Laura, transsexuals, and what can you do with THOSE bits?
Angel
Diane asked Tamara to justify the following words of Laura's. What I have
written below is an attempt to explain some of the reasons behind Laura's
outburst. Obviously there is a large element of my own perspective in this,
too, but I hope it goes some way towards making sense of things.
Laura Blake said:
>If it were not for the source of the information, my opinions of
> transsexuals would clearly rate as open and unabashed hatred.
> However, thanks to you, Andrea, Michelle, Kara, Dana, Christina, half a
dozen
> Stephanies, a couple of Karens, and several dozen other cunt mongers,
> I now have a 100% negative view of transsexuals. A view inspired
directly
> from the entirely brain-fucked ways they present themselves before me,
> bombarding me for years with their stupidity, lies, delusions,
> justifications and magical ideations, all of which seem to exist in
> utter defiance of obvious facts and readily observable realities. In
this
> regard, transsexuals have truly gone out of their way to give me quite
the
> display of what they are really like. And an ugly picture it is, too!
OK, this is an angry outburst, resulting from frustration at others'
inability to see her viewpoint, from having her attempts to help the *whole*
transcommunity virtually thrown back in her face, from being perceived and
treated as the enemy because she is comfortable with being openly
transgendered.
Ignore the effing and blinding, and look beyond to what it is that Laura is
criticizing.. Is SRS actually a sex-change operation? Not exactly - the
genitalia you went in with are now on the inside forming an artificial
vagina. You're probably pleased you've had it done, but you're still the
same person as you were when you went in to have the op only, as one lady
put it, a lot sorer. You are a post-op TS, or in some cases, an intersex
post-op, but you're not a genetic woman. I can understand that this is
something very hard to come to terms with for TSs - you're not what you wish
you'd been born, and you can't experience 100% womanhood. I'm not
unsympathetic. But your birth sex is a *fact*, and somehow or other, you
need to be able to live with that knowledge, to come to terms with it, for
the sake of your own sanity.
Why might Laura want to tell people that there is an alternative to surgery?
I won't go into all the possible after-surgery complications, a Google
search on medical sites should fill you in - here's just a few things that
can go wrong: fistulas, hairballs, peritonitis, necrosis.. oh, and if you
don't dilate, your body will do the same as it with any other wound, and
attempt to heal and close it up. No, things won't necessarily go wrong, but
there is a risk. Something like 1 in 3 patients will have to go back within
a year of the original op for further surgery.
Given what I've said, it seems reasonable that a number of people would
prefer to crosslive, some perhaps with the proviso that if they could one
day have surgery that will make them more fully female (uterus, ovaries,
periods, babies..) then they might consider it. At which point, along comes
a pre- or post-op, and calls the non-op or TG a man, causing considerable
offense in doing so. This particular TS school of thought is very
dismissive of dressing as, living 24/7 as and socializing as a woman. This,
in their opinion is mere lifestyle, perhaps even a hobby or a fetish, and in
the eyes of some, a danger to other women (including pre-op TSs). There is
a pre-op who feels that while she has every right to use the ladies toilets,
a non-op would constitute a threat to women. Both have a penis, but one
wants to get rid of it, while the other has decided to live with it. The
question here is: why on earth would anyone go to the lengths of having
electrolysis, taking hormones, dressing and living 24/7 as a woman,
potentially risking discrimination at work, abuse from idiots and the
breakup of their relationship just so that they could go perving in the
ladies' toilets???
Then, of course, there is the issue of rights - Laura has fought for the
rights and freedom of trans* people but the rights that stealth TSs want
tend to exclude being identified as trans*. What Laura has worked hard for
is to get legislation in place in Ontario that will prevent TSs, TGs and CDs
from being discriminated against on the grounds of them being trans*. In
the eyes of some stealth TSs, this makes her the enemy, because, unlike
their TG sisters, they are REAL women and want real women's rights. Yeah,
like the rights to abortion, contraception, and maternity leave are of any
possible use to a post-op. Believe it or not, the rights to be treated as
just another woman include a large chunk of TRANS rights - the right to not
be discriminated against relative to other women. And that's the sort of
thing Laura has been fighting for. To be able to live as a normal woman
(minus the reproductive element), a TS needs legislation in place that will
prevent her from being discriminated against if anyone finds out that she's
TS. There are TSs who would prefer to risk losing their job and having
their marriages invalidated rather than have anyone know that they are TS.
They can get away with it, since their Birth Certificate says "F". However
when it comes to a TS marrying as a woman, you tell me where the wedding
*would* legally go ahead if it was found out beforehand that the bride was
TS? Any advance on "just Holland"? (And yes, I said "would", not "might
have a good chance of..")
Then, of course, we have the issue of self-acceptance. I have noticed a
number of TSs complaining that Laura says that SRS is a sign of self-hatred.
They tell her she doesn't understand how they feel. OK, I'll take these one
point at a time. Is having a potentially risky and *medically* unnecessary
operation (note, I DIDN'T say *emotionally* unnecessary) about
self-acceptance? It may be an attempt to *gain* self-acceptance, but this
would suggest that one did not already *have* that self-acceptance. What
Laura tried to offer to transsexuals is the idea that they have a CHOICE in
how they deal with the incongruity between their birth sex and their gender.
It *is* possible to be openly transgendered and happy. It means never
having to worry about being "found out". It means just accepting yourself
as you are and not being restricted by your perception of social norms.
Think of it this way: if you feel the need to hide what you are from the
world, it means that you feel there is something wrong with being TS/TG/CD -
ie that there's something wrong with YOU, something you desperately want to
deny, conceal and correct. If, however, you are quite happy to be your own
variety of woman, the only thing that is wrong is (ignorant) bigotry. I
don't think that any of us, regardless of our particular self-identification
are the freaks - it's bigotry that is the problem, and that needs to be
sorted out.
ENTIRELY ANGEL'S VIEWS - DON'T KNOW LAURA'S VIEWS ON THIS BIT AT ALL....
The "wanting to have sex as a woman" reason for SRS is something I can
understand better, although for some, gaining full sexual feeling in the new
vagina is not easy. I can't remember who said it, but someone said "I don't
want to be the aggressor", when talking about sex. A thought, which maybe
you've considered and dismissed: does it really have to be that way?
Without getting into all steamy and intimate details here, anyone can take
the helpless and submissive role, if they have a partner who enjoys being
masterful. Next question: does hating your genitalia interfere with your
ability to have or enjoy sex? Two options here - you change your genitalia
OR you accept that what you've got is incongruous with your gender, but look
upon that part of yourself with compassionate tenderness rather than
resentment. Would you feel less of a woman if you were able to feel
pleasure via your current configuration? In which case, relax a little, and
remember that sex and gender are two different things. You can still be
fully female in gender whatever you do with that part of you. The powers of
the human mind to achieve things both positive and negative are endless.
And if you're determined not to feel pleasure because you fear it will
jeopardize your chances or make a mockery of your plans to have SRS - have a
good long think about your real motives for having SRS. I'm not telling
anyone they were wrong to have SRS or even that they shouldn't - just that
there are alternatives.
OK, I think I bumbled off at a tangent somewhere, so I'll leave it there....
Angel
Stephe
> OK, this is an angry outburst, resulting from frustration at others'
> inability to see her viewpoint,
Ever consider that people understand her viewpoint but just don't agree
with it? There are several things she believes that I don't think are true,
so then I become "another fuckwit". That is everyone's problem with Laura.
She believes she has THE answer for everyone when in actuality she has the
answer for herself. Given some of the problems she has had, I'm not that
sure she even has that.
Trying to tell people trying to make a choce that crossliving is a valid
option is one thing. Why does she spend most of her time argueing with and
insulting post-op TS's?
--
Stephe
Natasha Thompson
> Warning: this is L-O-N-G!!!
>
> Diane asked Tamara to justify the following words of Laura's. What I have
> written below is an attempt to explain
Angel, =]
Spirits luv ya gal, but please consider this.
Where Laura runs aground is when she blames others for her behavior,
makes broad sweeping judgements of all TS people based on the actions
of, I agree some real dildo breath braindead ones, and then becomes
the same as they are "only different" in the process.
I defended Laura for a while. Yet soon I was just disgusted by her
childish "you made me this way" tantrums. The only person responsible
for a respectable adult's behavior is themselves, but spoiled children
blame society, mom and dad, and their enemies.
Fuck that. She can blame others, jump up and down screaming 'and' hold
her breath until she turns blue, and then whine forever for all I care
now.
Natasha
Angel
"Natasha Thompson" <natasha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42547273.02040...@posting.google.com...
> "Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
news:<3cb28c91$0$89566$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>...
> > Warning: this is L-O-N-G!!!
> >
> > Diane asked Tamara to justify the following words of Laura's. What I
have
> > written below is an attempt to explain
>
> Angel, =]
>
> Spirits luv ya gal, but please consider this.
>
> Where Laura runs aground is when she blames others for her behavior,
> makes broad sweeping judgements of all TS people based on the actions
> of, I agree some real dildo breath braindead ones, and then becomes
> the same as they are "only different" in the process.
>
> I defended Laura for a while. Yet soon I was just disgusted by her
> childish "you made me this way" tantrums. The only person responsible
> for a respectable adult's behavior is themselves, but spoiled children
> blame society, mom and dad, and their enemies.
No (wo)man is an island. We are all affected by what goes on around us,
things that happen to us and the way people treat us. It's part of our
learning process. We do not stop learning when we leave school.
Unfortunately, much of what we learn about those around us, about ourselves
and about the interactions between the two is negative.
Out of interest, how much of my post did you actually read?
Angel
JoAnne Maenpaa
> we have the issue of self-acceptance ...
... and a bit later also said ...
> It means never having to worry about being "found out".
If a person is living with the "no one must ever know"
rule, what does that say for their self-acceptance?
I also lived under that rule for decades and I finally
could not live that way anymore.
What bothered me most was that previous lifetime of
hiding. While trying to (unsuccessfully) hide I also
maintained a list much like this one about why I could
not go forward ...
> ... artificial vagina ... you're not a genetic woman ...
> you can't experience 100% womanhood ... fistulas,
> hairballs, peritonitis, necrosis ... there is a risk
> ... further surgery ...
Once I mustered the courage, strength, and commitment
to fix myself and my life those were no longer issues.
It also took courage, strength, and commitment of all
the key people in my life. I'm still living with my
SO and two children. They were there with me for my
SRS. I have made a pre-op friend who shares the courage,
strength, and commitment which binds us together in ways
we never imagined possible in the previous lifetime of
hiding.
We all deal with this each in our own way. Everyone's
choice is truly their own. Exploring is OK and one
doesn't have to stay on a path that is not working.
Just a couple of my thoughts,
Hugs,
JoAnne
ps - re: vaginal insensitivity ... most of the "action"
for this post-op is in her clitoris. This also seems to
be the case with the small group of GG's within my
women's circle with whom we discuss such things.
Amanda Angelika
"Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
news:3cb28c91$0$89566$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> Diane asked Tamara to justify the following words of Laura's. What I have
> written below is an attempt to explain some of the reasons behind Laura's
> outburst. Obviously there is a large element of my own perspective in
this,
> too, but I hope it goes some way towards making sense of things.
>
>
> Angel
Yes I can agree with most of this.
I think Laura's intentions are good and many of her arguements make sense.
Though I wonder sometimes if she has the full picture.
I find there is one major flaw in all Laura's ideas. Men Crossdress for
sexual reasons and this often has nothing to do with gender. She does seem
to imply that this sexual motivation is a result of oppression and really
these people are Transgender. Whilst this might be true for some, such as
autogynaphilic transsexuals and I would say that people are not black and
white in terms of gender identity or behaviour. I don't think one can rule
this out as an issue.
What I have found from observations of the Fetish and BDSM scene is that
most crossdressing is sexually motivated. Crssdressing in itself for sexual
gratification doesn't make a person a *woman* any more than a person who
wears a Nazi uniform is a Nazi or would want to be a Nazi.
The problem is with social reality ie the real world that we live in is that
it to is an S&M scenario. The ultimate S&M scenario. People take on certain
roles master and slave, male and female. Reality is a fetishist's delight.
Of course the problem with this is. There is only one way for a genuine
Transsexual woman to prove she is a woman; SRS. The rest is fantasy. Of
course one can argue that it's still a fantasy to some extent since one can
never be a *real* woman. But SRS is a tribal and cultural right of Passage.
This isn't to say it is right for everyone and if a person can happily live
as a woman without SRS or is happy to be half and half then this is fine and
this is up to the individual, we are all different in any case. but since
SRS is a right of passage in our tribe, it is the only way that a
transsexual can hope to gain the acceptance that she desires. Call it
barbaric and primative, but humans are like that. This is the order of our
world.
Personally I think Laura is wasting her time arguing against SRS. We are
talking about the entire social construction of reality and this will never
change. We live and die by the sword. The secret to happyness for an MtF
TG/TS is to find out whatever sort of woman one is and get on with it, play
the game, fit into society and enjoy the freedoms it allows. You can't beat
society in the end this is the order of reality.
Of course although I find I do disagree with Laura on some points and
sometimes even feel there are limitations in the scope of her arguements. I
should say I respect her views and admire her idealism even if I do see it
as a lost cause, I believe Laura has a good heart.
--
Amanda
--------------------------------------
Amanda Angelika Berry
--------------------------------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 14/3/02
Amanda Angelika
"Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
news:3cb2bb98$0$89568$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
This is the problem though and the paradox. If Laura was secure in her own
identity as a woman (more self sufficient) she would not need to be a TG
activist and be anti SRS. The problem is society calls the shots and the
valuation it dictates is SRS. This is a tribal right of passage. One can't
be a TG activist and be recognised as a woman by society because society
dictates *real* women are not TG and don't have a penis. Whatever the rights
and wrongs of that the fact is one can't be a woman unless you at least keep
what you have in your knickers well hid or have it surgically removed/
realigned. SRS is the validation that society dictates. Unfortunately if one
makes a song and dance out of being TG society usually just sees one as some
kind of nut.
I have admire Laura's idealism and respect her as a person and I am sure she
has helped many to come to terms with gender disphoria and see that there
are alternatives to SRS. However I can see why some Transsexuals find her
arguments difficult because she seeks to undermine the institution of SRS
and the validity of their womanhood, but I don't think it is Laura's
intention to undermine anyone's rights, quite the reverse in fact, but I do
think it's a lost cause to be honest. because the only way to be accepted as
a woman is to be a woman and not be TG or seen as such.
estsan...@hotmail.com
> There is only one way for a genuine Transsexual woman to prove she is a
> woman; SRS.
Facial surgery, HRT, electrolysis, breast implants, etc. are all
fantasy, but a reassigned sex organ is "the real deal"? I'd not like
to see how "genuine" the real world finds a post-op flat-chested
transsexual woman bearing a ripe 5-o'clock shadow.
--
Estsanatlehi
Nothing is so bad that stillness won't make it worse.
Amanda Angelika
<estsan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.174527caa...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> manic...@hotmail.com:
>
> > There is only one way for a genuine Transsexual woman to prove she is a
> > woman; SRS.
>
> Facial surgery, HRT, electrolysis, breast implants, etc. are all
> fantasy, but a reassigned sex organ is "the real deal"? I'd not like
> to see how "genuine" the real world finds a post-op flat-chested
> transsexual woman bearing a ripe 5-o'clock shadow.
True. Appearance is important in everyday life and in terms of living in a
chosen gender role is probably the most important aspect. And maybe
*fantasy* isn't entirely the best word Theatre might be better I suppose.
(I'm taking the view that the social construction of reality is ART life is
a stage)
What I am trying to get at though is perhaps more to do with legal rights.
The post-op flat-chested
transsexual woman bearing a ripe 5-o'clock shadow, you give as an example,
would still have more legal rights than the most convincing non-op or pre-op
because she would be regarded as more legally female. (or at least be
considered less of a threat i.e. as a eunuch). SRS is therefore a rite of
passage. In a similar way to marriage, or becoming 21 for example
Penance Penny Rose Armstrong
been visciously attecked on this group over the past 3 years by Diane,
Cheryl, and Ms. Usher, for nothing more than being and believing
different than they, I can relate to her anger.
Some of the people who come here seem so bitter about their own state
of non-normalcy as dictated by society, (If you want to get your dick
cut off, you must be a freak, it's not normal, that arguement), that
when they are faced with someone who is NOT resentful of that
uniquness, but in fact embraces their difference and has found comfort
with what they are, then those who are bitter go into attack-dog mode,
and those who aren't, because they fought so hard to find that peace
within themselves, get defensive. The result is that those few
Transsexuals, (And they are few among the whole), who are this bitter
and narrow-minded, go out of their way to be hurtful and derogatory of
the Transgenderist, trying to invalidate their identity. The
transgenderist then reacts by expending way too much energy defending
themselves against someone who simply will not accept them.
The cycle continues, and it really is sad.
-Penny Rose
Tamara
if I have. You wrote:
> I find there is one major flaw in all Laura's ideas. Men Crossdress for
> sexual reasons and this often has nothing to do with gender. She does seem
> to imply that this sexual motivation is a result of oppression and really
> these people are Transgender. Whilst this might be true for some, such as
> autogynaphilic transsexuals and I would say that people are not black and
> white in terms of gender identity or behaviour. I don't think one can rule
> this out as an issue.
Men Crossdress for sexual reasons and this often has nothing to do with
gender? Huh? Some maybe, definitely not all.
I have never had the impression from Laura that she feels men crossdress for
sexual motivation as a result of oppression. Perhaps I missed something
there, I don't know, but from what I have learned about Laura in the time I
have been here, she agrees that there is sexual involvement - but that is
not the only outcome of oppression.
> What I have found from observations of the Fetish and BDSM scene is that
> most crossdressing is sexually motivated. Crssdressing in itself for
sexual
> gratification doesn't make a person a *woman* any more than a person who
> wears a Nazi uniform is a Nazi or would want to be a Nazi.
You are judging all crossdressers to be fetishists. Most people in the
fetish and BDSM scene will get sexual motivation from it. Crossdressing for
many is not sexually motivated, it is an expression of their inner self. I
know GG's who have had sexual pleasure from wearing feminine clothing - it
does not mean anything.
> The problem is with social reality ie the real world that we live in is
that
> it to is an S&M scenario. The ultimate S&M scenario. People take on
certain
> roles master and slave, male and female. Reality is a fetishist's delight.
> Of course the problem with this is. There is only one way for a genuine
> Transsexual woman to prove she is a woman; SRS. The rest is fantasy. Of
> course one can argue that it's still a fantasy to some extent since one
can
> never be a *real* woman. But SRS is a tribal and cultural right of
Passage.
You are right, the only way a genuine TS can prove she is a woman is by
having SRS. That does not mean that you are either TS or a crossdresser. I
have no wish whatsoever to have SRS, and I will never have, because I am
clear about my gender. What Laura takes issue with, is that some people are
only given the option to be TS or a crossdresser, so choose the TS route.
That may not be the best way forward for that person, they really may not
want to change sex.
> Personally I think Laura is wasting her time arguing against SRS. We are
> talking about the entire social construction of reality and this will
never
> change. We live and die by the sword. The secret to happyness for an MtF
> TG/TS is to find out whatever sort of woman one is and get on with it,
play
> the game, fit into society and enjoy the freedoms it allows. You can't
beat
> society in the end this is the order of reality.
Laura is not against SRS, she is against people who are basically led down
the SRS path because they fit the mould. SRS should only be performed on
people who truly show a massive need to have the body of the opposite sex.
People who choose to live the life of the opposite sex may not necessarily
want to have SRS.
> Of course although I find I do disagree with Laura on some points and
> sometimes even feel there are limitations in the scope of her arguements.
I
> should say I respect her views and admire her idealism even if I do see it
> as a lost cause, I believe Laura has a good heart.
We all disagree with things that Laura says, but she does have a heart!
Taking the SRS debate a stage further:
Where I have had issues in the past is the question of: *wanting to look
like or be a woman (or a man)*
For me, at this moment anyway, it is not about wanting to look like a woman,
it is about wanting to be feminine. At the end of each day, every *woman*
goes home, takes off her clothes, makeup and accessories. She is still the
same woman, but only in the flesh. She has removed her means of self
expression and becomes just the sex.
The next day, she puts on her self expression again and goes out into
society. She is not only a woman, but dependant on her choice of
expression, she is a masculine woman or a feminine woman - or maybe a bit of
both.
For me as a man, I can choose to be a masculine man or a feminine man. If I
choose to be a feminine man, then I could create my expression to match that
of a feminine woman. I may not be welcomed by many people in hardline
society, but I could do it.
I could really spend a lot of time and pass as a GG. But I can still go
home and remove all the expression and still be the same person I was to
start with.
This makes me fairly androgynous, with a slight lean towards being more
feminine than masculine. This does not make me want to have sexual pleasure
as a result. What it does achieve is to feed my hunger to express myself in
the way that my inner feelings dictate. My internal ticker says that I am a
man who likes things to be more feminine. Does this make me intergendered
or transgendered? It does not really matter what it makes me, the fact is
that not all of us want to become a woman (or a man), we just want to be
ourselves. SRS is only for those really who want to be the opposite to
their assigned birth sex, not because it looks like the best option to fit
into society.
Tamara
Angel
"Elaine" <elai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EgJs8.3505$3P4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tamara" <ma...@feminine.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>
> > Laura is not against SRS, she is against people who are basically led
down
> > the SRS path because they fit the mould. SRS should only be performed
on
> > people who truly show a massive need to have the body of the opposite
sex.
> > People who choose to live the life of the opposite sex may not
necessarily
> > want to have SRS.
>
> understanding of why transsexual women have SRS.
No. Laura doesn't like the idea of SRS but would defend your right to have
it. She honestly has no desire to prevent people from being able to get
their ops, but realises that people are afraid that if the public can see
that a TG can crosslive happily, people will start to question why people
*do* have the op. Neither Laura nor myself would be inconsiderate or
callous enough to prevent someone who really feels that the SRS is their
only option from having the op. We are out to show people that there may be
alternatives. We are not out to destroy you. You really do need to believe
me on this one, Elaine, as do certain others. You can attack Laura's views
all you want, but it won't help you or anyone else.
> > For me, at this moment anyway, it is not about wanting to look like a
> woman,
> > it is about wanting to be feminine. At the end of each day, every
*woman*
> > goes home, takes off her clothes, makeup and accessories. She is still
> the
> > same woman, but only in the flesh. She has removed her means of self
> > expression and becomes just the sex.
>
> You know, that's really nonsense. A woman doesn't need "clothes" or
"makeup"
> for "self expression". Is that why you crossdress......for self
expression?
> If so why?
Elaine, women *do* use clothes and make up (and hair styles) for
self-expression, and it's quite a complex non-verbal language.
> SRS is for those who are mentally/emotionally the opposite of their birth
> sex. It is usually not an "option". :)
Surgery or no, you need to learn to love and accept yourself a bit more,
Elaine. And no, don't start snickering at me for this, just go forth and do
it, and find happiness.
Angel
Angel
>
> "Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote
>
> > Surgery or no, you need to learn to love and accept yourself a bit more,
> > Elaine. And no, don't start snickering at me for this, just go forth
and
> do
> > it, and find happiness.
>
> heart, Angel, even if you don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks, Elaine! :)
Angel
Amanda Angelika
"Tamara" <ma...@feminine.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1018387681.363.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi Amanda, sorry if I have taken your post the wrong way, please correct
me
> if I have. You wrote:
>
> > I find there is one major flaw in all Laura's ideas. Men Crossdress for
> > sexual reasons and this often has nothing to do with gender. She does
seem
> > to imply that this sexual motivation is a result of oppression and
really
> > these people are Transgender. Whilst this might be true for some, such
as
> > autogynaphilic transsexuals and I would say that people are not black
and
> > white in terms of gender identity or behaviour. I don't think one can
rule
> > this out as an issue.
>
> Men Crossdress for sexual reasons and this often has nothing to do with
> gender? Huh? Some maybe, definitely not all.
True that sounds like a sweeping statement but wasn't meant to be I should
have qualified it slightly though I suppose it's true to say that if one
does it for gender reasons then one is transgender, so I suppose I am saying
men who are not transgender.
> I have never had the impression from Laura that she feels men crossdress
for
> sexual motivation as a result of oppression. Perhaps I missed something
> there, I don't know, but from what I have learned about Laura in the time
I
> have been here, she agrees that there is sexual involvement - but that is
> not the only outcome of oppression.
I think much of the sexual motivation is to do with oppression, i.e. the
Taboos involved, but I also think part of the culture of crossdressing
itself is such that it perpetuates the taboos and oppression. In a similar
way to the reasons that Christians apply strict rules to sex, it maintains
certain structures and institutions e.g. marriage. Some people call
Christianity "The keep sex dirty campaign"
The culture of crossdressing is often a marketing exercise in certain types
of mild pornography. It is interesting to look at other CDs because 1. they
often look attractive, 2. One CD will get a voyeuristic pleasure form
looking at what another CD is wearing. Most CDs are exhibitionistic. The
stories that CDs read are sexually orientated to and often involve such
things as enforced feminisation, female domination, Lesbian sex fantasies,
Punishments for wearing certain clothes. Of course there is a point where
the sexual motivations and gender issues blur a bit but there often seems to
be an extremely active sexual motivation in the whole culture of
Crossdressing.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, but I do think that given
the motivation for crossdressing can be complicated and sexual motivations
are often involved it is perhaps understandable that some people would
prefer to stay in the closet or partially in the closet.
Now this is where I am beginning to disagree with Laura on issues regarding
oppression. Obviously if a person is TG/TS and they live their lives in the
closet, this is very obviously oppression because we are talking about their
gender identity and personality which is in the prison. However if the
motivation for crossdressing is largely as a form of sexual relief, then
obviously there is no need for that person to be out of the closet and one
can justify the limitations they may place on the activity. I think these
issues are very complex and the motivations for crossdressing can vary from
person to person and people also go through stages in finding themselves.
But I am beginning to feel that encouraging people out of the closet isn't
necessarily always the right course since they are only oppressed if they
are TG or TS. If the motivation is largely sexual they might be happy to
stay in the closet, live their lives as men and keep the Crossdressing as a
bit of bedroom fun.
I think sometimes Laura applies her own experience of being Transgender, a
woman male or even non-op TS to people who are different. I think she means
well and has a heart of gold but I don't always feel she is always right and
to me she does seem to overlook some very fundamental differences in
motivation. Of course such differences in motivations can be a source of
conflict within the CD/TG community and sometimes one can have a conflict
within oneself over personal motivations.
> > What I have found from observations of the Fetish and BDSM scene is that
> > most crossdressing is sexually motivated. Crssdressing in itself for
> sexual
> > gratification doesn't make a person a *woman* any more than a person who
> > wears a Nazi uniform is a Nazi or would want to be a Nazi.
>
> You are judging all crossdressers to be fetishists. Most people in the
> fetish and BDSM scene will get sexual motivation from it. Crossdressing
for
> many is not sexually motivated, it is an expression of their inner self.
I
> know GG's who have had sexual pleasure from wearing feminine clothing - it
> does not mean anything.
Well I did say most as opposed to all. However if is someone is transgender
they will tend to label themselves as such and live the life. Most CDs
remain to a lesser or greater extent in the closet or share their
involvement in Crossdressing in a limited circle. Most live as men and the
gender motivations are not strong enough to persuade them to live full-time
as an openly TG person or as a woman.
> > The problem is with social reality ie the real world that we live in is
> that
> > it to is an S&M scenario. The ultimate S&M scenario. People take on
> certain
> > roles master and slave, male and female. Reality is a fetishist's
delight.
> > Of course the problem with this is. There is only one way for a genuine
> > Transsexual woman to prove she is a woman; SRS. The rest is fantasy. Of
> > course one can argue that it's still a fantasy to some extent since one
> can
> > never be a *real* woman. But SRS is a tribal and cultural right of
> Passage.
>
> You are right, the only way a genuine TS can prove she is a woman is by
> having SRS. That does not mean that you are either TS or a crossdresser.
I
> have no wish whatsoever to have SRS, and I will never have, because I am
> clear about my gender. What Laura takes issue with, is that some people
are
> only given the option to be TS or a crossdresser, so choose the TS route.
> That may not be the best way forward for that person, they really may not
> want to change sex.
Yes I agree with you here. This is one thing I agree with Laura about, there
are various ways of living and SRS is not the only option for an individual.
Appearance and living as a woman are important factors to. Saying that in
terms of legal issues in society as a whole SRS is treated as a kind of rite
of passage. For example Pre-ops and non-ops are often sent to male prisons,
put in male only hospital wards, called up for National Service (in
countries that still do this), can't legally marry a man, can't amend their
birth certificate etc,etc they have few rights as woman.
> > Personally I think Laura is wasting her time arguing against SRS. We are
> > talking about the entire social construction of reality and this will
> never
> > change. We live and die by the sword. The secret to happyness for an MtF
> > TG/TS is to find out whatever sort of woman one is and get on with it,
> play
> > the game, fit into society and enjoy the freedoms it allows. You can't
> beat
> > society in the end this is the order of reality.
>
> Laura is not against SRS, she is against people who are basically led down
> the SRS path because they fit the mould. SRS should only be performed on
> people who truly show a massive need to have the body of the opposite sex.
> People who choose to live the life of the opposite sex may not necessarily
> want to have SRS.
True.
Well I don't personally have a problem with anyone's motivations and I don't
actually see things in such a black and white as might be implied by some of
what I said. I disagree with Laura on some issues since I am beginning to
see that she does sometimes seem to apply her own personal values based on
personal experience as a TG person to people who may be very different.
Saying that though it important to realise that there are various ways of
living and Laura is a strong advocate of the TG lifestyle and she helps a
lot of people sort out a lot of very complicated issues. So I haven't turned
against Laura.
Amanda Angelika
> X-No-Archive: YES
> >
>
> "Nicole Hamilton" <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote > >
> "Elaine" <elai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > You're wrong....Laura is totally against SRS, for anyone.
> >
> >
> > congratulations are in order...." In a followup message, she went on,
> > "Well, it certainly wouldn't have been my choice, for either of us...
But
> in
> > the end, happiness is what this game of ours is all about. If you found
> it,
> > then I envy you!"
> >
> > Obviously, I'm aware that a lot of folks (including good friends like
you
> > and Diane) can't stand her, but myself, I've always gotten along with
> Laura.
>
> It's not that I "Can't stand her", Nicki. I have never seen any acceptance
> of the need for SRS by her. Never. I just think she does harm to some,
> possibly confused people.
No I don't agree there Elaine. I think Laura does help far more people than
she may harm. I think if a person is considering having SRS at some point
they need to be very clear about it. I think if you can look at all Laura's
arguments and the alternatives she presents and still say naaa I'm still
having SRS. I think one is far more likely to have made the right decision
and are less likely to suffer regrets.. And of course if one decides not to
have SRS but to live full-time as a non-op she is a very supportive friend.
I think Laura helps make happier TG/TS people, because graded grains make
finer flour ;)
--
Amanda
--------------------------------------
Amanda Angelika Berry
--------------------------------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 15/3/02
Pauline Brent
about us in general. personally and such. somehow I think her anger gets the
best of her.
She wouldn't be viewed as so hostile if the people here wouldn't take such
negative views towards her. Not that it would be easy. I have tried to be
fair with her over the years and get nothing but claws from her.
Many times I think that this group with its people who move in out and thru
are just expressing their hostility against the world for things they have
no other way to vent.
Nicki, .38 Ladysmith, concealed hammer. and a .45 colt Vaquero. ss. 5.5.
what do you think?
--
enjoy
When its TIME its TIME.
The first step of any journey is the hardest, the last the most fullfiling.
TSTGSociety.org its for you, add to it. use it.
"Elaine" <elai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lFKs8.3657$3P4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> X-No-Archive: YES
> >
>
> "Nicole Hamilton" <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote > >
> "Elaine" <elai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > You're wrong....Laura is totally against SRS, for anyone.
> >
> >
> > Not quite. Shortly after I had SRS, she sent me a note saying, "I hear
> > congratulations are in order...." In a followup message, she went on,
> > "Well, it certainly wouldn't have been my choice, for either of us...
But
> in
> > the end, happiness is what this game of ours is all about. If you found
> it,
> > then I envy you!"
> >
> > Obviously, I'm aware that a lot of folks (including good friends like
you
> > and Diane) can't stand her, but myself, I've always gotten along with
> Laura.
>
> It's not that I "Can't stand her", Nicki. I have never seen any acceptance
> of the need for SRS by her. Never. I just think she does harm to some,
> possibly confused people.
>
> If that was a quote, it sounds as if she didn't quite understand why you
did
> it either. :)
>
>
Angel
"Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BLLs8.5435$6Z4.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Elaine" <elai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:lFKs8.3657$3P4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
acceptance
> > of the need for SRS by her. Never. I just think she does harm to some,
> > possibly confused people.
>
> No I don't agree there Elaine. I think Laura does help far more people
than
> she may harm. I think if a person is considering having SRS at some point
> they need to be very clear about it. I think if you can look at all
Laura's
> arguments and the alternatives she presents and still say naaa I'm still
> having SRS. I think one is far more likely to have made the right decision
> and are less likely to suffer regrets.. And of course if one decides not
to
> have SRS but to live full-time as a non-op she is a very supportive
friend.
> I think Laura helps make happier TG/TS people, because graded grains make
> finer flour ;)
I think that's a very good way of putting it, Amanda. Laura was at one
stage on the verge of having SRS herself, when she realised that she was not
doing the right thing. That must have been a life-changing moment for her.
Basically, she doesn't want to see someone put themselves through a very
expensive and potentially risky operation if there is a way that they *can*
accept themselves and be happy without doing so.
Angel
Angel
"-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ELNs8.36676$zN.15...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> I think Laura places WAY too much importance on the genitals. What if I
> thought my SRS had been a mistake? I fail to see how this would be
> life-shattering. It's just genitals. Say it with me...
No, I don't think Laura puts a lot of importance on the genitals, and that's
certainly not what I meant. Laura's concerns she voiced to me when I last
spoke to her were along the lines of the sheer cost of the surgery and the
potential medical danger of it.
Angel
Pauline Brent
in Jan of 97 I felt about like you do. I sold all 42 of my guns, every
bullet all the reloading equipment. every book.
I did not feel I could own any gun until a year ago. Of the 42 17 were hand
guns. colts. Rugers "Cowboy guns" redhawks. in .357 and .44, my favorites
were my Blackhawks. .22,.357/9mm, .41 mag and .45.
I had a nice Colt detective as well. The only auto I had was a >32 38H .
I realize that many here don't like guns, but I think its better than the
Diane/Laura/and other arguments.
If they will quit I would be more than happy to move gun talk elsewhere.
I am not sure if you are on any meds, I have been on 150 mg of Zoloft for
the last 2 years, It was rough at first but I an stable. I believe there
will be the extent of what I buy. but I believe in wheel guns not autos.
Someone tried to sell me a .32 Kel-tec last year. it was small, compact. but
it could not be fired from the pocket. If I need to use a gun (I hope it
never comes to that) I dont want to take the time to take it out of my
pocket to fire it.
Take care, and it wont be long before you beat the big D.
"Nicole Hamilton" <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote in message
news:a904s...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> "Pauline Brent" <PMB...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > Nicki, .38 Ladysmith, concealed hammer. and a
> > .45 colt Vaquero. ss. 5.5. what do you think?
>
> Oh, oh! Here we go with another gun thread ...
>
> The Ladysmith is a nice gun, though still a bit big (for me) to conceal.
> But if it works for you and you can get over the political issues of
buying
> S&W, they're very high quality, beautifully made guns with great actions.
> My own CC gun is a Kel-Tec P-32, which is tiny enough that I can slip it
> into the pocket of my jeans without printing. But I admit that a
semiauto's
> reliability will never match that of a top quality revolver like the
> Ladysmith. Both the Ladysmith, being DAO, and my P-32 have pretty heavy
> triggers and very short sight radii, meaning neither's much fun at the
> range, but obviously that's not why you buy them.
>
> Re: the Ruger, I didn't realize you were into cowboy action guns. That's
> something I haven't played around with much except for those times when
> someone at the range has been shooting one and said, "Here, want to try
> this?" A SS Vaquero should be a very pretty gun. That should be a nice
> barrel length. My own (modern) revolvers are couple Colt snake guns, both
> with 6" barrels.
>
> My most fun guns are my Pardini target guns in .22 and .32S&W and my Steyr
> LP10P airpistol, all with fully adjustable 2-stage triggers (set for 2 lbs
> on the Pardinis and a featherweight 1 lb on the Steyr) and my Les Baer
1911
> in .45ACP. The airpistol is great because I can shoot it in my basement.
>
> Of course, as you know, a friend (one of the other instructors I work
with)
> is holding most of my guns for me 'till I get some personal matters
> straightened out. As a consequence, I've only been to the range once
since
> December.
>
> Nicki
>
>
Karen
> Laura's concerns she voiced to me when I last
> spoke to her were along the lines of the sheer cost of the surgery and the
> potential medical danger of it.
Cost avn be *signicantly* less than most (if not all) new cars ... and
the medical danger of it is minimal unless you are in *very* poor shape,
or are prone to clotting... and the vast majority of people are not.
The danger part is really just an excuse unless you know you have a
pre-existibg condition that makes it dangerous... and for many (not all)
the money really is not that big hurddle if if you really want it ...
and some people do get coverfed by insurance (I did).
- karen
Stephe
>
> "Tamara" <ma...@feminine.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> You are judging all crossdressers to be fetishists. Most people in the
>> fetish and BDSM scene will get sexual motivation from it. Crossdressing
> for
>> many is not sexually motivated, it is an expression of their inner self.
> I
>> know GG's who have had sexual pleasure from wearing feminine clothing -
>> it does not mean anything.
>
> I'm really curious here. I wasn't a cross dresser before I transitioned
> and I would like to know, if it's not "sexually motivated", then what is
> the motivation?
>
I'll take a shot at this..
When I used to look like any other normal guy, people assumed I had a
normal type male gender and treated me as such. Expected me to "be tough",
'act like a man' ect. I found over the years I have very little in common
with what most other men feel or want. I found that I seem to have more in
common as far as how I feel about things with the women I know. All of the
things I was told I needed to do to "be a man" seemed backwards to what
came naturally to me. I've felt this way LONG before I even knew what sex
was so I know for me it has nothing to do with sexual motivation.
When I gave up the "looking like a man" thing, people started treating me
differently and in a good way (for the most part). People relate to me in a
kinder way, women especially talk to me more openly etc. Dressing
androgynously is for me an act of self expresion to make people around me
see I am NOT just another guy with a male type gender identity.
Hope this makes some sense.
--
Stephe
Stephe
> Angel <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote:
>
>> Laura's concerns she voiced to me when I last
>> spoke to her were along the lines of the sheer cost of the surgery and
>> the potential medical danger of it.
>
> Cost avn be *signicantly* less than most (if not all) new cars ... and
> the medical danger of it is minimal unless you are in *very* poor shape,
> or are prone to clotting... and the vast majority of people are not.
>
It is about the same as my knee surgery that I had done and I could have
gotten by without it, just would have limited my activities somewhat. I
make less than average income yet didn't have any problem saving up enough
to have that done. I can't see why people make the cost of SRS an issue.
--
Stephe
Angel
> X-No-archive: yes> news:a90c6...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > > I think Laura places WAY too much importance on
> > > the genitals. What if I thought my SRS had been a
> > > mistake? I fail to see how this would be life-shattering.
> > > It's just genitals. Say it with me...
> > >
> >
> > You're right, it's just genitals. I concur that if you proceed with
SRS,
> > then regret it, that while irreversible, it's not a catastrophic
> situation.
> > Even without a penis, you could still live as a man.
> >
> > But I think Laura's point (or at least, as I understand it) is also that
> > genitals aren't very important: even without a vagina, you could still
> live
> > as a woman.
>
> But Laura doesn't stop there. She goes on to say that SRS is the biggest,
> most drastic mistake anyone can possibly make, and will utterly ruin your
> life.
>
> Saying SRS is life-ruining mistake is the same thing as saying it's a life
> or death necessity, in terms of importance placed on genitals.
Seriously, Amy, you're one of the brightest people around here, but you are
barking up the wrong tree this time. The emphasis on the importance of
genitalia is in your interpretation of Laura's views, not in Laura's views
themselves.
Angel
Amanda Angelika
"-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:ELNs8.36676
> I think Laura places WAY too much importance on the genitals. What if I
> thought my SRS had been a mistake? I fail to see how this would be
> life-shattering. It's just genitals. Say it with me...
>
> It's just genitals. I'd consider my hands or my eyes or my ears to be FAR
> more important to me than my genitals. And to answer the question you
might
> be thinking, yes my penis was just genitals too. I didn't hate it.
I think you have a good point there. It's just genitals ;)
Mind I think it's easier if one transitions young. I know in my case it
would have been I didn't have sex till I was 33 or know what a full
errection was till I was about 29 although I didn't need to touch anything
to orgasm till I was about 25. In fact when I was in school the boys would
make this funny sign with their hand to mean wanking and I used to think
what is this, Ive never needed to do that? I used to find dressing up and
sitting on the refrigorator did it for me or sometimes just thinking erotic
thoughts would do it. Oh the other thing which was a nuisance was the big
red AEC double decker bus that used to take me to art college. If one had to
sit on the side seats on the bottom deck there was so much tickly vibrations
it used to get quite emabrrassing especially since we are talking the late
70s and I was wearing very tight flaired trousers ;)
> I could go back to the male role if I wished to, sans penis. FtMs do it
all
> the time. I'd settle down with a bisexual man and live out my life. I'd
> probably buy the biggest packy I could find just to make the gay boys
drool.
Sounds fun :)
I know what you mean here and is a good point I notice this with a close
friend of mine that before she had the op she was very confused and unsure
about all sorts of stuff. Trying to conform to what the psychiatrists were
saying. Saying she was a hetero-sexual woman, wearing mini skirts all the
time etc and yet when she had the op and since she is far more herself. She
has become the woman she is, admits to being entirely bi-sexual and dresses
like any other normal woman and does say she could live as a man. I think
life can be much less complicated after the op since one doesn't feel like
one has to prove anything to oneself or the medical profession.
--
Amanda
--------------------------------------
Amanda Angelika Berry
--------------------------------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 14/3/02
Sali
>Angel <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote:
>
>> Laura's concerns she voiced to me when I last
>> spoke to her were along the lines of the sheer cost of the surgery and the
>> potential medical danger of it.
>
>Cost avn be *signicantly* less than most (if not all) new cars
IIRC, I spent more _just_ for diagnostic imaging (CAT, arteriogram,
MRI, MRAs) than what SRS in Montreal costs. SRS is one of the best
values ever in the catalogue of major surgical procedures. Want real
sticker shock? Price some invasive neurosurgery at Hopkins sometime.
I tend to think that its not usually being covered by insurance has
more than a little to do with the pricing, too.
-Sali
"On stage, I make love to 25,000 people; then I go home alone." --Janis Joplin
~Email to my posting name will go thru if addressed to yahoo dot com intead of my-deja.~
Amanda Angelika
"Stephe" <ms_s...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:a90gpt$vl8aa$1...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
Stephe's explanation makes sense.
In my case there was a sexual motivation for crossdressing I thought that
defined my masculinity because I thought I can't be a woman or TS I must be
a heterosexual male or maybe this means I'm gay (I was a little confused
about it). Crossdressing and autogynaphillia was my only sexual outlet till
I was 33.
However in every other way I was a very feminine male to the point where
although I never crossdressed other than in private people would either
class me as a gay male or a Transvestite. Which I found baffling since I was
just being me. I couldn't fathom how this could be at all at the time. Since
I was absolutely petrified that anyone would find out about me and yet
something seemed to be screaming from every paw of my body and personality.
Yet in those days the idea of being a transvestite disgusted me to be
honest. I was a fundamentalist Christian and repressed to the point that my
entire personality was virtually annihilated. I spend all my time obsessed
with being an artist and painting landscape paintings. I did nothing else I
lived at home with my mother, had virtually no social life outside the
church (which was full of people pretending to be perfect). I eventually
moved away to a city.
Then one day I started crossdressing to go out. I found I could pass as a
woman as easily as I could pass as a man. In someways better, because all
the pretence I tried to put on as a male just wasn't needed anymore. For a
long time I maintained two separate personas Nick/Amanda. But even as Nick I
was dressing as an androgynous woman and most of the time passing as a woman
particularly with strangers. I eventually stopped maintaining two personas
since as Nick I was making up very silly rules about what I could and
couldn't wear in spite of the fact that I was being seen as a woman, and
because I realised that being seen as a male at all (or as a tranny) was
just perpetuating the sort of prejudice I have suffered all my life, and I
thought why? I can be myself as a woman, I am a woman. I'm me. I'm far more
convincing as a woman than a man (was I ever a man at all?).
I still love the clothes and always will even more so (as an artist I love
colours and harmony and design I have an honours degree in it). and I love
the fact that since I have really began to find the real me, that I seem
able to relate to other people far better and other people treat me as me.
It's hard to explain this really but I suppose it's like being reborn. It
sounds corny but it does seem like spending ones entire life as a bud and
then opening into a flower. Just don't want to go to seed just yet though ;)
I think for me being feminine tends to make a lot of sense on all levels of
being it isn't just a sexual thing there is a wholeness about it, and the
sun has come out. Which reminds me I have to go out and buy a few things in
town, so I had better sign off.
Tamara
> I think Laura places WAY too much importance on the genitals. What if I
> thought my SRS had been a mistake? I fail to see how this would be
> life-shattering. It's just genitals. Say it with me...
>
> It's just genitals. I'd consider my hands or my eyes or my ears to be FAR
> more important to me than my genitals. And to answer the question you
might
> be thinking, yes my penis was just genitals too. I didn't hate it.
>
> I could go back to the male role if I wished to, sans penis. FtMs do it
all
> the time. I'd settle down with a bisexual man and live out my life. I'd
> probably buy the biggest packy I could find just to make the gay boys
drool.
Sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. I think what I am experiencing
here is the difference between those of you who have transitioned/close to
it and those who know they don't.
For me personally, I could not live if I lost my birth genitals. I can
relate to people who say they can't live unless they transition.
They may only be genitals to some, but for others they are very important.
Tamara
Tamara
> I'm really curious here. I wasn't a cross dresser before I transitioned
and
> I would like to know, if it's not "sexually motivated", then what is the
> motivation?
Stephe's post, which is a good overall idea of why people cross dress, is a
small part of why I do, but not the complete picture.
For me, I feel it is in my makeup. I don't feel right, look right and
cannot relate to mens clothing. It is about the colors, the fabrics, the
comfort, the fun and most of all the femininity of wearing wonderful
outfits. I do have a slightly more feminine personality although unlike
Amanda's post, I am not taken for either a transvestite or gay when I am out
and about. I am a true believer that men can also have a feminine side,
that in some men is stronger than their masculine side.
I find nothing better than wearing a nice cocktail dress, high heels and
hose - it sure does beat pants, socks and shirts! I have a bigger
collection of strappy sandals than my partner does!
I can relate to men, I like football (soccer) in a big way, I like baseball
and all that sort of male stuff. Where I also agree with Stephe, is that I
am in no way macho or overly masculine. I don't spend any time in bars with
the other men and I don't 'act tough' like we are expected to.
I relate to women probably more than men, I enjoy their company more and can
have wider conversations with them about feminine things.
Some people have commented that I am difficult to work out, because I don't
come over as camp. If I was camp, then it would be easier for people to
understand why I crossdress.
> There again......if you're "clear about your gender" (male), what is the
> motivation for crossdressing?
This is where I will probably confuse you even more (sorry if I do) and
upset Laura if she is out there. I am clear about my gender, but not male.
I do not see myself as 'male' at all, I feel the only gender I have is
female. I consider myself to be man/female. Man as in sex, female in
gender.
> You're wrong....Laura is totally against SRS, for anyone. She has no
> understanding of why transsexual women have SRS.
You are right to a point. Laura cannot know what it is like because she has
not had SRS. But that does not mean she is against SRS, she just wants
people to know clearly that it may not be the correct route for them to
take. Her personal opinion is that it is not a good choice. Her opinion as
an activist or support person is that it is an option for people who are
very clear that they cannot continue in a male body - but only as a last
resort. She does not want people like me to be sucked down the SRS route
because people say 'you want to be a woman because you dress like one - why
don't you have the operation?'
Tamara
Tamara
> I'll take a shot at this..
>
> When I used to look like any other normal guy, people assumed I had a
> normal type male gender and treated me as such. Expected me to "be tough",
> 'act like a man' ect. I found over the years I have very little in common
> with what most other men feel or want. I found that I seem to have more in
> common as far as how I feel about things with the women I know. All of the
> things I was told I needed to do to "be a man" seemed backwards to what
> came naturally to me. I've felt this way LONG before I even knew what sex
> was so I know for me it has nothing to do with sexual motivation.
>
> When I gave up the "looking like a man" thing, people started treating me
> differently and in a good way (for the most part). People relate to me in
a
> kinder way, women especially talk to me more openly etc. Dressing
> androgynously is for me an act of self expresion to make people around me
> see I am NOT just another guy with a male type gender identity.
>
> Hope this makes some sense.
It does!
That is a very good insight into what we are all about!
This is not completely my motivation, but it is a very good.
Tamara
Pauline Brent
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> "Tamara" <ma...@feminine.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > For me personally, I could not live if I lost my birth genitals.
>
>
> Nicki
Depends on where and why you lost them. :)
And of course who finds them.
Why may become important as well.
--
Thank You
Pauline Brent
>
>
Angel
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
> news:3cb3f43d$0$356$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> >
> > "-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:DsQs8.36757$zN.15...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> are
> > barking up the wrong tree this time. The emphasis on the importance of
> > genitalia is in your interpretation of Laura's views, not in Laura's
views
> > themselves.
> >
> > Angel
> >
>
long
> enough to see the seriously offensive things Laura posts about SRS.
She'll
> call those who get it, "brainwashed, delusional fuckwits" and many other
> things.
Okey dokey, I think that's Laura's way of saying a) she thinks people have
internalized social pressure (including peer pressure) but believe they are
choosing SRS entirely of their own free will, and, at a guess, b) SRS
doesn't make you a born woman.
> What would you say about someone who is in favor of hormones, in favor of
> facial feminisation surgery, in favor of breast implants, in favor of
> electrolysis, but who'll call you names and yell and scream at you should
> you dare have that last surgery? You'll probably say she doesn't do that,
> but any 5 minute search on Google will prove otherwise.
You don't know me at all, do you, Amy? :) I have been around long enough
to question Laura's logic on certain points, and I'm very familiar with her
tendency to blow her top and call people every name under the sun. However,
I do concur with her on many points, and I believe that she is basically a
good-hearted, pretty perceptive, strong-minded and well-intentioned woman,
and that her suggesting alternatives to having SRS can't harm anyone,
because anyone who feels they need SRS *that* desperately will go out and do
it anyway, regardless of whether they'd heard Laura's views on the subject.
One concern Laura has expressed is that someone who is truly *desperate* to
get rid of their penis might resort to drastic meaures, like a young girl
who got her bits hacked off by a "cutter", or, less dramatically, strangling
the hell out of their own genitalia in their utter desperation to hide them
via tucking, resulting in a serious health problem for life.
Electrolysis: I've heard it can be a bit pricey, from someone who's
currently having it, but I don't see it's a big deal in that it isn't major
surgery and I am not aware of it having much potential as a serious health
risk. Hormones, breast implants and facial feminization surgery I don't
fully know or understand Laura's views on, and either she will have to
answer that one for you herself or someone who does understand where she's
coming from might be able to fill you in.
What I will do is give you my own educated guesswork on the subject. I
don't think Laura believes that *any* of the above should be used as
criteria in determining whether or not one is *accepted into society* as a
woman. In legal terms, they're not. When it comes to SRS, though, that's
where we *do* hit the legal issues. In many places, SRS is *the* factor
used in determining whether or not you get legal protection from
discrimination and whether or not you get "F" instead of "M" on your
important documents. Whether or not the average person in the street sees
you as a man or a woman is based simply on what you look like, your body
language to a certain extent, and if you get chatting to them, presumably
what you sound like. Zilch to go with the genitals. The law, however,
doesn't really reflect this, plumping for the biological definitions rather
than the social ones, because the factor used to determine your biological
*sex* is, in the vast majority of cases, your genitalia. SRS reconfigures
your genitals to make them resemble female ones, but it *doesn't* actually
make you female. This is something that I think most people would concur
on - hence the lack of *statutory* marriage rights for a post-op. That
would seem to be up to the discretion of the court if you TS-ness is
discovered and someone wants to be bloody-minded and take you to court over
something.
OK, back to my point on the legal issue - certain (although in some areas,
limited) legal rights are being offered you only if you have SRS. I know a
lot of people here think that this is absolutely right - why should someone
who's just a part-time crossdresser doing it for a bit of fun or a thrill be
considered as much a woman as someone who's gone all out to remove every
possibly trace of masculinity from themselves? Look at it from a different
angle, though - look at it from the eyes of a young transie who hasn't
really got everything clear in her own head yet, except that she *feels*
female and thinks of herself as a woman in a man's body. The message she
gets is that the only way she will be at all legally accepted as female (and
over here, she barely will) is to have SRS. That is an awful pressure on a
young mind, and doesn't give anyone who is very insecure about and unhappy
with themselves much scope for coming to terms with incongruency between
mind and body. She has to *prove* her gender in the eyes of the law. What
I will say from personal experience is that feeling the need to prove
yourself, be it to yourself or other people, is *not* conducive to feelings
of personal freedom or self acceptance. At best, it can make you insecure
and defensive - at worst, it can drive you to suicide, but there's a vast
range of middle ground I'm all too familiar with, not only in myself but in
others. If someone really wants to have SRS of their own free will, fair
enough, but what I don't want to see is anyone feeling they have to do it to
prove something or gain certain rights. Even on these newsgroups, pre-ops
and non-ops get a lot of stick for still having a penis. I guess I want
people to be as free as possible to make up their own minds on how they deal
with things.
OK, I've wondered off the "justifying Laura's views", because I'm *not*
Laura. Amy, you say "It's just genitals". Hey, that, IMO, is the way is
*should* be. However, the *legal* significance attached to genitals is
enormous. I don't know whether what I've said makes sense to you or anybody
else, and obviously, whether you agree with any of it or not is yet another
matter. Just one question, though - if it's "just genitals" to you, and you
feel you would be capable of being a man without a penis should you desire,
what was your motivation for SRS? Would I be right in saying that for you,
it was the *combination* of your gender, your sexuality and being born
intersexed that led to your decision? Or have I got the wrong end of the
stick?
Angel the Inconcise :)
TLM
>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
>news:3cb39fa9$0$350$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I think Laura places WAY too much importance on the genitals. What if I
>thought my SRS had been a mistake? I fail to see how this would be
>life-shattering. It's just genitals. Say it with me...
>
>It's just genitals. I'd consider my hands or my eyes or my ears to be FAR
>more important to me than my genitals. And to answer the question you might
>be thinking, yes my penis was just genitals too. I didn't hate it.
>
>I could go back to the male role if I wished to, sans penis. FtMs do it all
>the time. I'd settle down with a bisexual man and live out my life. I'd
>probably buy the biggest packy I could find just to make the gay boys drool.
>
>Amy
But to some people genitals are not just genitals, they are signifiers
of sex/gender!
But not to me either, I feel much as you do. I am having SRS just as
the final icing on the cake that I have already had for the last about
6 years. The cake has been good, so far.
Tommie
Pauline Brent
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
> >
> > "-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:sL0t8.37975$zN.16...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > >
here
> > long
> > > enough to see the seriously offensive things Laura posts about SRS.
> > She'll
> > > call those who get it, "brainwashed, delusional fuckwits" and many
other
> > > things.
> >
> > Okey dokey, I think that's Laura's way of saying a) she thinks people
have
> > internalized social pressure (including peer pressure) but believe they
> are
> > choosing SRS entirely of their own free will, and, at a guess, b) SRS
> > doesn't make you a born woman.
>
a
> kook or two around, but most don't believe SRS makes you a biological
> female.
>
> Where I mostly disagree with Laura is that I believe SRS -can- be a choice
> made willingly and fully informed.
I have some other feelings on this. I do not feel that I had a choice. I
did at one time. like in 93-95 but in 96 it became esentual to my well
being. and by 99 it was SRS or ??????
I was applying for a passport when I found my BC wanst My BC but a hand
written version given by the hospital. I had to go to the state for a copy
of the origional.
In the time it took me to do this my atterny got Medica to open the door
just a crack and we wedged me thru it for everything. They blinked. now
that was a miricle. I have believed in God since. not just a un-huh. but a
very real internal belief.
I have read that many have been on the brink to get surgery. so I for one do
not believe it is a choice.
Saying any thing else would mean you didn't have to do it. you were not a
woman but someone who wanted to be a woman. If that is the case then Laura
would be right.
--
enjoy
When its TIME its TIME.
The first step of any journey is the hardest, the last the most fullfiling.
TSTGSociety.org its for you, add to it. use it.
>
> >
> > What I will do is give you my own educated guesswork on the subject. I
> > don't think Laura believes that *any* of the above should be used as
> > criteria in determining whether or not one is *accepted into society* as
a
> > woman.
>
> I don't think it's unreasonable at all for society to expect that women
look
> like females. If women can look like anything from Sylvester Stallone to
a
> sheepdog, what does "woman" mean? I think the unreasonable part is
> expecting expectations formed over millions of years of evolution to
change
> literally overnight.
>
> > In legal terms, they're not. When it comes to SRS, though, that's
> > where we *do* hit the legal issues. In many places, SRS is *the* factor
> > used in determining whether or not you get legal protection from
> > discrimination and whether or not you get "F" instead of "M" on your
> > important documents. Whether or not the average person in the street
sees
> > you as a man or a woman is based simply on what you look like, your body
> > language to a certain extent, and if you get chatting to them,
presumably
> > what you sound like. Zilch to go with the genitals.
>
> This is one of the points where Laura's understanding of SRS fails. She
> seems to believe the only reason anyone ever does it is to be socially
> acceptable. That's too narrow a view. It's usually done for a multitude
of
> reasons.
>
> > Look at it from a different
> > angle, though - look at it from the eyes of a young transie who hasn't
> > really got everything clear in her own head yet, except that she *feels*
> > female and thinks of herself as a woman in a man's body. The message
she
> > gets is that the only way she will be at all legally accepted as female
> (and
> > over here, she barely will) is to have SRS. That is an awful pressure
on
> a
> > young mind, and doesn't give anyone who is very insecure about and
unhappy
> > with themselves much scope for coming to terms with incongruency between
> > mind and body.
>
> Is this in the same avenue of thought concerning violence, kids and TV?
> Give me a break. You make it sound (and Laura does too) that young
trannies
> are imbeciles incapable of self-generated rational thought.
>
> No one is as immune to the power of suggestion as a newbie transsexual.
She
> already knows what she wants, and most refuse to listen to anyone else,
> period. They tend to be downright pigheaded. That mindset is far far far
> different from the innocent, gullible downey chick you're presenting.
>
> > She has to *prove* her gender in the eyes of the law. What
> > I will say from personal experience is that feeling the need to prove
> > yourself, be it to yourself or other people, is *not* conducive to
> feelings
> > of personal freedom or self acceptance.
>
> The problem is that the law has already defined you. Why shouldn't you
have
> to prove otherwise? Life is full of things that need proof. Jobs check
> your references. Banks check your credit. Marriage licenses make you
take
> blood tests. Schools make you take tests.
>
> Life in society is often about proof. Why should gender be any different?
>
> > I guess I want
> > people to be as free as possible to make up their own minds on how they
> deal
> > with things.
> >
>
> No matter what happens with SRS, it was a choice. The choice to be non-op
> is a valid one. Yes, it's a weighted choice. Most choices are.
>
> > Just one question, though - if it's "just genitals" to you, and you
> > feel you would be capable of being a man without a penis should you
> desire,
> > what was your motivation for SRS? Would I be right in saying that for
> you,
> > it was the *combination* of your gender, your sexuality and being born
> > intersexed that led to your decision? Or have I got the wrong end of
the
> > stick?
>
> I felt I'd be happier with a vagina. It made sex more fun. It made
> integration into society as a woman easier. It made potential partners
> easier to find. It made marriage possible. I certainly feel that having
a
> fairly normal vagina was preferrable to having a two inch penis, for
sexual
> reasons. Plus, for whatever reason, the desire to penetrate someone else
> just wasn't wired into me. It's not an emotional thing related to penises
> (the idea doesn't disturb me at all), it just doesn't excite me. Stick
your
> finger in the sand. That's about the level of excitement I felt. Given
> that, it was pretty obvious that my genitals weren't going to give me a
> whole lot of satisfaction. What I have now is exactly the opposite. It's
> loads of fun.
>
> Amy
>
>
Angel
"Pauline Brent" <PMB...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:4O7t8.3748$c6.3...@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net...
>
> "-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:em7t8.39577$zN.16...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
choice
> > made willingly and fully informed.
>
> I have some other feelings on this. I do not feel that I had a choice. I
> did at one time. like in 93-95 but in 96 it became esentual to my well
> being. and by 99 it was SRS or ??????
>
> I was applying for a passport when I found my BC wanst My BC but a hand
> written version given by the hospital. I had to go to the state for a copy
> of the origional.
>
> In the time it took me to do this my atterny got Medica to open the door
> just a crack and we wedged me thru it for everything. They blinked. now
> that was a miricle. I have believed in God since. not just a un-huh. but
a
> very real internal belief.
>
> I have read that many have been on the brink to get surgery. so I for one
do
> not believe it is a choice.
>
> Saying any thing else would mean you didn't have to do it. you were not a
> woman but someone who wanted to be a woman. If that is the case then Laura
> would be right.
DISCLAIMER. My words on Laura's point of view are simply my own
interpretation. Don't hold her responsible for anything I've said, and vice
versa. Everyone has their own unique perspective on things!
Angel
TLM
>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
>news:3cb4d3c9$0$345$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>
>> "-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:sL0t8.37975$zN.16...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > We'll just have to disagree, Angel. Maybe you haven't been around here
>> long
>> > enough to see the seriously offensive things Laura posts about SRS.
>> She'll
>> > call those who get it, "brainwashed, delusional fuckwits" and many other
>> > things.
>>
>> Okey dokey, I think that's Laura's way of saying a) she thinks people have
>> internalized social pressure (including peer pressure) but believe they
>are
>> choosing SRS entirely of their own free will, and, at a guess, b) SRS
>> doesn't make you a born woman.
>
>I don't believe anyone here is saying that it does. Well, there might be a
>kook or two around, but most don't believe SRS makes you a biological
>female.
>
>Where I mostly disagree with Laura is that I believe SRS -can- be a choice
>made willingly and fully informed.
I think it can be a choice for some people. For me it is a choice. I
could continue as I am, but SRS is something that will be fulfilling
to me. I would not be really happy remaining as I am, but I would
definately be able to survive well enough.
>> What I will do is give you my own educated guesswork on the subject. I
>> don't think Laura believes that *any* of the above should be used as
>> criteria in determining whether or not one is *accepted into society* as a
>> woman.
>
>I don't think it's unreasonable at all for society to expect that women look
>like females. If women can look like anything from Sylvester Stallone to a
>sheepdog, what does "woman" mean? I think the unreasonable part is
>expecting expectations formed over millions of years of evolution to change
>literally overnight.
>
>> In legal terms, they're not. When it comes to SRS, though, that's
>> where we *do* hit the legal issues. In many places, SRS is *the* factor
>> used in determining whether or not you get legal protection from
>> discrimination and whether or not you get "F" instead of "M" on your
>> important documents. Whether or not the average person in the street sees
>> you as a man or a woman is based simply on what you look like, your body
>> language to a certain extent, and if you get chatting to them, presumably
>> what you sound like. Zilch to go with the genitals.
SRS does not guarantee any legal rights. I realize this full well, but
it is not stopping me. For many it does allow the paperwork of our
lives to be realigned with our true selves. So that a "surface look"
at us will match. But definately a really in-depth examination of our
lives would reveal even the most stealth individuals.
(snip)
>I felt I'd be happier with a vagina. It made sex more fun. It made
>integration into society as a woman easier. It made potential partners
>easier to find. It made marriage possible. I certainly feel that having a
>fairly normal vagina was preferrable to having a two inch penis, for sexual
>reasons. Plus, for whatever reason, the desire to penetrate someone else
>just wasn't wired into me. It's not an emotional thing related to penises
>(the idea doesn't disturb me at all), it just doesn't excite me. Stick your
>finger in the sand. That's about the level of excitement I felt. Given
>that, it was pretty obvious that my genitals weren't going to give me a
>whole lot of satisfaction. What I have now is exactly the opposite. It's
>loads of fun.
I have always been the type to use whatever I had (genitals) for my
personal pleasure. I fully intend to continue after SRS too.
>Amy
Tommie
Stephe
>
> IIRC, I spent more _just_ for diagnostic imaging (CAT, arteriogram,
> MRI, MRAs) than what SRS in Montreal costs. SRS is one of the best
> values ever in the catalogue of major surgical procedures. Want real
> sticker shock? Price some invasive neurosurgery at Hopkins sometime.
>
> I tend to think that its not usually being covered by insurance has
> more than a little to do with the pricing, too.
>
Sure it does. If it became universally covered (at least for people with
insurance) the price would skyrocket.
--
Stephe
Stephe
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Nicole Hamilton" <hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote in message
>>
>> But I think Laura's point (or at least, as I understand it) is also that
>> genitals aren't very important: even without a vagina, you could still
> live
>> as a woman.
>
> But Laura doesn't stop there. She goes on to say that SRS is the biggest,
> most drastic mistake anyone can possibly make, and will utterly ruin your
> life.
>
> Saying SRS is life-ruining mistake is the same thing as saying it's a life
> or death necessity, in terms of importance placed on genitals.
>
>
Also what seems odd to me is it's OK to take hormones that basically make
your genitals unisex anyway but to have surgery done is some sort of taboo?
Why are hormones and growing female breasts and having ones face
transformed into a females fine and dandy? Seems to me this is more
irreverable as far as going back to living as a man than SRS is.
--
Stephe
Stephe
>
> Sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. I think what I am experiencing
> here is the difference between those of you who have transitioned/close to
> it and those who know they don't.
>
> For me personally, I could not live if I lost my birth genitals.
Well for me, I sure wouldn't care if I lost the ones I was born with and in
fact if it was a simple choice, I'd choose the other no question about it.
EIther way, at this point in my life, the type I have isn't something I
care much about either way. It's just not a big deal. Maybe at some point
it will be but I kinda doubt it.
--
Stephe
Diane A.
>I think the unreasonable part is
> expecting expectations formed over millions of years of evolution to change
> literally overnight.
Bingo!
It's the difference between actually living in the real world and trying to
force one's fantasy into the real world.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
" Mom taught me to kook and sew"
Laura Blake 4/6/02
Diane A.
> I think that risk is seriously overstated, given that humans are capable of
> orgasm without genital contact.
Amy, the accepted wisdom is that one third of post-ops report not being able
to climax 1 year after SRS (admittedly based on some old and debatable stats).
On the other hand about a third of natal women report not ever having climaxed
either in older Masters and Johnson studies.
It don't believe that Nicki overstates that there is a definite possibility of
not climaxing afterwards.
Diane A.
> Also what seems odd to me is it's OK to take hormones that basically make
> your genitals unisex anyway but to have surgery done is some sort of taboo?
"Unisex genitals"?
I don't think so.
> Why are hormones and growing female breasts and having ones face
> transformed into a females fine and dandy? Seems to me this is more
> irreverable as far as going back to living as a man than SRS is.
That is because you have neither transitioned nor have has SRS nor are a
transsexual.
Stick with what you know..
Diane A.
> I know enough about human sexuality to know that an inability to orgasm is
> between the ears, not the legs.
Human sexuality is a very individual thing Amy. What may seem obvious to you
(or me) may not be the norm at all..
According to this article
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001953.htm
"Primary orgasmic dysfunction, wherein the woman has never experienced an
orgasm, appears to characterize about 10% to 15% of women. Surveys generally
suggest that somewhere between 33% to 50% of women experience orgasm
infrequently and are dissatisfied with how often they reach orgasm."
If these figures of 33%-50% are to be believed then one may question if it is
as simple a matter as you appear to say.
Diane A.
> Look at these two excerpts from that article:.....
Good points....
I wish someone would do a *good* study on a large group of post-ops with
regards to the ability to climax afterwards.
Diane A.
>At three years myself, I'm finding that month
> by month, it seems like I get a little closer, so maybe it'll work for me,
> too, eventually. But the point is, it can take quite a while.
Still don't have the big "O" ? :(
You've got the depth and I've got the sensitivity.....next time we meet
someone maybe we should double team..... ;)
Diane A.
> I went there expecting to find those and I did. I'm no stranger to human
> sexuality studies. The entire article leans towards the idea that the lack
> of ability to orgasm is psychological in nature, just as I believe.
FWIW there are a variety of physical conditions which interfere with a woman's
ability to climax. Not enough estrogen (causing loss of sensitivity and
lubrication), not enough testosterone (yes, really), vaginal spasms
interfering with penetration and a variety of age related conditions all can
lead to inability to orgasm.
Amanda Angelika
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Diane A." <diane...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ubavggl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:6yct8.36322$VQ2.17...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > > I know enough about human sexuality to know that an inability to
orgasm
> is
> > > between the ears, not the legs.
> >
> > Human sexuality is a very individual thing Amy. What may seem obvious
to
> you
> > (or me) may not be the norm at all..
> >
> > According to this article
> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001953.htm
> >
> > "Primary orgasmic dysfunction, wherein the woman has never experienced
an
> > orgasm, appears to characterize about 10% to 15% of women. Surveys
> generally
> > suggest that somewhere between 33% to 50% of women experience orgasm
> > infrequently and are dissatisfied with how often they reach orgasm."
> >
> > If these figures of 33%-50% are to be believed then one may question if
it
> is
> > as simple a matter as you appear to say.
> >
>
>
> problem coincided with beginning to use a medication, this should be
> discussed with the prescribing physician. Interviewing of the couple by a
> qualified specialist in sex therapy is most likely to elicit useful
> information about the causes.>>
>
> <<Performance anxiety is believed to be the most common cause of orgasm
> problems, and 90% or more of orgasm problems appear to be psychogenic
> (nonorganic) in nature.>>
>
>
> I went there expecting to find those and I did. I'm no stranger to human
> sexuality studies. The entire article leans towards the idea that the
lack
> of ability to orgasm is psychological in nature, just as I believe.
>
> orgasm with no genital contact whatsoever, AND how many people can be
taught
> it. For those trannies who can't seem to orgasm, I'd suggest trying out
> something like tantric sex, or therapy with a licensed sex therapist. I
> absolutely refuse to believe the SRS surgeon had anything to do with it,
> since orgasm is still possible even if he just completely -removed- your
> genitals and left nothing.
>
> Amy
I know orgasm without genital contact is possible as a male since this was
my personal experience of orgasm for a large part of my teens and most of my
20s most of my life I suppose.
Saying that though in talking about sex to other genetic males of various
types including at least on post-op TS. I don't get the impression that
spontaneous orgasm is particularly wide spread and I have tended to think I
was and am fairly unusual. Saying that though most boys as far as I know
have wet dreams so I dare say it can't be that unusual and a lot of it must
indeed be in the mind.
However, I don't think it is all in the mind since orgasmic function has in
my experience altered with age, so it would suggest to me that if physical
alterations as a result of age can be a factor, that SRS would be an even
greater factor.
Of course I can't comment about that from personal experience, yet, so I
tend to find this subject interesting. My friend who is post-op tells me
that although her experience of orgasm as been rarer and her sex drive is
not so strong (there could be work stress factors involved in her case) she
says the orgasms tend to be a far more all over experience and the orgasms
more multiple, so her experience seems to indicate that sex has been
somewhat better since SRS, which is encouraging to know.
I tend to be a very sensual person and a lot of things remain to be seen and
experienced so I shall shut up now and get on with experiencing them LOL.
Tamara
> Could you live if you lost a hand? Or a foot? Or went blind?
This is a non-argument.
> If you answer yes to the above questions and still maintain that you'd die
> without your penis, perhaps it's time to seek therapy for sex addiction.
If I lost it as part of an accident, then yes I would probably accept the
loss. It would never happen that I chose to have a limb removed, or chose
to be blind.
I respect myself AND my body.
Tamara
Tamara
> Are you a native English speaker? This is not a "non-argument". As
Stephe
> said, if you want to participate meaningfully here, you'll need to stop
> making up your own definitions of words.
Yes, I come from the heart of England. Where do you reside?
I don't need anyone's permission to participate *meaningfully*, you don't
need to respond to my posts.
Have you ever thought that people come from different cultures, have
different dialects and use words you may have not previously heard?
Obviously not.
> What does choice have to do with the question I asked?
Because SRS is a choice. You don't see people asking for their hands or
legs to be removed.
> I guess I'm just going to have to give up the hope of having any sort of
> meaningful communication with you. You make up your own words, bounce
> around questions and never answer them, go off on completely unrelated
> tangents that render the conversation worthless, never back up anything
you
> say...
You understand what I'm saying, you have trouble understanding the words I
use, that's all.
I'm not off on anything unrelated. You said *its just genitals* (which is
brilliant English by the way) I said I could not live without mine and you
then compared removal of genitals to removal of limbs or to become blind.
You need to stop picking at the way I try to explain myself, and focus on
what I am saying. All I am doing is participating in a newsgroup, not
taking an entrance exam into an elite circle.
Tamara
Pauline Brent
"Tamara" <ma...@feminine.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1018555383.11124....@news.demon.co.uk...
I can say that it is up to you if you are drawn into any test for eleteness.
in fact on an open form you dont need to answer anything that you wish not
to.
there are three ways to answer questions rude or other wise.
1. dont answer
2. lie, you will get cought and never trusted again
3.just tell the truth, it is sometime hard to justify but the answers will
always be tha same. they may change as you grow. and they may become
upseting to some. but you do have ther right to question youself and present
your issues and speculations about yourself for criticism.
And believe me you will be criticized. Aspestos tail feathers are required.
you have mentioned the ass and sst members as to where they belong. If you
have any option for SRS, even if you do not plan on it you belong on both.
If you are absulutly positive that it will neve happen everywhere but SRS.
and no one not even Laura is that sure. And that is why she hangs out there
at times as well.
Angel
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> I don't think it's unreasonable at all for society to expect that women
look
> like females. If women can look like anything from Sylvester Stallone to
a
> expecting expectations formed over millions of years of evolution to
change
> literally overnight.
Sweetheart, your views on what a woman should be like are far, far more
rigid than any I have ever encountered in the cisgendered world, with the
possible exception of a few elderly traditionalists. Sure, there are gender
codes of dress, behaviour and role, although things are improving and people
are on the whole, don't have the more rigid stereotypes of yesteryear to
live up to.
As for change - if things hadn't changed, homosexuality would still be
illegal in most places, women would not have the vote, and your SRS would
never have happened. In the bad old days, most of the people here,
including you and me, would have been written off as poor sad nutcases who
had some crazy delusions about being a member of the opposite sex. True,
I've used extreme examples, but you can keep tradition, and I'll go for
integration and progress.
> > Look at it from a different
> > angle, though - look at it from the eyes of a young transie who hasn't
> > really got everything clear in her own head yet, except that she *feels*
> > female and thinks of herself as a woman in a man's body. The message
she
> > gets is that the only way she will be at all legally accepted as female
(and
> > over here, she barely will) is to have SRS. That is an awful pressure
on a
> > young mind, and doesn't give anyone who is very insecure about and
unhappy
> > with themselves much scope for coming to terms with incongruency between
> > mind and body.
>
> Is this in the same avenue of thought concerning violence, kids and TV?
> Give me a break. You make it sound that young trannies
> are imbeciles incapable of self-generated rational thought.
>
> No one is as immune to the power of suggestion as a newbie transsexual.
She
> already knows what she wants, and most refuse to listen to anyone else,
> period. They tend to be downright pigheaded. That mindset is far far far
> different from the innocent, gullible downey chick you're presenting.
Did I say "Transsexual"? No, I said: "a young transie who hasn't really
got everything clear in her own head yet, except that she *feels* female and
thinks of herself as a woman in a man's body." Someone still trying to come
to terms with it all and make up her own mind as to what she should do, as
opposed to someone like yourself, who seems very crystal clear in what she
wants. I'm not talking about innocent or gullible. No woman is an island
Amy - we do not exist in isolation and are thoughts *are* coloured by the
society we live in, by things that happen to us, as well as by our own
personalities, DNA or whatever. If we were totally free of outside
influence, why would the stealth TS phenomenon exist? Why would many of the
ladies here prefer to slip seamlessly into society as just an ordinary
woman, and not reveal their trans*-ness to too many people? Simple. We've
grown up with the concepts of MAN and WOMAN. That's what we've taken to be
"normal", often completely unaware of much of the diversity of all types
that hides behind the facade of "normal". "Normal" seems like the easiest
and safest thing to be if you don't want any hassle. THAT is the influence
of society. Other pressures are more subtle, but they're there, and people
(particularly the more insecure ones amongst us) *do* internalize these
pressures. Often they don't even realise it. I don't think I need to
re-explain the "SRS as passport to Female ID" thing again - it's just one of
many factors that might influence someone's decision.
Angel
Angel
>
> there are three ways to answer questions rude or other wise.
> 1. dont answer
> 2. lie, you will get cought and never trusted again
> 3.just tell the truth, it is sometime hard to justify but the answers will
> always be tha same. they may change as you grow. and they may become
> upseting to some. but you do have ther right to question youself and
present
> your issues and speculations about yourself for criticism.
>
> And believe me you will be criticized. Aspestos tail feathers are
required.
Heh! I love that description: "Asbestos tail feathers" - it's just so spot
on!
Angel, snug in Nomex bath robe...
te...@cox.net
> brilliant English by the way) I said I could not live without mine and you
> then compared removal of genitals to removal of limbs or to become blind.
> You need to stop picking at the way I try to explain myself, and focus on
> what I am saying. All I am doing is participating in a newsgroup, not
> taking an entrance exam into an elite circle.
> Tamara
:). In fact, picking at minutiae, form over substance, person over
argument, and paranoiac lawyering _are_ the hallmarks of the only
"elite" these newsgroups have had to contend with, so you may
indeed be under evaluation for the Inner Circle, lucky girl:).
(Seriously though: huggles!)
Theoni
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
My name is Daemon.
I am complete.
I am not an entity
I am a type.
My time is now.
The Word is CRON.
--Daemon
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Angel
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
>
> How do you figure? Take some time and look through archives. You won't
> find me making statements about how women should act and be. In fact, the
> more you look, the more you'll find me contradicting those statements made
> by others. I don't spend time telling people here that women don't do
> certain things, or telling people here how they should act based on their
> gender. I don't practice adherance to rigid stereotypes.
>
> I'm serious, I would like you to go comb through the archives and find my
> stereotypes for me. Quote them in a reply to this message. Don't use my
> "X-no-archive" thing as an excuse, as people quote me all the time. When
> you can find me expressing rigid stereotypes, you can then make the
> accusation you did above. Until then, I'd ask that you do your homework
and
> back up said accusation. I'm insulted by it.
WHOOOPS!!
Ah, I think I got the wrong end of the stick, there Amy - I owe you an
apology. It wasn't intentional, I just misinterpreted what you said
completely, and forgot to cast my mind back to other things you've said.
Sorry, my mistake!
Angel
Stephe
>
> You need to stop picking at the way I try to explain myself, and focus on
> what I am saying.
The point Tamara is it's extreamly hard to understand what someone is
saying when they don't use the comon definition of words. Using
"hypocritical" to describe something that is actually "bigoted" is
confusing at best.
>I'm not off on anything unrelated. You said *its just genitals* (which is
>brilliant English by the way) I said I could not live without mine and you
>then compared removal of genitals to removal of limbs or to become blind.
So then answer the question. Could you live if you lost your hands or your
eyes? Personally I'd give up my genitals and have NONE rather than lose
either of the above. It's just not a major point in my life.
--
Stephe
Stephe
> In the parking structure Tamara <ma...@feminine.demon.co.uk> whispered:
>
>> You need to stop picking at the way I try to explain myself, and focus on
>> what I am saying. All I am doing is participating in a newsgroup, not
>> taking an entrance exam into an elite circle.
>
>> Tamara
>
> :). In fact, picking at minutiae, form over substance, person over
> argument, and paranoiac lawyering _are_ the hallmarks of the only
> "elite" these newsgroups have had to contend with, so you may
> indeed be under evaluation for the Inner Circle, lucky girl:).
>
Coming from the person who ATTACKED me for the way I write? LOL
--
Stephe
Diane A.
> te...@cox.net wrote:
> > :). In fact, picking at minutiae, form over substance, person over
> > argument, and paranoiac lawyering _are_ the hallmarks of the only
> > "elite" these newsgroups have had to contend with, so you may
> > indeed be under evaluation for the Inner Circle, lucky girl:).
> >
>
> Coming from the person who ATTACKED me for the way I write? LOL
Tom doesn't have much room for criticism as anyone unfortunate enough to read
his attempt at transvestite fiction cun scifi novel would show:
Unfortunately it's no longer in operation (good thing I saved the website!
<g>) and only a longwinded and convoluted diatribe about governments and free
speech remain at :
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/7462/
Stephe
> "Stephe" <ms_s...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:a936n0$10dbfc$2...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
>> Also what seems odd to me is it's OK to take hormones that basically make
>> your genitals unisex anyway but to have surgery done is some sort of
>> taboo?
>
> "Unisex genitals"?
> I don't think so.
Well they sure won't work like a males normally would. Given that most
people who are long term hormone users have a penis that doesn't "work" I
think that fits fairly well.
>
>
>> Why are hormones and growing female breasts and having ones face
>> transformed into a females fine and dandy? Seems to me this is more
>> irreverable as far as going back to living as a man than SRS is.
>
> That is because you have neither transitioned nor have has SRS nor are a
> transsexual.
>
> Stick with what you know..
And that has what to do with this?
So you think SRS is wrong (like Laura) but hormones and facial surgery is
OK (that was my point in case you missed it)? Or was it that someone with
facial surgery and female breasts would have an easier time of changing
their mind about their choice than someone without a penis? Seems that
stuff would make daily life as a man harder than lack of a penis.
If not what WAS your point in disagreeing? Or just a bad day?
BTW you claim to NOT be transgendered but seem to have a lot to say about
what being a TG is all about. Wonder what makes you understand us so well
but we couldn't possibly understand anything about you? Sheeze lighten up
Diane.
--
Stephe
Diane A.
> Well they sure won't work like a males normally would. Given that most
> people who are long term hormone users have a penis that doesn't "work" I
> think that fits fairly well.
My experience, as Elaine had already pointed out, is that a great many pre-ops
on hormone therapy can sustain erections.
But that is neither here nor there because it is not in my estimation the fact
that one has a penis operating or otherwise which marks one as a male but the
*desire* and *comfortableness* with having such an anatomy.
> And that has what to do with this?
Everything.
Pauline Brent
> people who are long term hormone users have a penis that doesn't "work" I
> think that fits fairly well.
As long as the blood sack are still there it is possable for a male to get
an erection, and as long as the prostrate works they can ejaculate.
Talk to your uroligist if you dont want to believe me.
Pauline Brent
> eyes? Personally I'd give up my genitals and have NONE rather than lose
> either of the above. It's just not a major point in my life.
> --
>
> Stephe
you are asking two questions, I believe you call them apples and oranges.
lost of limb, like hands or feet is a question about a physical problem. An
example would be if my left foot were to gave gangreene from my diabetis.
yes I would miss it, and I would live with its removial.
the male genataila was like a cancerous growth. it didnt belong there. While
my physical body can keep it working, mentally it became a life threating
growth. I felt that keeping it would kill me. There is no way short of a
labotomy to change my mind. so to live I had to change my body. This is
recognised by many medical and mental Doctors. My insurance company covered
it as medically nessarry.
Pauline Brent
sorry if I interlope
--
enjoy
When its TIME its TIME.
The first step of any journey is the hardest, the last the most fullfiling.
TSTGSociety.org its for you, add to it. use it.ed but you do need to
understand that this is an open forum. If you want it private take it to e
mail.
"-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RsHt8.42998$zN.18...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Pauline Brent" <PMB...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:hIDt8.4763$c6.4...@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net...
> > > So then answer the question. Could you live if you lost your hands or
> your
> > > eyes? Personally I'd give up my genitals and have NONE rather than
lose
> > > either of the above. It's just not a major point in my life.
> > > --
> > >
> > > Stephe
> >
> >
> > you are asking two questions, I believe you call them apples and
oranges.
> > lost of limb, like hands or feet is a question about a physical problem.
> An
> > example would be if my left foot were to gave gangreene from my
diabetis.
> > yes I would miss it, and I would live with its removial.
> >
> > the male genataila was like a cancerous growth. it didnt belong there.
> While
> > my physical body can keep it working, mentally it became a life
threating
> > growth. I felt that keeping it would kill me. There is no way short of a
> > labotomy to change my mind. so to live I had to change my body. This is
> > recognised by many medical and mental Doctors. My insurance company
> covered
> > it as medically nessarry.
> >
>
> She wasn't asking you, Pauline. The question wouldn't have any merit for
> you. We asked Tamara, who stated that she'd wish to die if she lost her
> penis.
>
> Amy
>
>
Pauline Brent
> Amy,
>
> sorry if I interloped but you do need to
> understand that this is an open forum. If you want it private take it to
Pauline Brent
No. turn the coin over. if they value the penis more than life then they
have to keep it. or get the lobotomy and give it up. No karma involved. it
will not preclude her living as a woman. but it will crimp her a little with
the legal system. for instance I dont know if she can clam rape if it does
happen.
Laura would never give up her penis. and you see what happens when she or
others like her voice their views here.
I try not to (and fail often) put it their way but to give it my way, I
can not feel as she does. but I can relate it to me.
And sometimes I want a penis, just not mine. :)
--
enjoy
When its TIME its TIME.
The first step of any journey is the hardest, the last the most fullfiling.
TSTGSociety.org its for you, add to it. use it.
"-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vlIt8.43322$zN.18...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Pauline Brent" <PMB...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:XeIt8.4785$c6.4...@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net...
> >
> > "Pauline Brent" <PMB...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:n6It8.4784$c6.4...@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net...
> > > Amy,
> > >
> > > sorry if I interloped but you do need to
> > > understand that this is an open forum. If you want it private take it
> to
> > e-
> > > mail.
>
> Pauline, you're not interloping, and comments from you are always welcome.
>
> It's just that in this instance, the question asked doesn't even remotely
> apply to a transsexual. If you'd just answered it, that's fine. But you
> faulted the value of the question. Tamara values her penis more than her
> life. How can you, a transsexual who hated your penis, feel you can judge
> the value of a question aimed at a diametrically opposed belief?
>
> Picture me asking a Buddhist if he thought it was worth spending a
lifetime
> as a bug in order to atone for his karma. Then a Christian pops in and
says
> the entire question is stupid because reincarnation doesn't exist.
>
> The Christian can't answer the question properly, just as a transsexual
> can't answer the question I asked Tamara. Does that help make it more
clear
> why I said it wasn't for you, Pauline?
>
> Amy
>
>
Angel
> Amy,
> No. turn the coin over. if they value the penis more than life then they
> have to keep it. or get the lobotomy and give it up. No karma involved. it
> will not preclude her living as a woman. but it will crimp her a little
with
> the legal system. for instance I dont know if she can clam rape if it does
> happen.
Any kind of rape over here (UK) is a crime regardless of the sex of the
victim, as far as I know - not sure what the situation is in the
US/Canada/Australia and wherever else...
Angel
Angel
"-=Queen Vamp=-" <no...@none.here.net> wrote in message
news:3cb78de6$1...@news.alphalink.com.au...
>
> "Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
> >
> > Any kind of rape over here (UK) is a crime regardless of the sex of the
> > victim, as far as I know - not sure what the situation is in the
> > US/Canada/Australia and wherever else...
>
> apparently does not award it the harsh penalties one believe it should
> attract.
Over here, rape seems to be treated less seriously than crimes relating to
large amounts of money..
Angel
Stephe
> Well they sure won't work like a males normally would. Given that most
>> people who are long term hormone users have a penis that doesn't "work" I
>> think that fits fairly well.
>
> As long as the blood sack are still there it is possable for a male to get
> an erection, and as long as the prostrate works they can ejaculate.
>
> Talk to your uroligist if you dont want to believe me.
>
I've never seen a group of people more educated about the details of the
human genitals.. For some of us, it's not our lifes focus was the point.
--
Stephe
Stephe
> "Stephe" <ms_s...@excite.com> wrote in message
> But that is neither here nor there because it is not in my estimation the
> fact that one has a penis operating or otherwise which marks one as a male
> but the *desire* and *comfortableness* with having such an anatomy.
Or the non issue of it. If one doesn't care about what's between their legs
and it isn't their life focus, why should they make it become that?
Obviously is was the focus of your life and maybe continues to be?
>
>> And that has what to do with this?
>
> Everything.
Like I said, looks like to you it's "everything" but to me it's far from
being a very important part of my life.
So again why did you question my post? To just "go after" me or do you
agree with Laura that SRS is a bad move for any and everyone?
I'll assume the former.
--
Stephe
Stephe
>> So then answer the question. Could you live if you lost your hands or
>> your eyes? Personally I'd give up my genitals and have NONE rather than
>> lose either of the above. It's just not a major point in my life.
>> --
>>
>> Stephe
>
>
> you are asking two questions, I believe you call them apples and oranges.
> lost of limb, like hands or feet is a question about a physical problem.
> An example would be if my left foot were to gave gangreene from my
> diabetis. yes I would miss it, and I would live with its removial.
>
> the male genataila was like a cancerous growth. it didnt belong there.
> While my physical body can keep it working, mentally it became a life
> threating growth. I felt that keeping it would kill me. There is no way
> short of a labotomy to change my mind. so to live I had to change my body.
> This is recognised by many medical and mental Doctors. My insurance
> company covered it as medically nessarry.
>
Ok here is a question MAYBE you can understand even though this WASN'T
asked the way you tried to answer it (defending why you had SRS?)
Which would you rather lose, your genitals (Which ever you now have male
or female) or your hands or eyesite? Which means more to you? My answer was
I'd rather have NO genitals than lose either of the other as my eyesite and
hands mean WAY more to me than what's in my pants.
This is NOT about having or not having SRS
--
Stephe
Stephe
>
> Tom doesn't have much room for criticism as anyone unfortunate enough to
> read his attempt at transvestite fiction cun scifi novel would show:
>
> Unfortunately it's no longer in operation (good thing I saved the website!
> <g>)
Jesus Diane, get a life outside of usenet. Saving websites and quotes to
use to attack people? Ever though about a hobby or some other PRODUCTIVE
way to spend your life? You've already wasted ten+ years.
--
Stephe
Diane A.
> Ok here is a question MAYBE you can understand even though this WASN'T
> asked the way you tried to answer it (defending why you had SRS?)
>
> Which would you rather lose, your genitals (Which ever you now have male
> or female) or your hands
Clearly sophistry isn't your strong point.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
" Mom taught me to kook and sew"
Laura Blake 4/6/02
or eyesite?
yet another postop
> I wish someone would do a *good* study on a large group of post-ops with
> regards to the ability to climax afterwards.
It would be a VERY difficult study to do and I am not really
sure what it would mean.
we often say "post-op" as if we are all the same, we aren't. There
are very dramtic differences in the resulting physiology from
all the different surgeons. Whild a Meltzer girl and a Schrang
girl may look very similar cosmeticly we really aren't built the
same.
Sorta falls into the weird question I have often had. "How does
my experience of having a vagina etc differ from a natal women's?"
BTW, I'm a meltzer post-op who expereinces something she calls
orgasms. I of course have no way of knowing if they are at all like
what any other woman experiences. I like them though.
TLM
<hami...@hamiltonlabs.com> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>"TLM" <ton...@flash.net> wrote:
>> I have always been the type to use whatever I had (genitals)
>> for my personal pleasure. I fully intend to continue after SRS
>> too.
>
>Then, Tommie, you may want to think carefully about this because it isn't
>only about intent, it's also about luck. If you aren't prepared for the
>possibility you might never again be orgasmic (think about what I'm saying)
>then you should not have SRS.
>
>Nicki
I have weighed out all the possibilities. I am continuing on.
I am in a therapy group this year and it is for discussing the many
issues of concern to a TS. Before that date, I can always cancel,
thoughts and feelings should change.
Tommie
TLM
<no...@none.here.net> wrote:
>
>"Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
>news:3cb7883c$0$337$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>
>Same here (Aus). Rape is rape. Plain and simple. Although the judiciary
>apparently does not award it the harsh penalties one believe it should
>attract.
It seems that in the US a man cannot be raped, only a woman can.
And the woman cannot be raped by another woman, but only by a man.
Basic definition is that a man forcing a woman to have sex is "rape",
unless she can be proven to be a prostitute or whore.
Tommie
Angel
"TLM" <ton...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:b72gbu89r2fp3mksn...@4ax.com...
Thanks for filling me in on this, Tommie - do TGs, TSs, men and prostitutes
of either sex have any differently worded legislation that protects them
from sexual abuse?
Angel
Angel
> X-No-archive: yes
> > <no...@none.here.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Angel" <An...@Glitterstarz.net.petticoats> wrote in message
> > >news:3cb7883c$0$337$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> > And the woman cannot be raped by another woman, but only by a man.
>
> states often define unwanted anal/oral penetration as "sodomy.
>
> However, more and more states are switching to "sexual assualt" because
it's
> a genderless term. Women and men both have been arrested for sexually
> assualting men.
Thanks for this info, Amy - good to hear that the term "sexual assault" is
being used, and that people are being arrested for the crime, regardless of
the sex of the attacker or the victim because I've known people of both
sexes who have been raped, and it's distressing for *anyone*.
Angel
Karen
> Some states define "rape" as unwanted vaginal penetration.
And in one such state a judge decided that a neo-vagina is not a vagina
and dismissed the rape charge against a guy who raped a post-op.
- Karen
Karen
> Was any followup done to see if there was a new charge of sodomy or sexual
> assault?
Ask Claire next time she pops in. She is the one who mentioned it on a
mailing list.
- karen
Angel
"Karen" <kaa-...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1falknc.1yxosyb1kz7xe3N%kaa-...@attbi.com...
Which state was that? Sheesh, that's a vile piece of judgement. Couldn't
they have at least re-worded the charges to "sexual assault" and got the
rapist up on that?
<groans in despair>
Angel
Stephe
>
> "Stephe" <ms_s...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:a98hcs$14t95$3...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
>> Ok here is a question MAYBE you can understand even though this WASN'T
>> asked the way you tried to answer it (defending why you had SRS?)
>>
>> Which would you rather lose, your genitals (Which ever you now have male
>> or female) or your hands
>
> Clearly sophistry isn't your strong point.
>
Clearly eschewing direct questions is your's
--
Stephe
Loree Thomas
> > Look at these two excerpts from that article:.....
>
> Good points....
>
> I wish someone would do a *good* study on a large group of post-ops with
> regards to the ability to climax afterwards.
Anne Lawrence has finished her disertation for her doctorate in
sexology. I believe it is a study of outcomes for transsexuals who
had SRS with Dr. Meltzer. My understanding from conversations with
her is it includes data about ability to orgasm.
She is giving at talk this year at Esprit based on her disertation...
Meltzer will also be at Esprit... I wonder if she will upset him with
her opinions as much as she upset Shrang?
Is the study good? I don't know, I haven't read it yet. From talking
with Anne I got the impression that some of her conclusions might be a
bit controvercial (big surprise...). For those of you who already
dislike her based on her agp paper, this should provide even more ammo
:)
Hugs,
Loree
Diane A.
Eschewing ? Did you have to go to a thesaurus to look up a such a nice word ?
The wonder of computers these days <g>.
You might wish to stick to "would you rather lose your genitals or your arms?"
arguments Stephe, because once you go to three syllables you're out of your
depth here, OK?
Diane A.
"Loree Thomas" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:387e7ef5.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Is the study good? I don't know, I haven't read it yet. From talking
> with Anne I got the impression that some of her conclusions might be a
> bit controvercial (big surprise...). For those of you who already
> dislike her based on her agp paper, this should provide even more ammo
> :)
I wish I could like Dr. Lawrence (she does have a hell of a great support web
site) but I actually find her too opinionated if you can believe that <g>. I
think it interferes with her objectivity as a researcher.
Loree Thomas
> I wish I could like Dr. Lawrence (she does have a hell of a great support web
> site) but I actually find her too opinionated if you can believe that <g>. I
> think it interferes with her objectivity as a researcher.
Much like another highly opinionated TS woman I've met, Anne is much
easier to get along with... even like... face to face. You can see
her basic earnestness and good humor when you are talking with her.
And I adore opinionated people... they have a passion that is lacking
in folks who are more wishy washy.
Hugs,
Loree
Diane A.
> easier to get along with
Speaking of highly opinionated people, here is a highly opinionated message of
yours that I came across a few days ago on
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187/tgworld/loree.htm
I think it speaks for itself.
Loree Thomas said:
"To me (note: this is strictly a personal opinion), a "true TS" is a person
with a serious mental illness that has no hope of ever being cured without
undergoing intense therapy and surgical intervention. They simply cannot
accept their own body, period... there is no issue of choice involved. If
they can't have SRS, they will kill themselves or attempt to do the surgery on
their own.
They literally HATE their genitals, a natural part of their own bodies... this
goes way beyond a simple desire or wish that things were different, it is at
the level of a psychosis. If NOT treated they will attack their own bodies
with sharp implements. It IS self hate at it's worst. It's the very epitome
of insanity. Fortunately for these poor tortured souls, therapy, transition
and SRS IS an effective treatment for the illness. It removes the intense
self hatred by changing the physical appearance of the genitals to match the
internal image.
A properly treated TS can lead a full, satisfying and productive life. The
treatment and the SOCs were originally designed with these people in mind. By
normal societal standards, the whole idea of sex change is just plain crazy.
It was only by first proving that this was a real mental illness and then
showing that the treatment (transition, hrt,SRS) actually relieves a real
suffering that we have been able to do this at all."
Nice to know that you think of us as "mentally ill" and the "epitome of
insanity" Loree.
Loree Thomas
> "Loree Thomas" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:387e7ef5.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > Much like another highly opinionated TS woman I've met, Anne is much
> > easier to get along with
>
> Speaking of highly opinionated people, here is a highly opinionated message of
> yours that I came across a few days ago on
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187/tgworld/loree.htm
>
> I think it speaks for itself.
>
> Loree Thomas said:
> "To me (note: this is strictly a personal opinion), a "true TS" is a person
> with a serious mental illness that has no hope of ever being cured without
> undergoing intense therapy and surgical intervention.
Hmmm... Am I to infer that you believe there is no need for
transition and surgery for a 'true TS"?
Or that you identify strongly with my description of a "true TS"?
Or both?
You do realise, that if you aren't such a person as what I described
then the description doesn't apply to you, yes?
> Nice to know that you think of us as "mentally ill" and the "epitome of
> insanity" Loree.
But YOU've had your SRS Diane... so even if you were mentally ill,
now you are cured, no?
BTW, thank you! It's nice to know that my words have enough impact
that other people go so far as to post them on personal web sites.
And you are still easier to get along with in person than online. :)
Hugs,
Loree
Loree Thomas
> Speaking of highly opinionated people, here is a highly opinionated message of
> yours that I came across a few days ago on
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187/tgworld/loree.htm
>
> I think it speaks for itself.
Might as well post the whole thing instead of just an except. I get
warm fuzzies just reading this again and realizing that others think
it's important enough writing to quote. :)
Gender Revolution!
A usenet post by Loree Thomas.
*****WARNING*****
READ THIS POST AT YOUR OWN RISK!
The following post contains ideas, thoughts and opinions that many may
find controversial.
If you are easily offended, DO NOT READ THIS POST.
If you are a firm believer in the right of society to regulate
personal
behavior which doesn't harm any other individual DO NOT READ THIS
POST.
If the above describes you, and you decide to read anyway, be aware
that
this is not an attempt to establish a debate or dialogue and any
comments made will go unanswered. You are entirley welcome to make
any
editorial comments you desire.
It also contains a totally ridiculous amount of hyperbole. I
already know this and will not respond to anyone silly enough to point
it out again. I might laugh at you, however!
I've been reading quite a bit of Thomas Paine and Robert G. Ingersoll
recently.
*****WARNING*****
Some Thoughts on the Results of My Post in the "A Transgendered
Revolution?" Thread.
Introduction:
So... a TS person has granted me status as a TS online. :-/
The funny part of this whole thing is I've been honest all along. All
of that has been posted before, none of it was new information.
I guess the fact that it was outside of an intense debate, where
everyone is intent on proving they are *right* and having it all laid
out clearly like that made all the difference .
I was embroiled in a huge debate last year around this time (pretty
much
like the current DoItYourself fracas, but with MANY more participants)
all about if there even WAS such a thing as a non op TS. Even the TS
women who acknowledged that there WAS such a thing were unanimous in
their opinion that I wasn't one.
A couple of those same people have now changed their minds, granting
me
the TS label... though in private email.
The truth is, I don't *want* the TS label.
Too many who claim a proprietary right to that label are so completely
different from me that it has acquired a very negative connotation in
my
mind.
Speculation:
I've come to the conclusion that being TG and REALLY being TS are
completely different things with completely different causes, they
just
SEEM as if they are similar on the surface.
worst.
internal image.
this at all.
Not all people who call themselves TS, or that have SRS, actually fit
this description. In fact very few do. The "true TS" is truly a rare
phenomena.
What IS sad is that societal disapproval with the idea of sex change
causes people who don't have this mental illness, but are instead some
form of transgendered person, to pretend that they do.
Most people who say they are TS are really TG and have made a personal
choice on how far they want to change themselves. There is NOTHING at
all wrong with that! In fact, it is highly sane behavior.
No choice that a person make freely can be wrong unless it hurts
another.
The problem is that the "true TS" isn't free to make a choice. It's
"do
or die" in a very real way.
Historically, that is the basis on which the mental health community
promoted acceptance of the whole SOCs.
The "true TSs" all had very similar sets of symptoms that included
thoughts (or actual attempts) of suicide and genital self mutilation.
Another common symptom was a belief that they were, in reality, the
opposite sex. It takes a very different kind of mind to hold a belief
that is so easily demonstrated false.
Note that this is different than merely wishing that you were the
other
sex. It's different from being unhappy about the reality of your sex.
It is a deep down, strongly held belief that defies real world
evidence.
This then put pressure on those who were TG to express those same set
of
symptoms themselves so as to gain access to drugs and procedures that
they didn't actually NEED, but only wanted very strongly.
This reinforced the whole thing and started us down the road that has
taken us to where we are today.
There is no reason, no real requirement, that a TG needs psychiatric
intervention, even if they do want SRS.
They aren't mentally ill.
It IS to their advantage to play along with the system that was setup
to
help "true TSs"... and even to lie or exaggerate when required,
because
the system provides the social legitimacy and legal rational for doing
what almost any person who isn't TG or TS would consider crazy.
As long as most TGs (remember that we out number the "true TSs" by at
least an order of magnitude and maybe two) are content to use the
system
and accept an untrue diagnosis of mental illness, the rest of the
world
will continue to think us crazy... less than capable, mentally, of
making our own choices and thus requiring a pshrinks evaluation before
allowing us to do what we freely choose to our own body.
So no... I am NOT TS.
I am TG, and there is nothing at all wrong with that!
It's a wonderful, a glorious, a magical thing.
A Call to Arms:
I am engaged in the Transgendered Revolution already... I have
revolted
against unnecessary interference by moralists, pshrinks and society in
my life.
I Declare My Independence and Affirm openly and proudly my Right to
make
My Own decisions, My Own choices, My Right to modify My Body and live
in
any manner or gender expression I choose without having to provide
justification, reason or cause to anyone.
I Declare my Gender Freedom!
I invite all Transgendered Persons of any and every Gender Expression
to
join me! Throw off the Yoke of Societal Oppression, the Mantle of
Mental
Illness, the Security Blanket of Medical Condition!
Stand up Tall, Proud and Strong and Declare your Right to make Your
Own
Choices in Life!
Long Live the Trangendered Revolution!
Loree Thomas
Seattle, WA
November 14, 1999
"The Best Prescription is Knowledge" -- C. Everett Koop, MD
Usage Information:
This post may be reproduced in whole or part and distributed freely,
in
any language, medium or location.
The only requirement of usage is to give credit to Loree Thomas, the
author, for the creation of this material.
All contents of this post are the sole work of Loree Thomas.
Copyright 1999, all rights reserved except as explicitly stated.
TLM
I suppose there is "physical assault' or 'sexual assault' as general
catch-all terms for any violent actions taken against a person. But
nothing specifically I know of.
Tommie
TLM
At least, not with the same emotional pull as the word "RAPE". This
word tends to make the public go "GASP!". 'Sexual assault' just does
not have the same strength here in the US.
Tommie
Diane A.
No, I htink the excerpt says all that need be said about someone such as
yourself:
Loree Thomas said:
"To me (note: this is strictly a personal opinion), a "true TS" is a person
with a serious mental illness that has no hope of ever being cured without
undergoing intense therapy and surgical intervention. They simply cannot
accept their own body, period... there is no issue of choice involved. If
they can't have SRS, they will kill themselves or attempt to do the surgery on
their own.
They literally HATE their genitals, a natural part of their own bodies... this
goes way beyond a simple desire or wish that things were different, it is at
the level of a psychosis. If NOT treated they will attack their own bodies
with sharp implements. It IS self hate at it's worst. It's the very epitome
of insanity. Fortunately for these poor tortured souls, therapy, transition
and SRS IS an effective treatment for the illness. It removes the intense
self hatred by changing the physical appearance of the genitals to match the
internal image.
A properly treated TS can lead a full, satisfying and productive life. The
treatment and the SOCs were originally designed with these people in mind. By
normal societal standards, the whole idea of sex change is just plain crazy.
It was only by first proving that this was a real mental illness and then
showing that the treatment (transition, hrt,SRS) actually relieves a real
suffering that we have been able to do this at all."
Sour grapes Loree.....just sour grapes....
Marina Brown
I could have lived happily with or without SRS. I was not mentally
ill, unless you count being cantankerous and opinionated as a mental
illness.
I resent the self serving attitude of Shrinks that promote their
business at our expense. What did therapy do for me ? It wasted thousands
of dollars and lots of time.
When i am upset, the best therapy for me is to go for a long walk. I
believe it was Emmerson that said "I have two doctors, my right leg and
my left leg". I'm of the same belief.
Perhaps some people are helped by therapy, but i find that most therapists
do not understand my philosophy of life as i bring elements of fairly advanced
scientific thought into the realm of life. I find most therapists to be
EXTREMLY culturally bound and THEY DO NOT understand the culture i have come
from.
Marina
Diane A.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
" Mom taught me to kook and sew"
Laura Blake 4/6/02
"-Amy-" <af...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uesu8.39287$VQ2.21...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>. Unfortunately, many trannies
> seem to think that the only valid form of transsexualism is one of extreme
> self-hatred.
Hating a particular part of one's anatomy is not the same thing as hating
one's self. You might as well say that someone who was severely depressed at
having a harelip was really exhibiting self-hating behavior by wanting to get
it corrected.
> I learned something from therapy. I learned that it takes a seriously
> messed up individual to want to become a shrink. Those people have some
> problems.
I believe this is called projection. My guess is that you are afraid of
mental health care professionals because you have some sort of serious
issue(s) which you avoid and inevitably come up in therapy. Hence you create
a story for yourself that such people are "seriously messed up" which gives
you a reason for avoiding them and hence avoiding your own issues. Of course
if I am right you would just as vigorously deny this as much as if I were
wrong so there's no way for me to know. I do know that it has been my
experience that there is a correlation between a seriously messed up
individual (Blake, Natasha, both Thomas') and an aversion to psychological
counseling.
Diane A.
Stephe
> "Diane A." <diane...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<ubjhtek...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Speaking of highly opinionated people, here is a highly opinionated
>> message of yours that I came across a few days ago on
>> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/8187/tgworld/loree.htm
>>
>> I think it speaks for itself.
>
> Might as well post the whole thing instead of just an except. I get
> warm fuzzies just reading this again and realizing that others think
> it's important enough writing to quote. :)
>
It's one of the best things I've read on these groups :-) BTW I hope you
didn't mind me posting it on my site?
--
Stephe
Stephe
>
> When i am upset, the best therapy for me is to go for a long walk. I
> believe it was Emmerson that said "I have two doctors, my right leg and
> my left leg". I'm of the same belief.
>
I agree but for it to do much good I need to walk alone in the woods. It
changes my whole perspective every time I do it and "fixes" just about
anything that is bothering me!
--
Stephe
Stephe
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Marina Brown" <mar...@fire.webcoves.org> wrote in message
> news:W7su8.129582$GF1.17...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>> Loree:
>>
>> I could have lived happily with or without SRS. I was not mentally
>> ill, unless you count being cantankerous and opinionated as a mental
>> illness.
>
> That sounds exactly like something I would write. I could have lived
> without SRS, too. I didn't hate my penis. Unfortunately, many trannies
> seem to think that the only valid form of transsexualism is one of extreme
> self-hatred. And I'm definitely opinionated :)
If you read Loree's post that is -exactly- what she says..
--
Stephe
Stephe
>
> I learned something from therapy. I learned that it takes a seriously
> messed up individual to want to become a shrink. Those people have some
> problems. It's funny because when I look back at my childhood friends who
> wanted to become therapists, they were usually pretty messed up kids.
Add my brother to that list. He's a shrink and he's one of the most
confused/messed up people I know. I think it goes with the teritory. I
shutter thinking that people listen to him for life changing advice!
--
Stephe