausal supplement than the higher doses that are be used for
an "aggressively feminizing" effect for transitioning M->F.
> There is this sf-writer, John Varley. Xe has made a world in which
> you can build yourself into whatever. People change sex a lot. It's
> my dream.
Yes, fluididity would be nice... a little adjustment-screw that could
be set to M or F or anything in between?
> That books really made me discontended for a while. But what is
> there to do? We are not living in a story. How do you cope?
As well as possible... awareness and gentleness go a long way.
I've only recently started to explore this part of myself...
-dave w
Taemon
> > Ah, that's me. I just call that androgyne.
> > That doesn't satisfy you?
> To some extent it does! "Trans-androgyne" is a term I sort of
> invented, partly in the context of some conversations that
> were going on in this newsgroup about the circumstances in
> which a M->F individual
As an aside: It seems there are more MtF's here than FtM's. Is it more
common, or are they more on the net, or is it just here, or don't you know,
either? :-)
> would be considered a "transsexual
> woman" or a "transgendered woman", and I had come to recognize
> that I could see myself in terms of some sort of "trans" identity,
> male of body but not the same thing on the "inside", but not really
> "woman" on the "inside" either.
Hmmm.... so the 'trans' means something like 'passing from one to the other
and staying inbetween'?
> Since the distinction between
> "transsexual" and "transgendered" seemed (a) to be a subject
> of intense and emotional debate,
Apparently. Lot of bickering in this place.
> and (b) based on criteria
> (such as the intention to have full SRS) that seemed more
> applicable to trans-women than androgynes (or even trans-men),
> I decided to not step in that debate and just call myself a
> trans-androgyne.
Okay. I think I sort of understand. I'll stay with androgyne, however. It's
a word most 'normals' have remotely heard of :-) (And since it is mostly
'normals' I deal with, that means something to me).
> (I like "intergendered" too.)
Yes, I didn't know that one, I like it.
> > Another label we don't fit under... :-) I am not dysphore.
> Me neither... I'm just contemplating the predicament of someone
> who was, who found the conflict between their biological sex and
> their underlying androgyny to be so intense and stressful as to
> indicate seeking clinical aid...
And then what did xe do? What happened?
> I'm wondering if this might be
> an unrecognized factor in some cases of individuals who present
> as genuinely "gender-dysphoric" males, but find themselves
> unable to transition to "female" despite multiple incomplete
> attempts.
Yes, I think you are right. Wouldn't it be the case that the intergendered,
maybe a bit more polarized than you and I but still not wholly male or
female on the 'inside', are actually more numerous than 'real' (jeez. never
used so many quotes in one message before) trans, er, people?
> > > But what if one is somewhere in between (I think I am) and being
> > > fully "feminine" or "masculine" would both be artificial extremes.
> > It sure would. So I decided against operation. Maybe some hormones,
> > to get more inbetween?
> I've been wondering about this myself! I've been thinking about low
> doses of estrogen, perhaps, more like what would be used for a post-
> menopausal supplement than the higher doses that are be used for
> an "aggressively feminizing" effect for transitioning M->F.
Yes... just some hormones. This possibility just occurred to me a few days
ago. It's very enticing. I think I'll talk to my doctor (who's very cool)
about this.
> Yes, fluididity would be nice... a little adjustment-screw that could
> be set to M or F or anything in between?
Yes, and the possibility to switch whenever you want to. That would be
perfect for me, maybe even more than hermafroditism is. But I suspect that
is only the case because hermafrodites are so rare.
> > That books really made me discontended for a while. But what is
> > there to do? We are not living in a story. How do you cope?
> As well as possible... awareness and gentleness go a long way.
> I've only recently started to explore this part of myself...
I have for a long time, especially in puberty is was a hot issue, since that
is the time you are supposed to explore your sex and your sexuality. I've
grown, and I can cope much better. But still it's nagging me. I can't be
what I want to be, not ever, and I'm not quite accepting it.
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
>The negative aspects existed only in your head and that of others, you say.
>Still, that doesn't make them real? Reality didn't live up to it? How did it
>work out, can you tell me?
Hmm... this almost calls for an essay... in fact, I think I'll defer
the imediate quick answer and write an essay on it and post it later.
>Ah, that answers my other question. But then, again, if I may ask, how is
>your sex-life?
Good... fullfilling... active.
>Did you already have a partner?
I've had several partners... Each step along my transition, there
were more potential partners than I could possibly have sex with. My
most recent partner was a straight man (I know that seems strange, but
that is how he thinks of himself). We lived together for a year. he
moved out last Novemeber.. but just down the hall. I still see him
every day.
>See, I would like to change a
>bit more to the middle but if that means I couldn't find sexpartners
>anymore, beside freaks who get excited by freaks I don't know if the remedy
>isn't worse that the 'disease'. See my doubts?
This is one thing I've never quite understood... the classification of
anybody sexual attracted to people like me as "freaks who get excited
by freaks" may be an accurate statement... Still, I have to wonder
about your own level of self acceptance.
First... why classify yourself as a freak? I went along with it the
first time to show that being different from the mainstream isn't any
big deal. Yet you seem to attach a large negative value to it.
In truth... I doubt you will ever achieve happiness without changing
some of your basic attitudes.
Second... if trans and androgynous people are just part of the normal
variations that occur in the human species... why would a sexual
orientation to such people be any less natural?
>But the whole idea of
>changing my body is new to me. Probably I would find some of those answers
>myself, taken the time. But why wait if there are experienced freaks around
>here? ;-)
Hey... that's what I'm here for... Freaks 'r' Us.
>> "Normal" seems a strange word. I guess mine is pretty "normal"
>> too.... for a bisexual transwoman.
>
>For me, whatever I am, is normal for me. That's what normal means to be, to
>be what you are. But I can't deny the fact I'm living in a society in which
>most people are 'polarized' and prefer other polarized people; I don't
>encounter any problems with my androgyny except my own occasional
>frustration but I would as a hermafrodite. It would heal the frustration,
>though. I have to play with the idea for a while.
Lets say that individuals that would be both decent people and find
you sexually atractive as a hermaphrodite are very rare... only .001%
of the population.
In a world of 6 billion people, a variation that encompasses .001%
still means there are 60,000 of them. If only 1% of those are online,
that still gives you access to 600.
What are you... greedy or somthing?
David Weinshenker
> Second... if trans and androgynous people are just part of the
> normal variations that occur in the human species... why would
> a sexual orientation to such people be any less natural?
Sure feels natural to me... or as natural (and as magical) as
such an attraction to anyone would feel!
-dave w
Taemon
> >The negative aspects existed only in your head and that of others, you
> > say. Still, that doesn't make them real? Reality didn't live up to it?
How
> > did it work out, can you tell me?
> Hmm... this almost calls for an essay... in fact, I think I'll defer
> the imediate quick answer and write an essay on it and post it later.
Cool. There's no hurry; this is just my insatisfiable curiosity writing :-)
> >Ah, that answers my other question. But then, again, if I may ask, how is
> >your sex-life?
> Good... fullfilling... active.
Somehow, that is reassuring.
> I've had several partners... Each step along my transition, there
> were more potential partners than I could possibly have sex with. My
> most recent partner was a straight man (I know that seems strange, but
> that is how he thinks of himself).
But you do have a penis? (Listen, if I go too far in something, just tell
me. I don't know the mores in this group. I'm just trying but if I offend
you or anyone else, I apologize. It's just, I only can find out by asking.)
To have a penis and breasts... wow. There are so many possibilities.
> >See, I would like to change a
> >bit more to the middle but if that means I couldn't find sexpartners
> >anymore, beside freaks who get excited by freaks I don't know if the
> > remedy isn't worse that the 'disease'. See my doubts?
> This is one thing I've never quite understood... the classification of
> anybody sexual attracted to people like me as "freaks who get excited
> by freaks" may be an accurate statement...
I do not think people like you are freaks. I do have my doubts about people
being attracted to people 'like you', as opposed to people attracted to you,
as to who you are. Still, I'm not sure those things can, or should, be
separated. As to the word freak, I use it as a... damn, my dictionary
doesn't know the word 'geuzennaam'. It's like, an offense the people
referred to adopt for themselves, like 'gay'. I don't meant the word as
something negative at all, just as some ironic denotation for 'us' as
opposed to 'them', who are so much larger in number ;-)
> Still, I have to wonder about your own level of self acceptance.
It isn't my self acceptance I'm worried about, it is the acceptance of
others. No, not their acceptance. That hasn't been a problem for years and
years. Besides, I don't know anyone who doesn't accept me. It's more like...
let me think... like putting myself apart. On purpose. I don't want that. I
don't want to be a woman, a man, a trans or what have you, I just want to be
a human among humans and no one having a second thought about it, see? That
would become a bit harder when I change into something translike, a 'freak'.
> First... why classify yourself as a freak? I went along with it the
> first time to show that being different from the mainstream isn't any
> big deal.
Well, now that you ask... maybe because you inbetween-people are so much
closer to how I feel... I'm an androgyne in my heart of hearts but have a
quite normal body. Maybe I wanted something special, too. On the other hand,
that's not at all what I want. Maybe some insecurity for being new in an
existing group... something like saying "I'm one of you, too!" If that is
it, it'll pass very soon :-)
> Yet you seem to attach a large negative value to it.
That was never the intention.
> Second... if trans and androgynous people are just part of the normal
> variations that occur in the human species... why would a sexual
> orientation to such people be any less natural?
Because those people are rare. So I expect the orientation to be rare. Which
doesn't make it less natural but I'm kind of suspicious to people who are
attracted to a certain kind of body instead of a certain kind of person. Of
course, that goes for hetero- and homosexuals too, but most people are not
very 'straight' in that. Moreover, if you are attracted to, say, men and men
only, there are still lots of men to choose from. But if you are attracted
to people with, say, a vagina and a penis but no breasts, I expect you lower
your standards somewhat.
> > But the whole idea of
> > changing my body is new to me. Probably I would find some of those
> > answers
> > myself, taken the time. But why wait if there are experienced freaks
> > around
> >here? ;-)
> Hey... that's what I'm here for... Freaks 'r' Us.
:-)
> Lets say that individuals that would be both decent people and find
> you sexually atractive as a hermaphrodite are very rare... only .001%
> of the population.
> In a world of 6 billion people, a variation that encompasses .001%
> still means there are 60,000 of them. If only 1% of those are online,
> that still gives you access to 600.
Worldwide. Hm.
> What are you... greedy or somthing?
Immensely. One of my male traits.
Love, T.
TLM
I have no problem speaking here. Just that an e-mail will be seen sooner
and get you a response sooner.
Tommie M.
>
> Love, T.
David Weinshenker
> But if you are attracted to people with, say, a vagina
> and a penis but no breasts, I expect you lower
> your standards somewhat.
Well, if you were _only_ attracted to such people, it might
limit your selection somewhat... if you met someone that you
found desirable, how would their having any particular anatomical
form constitute a "lowering of standards"?
-dave w
David Weinshenker
> David wrote:
> > Me neither... I'm just contemplating the predicament of someone
> > who was, who found the conflict between their biological sex and
> > their underlying androgyny to be so intense and stressful as to
> > indicate seeking clinical aid...
>
> And then what did xe do? What happened?
I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular, but about
the possible situation people like that might find.
> > I'm wondering if this might be
> > an unrecognized factor in some cases of individuals who present
> > as genuinely "gender-dysphoric" males, but find themselves
> > unable to transition to "female" despite multiple incomplete
> > attempts.
>
> Yes, I think you are right. Wouldn't it be the case that the
> intergendered, maybe a bit more polarized than you and I but
> still not wholly male or female on the 'inside', are actually
> more numerous than 'real' (jeez. never used so many quotes in
> one message before) trans, er, people?
Hmmm... that's hard to say... the clinical practices of
transgender care, with their emphasis on establishing oneself
"full-time" in the "opposite" gender role, probably tend to
select for the folks who really want to be women-instead-of-men
and vice versa, and overlook the subtle but intense "in-between"
cases.
It's sort of like the early history of the medical work with
HIV-infection... in the early days what was first recognized
was a particular pattern of unusual infections, indicative of
immune system failure... we now now enough about the virus to
realize that that is a late manifestation of an advanced stage
of the condition, and we have antibody and virus tests that let
us recognize and deal with subtler stages of HIV disease.
Similarly, the "primary high-intensity 'True Transexual'(tm)"
variety of gender identity issue may have been the first to
be recognized by the clinical professions, but it is not clear
how representative this is of the full spectrum of possibilities,
or how prevalent with respect to the overall picture.
> > I've been thinking about low doses of estrogen, perhaps,
> > more like what would be used for a post-menopausal supplement
> > than the higher doses that are used for an "aggressively
> > feminizing" effect for transitioning M->F.
> Yes... just some hormones. This possibility just occurred to me
> a few days ago. It's very enticing.
That was my reaction!
I was quite surprised at myself at first, but said, "well, if
it seems that appealing I had best take a close look at this
and see what's going on here..." I'd never heard of "estrogen
envy" but it summed up my reaction to descriptions of the overall
effect of estrogen treatment (not just breast development - that's
actually one of the more "superficial" effects).
-dave w
Loree Thomas
>Loree wrote:
>> I've had several partners... Each step along my transition, there
>> were more potential partners than I could possibly have sex with. My
>> most recent partner was a straight man (I know that seems strange, but
>> that is how he thinks of himself).
>
>But you do have a penis? (Listen, if I go too far in something, just tell
>me. I don't know the mores in this group. I'm just trying but if I offend
>you or anyone else, I apologize. It's just, I only can find out by asking.)
>To have a penis and breasts... wow. There are so many possibilities.
Pardon the hubris... remember it all in fun and you did ask!
Loree, an enticing young Venus,
Captured men's minds with her genius.
Their stomaches she took
With the dishes she'd cook.
And their lusts with her breasts and her penis!
>It isn't my self acceptance I'm worried about, it is the acceptance of
>others. No, not their acceptance. That hasn't been a problem for years and
>years. Besides, I don't know anyone who doesn't accept me. It's more like...
>let me think... like putting myself apart. On purpose. I don't want that. I
>don't want to be a woman, a man, a trans or what have you, I just want to be
>a human among humans and no one having a second thought about it, see? That
>would become a bit harder when I change into something translike, a 'freak'.
Hmm... I never experienced NOT being apart in my entire life. I guess
my life was all a preperation for now.
There is a certain cachet in being a person apart and being
comfortable and self confident with it.
All our heros and heroines are people that stand out from the crowd in
some way... people apart.
Average, normal, a face in the crowd... that brings a certain sort of
comfort I suppose, but not much pride, not much self value, self love.
I desired that in grade school, it was denied me and I suffered. I
achieved that in Jr. High and it bored me. I transcended that in High
School and it provided the basis for most of my joy, happiness and
extraordinary experiences in life. It dangerous, of course, because
when you stand out, you make an easier target, but even danger
provides a spice that I find tasty.
>Well, now that you ask... maybe because you inbetween-people are so much
>closer to how I feel... I'm an androgyne in my heart of hearts but have a
>quite normal body. Maybe I wanted something special, too. On the other hand,
>that's not at all what I want. Maybe some insecurity for being new in an
>existing group... something like saying "I'm one of you, too!" If that is
>it, it'll pass very soon :-)
>
>> Yet you seem to attach a large negative value to it.
>
>That was never the intention.
Hmm... I suppose I could argue that. I would have simply accepted it
at face value if you hadn't of also used the term to describe people
you clearly DON'T approve of.
All in all though... OK :)
>> Second... if trans and androgynous people are just part of the normal
>> variations that occur in the human species... why would a sexual
>> orientation to such people be any less natural?
>
>Because those people are rare. So I expect the orientation to be rare. Which
>doesn't make it less natural but I'm kind of suspicious to people who are
>attracted to a certain kind of body instead of a certain kind of person. Of
>course, that goes for hetero- and homosexuals too, but most people are not
>very 'straight' in that. Moreover, if you are attracted to, say, men and men
>only, there are still lots of men to choose from. But if you are attracted
>to people with, say, a vagina and a penis but no breasts, I expect you lower
>your standards somewhat.
I don't see a rational basis for denigrating such people in what you
wrote. Either I'm simply not understanding you, or you haven't
expressed what it is you mean quite yet.
I don't buy into the "all tranfans are selfish creeps" mindset that
predominates. I do believe that there are some sexual predators that
see transfolk as tasty and somewhat wounded prey... but some men see
all women that way. An attraction to an unusual body configuration
doesn't mean that a person is a sexual predator. A few simple rules
for accepting dates has allowed me to evaluate potential sexual
partners based on behavior without automatically throwing anyone who
expresses an interest in to the catagory "dangerous pervert".
>> What are you... greedy or somthing?
>
>Immensely. One of my male traits.
Huh... I LIKE that ö¿ö
Taemon
> > But if you are attracted to people with, say, a vagina
> > and a penis but no breasts, I expect you lower
> > your standards somewhat.
> Well, if you were _only_ attracted to such people, it might
> limit your selection somewhat... if you met someone that you
> found desirable, how would their having any particular anatomical
> form constitute a "lowering of standards"?
In that case, it wouldn't.
Love, T.
daz...@grin.net
> As to the word freak, I use it as a... damn, my dictionary
> doesn't know the word 'geuzennaam'. It's like, an offense the people
> referred to adopt for themselves, like 'gay'. I don't meant the
> word as something negative at all, just as some ironic denotation for
> 'us' as opposed to 'them', who are so much larger in number ;-)
Ah, you mean something like what we would call "reclaiming"
a term, taking a name that has been used negatively (like
"queer") and using it as a positive description!
-dave w
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Taemon
> > > Me neither... I'm just contemplating the predicament of someone
> > > who was, who found the conflict between their biological sex and
> > > their underlying androgyny to be so intense and stressful as to
> > > indicate seeking clinical aid...
> > And then what did xe do? What happened?
> I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular, but about
> the possible situation people like that might find.
Ah, okay. Because I couldn't quite imagine such a situation, being an
androgyn (by which I no way been it couldn't happen, of course). My
biological sex is half-right :-) If I would feel completely 'the other
side', it would me much harder, I'd say.
> > Yes, I think you are right. Wouldn't it be the case that the
> > intergendered, maybe a bit more polarized than you and I but
> > still not wholly male or female on the 'inside', are actually
> > more numerous than 'real' (jeez. never used so many quotes in
> > one message before) trans, er, people?
> Hmmm... that's hard to say... the clinical practices of
> transgender care, with their emphasis on establishing oneself
> "full-time" in the "opposite" gender role, probably tend to
> select for the folks who really want to be women-instead-of-men
> and vice versa, and overlook the subtle but intense "in-between"
> cases.
Yes, that's what they mean. They probably attract the most attention too,
since the more in-between people are more likely to think "no, that's not it
either" and stay out the clinical situation. I'm making this up on the spot,
maybe I'm rambling. Then again :-)
> Similarly, the "primary high-intensity 'True Transexual'(tm)"
> variety of gender identity issue may have been the first to
> be recognized by the clinical professions, but it is not clear
> how representative this is of the full spectrum of possibilities,
> or how prevalent with respect to the overall picture.
Also, for 'True Transexuals' a solution is thinkable, namely SRS. For
in-betweens, it's harder to think of one (although maybe not harder to carry
out).
> > Yes... just some hormones. This possibility just occurred to me
> > a few days ago. It's very enticing.
> That was my reaction!
:-)
> I was quite surprised at myself at first, but said, "well, if
> it seems that appealing I had best take a close look at this
> and see what's going on here..."
My turn: Exactly my reaction!
I'd never heard of "estrogen
> envy" but it summed up my reaction to descriptions of the overall
> effect of estrogen treatment (not just breast development - that's
> actually one of the more "superficial" effects).
Hahaha, superficial breasts :-) I'd like small breasts and an androgyneous
face. What are the other effects of those hormones? And are there hormones
the other way, and what do they do? And and and...
Love, T.
Taemon
> >But you do have a penis? (Listen, if I go too far in something, just tell
> >me. I don't know the mores in this group. I'm just trying but if I offend
> >you or anyone else, I apologize. It's just, I only can find out by
asking.)
> >To have a penis and breasts... wow. There are so many possibilities.
> Pardon the hubris... remember it all in fun and you did ask!
Pardonned. I will remember it in fun. I will keep asking and asking.
> Loree, an enticing young Venus,
> Captured men's minds with her genius.
> Their stomaches she took
> With the dishes she'd cook.
> And their lusts with her breasts and her penis!
<swoon>
> > I don't want to be a woman, a man, a trans or what have you, I just want
> > to be a human among humans and no one having a second thought
> > about it, see? That would become a bit harder when I change into
> > something translike, a 'freak'.
> Hmm... I never experienced NOT being apart in my entire life. I guess
> my life was all a preperation for now.
Although I have many friends and feel a deep love for all of humankind, I
have felt apart from the 'normals', the 'polarized', no matter how diverse
they were. This feeling has become less and less and now I mostly feel how I
want to feel, a human among humans. But others see me as polarized, like
they are. Even if they say they don't. I'm sure they are honest to
themselves and to me, but I notice the difference in how they behave to
women and men. I'm overly sensitive to that, as you'll be able to imagine
:-}
This little war is going on inside me and I'm doing very well calming it
down to peace. To set myself apart would fuel the flames. I do not want
that. But the hormones idea sings to me louder and louder. Tell me, if you
would, if you start taking them, do you have to continue for the rest of
your life?
> There is a certain cachet in being a person apart and being
> comfortable and self confident with it.
There is. But I prefer not be apart and being comfortable and self-confident
with it.
I always was a bit apart, even, er, apart from my gender. In my music, my
political opinions, my way of dressing, my way of expressing. I'm the most
direct person I know and I loathe that. I'm one of a kind in a lot of
things. I love myself very much and I would want there are more like me. No
point in setting myself even further apart, see?
> All our heros and heroines are people that stand out from the crowd in
> some way... people apart.
That doesn't really count for me, I must say. Usually, I'm my own hero :-)
> Average, normal, a face in the crowd... that brings a certain sort of
> comfort I suppose, but not much pride, not much self value, self love.
I have those in plenty. With an ego like mine, I can afford to be a face in
the crowd.
> >> Yet you seem to attach a large negative value to it.
> >That was never the intention.
> Hmm... I suppose I could argue that. I would have simply accepted it
> at face value if you hadn't of also used the term to describe people
> you clearly DON'T approve of.
Where would the irony be otherwise? :-)
> >Because those people are rare. So I expect the orientation to be rare.
Which
> >doesn't make it less natural but I'm kind of suspicious to people who are
> >attracted to a certain kind of body instead of a certain kind of person.
Of
> >course, that goes for hetero- and homosexuals too, but most people are
not
> >very 'straight' in that. Moreover, if you are attracted to, say, men and
men
> >only, there are still lots of men to choose from. But if you are
attracted
> >to people with, say, a vagina and a penis but no breasts, I expect you
lower
> >your standards somewhat.
> I don't see a rational basis for denigrating such people in what you
> wrote.
Denigrating? Not denigrating. Only not wanting to attract such people. Like
men who fall for blond women with big breasts, you know? Or women who fall
for tall man with black hair. No. No types, no classes, just people.
> Either I'm simply not understanding you, or you haven't
> expressed what it is you mean quite yet.
I hope I made it clear now.
> I don't buy into the "all tranfans are selfish creeps" mindset that
> predominates. I do believe that there are some sexual predators that
> see transfolk as tasty and somewhat wounded prey... but some men see
> all women that way.
Yeah. Not men I'd like to attract.
> An attraction to an unusual body configuration
> doesn't mean that a person is a sexual predator. A few simple rules
> for accepting dates has allowed me to evaluate potential sexual
> partners based on behavior without automatically throwing anyone who
> expresses an interest in to the catagory "dangerous pervert".
I don't say everyone who is attracted by a certain (unusual or no) body
configuration is a dangerous perverted sexual predator. It's just, I don't
want to attract people because of my body configuration. No, that isn't
right neither, of course I do. Ah hell, I don't know :-)
> >> What are you... greedy or somthing?
> >Immensely. One of my male traits.
> Huh... I LIKE that öżö
;-)
Love, T.
daz...@grin.net
> Hahaha, superficial breasts :-) I'd like small breasts and an
> androgyneous face. What are the other effects of those hormones?
It varies from person to person - many people notice things like
breast development and a softening of facial contours, a "gentler",
more "rounded" appearance.
Also some people find that their skin is smoother, and body hair
can become less dense. Muscle tissue can grow in a more "feminine"
pattern too... I've pasted a description of this at the bottom of this
message. "Male pattern" baldness may be reduced somewhat, or even
prevented in the case of someone who begins feminizing doses of
estrogen early in life. (If you already have a beard it does not go
away just from estrogen, but it may grow less slowly.)
Also, estrogen users often report a certain mental change, a difference
in temperament and perception. For some people this is very subtle and
not even noticeable at first, while others describe it as the first
thing they notice, even before physical changes. The descriptions
vary, but often include increased sensitivity to certain visual stimuli
(such as the ability to discern emotions from facial expressions, or
the ability to notice whether colors "go together") and an overall
feeling of calmness and well-being combined with a greater fluidity
of emotional response - it becomes easier and more natural to laugh
or cry, for example.
These results all vary depending on the dose used, and on the age
and biology of the individual, of course.
> And are there hormones the other way, and what do they do?
Yes, there is testosterone, the "male hormone", which is used by
F->M transsexual men. It will do things like stimulate the growth
of a beard, cause the voice to sound deeper, and in general stimulate
the body's tissues to grow in a more "male" way (more angular facial
appearance, chunkier muscles, etc.) Think of the changes of appearance
that take place in a guy's body between ages of approx. 15 to 25 yrs.:
that's testosterone at work.
The "anabolic steroids" sometimes used in body-building are actually
close chemical relatives of testosterone.
The best general text on the use of "cross-sex" hormones that I have
found so far (and where I get about 75% of my information on this)
is at http://www.savina.com/confluence/hormone .
-dave w
- - notes on the effect of estrogen on muscle growth - -
Women have not only less muscle mass, on average, than men, they have
different muscle distribution as well. Males have more of the thick and
bulky fibrous 'power' muscles that are high in strength, but low in
agility, while women -on average- have more of the thin and delicate
smooth 'dexterity' muscles that provide precise control. When estrogen
runs the biochemical means of production, not only fat cell
distribution, skin, and neurochemistry is altered, but also the
distribution of the type and kind of muscle cells.
Under estrogen smooth muscles begin to dominate, over time, and the
total muscle mass shrinks to a level relative to overall body mass and
skeletal structure equivalent to that you would have if you had been
born female to begin with. For FTM transsexuals the same thing happens
in the opposite direction, as you might expect.
Source: Jennifer Diane Reitz,
http://transsexual.org/letters9.html#muscle
daz...@grin.net
daz...@grin.net wrote:
> (If you already have a beard it does not go
> away just from estrogen, but it may grow less slowly.)
Oops, correction:
That should have been "may grow less rapidly"...
-dave w
Loree Thomas
I can see that if we keep this up, however, we'll need to change the
subject line from "acquaintance" to "friendship" relatively soon...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:51:37 +0100, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>Loree wrote:
<snip of conversation leading up to a somewhat off color limerick that
had the following result>:
><swoon>
<sigh...!>
>This little war is going on inside me and I'm doing very well calming it
>down to peace. To set myself apart would fuel the flames. I do not want
>that. But the hormones idea sings to me louder and louder. Tell me, if you
>would, if you start taking them, do you have to continue for the rest of
>your life?
Standard Disclaimer: I am NOT a DR., nor do I play one on the web,
the following is merely my opinion, based on my reading, observations
of others and personal experience.
There is a very small, but finite risk that could happen, but as a
general rule, no...
Given your self description, I would assume that you, like I have,
would not use an anti androgen, but merely fairly low doses of
estrogen. The danger of shutting down testosterone production forever
is pretty small under those conditions.
Also, if you ramp up and then back down, you should avoid most of the
"testo rebound" effects (acne, increased hirsutism, irritability) and
the post menopausal effects (hot flashes, calcium loss,
irritability)..
Finally, many of the changes will be permanent, so they will remain
even after you stop taking estrogen. Some of the effects that do go
away (say the "softer skin" effect) you can get using other means...
herbals, skin cremes etc...
Any breast growth will probably shrink somewhat, but not go away
completely.
A regimen like six months on, 1 year off (lather, rinse, repeat as
needed) might work for your purposes... or maybe some other regimen.
Learn all you can, talk with your DR. do whatever you decide is best
for you.
A very good resource for more info is the link area of:
http://www.onelist.com/community/TSDoItYourselfers
>
>I have those in plenty. With an ego like mine, I can afford to be a face in
>the crowd.
>
I see your point. Hmm... maybe if I had fewer self doubts, I wouldn't
place so much value on my uniqueness.
I'll have to think about that.
>> >> Yet you seem to attach a large negative value to it.
>> >That was never the intention.
>> Hmm... I suppose I could argue that. I would have simply accepted it
>> at face value if you hadn't of also used the term to describe people
>> you clearly DON'T approve of.
>
>Where would the irony be otherwise? :-)
I suspected that might be the case ö¿ö
>Denigrating? Not denigrating. Only not wanting to attract such people. Like
>men who fall for blond women with big breasts, you know? Or women who fall
>for tall man with black hair. No. No types, no classes, just people.
>
>> Either I'm simply not understanding you, or you haven't
>> expressed what it is you mean quite yet.
>
>I hope I made it clear now.
I think you are drawing an artificial distinction. I saw you and Dave
discussing this same issue.
Most (all?) have a preferred "type". I see no reason to prefer a
"strong preference" type over a "weak preference" type.
By the way, is this preference of yours very strong?
>
>I don't say everyone who is attracted by a certain (unusual or no) body
>configuration is a dangerous perverted sexual predator. It's just, I don't
>want to attract people because of my body configuration. No, that isn't
>right neither, of course I do. Ah hell, I don't know :-)
Right... This is the point that any honest conversation on this topic
leads to... I don't know either ö¿ö
So we come down to not prejudging folk based on our perception of
their motivations (this can be so very tough to put in to practice!),
but treating each person as an individual and making our assessment
based on their words and actions.
Taemon
> > As to the word freak, I use it as a... damn, my dictionary
> > doesn't know the word 'geuzennaam'.
> a term, taking a name that has been used negatively (like
> "queer") and using it as a positive description!
"Reclaiming", exactly! Thanks. Reclaiming a geuzennaam :-)
Love, T.
Taemon
A large piece about hormones <snipped>
Thank you very much, Dave. I bookmarked both links and will do some
serious research. Thanks again, these are really things I like knowing.
Love, T.
Taemon
> I changed the subject line. It just didn't seem apropos any longer.
Ha, I just thought the same thing the letter before this one :-) Taemon
is introduced.
> I can see that if we keep this up, however, we'll need to change the
> subject line from "acquaintance" to "friendship" relatively soon...
<blush> I hope so.
> >This little war is going on inside me and I'm doing very well calming
it
> >down to peace. To set myself apart would fuel the flames. I do not
want
> >that. But the hormones idea sings to me louder and louder. Tell me,
if you
> >would, if you start taking them, do you have to continue for the rest
of
> >your life?
> Standard Disclaimer: I am NOT a DR., nor do I play one on the web,
> the following is merely my opinion, based on my reading, observations
> of others and personal experience.
Okay. I'm on my way to become a psychologist ;-)
> There is a very small, but finite risk that could happen, but as a
> general rule, no...
Good!
> Given your self description, I would assume that you, like I have,
> would not use an anti androgen, but merely fairly low doses of
> estrogen. The danger of shutting down testosterone production forever
> is pretty small under those conditions.
I was born in a female body. Usually, when people assume I'm a man, I
keep it that way. In this forum, it doesn't seem very handy to do that.
So I'd need testosterone, right? Pretty heavy stuff to take voluntarily,
considering what it does to most people. Need info. Will follow links. I
don't want a beard! :-)
> Also, if you ramp up and then back down, you should avoid most of the
> "testo rebound" effects (acne, increased hirsutism, irritability) and
> the post menopausal effects (hot flashes, calcium loss,
> irritability)..
What about things like nausea, anxiety, dizzyness? Any of those common?
> Finally, many of the changes will be permanent, so they will remain
> even after you stop taking estrogen. Some of the effects that do go
> away (say the "softer skin" effect) you can get using other means...
> herbals, skin cremes etc...
But you can follow what happens in the mirror and if it's to your
liking, you stop, something like that? I assume some of the changes keep
on going for a while?
> A regimen like six months on, 1 year off (lather, rinse, repeat as
> needed) might work for your purposes... or maybe some other regimen.
> Learn all you can, talk with your DR. do whatever you decide is best
> for you.
I will. My doctor will be surprised :-)
> A very good resource for more info is the link area of:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/TSDoItYourselfers
<adds to favorites> I've got a lot to read. Thanks, thanks again!
> >> Hmm... I suppose I could argue that. I would have simply accepted
it
> >> at face value if you hadn't of also used the term to describe
people
> >> you clearly DON'T approve of.
> >Where would the irony be otherwise? :-)
> I suspected that might be the case ö¿ö
Can you explain that smiley to me? Not even sure I see what you mean :-)
> >> Either I'm simply not understanding you, or you haven't
> >> expressed what it is you mean quite yet.
> >I hope I made it clear now.
> I think you are drawing an artificial distinction.
This could very well be the case. My thinking on this is new. I feel an
instinctive distrust to people who are attracted to a certain
(especially special) 'types' but I have learned to distrust my instincts
as well.
> Most (all?) have a preferred "type". I see no reason to prefer a
> "strong preference" type over a "weak preference" type.
It could cause standards to lower. I find that risky. But of course, I'm
more worried about my own possibilities, which are due to get smaller if
I end up a freak ;-) But I've already decided I won't go for
hermafroditical types of things. I don't feel that's necessary. If I
choose change, it will be the hormone way. That might have the same
effect to a lesser extent but that's okay with me. I'm an androgyne, I
want to look the part.
> By the way, is this preference of yours very strong?
What preference? For people like myself? Very :-)
> So we come down to not prejudging folk based on our perception of
> their motivations (this can be so very tough to put in to practice!),
> but treating each person as an individual and making our assessment
> based on their words and actions.
Yeah. Point is, I'm not sure they'll do the same. People who see me as a
female tend to explain everything I do and say as female, same for
people who see me as a male. Then again, the solution to that is making
them getting to know you better, which is something that would happen
anyway when it comes to partners. Although not necessarily so when it
comes to sex :-)
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
> I can see that if we keep this up, however, we'll need to change the
> subject line from "acquaintance" to "friendship" relatively soon...
><blush> I hope so.
I took it upon myself to make the first change and I consider the next
to already have occurred but felt it best not to presume I knew your
feelings so I've left it up to you.
>> Standard Disclaimer: I am NOT a DR., nor do I play one on the web,
>> the following is merely my opinion, based on my reading, observations
>> of others and personal experience.
>
>Okay. I'm on my way to become a psychologist ;-)
>
>> There is a very small, but finite risk that could happen, but as a
>> general rule, no...
>
>Good!
>I was born in a female body. Usually, when people assume I'm a man, I
>keep it that way. In this forum, it doesn't seem very handy to do that.
>So I'd need testosterone, right? Pretty heavy stuff to take voluntarily,
>considering what it does to most people. Need info. Will follow links. I
>don't want a beard! :-)
Talk about assumptions... sheesh. <berates herself "Bad girl!">
Ok... throw out everything I said. I have no clue at all what the
effects of testo are on female production of estrogen. I don't know
if it shuts it down and I don't have a clue if it would be permanent.
As far as a beard goes... that and lowering your voice are two
permanent changes caused by testosterone.
Of course, you could handle the beard thing by electrolyses and we
would then have the experience of THAT torture in common as well as
both having sexually ambiguous bodies.
>What about things like nausea, anxiety, dizzyness? Any of those common?
I don't know. I think you need an FTM specific source.
>But you can follow what happens in the mirror and if it's to your
>liking, you stop, something like that? I assume some of the changes keep
>on going for a while?
That would be a good assumption, and how long would be related to the
half-life of the hormone in your system. I have no info on what types
of testo there are, let alone what their half lives are.
>> A regimen like six months on, 1 year off (lather, rinse, repeat as
>> needed) might work for your purposes... or maybe some other regimen.
>> Learn all you can, talk with your DR. do whatever you decide is best
>> for you.
>
>I will. My doctor will be surprised :-)
Now, lets revisit that idea of being a hermaphrodite. Given the
direction you are heading (f -> m), it becomes a possibility with
little to no surgery at all.
One of the effects of testo is to enlarge the clitoris. I have read
of transmen gaining up to 4 inches in length. Many transmen get
enough enlargement that they opt to keep it as a sort of "micro
penis". There is a surgery designed to free the micro penis from the
surrounding tissue so it can be used for penetrative sex.
>> >Where would the irony be otherwise? :-)
>> I suspected that might be the case ö¿ö
>
>Can you explain that smiley to me? Not even sure I see what you mean :-)
See my sig line for the explanation for the smiley. All I was trying
to say is I thought you were probably using the term freak in an
ironic sense and so even though I could have argued the point, I
choose not to in case that WAS what you meant...
Whew... that was pretty convoluted... much easier to just through the
smiley on the end of a short sentence ö¿ö
>This could very well be the case. My thinking on this is new. I feel an
>instinctive distrust to people who are attracted to a certain
>(especially special) 'types' but I have learned to distrust my instincts
>as well.
I have felt that same instinctual distrust, but I believe it comes not
from being an object of specialized sexual desires, but from being an
object of sexual desire ONLY.
I misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as you at first. Then a
met a true "transfan" (female, actually) who didn't spark that
instinctual distrust and figured out what made her strong preference
ok. It turned out that it was because sexual desire wasn't the sole
attractor.
I have since met male "transfans" who are the same way as her... and
met many men who could NOT be classified as transfans in any way (both
gay and straight) that give me the same instinctual distrust.
I'd say if your instinctual distrust is to a particular individual,
listen to it! If it's toward a class of people, well... it might be
wise to examine it closer.
Hugs,
Loree
ö¿ö is a female "deadpan" look (ô¿ô would be male).
I use it to indicate that something is tongue in cheek...
or to acknowledge that a statement contained a pun or
was ironic in some way.
Taemon
> > I can see that if we keep this up, however, we'll need to change the
> > subject line from "acquaintance" to "friendship" relatively soon...
> ><blush> I hope so.
> I took it upon myself to make the first change and I consider the next
> to already have occurred but felt it best not to presume I knew your
> feelings so I've left it up to you.
Do you mean you already consider us friends? That's a bit too fast for
me. Or do you mean the erasing of (was: Re: Introduction)? :-)
> >I was born in a female body. Usually, when people assume I'm a man, I
> >keep it that way. In this forum, it doesn't seem very handy to do
that.
> Talk about assumptions... sheesh. <berates herself "Bad girl!">
Don't worry, it happens all the time. That doesn't make you feel better,
does it? It wasn't meant to <grin> ;-)
> Ok... throw out everything I said.
Except the limerick.
> I have no clue at all what the
> effects of testo are on female production of estrogen. I don't know
> if it shuts it down and I don't have a clue if it would be permanent.
I'd say the effect of the effects wouldn't be too different from
estrogen but I'll do some reading.
> As far as a beard goes... that and lowering your voice are two
> permanent changes caused by testosterone.
Hm. I don't want a beard. I'm hairy enough as it is. And the voice is
good, in-between, as all of me.
> Of course, you could handle the beard thing by electrolyses and we
> would then have the experience of THAT torture in common as well as
> both having sexually ambiguous bodies.
Now, there's a reason :-) Tell me about electrolyses, if you will. Is
it expensive? Is it painfull? Is it permanent? Does it leave scars? Can
you apply it everywhere?
> >But you can follow what happens in the mirror and if it's to your
> >liking, you stop, something like that? I assume some of the changes
keep
> >on going for a while?
> That would be a good assumption, and how long would be related to the
> half-life of the hormone in your system. I have no info on what types
> of testo there are, let alone what their half lives are.
Okay. This is just a general orientation, understand, I won't rush
things like this. Besides, I'm quite happy with my body as it is, I'm
not in a hurry.
> Now, lets revisit that idea of being a hermaphrodite. Given the
> direction you are heading (f -> m), it becomes a possibility with
> little to no surgery at all.
> One of the effects of testo is to enlarge the clitoris. I have read
> of transmen gaining up to 4 inches in length. Many transmen get
> enough enlargement that they opt to keep it as a sort of "micro
> penis". There is a surgery designed to free the micro penis from the
> surrounding tissue so it can be used for penetrative sex.
... wow. Let me repeat that: ...WOW. Another idea to play with very
seriously.
> >This could very well be the case. My thinking on this is new. I feel
an
> >instinctive distrust to people who are attracted to a certain
> >(especially special) 'types' but I have learned to distrust my
instincts
> >as well.
> I have felt that same instinctual distrust, but I believe it comes not
> from being an object of specialized sexual desires, but from being an
> object of sexual desire ONLY.
That's it, yes. Sadly, it's sometimes difficult to tell those apart.
> I misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as you at first. Then a
> met a true "transfan" (female, actually) who didn't spark that
> instinctual distrust and figured out what made her strong preference
> ok. It turned out that it was because sexual desire wasn't the sole
> attractor.
Then what else was it, when transes where what she wanted? Transes don't
have more in common than being trans, right?
> ö¿ö is a female "deadpan" look (ô¿ô would be male).
And why is ö female and ô male, O Quencher Of Curiosity?
David Weinshenker
> Now, there's a reason :-) Tell me about electrolyses, if you will. Is
> it expensive?
> Is it painfull?
To some people more than others.
> Is it permanent?
Yes, if properly done.
> Does it leave scars?
No, if properly done, but it can result from poor technique.
> Can you apply it everywhere?
Check Tara's website at http://members.tgforum.com/t_robins
and click on the "Hair Zap" link at the left of the page -
she's put up some documents from her electrologist that
may answer some questions... how different hair types respond,
what techniques have more or less risk of scarring, etc.
> And why is ö female and ô male, O Quencher Of Curiosity?
Plucked eyebrows???
-dave w
David Weinshenker
> > One of the effects of testo is to enlarge the clitoris.
> > I have read of transmen gaining up to 4 inches in length.
> > Many transmen get enough enlargement that they opt to keep
> > it as a sort of "micro penis". There is a surgery designed
> > to free the micro penis from the surrounding tissue so it
> can be used for penetrative sex.
>
> ... wow. Let me repeat that: ...WOW. Another idea to play with very
> seriously.
But you would need to take enough testosterone that you would
end up with a beard most likely... so we're really talking about
combining treatments from both M->F (facial electrolysis) and
F->M transition (testosterone and one form of "bottom surgery").
Thus you would end up with a boyish but beardless face, a
chunkier muscles, and a micro-penis.
Hmmm.... I've heard of "mixtures" before: somewhere, perhaps
on this newsgroup but I don't remember, there was a mention
of a male who took estrogens, developed breasts, and then had
both F->M "top surgery" (breast tissue removal) and M->F surgery
(forming a vagina), and then lived publically as male and
intimately as female.
Now this seems to be exactly the sort of thing the traditional
"Standards of Care" are designed to _prevent_, yet I believe this
individual was contented with these choices.
-dave w
Loree Thomas
>Loree wrote:
>
>> I took it upon myself to make the first change and I consider the next
>> to already have occurred but felt it best not to presume I knew your
>> feelings so I've left it up to you.
>
>Do you mean you already consider us friends? That's a bit too fast for
>me. Or do you mean the erasing of (was: Re: Introduction)? :-)
<sheepish> I suppose I could have answered leaving you with the most
favorable impression (option 2) without quite lying... but in reality
I did mean I already consider you a friend, yes.
It occurs to me we could have somewhat different concepts on what the
word "friend" actually means. I meant nothing more than I feel the
emotion "like" (is that an emotion?) towards you. I also felt that
emotion coming back.
I would consider an acquaintance someone who I know that I don't feel
any particular affinity towards.
IOW, it doesn't have a time component in my mind. I could know
somebody for years, talk to them on a daily basis, meet their spouse
and children, know about their mother's gall bladder operation and
they might still be an acquaintance.
Conversely, I could consider a person I just met as a friend.
>> >I was born in a female body. Usually, when people assume I'm a man, I
>> >keep it that way. In this forum, it doesn't seem very handy to do
>that.
>> Talk about assumptions... sheesh. <berates herself "Bad girl!">
>
>Don't worry, it happens all the time. That doesn't make you feel better,
>does it? It wasn't meant to <grin> ;-)
Oh!!! You are Evil! ö¿ö
>
>Now, there's a reason :-) Tell me about electrolyses, if you will. Is
>it expensive? Is it painfull? Is it permanent? Does it leave scars? Can
>you apply it everywhere?
Yes, yes, yes, depends on the skill of the electrologist and yes,
except in areas like the inside the ears and nostrils.
>> Now, lets revisit that idea of being a hermaphrodite. Given the
>> direction you are heading (f -> m), it becomes a possibility with
>> little to no surgery at all.
>> One of the effects of testo is to enlarge the clitoris. I have read
>> of transmen gaining up to 4 inches in length. Many transmen get
>> enough enlargement that they opt to keep it as a sort of "micro
>> penis". There is a surgery designed to free the micro penis from the
>> surrounding tissue so it can be used for penetrative sex.
>
>... wow. Let me repeat that: ...WOW. Another idea to play with very
>seriously.
<Grin> yup... that's how I thought you'd react...
Take a look at this:
http://www.gendertalk.com/GTransgr/bodyalch.htm
>
>> I misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as you at first. Then a
>> met a true "transfan" (female, actually) who didn't spark that
>> instinctual distrust and figured out what made her strong preference
>> ok. It turned out that it was because sexual desire wasn't the sole
>> attractor.
>
>Then what else was it, when transes where what she wanted?
She looked for bright, creative, outgoing, physically attractive,
musically inclined, athletic people.
Merely being trans wasn't enough, nor was NOT being trans an automatic
exclusion.
>Transes don't
>have more in common than being trans, right?
I believe transfolk have much in common. A graph of trans IQs would
probably peak around 130 or so, I'm also not sure it would be a
normal Gausian distribution.
There are probably several areas where transfolk tend to clump... so
many of us are computer professionals, for example. It's not just an
artifact of being online either. Even in 3d support groups, the
computer field seems to be over represented.
Verbal skills seem accentuated, as do spatial reasoning and math
skills.
A good imagination is also almost a requirement for being trans.
>> ö¿ö is a female "deadpan" look (ô¿ô would be male).
>
>And why is ö female and ô male, O Quencher Of Curiosity?
Delicate lashes vs. heavy brows over the eye, O Insatiable One.
And I'll leave you with this parting gift... a picture of bodies to
come in the not too distant future:
http://www.extropic-art.com/aesthetics2.htm
Taemon
> > Now, there's a reason :-) Tell me about electrolyses, if you will.
Is
> > it expensive?
> Yes, in time and money.
> > Is it painfull?
> To some people more than others.
> > Is it permanent?
> Yes, if properly done.
> > Does it leave scars?
> No, if properly done, but it can result from poor technique.
> > Can you apply it everywhere?
> Yes.
Hmmm.... okay. Thank you very much again :-)
> Check Tara's website at http://members.tgforum.com/t_robins
I will. So many sites to check... Lovely! Again and again I write new
chapters in my book. This one is dedicated to you, O Genders.
> > And why is ö female and ô male, O Quencher Of Curiosity?
> Plucked eyebrows???
Heh :-)
Love, T.
Taemon
> > > Many transmen get enough enlargement that they opt to keep
> > > it as a sort of "micro penis". There is a surgery designed
> > > to free the micro penis from the surrounding tissue so it
> > can be used for penetrative sex.
> > ... wow. Let me repeat that: ...WOW. Another idea to play with very
> > seriously.
> But you would need to take enough testosterone that you would
> end up with a beard most likely...
Yeah, and lose my androgynous voice, which is not easy to repair.
>so we're really talking about
> combining treatments from both M->F (facial electrolysis) and
> F->M transition (testosterone and one form of "bottom surgery").
>
> Thus you would end up with a boyish but beardless face, a
> chunkier muscles, and a micro-penis.
That sounds quite nice, actually. I don't really care about the
micro-penis, but I wouldn't say no.
> Hmmm.... I've heard of "mixtures" before: somewhere, perhaps
> on this newsgroup but I don't remember, there was a mention
> of a male who took estrogens, developed breasts, and then had
> both F->M "top surgery" (breast tissue removal) and M->F surgery
> (forming a vagina), and then lived publically as male and
> intimately as female.
>
> Now this seems to be exactly the sort of thing the traditional
> "Standards of Care" are designed to _prevent_, yet I believe this
> individual was contented with these choices.
Well, one doesn't exclude the other, does it?
Love, T.
Taemon
> >> I took it upon myself to make the first change and I consider the
next
> >> to already have occurred but felt it best not to presume I knew
your
> >> feelings so I've left it up to you.
> >Do you mean you already consider us friends? That's a bit too fast
for
> >me. Or do you mean the erasing of (was: Re: Introduction)? :-)
> <sheepish>
Don't be. Please, not for me, not ever.
> I suppose I could have answered leaving you with the most
> favorable impression (option 2) without quite lying... but in reality
> I did mean I already consider you a friend, yes.
I'm impressed, and flattered too. But it IS quick. Why? Please, say all
you want :-)
> It occurs to me we could have somewhat different concepts on what the
> word "friend" actually means. I meant nothing more than I feel the
> emotion "like" (is that an emotion?) towards you. I also felt that
> emotion coming back.
Ahhh - I understand. Yes, you felt right. But after so short a time I
cannot call someone friend. I hardly know you. And, well - better to say
this openly. I've followed the other 'discussions' (ha) superficially
and I saw you saying to someone that what she felt was rape, really
wasn't. That struck me as quite mean. Now, I can't and won't judge that
situation. But can you, maybe, explain that one to me?
> I would consider an acquaintance someone who I know that I don't feel
> any particular affinity towards.
It's usually the beginning of friendship. I prefer to have no
acquaintances, only friends. But it's near to impossible, especially on
the net.
> IOW, it doesn't have a time component in my mind. I could know
> somebody for years, talk to them on a daily basis, meet their spouse
> and children, know about their mother's gall bladder operation and
> they might still be an acquaintance.
>
> Conversely, I could consider a person I just met as a friend.
....yes. But... maybe some experiences... I lost a lot of friends (no
quotes here, they were real friends) because of me changing quite fast
now and then, I met new people, lost them... I'm a bit careful with
calling people friend. But I think we feel the same for each other.
Only, I'd call it promise, O Surprising Sacrifice On My Altar Of
Carefulness.
> >> >I was born in a female body. Usually, when people assume I'm a
man, I
> >> >keep it that way. In this forum, it doesn't seem very handy to do
> >that.
> >> Talk about assumptions... sheesh. <berates herself "Bad girl!">
> >Don't worry, it happens all the time. That doesn't make you feel
better,
> >does it? It wasn't meant to <grin> ;-)
> Oh!!! You are Evil! ö¿ö
Me? I'll sue you for that! :-)
> >Now, there's a reason :-) Tell me about electrolyses, if you will.
Is
> >it expensive? Is it painfull? Is it permanent? Does it leave scars?
Can
> >you apply it everywhere?
> Yes, yes, yes, depends on the skill of the electrologist and yes,
> except in areas like the inside the ears and nostrils.
Why is it painful? Don't you get anaesthesized?
> >... wow. Let me repeat that: ...WOW. Another idea to play with very
> >seriously.
> <Grin> yup... that's how I thought you'd react...
> Take a look at this:
> http://www.gendertalk.com/GTransgr/bodyalch.htm
<saves yet another link>
> >> I misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as you at first. Then
a
> >> met a true "transfan" (female, actually) who didn't spark that
> >> instinctual distrust and figured out what made her strong
preference
> >> ok. It turned out that it was because sexual desire wasn't the
sole
> >> attractor.
> >Then what else was it, when transes where what she wanted?
> She looked for bright, creative, outgoing, physically attractive,
> musically inclined, athletic people.
Hm. Not convinced. Sounds more like castrates ;-)
> Merely being trans wasn't enough, nor was NOT being trans an automatic
> exclusion.
Okay, I understand.
> >Transes don't
> >have more in common than being trans, right?
> I believe transfolk have much in common. A graph of trans IQs would
> probably peak around 130 or so, I'm also not sure it would be a
> normal Gausian distribution.
Okay, but then again. I know a lot of high-gifted and, although they
have more in common than a like group of 'normals', that only applies to
things connected with their (our) sensitivity. Not things like,
preferences, likings, personalities. I'm not sure. Actually, most people
I deal with are high-gifted (I work on a university) so I wouldn't
really know. But most people I know are not my friends (although I don't
have enemies).
> There are probably several areas where transfolk tend to clump... so
> many of us are computer professionals, for example. It's not just an
> artifact of being online either. Even in 3d support groups, the
> computer field seems to be over represented.
Okay, maybe. I don't know very much about it. I followed this seem
discussion among high-gifted. Maybe among transfolk it's still closer.
> And I'll leave you with this parting gift... a picture of bodies to
> come in the not too distant future:
Ai, I needed something too big to download for this. So I guess it'll
remain a mystery, eh? :-)
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
>Ahhh - I understand. Yes, you felt right.
Good...
>But after so short a time I
>cannot call someone friend. I hardly know you. And, well - better to say
>this openly. I've followed the other 'discussions' (ha) superficially
>and I saw you saying to someone that what she felt was rape, really
>wasn't. That struck me as quite mean. Now, I can't and won't judge that
>situation. But can you, maybe, explain that one to me?
Ok. Two people, S and N were discussing what is was like for TS women
in the late '60s. early '70s.
N claims it was awful... impossible to transition unless you were
attracted to men and offers "proof" from her experiences with a gender
program in Texas. S says it wasn't bad at all.. in fact it was better
in some ways than today and as "proof" offers her personal experiences
in California.
S suggests that N should have simply moved... found a different program.
N counters that she was raped and that was so devastating that she
simply gave up. At this point, my sympathies are with N.
S describes life as a street trannie, turning tricks, exploring
sexuality in the atmosphere of sexual freedom that CA was in that time.
Further explanation come to light. N says that her program insisted she
have sex with a man. Then we find out that they didn't target her,
specifically, but they said the same thing to everyone in the program.
Nor did they threaten her... people who didn't have sex with men aren't
kicked out of the program, it isn't even explicitly state that you have
to have sexd with men, it is just made clear that unless you enjoy sex
with men, you aren't considered a good candidate for transition and SRS.
N then engages in consensual sex with a male and is devastated.
I still see how from her view, N was raped, though it seems to me the
real problem was her own homophobia.
S says hey I was really raped. Beat up by a gang of men and violently
raped.
N responds with some of the worst, most despicable language I have ever
heard. One of the least nasty things she says is that what happened to
S wasn't really rape, it was "theft of services".
At this point, I believe that N wasn't really raped. There is no way a
real rape victim would be that callous to another. I posted that
opinion.
N apologizes... but her "apology" places the blame on S for making her
mad. Further, she clearly states that what she was sorry for was
expressing her opinion, rather than for the opinion itself.
All of this took place in another newsgroup, alt.support.srs. What you
read in here was a spill over from there.
I'm generally not mean at all. I don't get mean when people attack me.
Some things do tend to trigger my outrage, however, and that was one of
those things. What N did was heinous in the extreme.
_________________________________________________
So... at this point, you either think I'm an incredible jerk, understand
why I posted what I did, or still have your doubts.
If you still have doubts, I suggest you find that thread in
www.deja.news and read it for yourself.
>Only, I'd call it promise, O Surprising Sacrifice On My Altar Of
>Carefulness.
Lol!... you slay me ö¿ö
>> >That doesn't make you feel better,
>> >does it? It wasn't meant to <grin> ;-)
>>
>> Oh!!! You are Evil! ö¿ö
>
>Me? I'll sue you for that! :-)
I accept your challenge. Honor must be satisfied. Lawyers at ten paces
at dawn it is!
But... well.. you see, my lawyer isn't very lethal. He has no sharp
edge... he is in fact quite dull.
Can we make it to first blood rather than to the death?
>Why is it painful? Don't you get anaesthesized?
Electrolyses is done by non medical people. They can't anesthetize you
legally. Topical anesthetics are used, but they aren't totally
effective. There are a few places where a Dr or Dentist is partnered
with an electrologist and you can be anesthetized, but they are rare and
the best have long waiting lists.
>Okay, but then again. I know a lot of high-gifted and, although they
>have more in common than a like group of 'normals', that only applies to
>things connected with their (our) sensitivity. Not things like,
>preferences, likings, personalities. I'm not sure.
Hmm... I think you are much more likely to find alternative preferences
and tolerant personalities among the high-gifted.
>> And I'll leave you with this parting gift... a picture of bodies to
>> come in the not too distant future:
>
>Ai, I needed something too big to download for this. So I guess it'll
>remain a mystery, eh? :-)
I'm sorry.. the picture itself is interesting, but here's the text:
Get your new Primo 3M+ body!!!
Comparison Chart
20th Century Body Primo 3M+
limited life span ageless
inherited genes replaceable genes
wears out upgradable
random mistakes error correction device
intel cap.100 trillion synapses intel cap. 100 quadrillion synapses
single tracks circuits multiple viewpoints running on
parallel
gender restricted gender changeability
prone to environmental damage environmentally friendly
corrosion by irritability, envy, turbocharged optimism
depression
elimination messy and gaseous waste recycles and purifies waste
products
OPTIONS:
replacement parts and upgrades
guaranty for 10,000 years,
3 billion years for a small additional fee
additional service contract availible
multiple gender option
trade-in on old body at a discount rate
Lease/Purchase Agreement
Warranty
Taemon
> >I've followed the other 'discussions' (ha) superficially
> >and I saw you saying to someone that what she felt was rape, really
> >wasn't. That struck me as quite mean. Now, I can't and won't judge
that
> >situation. But can you, maybe, explain that one to me?
<detailed explanation snipped, many thanks>
> I still see how from her view, N was raped, though it seems to me the
> real problem was her own homophobia.
Homophobia? For not wanting sex with a men? Of course I don't know the
persons involved.
> N responds with some of the worst, most despicable language I have
ever
> heard. One of the least nasty things she says is that what happened
to
> S wasn't really rape, it was "theft of services".
I read it.
> At this point, I believe that N wasn't really raped. There is no way
a
> real rape victim would be that callous to another. I posted that
> opinion.
Here, this I don't get. Seems to me that if someone feels raped, xe is
raped, no matter what xe says about it to others.
> N apologizes... but her "apology" places the blame on S for making her
> mad. Further, she clearly states that what she was sorry for was
> expressing her opinion, rather than for the opinion itself.
Well... I don't really agree. But that's not so important.
> I'm generally not mean at all. I don't get mean when people attack
me.
> Some things do tend to trigger my outrage, however, and that was one
of
> those things. What N did was heinous in the extreme.
Even if that was the case, I think it will not do to deny zir suffering.
But actually that was all I wanted to say, and you, nor anybody else
needs to explain themselves to me, you still did, I appreciate that. If
it's up to me the subject is closed, unless you want to say more about
it.
> >Only, I'd call it promise, O Surprising Sacrifice On My Altar Of
> >Carefulness.
> Lol!... you slay me ö¿ö
I admit, I liked that one myself pretty much :-)
> >> Oh!!! You are Evil! ö¿ö
> >Me? I'll sue you for that! :-)
> I accept your challenge. Honor must be satisfied. Lawyers at ten
paces
> at dawn it is!
Your dawn or mine? :-)
> But... well.. you see, my lawyer isn't very lethal. He has no sharp
> edge... he is in fact quite dull.
Me, I have the rare gift to be rude and sharp at the same time! Your
lawyer is dead meat! Hm, the pun works better in Dutch. Believe me, it
is funny :-)
> Can we make it to first blood rather than to the death?
Welllll... alright <cancels flight>
> >Why is it painful? Don't you get anaesthesized?
> Electrolyses is done by non medical people. They can't anesthetize
you
> legally.
Ah.
> Hmm... I think you are much more likely to find alternative
preferences
> and tolerant personalities among the high-gifted.
I'm not so sure about that. There is also a lot of bigots and arrogant
folks among the high-gifted, since they tend to be convinced of their
own ways.
> intel cap.100 trillion synapses intel cap. 100 quadrillion
synapses
Hm... that doesn't sound very efficient...
> gender restricted gender changeability
...but I buy :-)
Love, T.
Nicole Hamilton
> > mad. Further, she clearly states that what she was sorry for was
> > expressing her opinion, rather than for the opinion itself.
>
I had promised to say no more about my experience twenty years ago. But
Loree's continued claims I haven't properly apologized do beg a response.
Here is what I said in apology in a.s.srs:
<<
I should never have said this. There's no excuse. It was late at night, I
was angry and I allowed that to bubble over into an overreaction. I try to
moderate my remarks to keep them at least reasonable and in this case, I
didn't. I apologize to Suzan and to the rest of you for these remarks.
>>
And in this newsgroup, I said it again:
<<
I'm disappointed in myself for having said it, but those were my
remarks over in a.s.srs, in response to Suzan's assertion that I wasn't
really raped like she was. It was late at night, I was angry and hurt and I
said something I shouldn't have. You are right, there is no provocation
that justifies this. I did already post an apology over in that newsgroup.
I make the same apology here.
>>
I think this should be clear enough. I don't know how much more complete an
apology can get nor do I know how I can more fully accept responsibility.
But that said, yes, there was an event that triggered my anger. I didn't
get angry just because I had nothing better to do right then or because
there wasn't anything interesting on TV. I don't offer this fact as an
"excuse" for my failure to control my anger nor do I place "blame" on anyone
but myself for my shortcomings. Nonetheless, it is simply a fact that Suzan
had just questioned my disclosure that I'd been raped and that hurt me
deeply. Here is the excerpt from her message:
<<
> I was raped by that program.
I was gang raped in SF City jail... I don't like seeing that
word used lightly.
> I remember waking up the next morning feeling lower than
> dirt.
Did someone hold a knife to your throat.
>>
I did and do find her comments objectionable, though I should have had the
good sense to express my objection without gratuitously and egregiously
returning the favor by questioning the validity of her own rape.
Suzan continues to this day to argue that what happened to me wasn't really
rape because she believes I had a choice and that it wasn't physical
violence, apparently working from a rather phallocentric point of view that
it's rape depending on what the male does, not what the female experiences.
She also suggests I should simply have lied to the therapist as she'd have
done then turns around and asks if anyone can be sure I'm not lying now,
apparently not thinking this through very clearly: if I wouldn't lie then,
why would I lie now? Are the stakes higher now? Or is it just that Suzan
lives in a world where she and everyone else lie all the time and consider
that normal? Myself, I don't lie. Not now, not then.
But the real truth is, she wasn't there and doesn't really know what
happened. I was and I know what I experienced. This was a therapeutic
situation with someone in whom I'd placed trust and with whom I'd been
disgorging secrets I'd kept hidden from early childhood. My therapist had
far more intimate control of me than any boss who ever asked for a sexual
favor in return for a raise.
This was a long time ago I don't think too much about why they did this to
me. Was it malevolence, lasciviousness or just plain incompetence?
Probably just incompetence. But I do take offense at suggestions that what
happened to me was my choice and my fault. Whatever word games anyone cares
to play, arguing over just the right legal term to describe what happened to
me, the fact remains this was not my choice, I was coerced by the power of
my therapist and I got hurt, badly enough I couldn't even tell anyone for 20
years.
I did and do apologize for my outburst. It was unacceptable to me and, I
assume, to everyone else who read it. I am responsible for that and it
shall be my cross to bear. But I was hurt, badly, 20 years ago and like
anyone else who's been hurt this way, it is difficult enough to put all that
aside and move on without the added injury of being told it was my fault.
It wasn't.
Nicki
Taemon
> I did and do apologize for my outburst. It was unacceptable to me
and, I
> assume, to everyone else who read it. I am responsible for that and
it
> shall be my cross to bear. But I was hurt, badly, 20 years ago and
like
> anyone else who's been hurt this way, it is difficult enough to put
all that
> aside and move on without the added injury of being told it was my
fault.
> It wasn't.
I hear you.
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
>Loree wrote:
>
>> At this point, I believe that N wasn't really raped. There is no way
>> a real rape victim would be that callous to another. I posted that
>> opinion.
>
>Here, this I don't get. Seems to me that if someone feels raped, xe is
>raped, no matter what xe says about it to others.
Wow... Thank you! I think Theoni said it first and I was a little slow
on the uptake. Your repeating it, however, allowed it to sink past my
defenses.
You are right, of course.
There is no logical reason to believe that "There is no way
a real rape victim would be that callous to another."
I allowed a personal distaste for her attack of S to influence my
thought process and constructed a non rational justification to make it
ok to then attack her.
Which is exactly what she did to S. Turn about is NOT fair play,
however. I was wrong.
Hey... being as Nicki has kill filed me, would someone please pass this
on to her?
Dear Nicki, I sincerely apologize for my comments about you. I was
wrong. There is no justification for what I said. I hope you can see
your way clear to forgiving me.
>But actually that was all I wanted to say, and you, nor anybody else
>needs to explain themselves to me, you still did, I appreciate that.
It's part of my personal value system. Everything is subject to
questioning. I actually appreciate it when somebody points out flaws in
my position... if I can't then rationally show those flaws don't exist,
I simply fix them. I pride myself not on always being right (who of us
is ALWAYS right?) but on being willing to admit my mistakes and learn
from them and to advance always towards a more accurate world view
through rational thought and discussion.
>Me, I have the rare gift to be rude and sharp at the same time! Your
>lawyer is dead meat! Hm, the pun works better in Dutch. Believe me, it
>is funny :-)
One of these days, I'm going to have to become fluent in a language
other than English. Is Dutch as rich a source of puns as English is?
>> Hmm... I think you are much more likely to find alternative
>>preferences and tolerant personalities among the high-gifted.
>
>I'm not so sure about that. There is also a lot of bigots and arrogant
>folks among the high-gifted, since they tend to be convinced of their
>own ways.
Generalizations always have exceptions, but if you gave me a choice of
being openly gender queer in a meat packing plant or at an institute of
higher education, I'd choose the University rather than the factory.
I'd also tend to question how "gifted" a person actually was if they are
both bigoted and strongly convinced of their own ways.
>> intel cap.100 trillion synapses intel cap. 100 quadrillion
>synapses
>
>Hm... that doesn't sound very efficient...
What? A thousand fold increase in intellectual capability isn't enough
for you? You ARE greedy!
>> gender restricted gender changeability
>
>...but I buy :-)
I especially liked the "multiple gender" option. Why switch back and
forth between a mere two when you can have them ALL?
The 10,000 year basic warranty is attractive as well...
Taemon
> >Here, this I don't get. Seems to me that if someone feels raped, xe
is
> >raped, no matter what xe says about it to others.
> Wow... Thank you! I think Theoni said it first and I was a little
slow
> on the uptake. Your repeating it, however, allowed it to sink past my
> defenses.
> You are right, of course.
Are you serious? If you are, I think you are quite enlightened.
> Dear Nicki, I sincerely apologize for my comments about you. I was
> wrong. There is no justification for what I said. I hope you can see
> your way clear to forgiving me.
And brave.
> >But actually that was all I wanted to say, and you, nor anybody else
> >needs to explain themselves to me, you still did, I appreciate that.
I realised later I did ask you to explain yourself. I shouldn't have
done that. I only wanted to make that remark and I could have done that
without questioning you. I'm sorry for that.
> It's part of my personal value system. Everything is subject to
> questioning. I actually appreciate it when somebody points out flaws
in
> my position... if I can't then rationally show those flaws don't
exist,
> I simply fix them. I pride myself not on always being right (who of
us
> is ALWAYS right?) but on being willing to admit my mistakes and learn
> from them and to advance always towards a more accurate world view
> through rational thought and discussion.
Yes, it took me some time, but eventually I was able to say "You are
right and I was wrong" and so learn from mistakes. And hoping to set
examples, of course, I'm not that humble ;-)
> >Me, I have the rare gift to be rude and sharp at the same time! Your
> >lawyer is dead meat! Hm, the pun works better in Dutch. Believe me,
it
> >is funny :-)
> One of these days, I'm going to have to become fluent in a language
> other than English. Is Dutch as rich a source of puns as English is?
I think that every language with a big vocabulary allows you to be as
punny as your mind allows you to be :-) I would love it if you were to
learn Dutch but if you want a second language, maybe it's more handy to
pick one that is widely spoken? Like Spanish or German.
> >I'm not so sure about that. There is also a lot of bigots and
arrogant
> >folks among the high-gifted, since they tend to be convinced of their
> >own ways.
> Generalizations always have exceptions, but if you gave me a choice of
> being openly gender queer in a meat packing plant or at an institute
of
> higher education, I'd choose the University rather than the factory.
I would, too. But since everyone who has a choice does, how are we going
to find out whether we are right in that? Anyway, I prefer the company
of high-gifted because I am high-gifted myself so I share more with
those people. Hm. I just contradicted what I said earlier :-) Oh well,
"I don't know" :-)
> I'd also tend to question how "gifted" a person actually was if they
are
> both bigoted and strongly convinced of their own ways.
Intelligence is correlated to the ability to change mind-sets, but that
correlation is far lower than .99, I'd say.
> >> intel cap.100 trillion synapses intel cap. 100 quadrillion
> >synapses
> >Hm... that doesn't sound very efficient...
> What? A thousand fold increase in intellectual capability isn't
enough
> for you? You ARE greedy!
No, I'm a psychologist and I know something about brains. A thousandfold
increase in synapses would screw the whole system big time. But then
again, maybe that's incredable fun :-) (Didn't intend to be snotty, to
be sure.)
> >> gender restricted gender changeability
> >...but I buy :-)
> I especially liked the "multiple gender" option. Why switch back and
> forth between a mere two when you can have them ALL?
Precisely, exactly what I want.
> The 10,000 year basic warranty is attractive as well...
Yeah, but where would I go complaining if I'm dead?
Love, T.
Nicole Hamilton
> > Dear Nicki, I sincerely apologize for my comments about
> > you. I was wrong. There is no justification for what I said.
> > I hope you can see your way clear to forgiving me.
Apology accepted. We all get carried away sometimes. It's part of the
human condition. Consider the matter closed.
Nicki
Loree Thomas
Taemon,
>Are you serious? If you are, I think you are quite enlightened.
Yes. Thank you!
>I realised later I did ask you to explain yourself. I shouldn't have
>done that. I only wanted to make that remark and I could have done that
>without questioning you. I'm sorry for that.
I'd be a pretty poor excuse for an enlightened human if I couldn't stand
a little questioning now and then ö¿ö
Seriously, don't be hard on yourself, you didn't do anything wrong.
>Yes, it took me some time, but eventually I was able to say "You are
>right and I was wrong" and so learn from mistakes. And hoping to set
>examples, of course, I'm not that humble ;-)
"Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalising animal."
It's the brain's job to be right, and it's pretty good at it. So when
it's wrong, it goes into overtime trying to figure out how it isn't
really wrong after all.
Recognising that fact, there is really only one sane way to operate...
you shift from beinging "right" about opinions and beliefs, to being
"right" in how you handle the times you make errors. Not only does that
still allow you to be "right" even when you are wrong (and thus satisfy
your brain's "need" to be right), it's actually a lot saner way to deal
with the real world.
>> One of these days, I'm going to have to become fluent in a language
>> other than English. Is Dutch as rich a source of puns as English is?
>
>I think that every language with a big vocabulary allows you to be as
>punny as your mind allows you to be :-) I would love it if you were to
>learn Dutch but if you want a second language, maybe it's more handy to
>pick one that is widely spoken? Like Spanish or German.
¿Español? Yo hablo español, pero muy muy poquito.
>I would, too. But since everyone who has a choice does, how are we going
>to find out whether we are right in that? Anyway, I prefer the company
>of high-gifted because I am high-gifted myself so I share more with
>those people. Hm. I just contradicted what I said earlier :-) Oh well,
>"I don't know" :-)
That's why I like talking to you... I never have to point out when you
are being inconsistent ö¿ö
>Intelligence is correlated to the ability to change mind-sets, but that
>correlation is far lower than .99, I'd say.
I'd have to agree with you... except...
I like the idea of "emotional intelligence", that is recognising what
you feel and why you feel it, and using that knowledge to mold your
reactions in beneficial rather than harmful ways... kind of like the
example above about the brain's "need" to always be "right". You don't
change the need so much as simply reprogram what actions satisfy that
need.
Then there is also "physical intelligence" (coordination, sense of body
position, etc...) A high physical intelligence lends a large amount of
self confidence to an individual.
Levels in all three types of intelligence taken together would, I think,
correlate quite nicely with ability to change mind-sets.
>>A thousand fold increase in intellectual capability isn't
>>enough for you? You ARE greedy!
>
>No, I'm a psychologist and I know something about brains. A thousandfold
>increase in synapses would screw the whole system big time. But then
>again, maybe that's incredable fun :-) (Didn't intend to be snotty, to
>be sure.)
Hmm... Well of course the person who created this was an artist and not
a scientist... but there is currently research being done that could
lead directly to augmenting human intellectual capacity, so the idea
isn't all that farfetched, though the implimentation might not very well
thought out.
Do you happen to be working in the area of cognative science? There is
quite a lot of very exciting stuff going on in that feild. Nootropics
(smart drugs), human computer interfaces and mapping out exactly how the
brain stores and retrieves data and how it uses that data to "think".
>> >> gender restricted gender changeability
>> >...but I buy :-)
>> I especially liked the "multiple gender" option. Why switch back and
>> forth between a mere two when you can have them ALL?
>
>Precisely, exactly what I want.
>
>> The 10,000 year basic warranty is attractive as well...
>
>Yeah, but where would I go complaining if I'm dead?
Oops... I keep forgetting that the exptropian memes haven't propagated
very far yet.
In a future where that type of body was availible for purchase, you'd
have back-up copies of yourself "uploaded"... and in the event of
accidental death would simply download yourself into the replacement
body. Of course you'd be missing the experiences you'd accumulated
since the last time you made a back-up, but I'm not sure that's a Bad
Thing(tm)... one of the experiences you'll be missing is "dying".
More info about extropian and transhumanist thought can be found here:
http://www.extropy.org/index.htm
Here's a little excerpt from "The Extropian Principles"
"Extropians are neophiles and experimentalists who track new research
for more efficient means of achieving goals and who are willing to
explore novel technologies of self-transformation. In our quest for
continual advancement, we rely on our own judgment, seek our own path,
and reject both blind conformity and mindless rebellion. Extropians
frequently diverge from the mainstream because they refuse to be chained
by any dogma, whether religious, political, or intellectual. Extropians
choose their values and behavior reflectively, standing firm when
necessary but responding flexibly to new conditions."
Here's hoping that after reading this post you won't think I'm simply a
nut case...
Hugs,
Loree
"When I'm criticized by a friend or a loved one, or somebody whom
I respect, which happens from time to time, it really makes me
think hard about what I'm doing and maybe change what I'm doing.
But when I'm criticized by people whose criticism makes me feel
good, I mean people who are racists or bigots or in other ways
deserving of criticism, then it just makes me feel stronger."
-- Alan Dershowitz
http://www.zinezone.com/zones/news/law/dershowitz/interview.html
Loree Thomas
Thanks!
Taemon
> >Are you serious? If you are, I think you are quite enlightened.
> Yes. Thank you!
I'm impressed.
> >I realised later I did ask you to explain yourself. I shouldn't have
> >done that. I only wanted to make that remark and I could have done
that
> >without questioning you. I'm sorry for that.
> I'd be a pretty poor excuse for an enlightened human if I couldn't
stand
> a little questioning now and then ö¿ö
Sure, but it isn't for the enlightened, such as myself, to do the
questioning <g>
> >Yes, it took me some time, but eventually I was able to say "You are
> >right and I was wrong" and so learn from mistakes. And hoping to set
> >examples, of course, I'm not that humble ;-)
> "Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalising animal."
Than again, I'm not a man. Sorry for the rhyme. Rationality is long-time
emotion.
> It's the brain's job to be right, and it's pretty good at it. So when
> it's wrong, it goes into overtime trying to figure out how it isn't
> really wrong after all.
Exactly! We are on one line, my dear.
> Recognising that fact, there is really only one sane way to operate...
> you shift from beinging "right" about opinions and beliefs, to being
> "right" in how you handle the times you make errors. Not only does
that
> still allow you to be "right" even when you are wrong (and thus
satisfy
> your brain's "need" to be right), it's actually a lot saner way to
deal
> with the real world.
Took me quite a way to figure that one out. But in therapy I learned
that if I wanted to grow and heal, I should follow the lead with the
most pain involved. This I found on that same way.
> >I think that every language with a big vocabulary allows you to be as
> >punny as your mind allows you to be :-) I would love it if you were
to
> >learn Dutch but if you want a second language, maybe it's more handy
to
> >pick one that is widely spoken? Like Spanish or German.
> ¿Español? Yo hablo español, pero muy muy poquito.
Erm... You speak Spanish... very very... what?
> That's why I like talking to you... I never have to point out when you
> are being inconsistent ö¿ö
Ah... this a compliment, bitch? :-)
> >Intelligence is correlated to the ability to change mind-sets, but
that
> >correlation is far lower than .99, I'd say.
> I'd have to agree with you... except...
> I like the idea of "emotional intelligence", that is recognising what
> you feel and why you feel it, and using that knowledge to mold your
> reactions in beneficial rather than harmful ways... kind of like the
> example above about the brain's "need" to always be "right".
Yes. I think emotional and intellectual intelligence are somewhat more
correlated than intellectual intelligence and the ability to shift
mind-sets.
> Then there is also "physical intelligence" (coordination, sense of
body
> position, etc...) A high physical intelligence lends a large amount
of
> self confidence to an individual.
Is that so? Why?
> Hmm... Well of course the person who created this was an artist and
not
> a scientist... but there is currently research being done that could
> lead directly to augmenting human intellectual capacity, so the idea
> isn't all that farfetched, though the implimentation might not very
well
> thought out.
Actually, I don't think intellectual intelligence is such a good thing.
Though I like it, to be sure :-)
> Do you happen to be working in the area of cognative science?
I do.
> There is
> quite a lot of very exciting stuff going on in that feild. Nootropics
> (smart drugs), human computer interfaces and mapping out exactly how
the > brain stores and retrieves data and how it uses that data to
"think".
Me, I work on visual information for tool use, sorry :-) The brain
doesn't store data. It recognises it. The concept of memory is a 'loan
on intelligence', meaning we don't know how we re-cognise so we call it
memory, with no questions answered, much like God. We're getting
off-topic :-)
> >> The 10,000 year basic warranty is attractive as well...
> >Yeah, but where would I go complaining if I'm dead?
> Oops... I keep forgetting that the exptropian memes haven't propagated
> very far yet.
Bad luck. I'm having a baby!
> In a future where that type of body was availible for purchase, you'd
> have back-up copies of yourself "uploaded"... and in the event of
> accidental death would simply download yourself into the replacement
> body. Of course you'd be missing the experiences you'd accumulated
> since the last time you made a back-up, but I'm not sure that's a Bad
> Thing(tm)... one of the experiences you'll be missing is "dying".
I think that's quite an old-fashioned way to handle things. Surely it's
a little egg, as the Dutch say, to keep a continuous connection with
your personality storage? In that way, you'll never have to miss
anything, including dying.
<snip extropians>
> Here's hoping that after reading this post you won't think I'm simply
a
> nut case...
What do you mean, 'simply'? :-) I think human nature won't allow the
meme to spread through the population. But if I'm wrong, it would be
cool.
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
>> >I realised later I did ask you to explain yourself. I shouldn't have
>> >done that. I only wanted to make that remark and I could have done
>> >that without questioning you. I'm sorry for that.
>> I'd be a pretty poor excuse for an enlightened human if I couldn't
>> stand a little questioning now and then ö¿ö
>
>Sure, but it isn't for the enlightened, such as myself, to do the
>questioning <g>
Hmmm... I say "question everything". How else is one to maintain
enlightenment?
But point well taken. There is a difference in making a statement,
requesting a clarification and demanding a justification.
I guess it depends on how you go about your "questioning". Even simply
stating an opposing opinion is a form of questioning.
>> >Yes, it took me some time, but eventually I was able to say "You are
>> >right and I was wrong" and so learn from mistakes. And hoping to set
>> >examples, of course, I'm not that humble ;-)
>> "Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalising animal."
>
>Than again, I'm not a man. Sorry for the rhyme. Rationality is long-time
>emotion.
No need for an apology! Even in prose, a rhyme can be sublime, a pun in
good humor and an alliteration almost always acceptable ö¿ö
That's the first obvious indication I've seen that English is not your
native tongue. In most dialects, "again" would rhyme with "pen", in
some with "pin" and a very few would have it rhyme with "pain".
As for the quote, I take no responsibility for it's sexist language...
the statement was made by a person at a time when "man" was always
acceptable when you meant a generic human ö¿ö
Personally, I've long believed that women are more rational than men.
>> >maybe it's more handy to
>> >pick one that is widely spoken? Like Spanish or German.
>> ¿Español? Yo hablo español, pero muy muy poquito.
>
>Erm... You speak Spanish... very very... what?
"but a very very little bit" is the literal translation.
>> That's why I like talking to you... I never have to point out when you
>> are being inconsistent ö¿ö
>
>Ah... this a compliment, bitch? :-)
<BAG (big ass grin)> Yes.
>> A high physical intelligence lends a large amount of
>> self confidence to an individual.
>
>Is that so? Why?
Experience. Knowing where you body is and being able to use it to
perform complex tasks allows you to develop self confidence reinforced
by success... Extreme examples would be a professional athlete vs. an
overweight klutz. A well balanced individual (pun intended) doesn't
develop some of the defensive mechanisms a person deficient in physical
intelligence might, perceive less threat in the physical realm and so
would tend to be more open minded.
>Actually, I don't think intellectual intelligence is such a good thing.
>Though I like it, to be sure :-)
I feel that it is a very good thing. I believe that it is what will
enable the long term survival of the human race as a whole and thee and
me in particular. If you see death, for example, as a problem, then
problem solving ability (intellectual intelligence) is the only way to
overcome it.
>> Do you happen to be working in the area of cognative science?
>
>I do.
Well then I'm probably out of my league in this discussion, being
nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur ö¿ö
>> There is
>> quite a lot of very exciting stuff going on in that feild. Nootropics
>> (smart drugs), human computer interfaces and mapping out exactly how
>the > brain stores and retrieves data and how it uses that data to
>"think".
>
>Me, I work on visual information for tool use, sorry :-) The brain
>doesn't store data. It recognises it. The concept of memory is a 'loan
>on intelligence', meaning we don't know how we re-cognise so we call it
>memory, with no questions answered, much like God. We're getting
>off-topic :-)
Hmmm... that doesn't fit what I think I know. My understanding is that
we are starting to unravel the exact mechanisms that allow data storage
and retrieval.
Maybe we should take this to email, so as not to inflict the newsgroup
with it?
>> >> The 10,000 year basic warranty is attractive as well...
>> >Yeah, but where would I go complaining if I'm dead?
>> Oops... I keep forgetting that the exptropian memes haven't propagated
>> very far yet.
>
>Bad luck. I'm having a baby!
I think it's good luck that your baby is being born now (especially in
"choice" of parent(s)). Indications are that greatly extended life
spans and material wealth are part of the near future.
What bothers me is my parents... They are getting up there in age and
their lives are becoming a race with advances in medical technology.
>I think that's quite an old-fashioned way to handle things. Surely it's
>a little egg, as the Dutch say, to keep a continuous connection with
>your personality storage? In that way, you'll never have to miss
>anything, including dying.
I like that idea!
It occurs to me, however, that what you could end up with is two (or
more) "centers of consciousness" if the backup was "online" at all
times. Direct mind to mind real time communications would become
possible between individuals as well (telepathy, anyone?).
That kind of technology is one possible route to posthumanity.
>> Here's hoping that after reading this post you won't think I'm simply
>> a nut case...
>What do you mean, 'simply'? :-)
Hmmph... getting even for my earlier "inconsistent" crack, I see ö¿ö
>I think human nature won't allow the meme to spread
>through the population. But if I'm wrong, it would be
>cool.
Time will tell, of course, but I intend to do my bit to spread it far
and wide. I believe that people who hold the values and beliefs I share
will have an edge in the coming few decades... they will be
intellectually and emotionally prepared to take advantage of new
technologies as they develop.
Taemon
> >Sure, but it isn't for the enlightened, such as myself, to do the
> >questioning <g>
> Hmmm... I say "question everything". How else is one to maintain
> enlightenment?
Yes, but "respect thy neighbour" :-)
> But point well taken. There is a difference in making a statement,
> requesting a clarification and demanding a justification.
You are very very right Oh Native Speaker Of Wisdom.
> >> "Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalising animal."
> >Than again, I'm not a man. Sorry for the rhyme. Rationality is
long-time
> >emotion.
> No need for an apology! Even in prose, a rhyme can be sublime, a pun
in
> good humor and an alliteration almost always acceptable ö¿ö
Now, Ever Ready, Duh :-)
> That's the first obvious indication I've seen that English is not your
> native tongue. In most dialects, "again" would rhyme with "pen", in
> some with "pin" and a very few would have it rhyme with "pain".
But "pen" rhymes with "man", doesn't it?
> As for the quote, I take no responsibility for it's sexist language...
> the statement was made by a person at a time when "man" was always
> acceptable when you meant a generic human ö¿ö
But it isn't now. And sexist language is my personal crusade.
> Personally, I've long believed that women are more rational than men.
But I believe in the individual, being an inter-gender :-) And I don't
believe in rationality as something different from emotion at all.
> >> A high physical intelligence lends a large amount of
> >> self confidence to an individual.
> >Is that so? Why?
> Experience. Knowing where you body is and being able to use it to
> perform complex tasks allows you to develop self confidence reinforced
> by success...
Success IF you perform complex tasks, right? But I see your point.
> A well balanced individual (pun intended) doesn't
> develop some of the defensive mechanisms a person deficient in
physical
> intelligence might, perceive less threat in the physical realm and so
> would tend to be more open minded.
Or less experienced.
> >Actually, I don't think intellectual intelligence is such a good
thing.
> >Though I like it, to be sure :-)
> I feel that it is a very good thing. I believe that it is what will
> enable the long term survival of the human race as a whole and thee
and
> me in particular.
I think we wouldn't have been in the problems we are if it wasn't for
intelligence. But my point is mainly that I don't think it is a Fact
that intelligence is a Good Thing.
> >> Do you happen to be working in the area of cognative science?
> >I do.
> Well then I'm probably out of my league in this discussion, being
> nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur ö¿ö
Also, I'm a smartass :-)
> >The brain
> >doesn't store data. It recognises it. The concept of memory is a
'loan
> >on intelligence', meaning we don't know how we re-cognise so we call
it
> >memory, with no questions answered, much like God.
> Hmmm... that doesn't fit what I think I know.
It doesn't fit with the mainstream cognitive psychology-approach. Me,
I'm from the underground approach called 'ecological psychology' :-)
Our basics are duality of animal and environment and of perception and
action. Cognitive psychology sees cognition as apart from the animal and
the animal as apart from the organism. Ecological psychology is
basically evolution-based. Cognitive psychology is going to face some
real problems. But we are small, so you can easily ignore us :-)
> My understanding is that
> we are starting to unravel the exact mechanisms that allow data
storage
> and retrieval.
Data is not stored. Data influences the continuous stream of knowledge.
Memory is an active proces. Facts we remember are never exact but part
of and imbedded in everything we know. What we know is constantly
rearranged.
> Maybe we should take this to email, so as not to inflict the newsgroup
> with it?
That is a good idea. Next days I'm bussy however, so it might take some
time before you hear from me, but I'm there! :-)
> What bothers me is my parents... They are getting up there in age and
> their lives are becoming a race with advances in medical technology.
Yeah. Er, no. What do you mean? They might fall ill before a cure is
found, is that what you are saying?
> It occurs to me, however, that what you could end up with is two (or
> more) "centers of consciousness" if the backup was "online" at all
> times.
Not for me. I don't believe in data storage :-) And I think
consciousness is way overestimated, too. It's really very very small,
compared with what else we are and do.
> >I think human nature won't allow the meme to spread
> >through the population. But if I'm wrong, it would be
> >cool.
> Time will tell, of course, but I intend to do my bit to spread it far
> and wide. I believe that people who hold the values and beliefs I
share
> will have an edge in the coming few decades... they will be
> intellectually and emotionally prepared to take advantage of new
> technologies as they develop.
I have an evolutionary viewpoint. I think humans now, humans ten
thousand years ago and ten thousand years from now will be the same,
want the same and do the same. Only our machines are different. But our
machines are ways to get what we want which are usually sex and food.
That won't change, not ever.
It would be nice if we could find a way to be what we are without
killing each other, however.
Love, T.
Loree Thomas
>Loree wrote:
>> That's the first obvious indication I've seen that English is not your
>> native tongue. In most dialects, "again" would rhyme with "pen", in
>> some with "pin" and a very few would have it rhyme with "pain".
>
>But "pen" rhymes with "man", doesn't it?
"Pen" rhymes with men, zen, hen and Ben.
"Man" rhymes with pan, ran, plan and Stan.
>> >Actually, I don't think intellectual intelligence is such a good
>thing.
>> >Though I like it, to be sure :-)
>> I feel that it is a very good thing. I believe that it is what will
>> enable the long term survival of the human race as a whole and thee
>and
>> me in particular.
>
>I think we wouldn't have been in the problems we are if it wasn't for
>intelligence. But my point is mainly that I don't think it is a Fact
>that intelligence is a Good Thing.
Well, we wouldn't have the problems we do... but we'd have other, much
worse problems.
It's Maslow’s "Hierarchy of Needs" thing. Without intelligence, we'd
still be fighting the problems of subsistence living... short brutish
life spans. Instead, many humans enjoy relatively long comfortable
lives with all basic needs met.
The solutions to current problems will come from more intelligence, not
less... and those solutions will cause their own problems which will
then succumb to further intelligence... and so on in a fairly steady
upward spiral.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
>> >> Do you happen to be working in the area of cognative science?
>> >I do.
>> Well then I'm probably out of my league in this discussion, being
>> nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur öżö
>
>Also, I'm a smartass :-)
Yup... I knew there was a reason I liked you. I like me and you reflect
back parts of myself.
>> >The brain
>> >doesn't store data. It recognises it. The concept of memory is a
>'loan
>> >on intelligence', meaning we don't know how we re-cognise so we call
>it
>> >memory, with no questions answered, much like God.
>> Hmmm... that doesn't fit what I think I know.
>
>It doesn't fit with the mainstream cognitive psychology-approach. Me,
>I'm from the underground approach called 'ecological psychology' :-)
So... would you be part of the Faculty of Human Movement Sciences in
Amsterdam?
>Our basics are duality of animal and environment and of perception and
>action. Cognitive psychology sees cognition as apart from the animal and
>the animal as apart from the organism. Ecological psychology is
>basically evolution-based. Cognitive psychology is going to face some
>real problems. But we are small, so you can easily ignore us :-)
Not that small. I found several web sites. Give me some time to do
some reading and then I'll be able to at least understand what you are
talking about!
>That is a good idea. Next days I'm bussy however, so it might take some
>time before you hear from me, but I'm there! :-)
Ok... I'll email this as well. You can pick where and how you respond.
>> What bothers me is my parents... They are getting up there in age and
>> their lives are becoming a race with advances in medical technology.
>
>Yeah. Er, no. What do you mean? They might fall ill before a cure is
>found, is that what you are saying?
Yes. Or they might die of old age before we solve that particular
problem. I'm trying to convince them that, since they are going to die
anyway, they might as well spend some of their money on themselves and
buy into a cryonics program. It probably won't work, but if it doesn't,
they haven't lost anything. You can't be any worse than dead.
OTOH, if it does work...
>> It occurs to me, however, that what you could end up with is two (or
>> more) "centers of consciousness" if the backup was "online" at all
>> times.
>
>Not for me. I don't believe in data storage :-) And I think
>consciousness is way overestimated, too. It's really very very small,
>compared with what else we are and do.
Again we have different viewpoints <G>. I believe consciousness and
intelligence will allow us to change every other aspect of who we are
and what we do, make everything we are and do a matter of conscious
choice... and in the not too distant future. Well within my own
lifetime.
>
>I have an evolutionary viewpoint. I think humans now, humans ten
>thousand years ago and ten thousand years from now will be the same,
>want the same and do the same. Only our machines are different. But our
>machines are ways to get what we want which are usually sex and food.
>That won't change, not ever.
Again, I believe your view is limited. Evolution has been non directed
up to this point, hit and miss, if you will, and changes took a very
long time. All that is about to change. We are currently developing
the tools and technologies that will allow us to take an active role in
directing the further evolution of humans. The humans 100 years from
now will be remarkably different than today... if indeed they could
still be called humans. In 10,000 years, I doubt there will be any
creatures around at all that either of us would recognize as "human" in
any way.
>It would be nice if we could find a way to be what we are without
>killing each other, however.
I think the answer will be to change what we are... keeping and even
expanding on the good while eliminating the bad.