I don't think having a fetish makes you a bad partner, but I do think most with said TS/TG fetish are bad partners for trans people.

I think it's important to realize that people are primarily sexually attracted to gender expressions, not actual sex. Further, it's important to understand that our sexualities are largely informed by cultural norms, and are socially explained in such a manner as to leave sex with trans people unexplained. The truth is, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, and you like ducks, you're going to like said "it". If you see a woman, and when you get to that base find a cock, it doesn't negate the sexuality towards her womanly features. There's always something sexual to be had there, even for a straight man.

Personally, I wouldn't date monos. One of the problems with "straight" men is that they seek trans women as a way through bi-curiosity because they're too afraid to explore with a male partner. Sometimes they'll settle for TV's, but they need to be pretty and fem enough or else they give the jeebies. It's annoying how insecure these people are. I'm polysexual, and have been through my adolescent years so I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to accept that part of themselves.

There are good reasons to target trans women for dating, but probably not to the exclusion of cis partners. For example, what if one just happens to have the mindset necessary for relating with TS people? We already know most people are mediocre, so if one really sees you as your identity and respects your transition needs, they're one step ahead of the pack. Obviously, trans people can date each other for the same reason too.

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:40 pm I don't think having a fetish makes you a bad partner, but I do think most with said TS/TG fetish are bad partners for trans people.

I think it's important to realize that people are primarily sexually attracted to gender expressions, not actual sex. Further, it's important to understand that our sexualities are largely informed by cultural norms, and are socially explained in such a manner as to leave sex with trans people unexplained. The truth is, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, and you like ducks, you're going to like said "it". If you see a woman, and when you get to that base find a cock, it doesn't negate the sexuality towards her womanly features. There's always something sexual to be had there, even for a straight man.

Personally, I wouldn't date monos. One of the problems with "straight" men is that they seek trans women as a way through bi-curiosity because they're too afraid to explore with a male partner. Sometimes they'll settle for TV's, but they need to be pretty and fem enough or else they give the jeebies. It's annoying how insecure these people are. I'm polysexual, and have been through my adolescent years so I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to accept that part of themselves.

There are good reasons to target trans women for dating, but probably not to the exclusion of cis partners. For example, what if one just happens to have the mindset necessary for relating with TS people? We already know most people are mediocre, so if one really sees you as your identity and respects your transition needs, they're one step ahead of the pack. Obviously, trans people can date each other for the same reason too.

Having a fetish won't make one a bad partner, but yes, someone who specifically goes looking for trans people because that is their fetish is definately not good for trans people. Hard enough for us trying to be recognised as people and not "things", without all manner of selfish people looking after their sexual needs first objectifying us.

I have to say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but doesn't identify as a duck, as much as I like ducks I would never ever be as selfish to say "I am going to treat you as I prefer to think you to be just for my own selfish sexual gratification". No way. I don't know where people who think their own sexual satisfaction is a bigger priority than treating their fellow human beings right get that idea from, they probably have issues, or are just jerks by nature.

Even if one has the mindset necessary for dating trans people, I'd still be quite miffed if someone dating me actively sought me out for being trans. No, I prefer that someone who's looking to date leave the whole "trans or cis" criteria out of it. That is the only way that someone dating me can convince me that they see trans as an adjective and not an identity. Afterall, positive discrimination is still discrimination, and I'm not after positive discrimination. I'm after no discrimination.

Obviously the duck talk can only get so far, but after having gone through so much socialization and study, I'd see people as the bird they identify as. It's funny- I had a trans man friend, and I became less attracted to him when he came out to me. I had really enjoyed framing him as an androgynous, butch woman. The narrative pulled a 180. As for targeting trans women, I meant more through free internet dating. If it's free and you've got the time, might as well if you're in the mood to look around. I couldn't imagine how it could be done in person without being weird or objectifying.

In all of these discussions, I just want to bring up the fact that there REALLY is such a thing as a "third gender" who cannot either bear or sire children and so should be treated accordingly. Old English itself used to have a gender neutral pronoun. The church of Europe when it excluded women from singing but allowed eunuchs to be classified as males in order to have "female voices" really screwed things up. What I'm trying to bring up is that not all and probably not even most women-transitioned are coming from a position of having ever been a real male. Not all men-transitioned and probably most are not coming from a position of having ever been a real female.

Everyone has their hangups and I do have to admit that from my standpoint having lived in limbo all of my life it is a little hard to understand how someone who has had children or could ever have had children could suddenly seem to transition directly into the opposite gender.

Another consideration is that term should NOT be trans-women or trans-men but rather women and then for medical considerations: women-transitioned and for men who also can be considered medically men-transitioned. And then there really should be a third gender.

Non-binaries do exist in a few different forms. There are those who identify as neutrois or androgyne, and gender-eunuchs have some of that going on. Also, for trans terminology, just put a space between trans and the gender. Medically, it all comes down to hormone systems, so "T-powered/E-powered" are comprehensive enough for hospitals, unless said person is hormonally transitioned to a neut or blended state.

There is also A-powered (androstenedione powered). The medical profession has found out that persons who grow up with eunuchism have bodies that produce androstenedione which is a precursor to both testosterone and to estradiol et al. Every metabolism, male or female produces androstenedione, It's just that males convert this into testosterone and females into their hormonal variety (estradiol, estriol, progesterone). So Eunuchs mainly have androstenedione as compared to either testosterone or estradiol.

E-powered T-powered. and... A-powered.

devi (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:16 am In all of these discussions, I just want to bring up the fact that there REALLY is such a thing as a "third gender" who cannot either bear or sire children and so should be treated accordingly. Old English itself used to have a gender neutral pronoun. The church of Europe when it excluded women from singing but allowed eunuchs to be classified as males in order to have "female voices" really screwed things up. What I'm trying to bring up is that not all and probably not even most women-transitioned are coming from a position of having ever been a real male. Not all men-transitioned and probably most are not coming from a position of having ever been a real female.

Everyone has their hangups and I do have to admit that from my standpoint having lived in limbo all of my life it is a little hard to understand how someone who has had children or could ever have had children could suddenly seem to transition directly into the opposite gender.

Another consideration is that term should NOT be trans-women or trans-men but rather women and then for medical considerations: women-transitioned and for men who also can be considered medically men-transitioned. And then there really should be a third gender.

There is more than a third gender. There is a 4th, a 5th, a 6th...

Thats why we say male and female gender, we don't say first and second gender.

Anyways, I just came up with a simple but hopefully clear method of explaining gender which I just posted in another thread:

Hear hear!

Gender can be more than adequately represented by a venn diagram.

Imagine a big circle. This represents all people. Inside the circle there are 2 big intersecting ovals that take up most of, but not all of the space in the circle. They represent the majority of male and female genders. The space outside the ovals, within the circle, are all the individual identities that do not fall into either gender. The intersection between the ovals are where the people who feel like they belong to both genders are.

The thing is, to be a trans person... well you would need a physical sex that simply does not match your gender, and for that to happen most trans people would need to sit firmly in either ovals. Quite a few gender neutral or third gendered people i know, say that since they don't feel like they're strongly either, they go by what physical sex they have. I'm not sure if this is still considered trans-sexualism, but I would consider it under the wider umbrella of transgenderism.

Still I would like to point out that most trans people are solidly within one gender or the other. Just because someone you(I use you in the general sense to refer to anyone reading this, not any specific person) know who says they are trans are not strongly gendered, does not mean trans people are all third gendered, or non-gendered, or any gender other than the 2 major gender identities that exist amongst the majority of the human race. Hence why we would like to be addressed with the proper pronouns, without inverted commas.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with changing social perception for the good of the entire community as a whole. There is a big difference between "you are accepted for the weirdo you are" and "you are accepted for the person(and gender) you are". The former, acceptance of a sort it may be, it STILL hurts to be seen as something we're not due to the ignorance of others. The latter, is GENUINE acceptance AND understanding. We might have the former now, but we WANT the latter. Any trans person who doesn't, is only looking at the short term gains. Good luck to them when in 10 years time they can't just rely on looks and the fetishes of others to satisfy their emotional craving for crass validation anymore.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:19 pm The thing is, to be a trans person... well you would need a physical sex that simply does not match your gender, and for that to happen most trans people would need to sit firmly in either ovals. Quite a few gender neutral or third gendered people i know, say that since they don't feel like they're strongly either, they go by what physical sex they have. I'm not sure if this is still considered trans-sexualism, but I would consider it under the wider umbrella of transgenderism.

Many beginning non-binaries don't understand how gender identity/dysphoria/etc works, (not that binaries are all-conscious anyways) which is why they settle for where they are instead of choosing relevant transitions. Also, neuts don't have "no gender" per se, but a blank one. People who believe they "don't have a gender identity" are usually beginners. If they developed some sort of physiological problem that made it harder to present in their gender, they'd become more conscious of it.

I've identified as androgyn for years, and I should have transitioned earlier, but binary people online would suggest that people with my ID don't transition physically, or that we should refer to MTF's as "experts" despite their extremely limited foray into hormone therapy, part of the downplaying of non-binaries. I've had actual "dissonance attacks", and starting hormone therapy has helped. In January I lost it and decided to go MTF, just to transition out of maleness. I simmered out of that, and back to a firm androgyny. I got to the doc's, but asked for "milder therapy" in email after the initial meeting. The docs didn't disrespect me for non-binary stuff, but they were more pretentious than they were aware of. I self-med now. It's waaaaaaay easier financially and I don't have to put up with what the docs believe about transition, or worry about their approval. My transition only comes down to ME, where it belongs.

I know there are people who identify as non-binary solely to seem progressive, which is mishmash, and disenfranchising to trans people, especially real non-binaries. I also think Kate Bornstein is obnoxious. Her comments on an FTM documentary were that "A new gender is being born!" She expects us all to be the "court jesters of gender", and not actually have any meaning of our own. There are also TG non-binaries (probably the fake "progressive" type) that believe physical transition is actually bad.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:19 pm This has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with changing social perception for the good of the entire community as a whole. There is a big difference between "you are accepted for the weirdo you are" and "you are accepted for the person(and gender) you are". The former, acceptance of a sort it may be, it STILL hurts to be seen as something we're not due to the ignorance of others. The latter, is GENUINE acceptance AND understanding. We might have the former now, but we WANT the latter. Any trans person who doesn't, is only looking at the short term gains. Good luck to them when in 10 years time they can't just rely on looks and the fetishes of others to satisfy their emotional craving for crass validation anymore.

Is that targeting non-binaries as those who do not, or non-vocal trans people? The line between being perceived as "different" versus "a weirdo" is a tough line to draw, politically. At least a ton of mainstream feminism will support non-binary. Not that they aren't naive faux-progressive types.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:19 pm There is more than a third gender. There is a 4th, a 5th, a 6th...

<snip>

This has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with changing social perception for the good of the entire community as a whole. There is a big difference between "you are accepted for the weirdo you are" and "you are accepted for the person(and gender) you are". The former, acceptance of a sort it may be, it STILL hurts to be seen as something we're not due to the ignorance of others. The latter, is GENUINE acceptance AND understanding. We might have the former now, but we WANT the latter. Any trans person who doesn't, is only looking at the short term gains. Good luck to them when in 10 years time they can't just rely on looks and the fetishes of others to satisfy their emotional craving for crass validation anymore.

Exceptionally well-said, punkypink.

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:02 am Many beginning non-binaries don't understand how gender identity/dysphoria/etc works, (not that binaries are all-conscious anyways) which is why they settle for where they are instead of choosing relevant transitions. Also, neuts don't have "no gender" per se, but a blank one. People who believe they "don't have a gender identity" are usually beginners. If they developed some sort of physiological problem that made it harder to present in their gender, they'd become more conscious of it.

I've identified as androgyn for years, and I should have transitioned earlier, but binary people online would suggest that people with my ID don't transition physically, or that we should refer to MTF's as "experts" despite their extremely limited foray into hormone therapy, part of the downplaying of non-binaries. I've had actual "dissonance attacks", and starting hormone therapy has helped. In January I lost it and decided to go MTF, just to transition out of maleness. I simmered out of that, and back to a firm androgyny. I got to the doc's, but asked for "milder therapy" in email after the initial meeting. The docs didn't disrespect me for non-binary stuff, but they were more pretentious than they were aware of. I self-med now. It's waaaaaaay easier financially and I don't have to put up with what the docs believe about transition, or worry about their approval. My transition only comes down to ME, where it belongs.

I know there are people who identify as non-binary solely to seem progressive, which is mishmash, and disenfranchising to trans people, especially real non-binaries. I also think Kate Bornstein is obnoxious. Her comments on an FTM documentary were that "A new gender is being born!" She expects us all to be the "court jesters of gender", and not actually have any meaning of our own. There are also TG non-binaries (probably the fake "progressive" type) that believe physical transition is actually bad.

I agree with you. I'm assuming by "binary" you mean people who belong to one or the other major gender identity? I feel that even as a binary, transition for trans people has been over medicalised. Transition as far as I am concerned, is the journey from the original role that one has been pigeon-holed into based on their physical sex, to realising their true identity and living as who they are. It should have nothing at all to do with physical changes, because physical changes are merely about cosmetic appearances. If a cisgendered woman who gets a boob job is not said to be transitioning, I don't think physical changes count as transition itself. Instead, it's merely augumenting transition, and helping those trans people who also have body dysmorphia with that particular condition.

Transition should not be medicalised. Medical treatment should be available to help those who need it, not made mandatory to discount people who don't need that aspect in becoming who they are.

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:02 am Is that targeting non-binaries as those who do not, or non-vocal trans people? The line between being perceived as "different" versus "a weirdo" is a tough line to draw, politically. At least a ton of mainstream feminism will support non-binary. Not that they aren't naive faux-progressive types.

I'd say that is aimed at binaries who think it is fine to be seen and accepted and not judged as something they are wrongly seen as. The problem is, we ARE different, even non-binaries. There is nothing weird with us so why should any of us, binaries or non-binaries be seen as weird? Hell isn't a cisgendered person who collects garden gnomes and secretly wants to rape children WEIRDER than a trans person or a non-binary who in every other aspect is just a regular, everyday person?

"Weird" should be dependent on other criteria, it shouldn't depend on race, gender, sex, orientation.

Personally I have nothing against genuinely non-binary people. In fact, binary trans people and non-binaries should be working together, to educate the general public about ourselves, that one and the other aren't the same thing, and that there is nothing bizarre about either. The public must first understand the differences between us, before they can understand both conditions better, and trans people and non-binary people need to work hand in hand to ensure that they do in a way that compliments each other's efforts. It cannot get into a "it's right to be X and wrong to be Y" situation that ends up pitting trans people against true non-binaries because that would ultimately be detrimental to either side.