Where are all the smooth crotched ladyboys?

[kellyslarkin (imported)]

Well, let me say I wish I could re-title this thread.

My original point was there is a large group of people represented in fantasy in the stories here, with valid socio-ethno-sexual reasons for desiring to be MtF / smooth-crotch-nullo, but this category seems to be under-repesented in real life.

I myself would like to be smooth-crotch-nullo-lesbian. I'm not sure that's possible in reality, but that is the reality in my mind, and to me that is all that matters. Certainly, a bit fetishistic, but isn't that the case with all of us here?

The one point you make of which I was already factually aware is that in Thailand, one can't legally change one's gender, the governmental recognition of that does not exist. That's pretty unfortunate, but all things will eventually change.

Society is progressing towards more liberal attitudes, there are continuous and sometimes sever setbacks, but this evolution is obvious not just from things happening, but from the words we use to define things themselves. Let's take for example the word gay (originally meaning happy). This word has evolved, it is a discriminating word, but now the 'punch' of this word as a derogatory force is being lost. It no longer carries any significant weight as a derogatory word, now it is merely a categorization. The word 'queer' (originally meaning peculiar, or odd) is in a similar form of evolution. The most controversial derogatory term I know of is the N-* word. Now it is used by people of the own class it would describe as a symbol of revolt at discrimination. The word is effectively losing power as a derogatory force, and becoming merely a categorization which is no longer derogatory in certain contexts. In time, it may devolve completely.

Let us hope that words like ladyboy can lose whatever derogatory power they hold as well, and realize it is our context and usage of the words that will define how they evolve. Who else can describe what a ladyboy is but one who identifies and is that itself? And who else can feel the sting of a derogatory word but one who is unfairly categorized by it? So we should not be afraid to use the word, we should only be afraid to use the word as a measure on those who would reject it as a label of themselves.

From A to B to A to B.

I didn't mean to describe you or anyone here as a ladyboy, I simply was asking why in MtF society there isn't a higher prevalence of nullo-TG than is apparent. Everyone still has a penis or a vagina, in many countries, surgically enforced, and this to me is strange. In Thailand, apparently, there could be a difference, and I was curious how it presented.

Please excuse my terminology, I definitely did not mean to offend you.

[punkypink (imported)]

I didn't mean to describe you or anyone here as a ladyboy, I simply was asking why in MtF society there isn't a higher prevalence of nullo-TG than is apparent. Everyone still has a penis or a vagina, in many countries, surgically enforced, and this to me is strange. In Thailand, apparently, there could be a difference, and I was curious how it presented.

Please excuse my terminology, I definitely did not mean to offend you.

Quite simple really. Because society still judges who one is by the genitals, and thus most TGs want the "right" genitals.

I don't think I'm afraid to label myself. I'm trans, I'm lesbian. Those are facts about me that are not focused on the superficial. Ladyboy is, regardless of how it is used and the context it is used in. Like I said, you wouldn't use any term associated with oversized noses on someone with a big nose no matter how nicely you meant it.

Unfortunately your comparision to the words "gay" and even "queer" is flawed because none of those words are made up of 2 seperate words that are polar opposites of each other and has connections to physical sex and gender, thus by its very usage, meant to promote the association of gender with genitals and deny those whose gender and genitals do not match, recognition of their identity. Besides, when we use the word gay, we say "a gay man/a gay woman" how often do you hear ladyboy being used as such: "a ladyboy woman"? Or for that matter, "a tranny woman/a katoey woman"? They are NOT descriptive terms. further proof comes from the grammer. One would say "I am gay" but grammatically it is wrong to say "I am ladyboy/katoey". You'd have to use it the same way you say "I am a man/woman" i.e "I am a ladyboy". But you can use trans in the same way as gay "I am a trans woman/I am trans", which is why trans is truly descriptive while ladyboy isn't. Do you see what I mean?

I think I've demonstrated very clearly why using these terms deny transpeople the rightful recognition of their gender. They are never used in conjunction with an apt gender descriptive, rather, they replace the rightful gender descriptive. Thus I think that it is unlikely that these terms will lose their derogatory power unlike terms like gay and queer. Not everything is up to the context unfortunately.

So, as long as that association of gender and genitals continues to be promoted by the use of such terms (and lets face it, the usage of such terms WILL simply promote such an association rather than the term itself becoming inoffensive as you've outlined), then there will probably be little or no nullo-TGs.

And the fetish for me is genital modification. If I had a female body I'd still be after the same, except its for stuff to be done to my clit. I have no fetish about being trans whatsoever. Perhaps you don't understand when you suggest that "isn't that the case with ALL of us here", the answer is a big firm NO.

So please, don't give us special names. We're women. If there is really a need to refer to our specific circumstance, then use transsexual, or trans for short. No "Tranny" or "Katoey" or "Ladyboys". Because dooing so might as well just be calling us "not women". Thanks. The day people stop using those stupid terms, you might just find there to be more nullo-TGs.

[FianceeUvBigGuy (imported)]

Punkito, (Punkita?)

I use the term "Ladyboy" because Treasure T. Ladyboy uses that term HERSELF.

If there is another term you prefer I employ please reveal same and I will use it IF Treasure prefers. I will also ask her if she, at any time, has felt denigrated or degraded by any speech or action on my part. I may be "incorrigible" in your view, but I think Treasure would attest that NO other person has treated "her" with more respect and kindness than have I.

The fact that I am bearing the expense of her upcoming medical appointments and that it is I who instigated same might prove my point.

Yoli

[devi (imported)]

Ladyboy might actually turn out to be an actual discriptive term though. First of all if one is a person whose testicles have not developed past the age of thirteen then that person could in fact be a "boy" rather than being a "man". And of course if they lack certain assets of an adult male (i.e. full beard, large hands, rough skin, very deep voice, etc.) then that would strengthen the claim of appearing to be a boy rather than a appearing to be a man. This is just a fact. I know that a lot of times "boy" is a term used among men in contempt of someone who is weaker or soft but that aside boy is a discriptive and accurate term. Secondly, the lady aspect is very much there. "Ladyboys" are often the very ones that women prefer to go out with for the fact that they generally do not want to wind up alone and at the same time do not want to be seen with a "man" especially if it is not their man with them for a number of reasons and not just the obvious one. Then too a lot of "ladyboys" do have have sex chromatins within their cellular structures just as a female has. I myself would certainly prefer being called a "ladyboy" then to some other labels.

[kellyslarkin (imported)]

which is why trans is truly descriptive while ladyboy isn't. Do you see what I mean?

I think I've demonstrated very clearly why using these terms deny transpeople the rightful recognition of their gender. They are never used in conjunction with an apt gender descriptive, rather, they replace the rightful gender descriptive. Thus I think that it is unlikely that these terms will lose their derogatory power unlike terms like gay and queer. Not everything is up to the context unfortunately.

Actually, that makes perfect sense now. A word arising out of improper description doesn't have much of a chance of evolving into a proper description. It's so hard to sometimes describe things that we don't see the right terms for quite some time.

My fetish is likewise for genital modification, or more specifically orgasm denial related to or resulting from genital modification. Ideally, I'd like to be able to be aroused, have some pleasant sensations, but be a complete passive sexual partner, not have external genitalia, and not receive orgasm. Passive isn't even the right word, necessarily, nor is submissive, nor any other commonly used word, but it is the closest. Aroused-loving-orgasm-giver, anyone? What is the right term here?

Now the gap between reality and fetish here could be significant; if one can't get aroused, or has major nerve tissue / vascular damage and can't get any sensation, that could be pretty significantly upsetting.

I think it's probable one could achieve a smooth crotch from MtF surgery without construction of a neo-vagina, and with sensate preservation, one could get the desired effect. However it seems much more difficult for smooth-crotch female nullification to be complete without achieving some undesirable effects; deep tissue hysterectomy required may damage response; the alternative is infibulation, which without the hysterectomy is going to be a problem for anyone pre-menopause, unless hormones are applied, which have their own sets of problems and risks.

So for now I'm prepared to live with this as a fetish and have no interest in taking it further at this time. After all, if one doesn't want to orgasm, one can simply not orgasm, no surgery, hormones or strings attached.

[punkypink (imported)]

Yoli: Woman/girl would be nice thanks. But more to the point, it isn't about you. You might not mean the term in a degrogatory way but for every one of you who doesn't use it like that, there are 10 "normal" people who will hear or read it and subconsciously be reinforced that gender depends on the genitals instead of the brain. Would be nice if you could actually consider the longer term social effects of using that term and refrain from it even IF Treasure herself uses the term and isn't offended by it. In fact, maybe point out to her how the use of the term by ANYONE harms the community as a whole by reinforcing the conventional stereotypes that "normal" people have about gender and about transpeople.

Dev: I'd rather be seen for who I am not what I physically have. If you had a big nose and you don't mind being called Pinocchio, fair play to you, but spare a thought for what it does for how "normal" people see and accept those of us who are different. Sure. it is descriptive, but does that mean it is appropriate/helpful? No.

Kelly: I'm glad you're starting to understand it now. Bottom line I guess, is that my fetish is my fetish, my identity is my identity. They are 2 completely seperate issues. Should there be a smooth trans woman, it is because she just happens to have that fetish AND is trans. This is like kinda like how awhile back people didn't realise trans women could be lesbian as well. Orientation is orientation, physical sex is physical sex. The 2 are not connected.

[kellyslarkin (imported)]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to connect the two, and didn't realize my choice of words did imply some great confusion.

It's even further than gender vs. orientation, it's gender vs. orientation vs. fetish vs. kink vs. physical appearance vs. physical gender. I understand that all of those may be different and even somewhat blurred (especially orientation).

I like the idea of female secondary sex characteristics, with a fetish for passive genitals (no vagina, no clitoris, ideally totally smooth), possibly orgasmic, possibly not.

Add to this in my orientation-specific fantasy, oriented primarily towards other individuals with female secondary sex characteristics, as a submissive giver or receiver (depending on the physical gender of the 'top', which could be either), and then my kink, totally abstinent from orgasm.

This is only possible via a nullo MtF trans or nullified physical female; the second exists, and I wonder, does the first? I've never heard any confidently real account of anyone being the first, yet from all the evidence, they do exist.

It's interesting that labia are desirable for preventing UTI. I hadn't considered that. Perhaps the search for a perfectly smooth, problem free, genital free crotch isn't possible.

Given the documented problems related to infibulation, and the fact of the shortness of the female urethral tract, perhaps the best attempt at a genital free crotch would in fact be from a physical male, and in fact, judging by the male nullos that do exist, and it is possible to get a very smooth crotch with urethral relocation, it's been done and even looks good.

However, it's not my cup of tea because of the lack of female secondary sex characteristics.

[devi (imported)]

The way I see it is that "ladyboy" is in a totally different category that is completely different than that of a "gay male". A gay male is one that is a fully developed male who is interested in only dating other males whereas a "ladyboy" is one who has never fully developed and is more likely to be seen with women and may have never bothered to date in their life. The two (gay and ladyboy) in my mind are not interchangeable since they describe two very different personalities. I don't know of any other name you could call the latter. I know that some of the Pueblos generally refer to them as "waheeni" and are elligable to marry male or female. In my case I have always been referred to in Spanish as "joven, el joven" all of my life but this term would refer to a person who always appears to be young and sings like a girl more than anything else. Yes I do know that this thread certainly did start out pretty ill concieved but then again I do think that this matter should be talked about. I am not Asian by close ancestry and had never ever heard the term "ladyboy" until a few years ago. At first when I heard about it I did think of it as an offensive term. Certainly if it is terms of a normal "gay" man then I would have to consider it to be offensive. But after reading some of the history behind this term and its relationship with eunuchs then after thinking about it for a long while it did make sense to me. In my case my balls never enlarged past boyhood and I do have a great deal in common with the ladies rather than the men. Why was some one person able to insist that I hum and go ahead and follow her into the ladies room? (And not have sex.) I know in English particularly among southern blacks the term "boy" is somewhat of a dark term but in Spanish "joven" is not so dark at all so the translation for boy could in Chinese (from where it originated) could have a very different meaning altogether. It's just that in English where there is no term describing this certain type of person who does not have 5:00 shadows it would be a valid descriptor. But then again if it is just used simply as another derrogatory way to refer to gays then it should not be used. But I honestly think that there should be a word that can be used for such a person. Two-spirit is another term ou there and also Tritiya. But these aren't supposed to refer to fully developed gay males, in my mind. We are different.

[Old Greebo (imported)]

So what actually does define a person's gender?

The genitalia are often a good initial pointer, obviously. However, the delighted parents of a newborn baby will obviously take one look and say 'yes, it's a girl!' Or 'It's a boy!'. And from then on they will imprint their own ideas of the child's sexuality onto their poor infant, who won't get a chance at such an early stage to say 'hey, you don't seem to have got it right!'.

So while (eg) a penis might be ostensible evidence of male gender, the very existence of that penis could well be responsible for imprinting a false image if the child's true gender.

It's the "If I say you're a boy, you're a boy! And I'm your dad, so I should know!" situation.

The chromosomes, too, seem to provide 'evidence' that sets a person's true gender in concrete. Except that a significant number of chromosomic males do question their categorisation as males, and a (rather smaller) proportion of them are impelled to take action that will reassign them (in their own eyes and in those of onlookers) to the female category. It's a big group, that comprises everyone from the occasional cross-dresser to the committed transsexual.

Why is it that chromosomic females are proportionally less inclined to question their sexuality than chromosomic males? Could it be that there is something inherently attractive in being female? (well, at least, in Western civilisation).

Isn't it rather simplistic to say that true sexuality comes from the brain, or from the mind?

Is the brain the same as the mind? No, probably not. The brain is organic; the mind is somewhere near the realm of spirit. And the nearer we get to the spirit world, the more we have to take account of things like the ego and the id (in Freuduan terms), or the Self, the - oh dammit, I forget the terms we used to use when I was a member of the School of Philosophy and we had a Guru and we used to meditate and all that! But I'm sure you know what I mean! The bigger Self. The one that we were all supposed to aspire to.

I think I'm edging gently towards the view that our perception of gender is rather superficial. If a lady looks like a lady, she's a lady. If she later turns out to have certain male attributes (and don't forget, these 'attributes' could be matters of attitude or spiritual approach as easily as of physical properties), it's my problem (of perception) rather than hers (of mental dysfunction).

Are there any documented cases where a 'girl' has been brought up from birth to believe that she was a 'boy'? Or vice versa? It would be most interesting to know how such children dealt with the awareness that society expected them suddenly to conform to different gender standards. I'm reminded of Iain Banks' story 'The Wasp Factory' in which a girl was brought up believing she was a boy.

(Incidentally, if I fail to log in for a few days, and this thread drops out of the Top Ten New Posts listed on the home page, how do I find it again?)

[devi (imported)]

There is a set of XXy chromosomes that one can inherit and then be either very male, generally male, slightly male, slightly female, generally female, very female and even female enough to bear children even.